New Cathedral in Oakland, CA

  • Thread starter Thread starter bankerdavid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well like anything you either going to like it, dislike it, hate it or not care. It’s a pretty interesting building, one unique enough to become a landmark. I has that structural look like the Eiffel but as a church…🤷 .

I haven’t seen it in person so I am only going by the pics but based on them it looks like a building out of a sci-fi movie. One can imagine spacecraft flying out from it. It seems very sterile and cold looking.

The church in Ave Maria, FL is funky looking too, but it has more of an inviting feeling and lacks that structural sci-fi characteristic.
 
This looks like a nice office building. But can someone please post of pictures of the Cathedral. So far I have only seen a modern steel and glass office building but nothing that looks like a church.
 
rpp said:
This looks like a nice office building. But can someone please post of pictures of the Cathedral. So far I have only seen a modern steel and glass office building but nothing that looks like a church.
Click to expand...
LOL that is the Cathedral. I can see space ships looking for a place to land.
 
I agree with those who say it’s not beautiful. An impressive structure, yes. A beautiful church, no. Inside is very impressive, though too much concrete for my tastes.

To those who abhor spending so much money on a cathedral, this thought smacks of Judas’ comment to the woman anointing our Lord, where Jesus basically said “Relax! There will ALWAYS be poor, but you will not always have me.” I don’t think I would have voted to approve a cathedral of this magnitude, however, I don’t think it’s right to say “Why didn’t you do (insert pet project here)?”

There is now, and always will be, schools to build and improve, poor to feed, etc. But this wasn’t done to the exclusion of any of those projects.

I am sort of on the fence about the architecture, however there is some insight as to the spirituality of this building. I am still trying to understand it, but first off, the shape of the roof, the front, and the back, externaly is to recall the icthys…there’s others, but I will only remark on them when I recall and understand them.

Our pastor remarked that some will like it and some will hate it, and many will be in between, which is true about many things, including presidential candidates. The point is that we need to live with it, try to embrace it, and work with it.
 
What incense were the architects smoking? :confused: This is truly horrific. :eek:

LA has a Borg cube, and now Oakland has a Romulan outpost.

I’m sorry, but until we all start calling a spade a spade, these kinds of monstrosities will continue to be built and passed off as Catholic churches. :rolleyes:

Here is a photo of the old cathedral:

christthelightcathedral.org/images/side/legacy.jpg

Does anyone doubt that it is a church?
 
I still think it looks like a venue from the Beijing Olympics:

First the bird’s nest, then the water cube, now the Cathedral of Christ the Light. Maybe the Mass will become an olympic event!

Nohome
 
Lepanto said:
What incense were the architects smoking? :confused: This is truly horrific. :eek:

LA has a Borg cube, and now Oakland has a Romulan outpost.

I’m sorry, but until we all start calling a spade a spade, these kinds of monstrosities will continue to be built and passed off as Catholic churches. :rolleyes:

Here is a photo of the old cathedral:

christthelightcathedral.org/images/side/legacy.jpg

Does anyone doubt that it is a church?
Click to expand...
If they wanted to use steel and glass the old Cathedral would have made a pretty model. It could have looked like a church and still have been “modern”.

Look up PPG Square in Pittsburgh, PA to see the good, bad and ugly of glass and steel. Some of it is good and very pretty. Some of it isn’t so pretty.

www.ppgplace.com
 
I think what we have to remember is that it’s not the outside structure that really matters, it’s what’s inside that counts. Same as with our hearts.
 
Does anyone have a good picture of the sanctuary and nave and whatnot? While I agree that the outside does not scream “CHURCH” to me, the first Romanesque Church would not have, neither would the first Gothic one. I think we get too caught up in the grandeur of old that we can fail to see the grandeur of the new as well. As some have said, it is a wonderful building. Why can it not then be a wonderful Church? too “modern” what do you think the early Christians thought when they moved from caves and catacombs to buildings, or from their homes to a different building that was for the sole purpose of worship. Change happens. I think the building is definitely different, but I have often found glass buildings to be beautiful when seen in person, and the descriptions of what it will look like at night sound magnificent.
 
SenorSalsa said:
Does anyone have a good picture of the sanctuary and nave and whatnot? While I agree that the outside does not scream “CHURCH” to me, the first Romanesque Church would not have, neither would the first Gothic one. I think we get too caught up in the grandeur of old that we can fail to see the grandeur of the new as well. As some have said, it is a wonderful building. Why can it not then be a wonderful Church? too “modern” what do you think the early Christians thought when they moved from caves and catacombs to buildings, or from their homes to a different building that was for the sole purpose of worship. Change happens. I think the building is definitely different, but I have often found glass buildings to be beautiful when seen in person, and the descriptions of what it will look like at night sound magnificent.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly. 👍
 
I have pictures taken during the ceremony, but they are not comprehensive, and are too large for storage, except maybe on Flickr, which I don’t have access to. I say inside is better than the outside. The Stations of the Cross are nice, the side galleries have not been completed, but when complete, they will be very nice as well.

Here’s a link to a 15 minute video on the Cathedral.
exposureroom.com/members/amdg319.aspx/assets/33e15399161e42649de0a3f03d523829/
 
bankerdavid said:
I have pictures taken during the ceremony, but they are not comprehensive, and are too large for storage, except maybe on Flickr, which I don’t have access to. I say inside is better than the outside. The Stations of the Cross are nice, the side galleries have not been completed, but when complete, they will be very nice as well.

Here’s a link to a 15 minute video on the Cathedral.
exposureroom.com/members/amdg319.aspx/assets/33e15399161e42649de0a3f03d523829/
Click to expand...
after watching the video, my main complaint is that the altar is one of the ugliest I have ever seen. It doesnt even appear to be an altar, just a marble cube. I suppose with the right altar candles and altar cross it might look better, but somehow I doubt those are going up.

In pictures it also looks very plain on the inside, with so much concrete and wood, I am wondering if it would appear so barren in person
 
The altar is plain, but most altars are vested for worship. Truth be known, my parish altar, without vestaments, could be a dining table, were it not for a Celtic cross on the front. But when it’s vested, with linens, candles, etc., it becomes an altar. The video was taken pre-opening, at the dedication, it was still plain, but at least had nice candlabra around it. I was more moved by the video explaining the symbolism of the structure.

My first impression was “too much concrete”, but then again, I always think “too much concrete”. I will reserve my final thoughts for when I see the sanctuary as a place of worship, with full vestaments, candles, etc. One thing missing from the video, there’s a beautiful crucifix behind the ambo, and a statue of Our Lady of California, which has yet to be unveiled. Am told that Mary holds the child Jesus, accompanied by a golden bear cub.
 
bankerdavid said:
I think what we have to remember is that it’s not the outside structure that really matters, it’s what’s inside that counts.
Click to expand...
Why can’t we have a beautiful (or at least decent) church both inside and out? Are they somehow mutually exclusive?

Both count.
 
KathleenElsie said:
If they wanted to use steel and glass the old Cathedral would have made a pretty model. It could have looked like a church and still have been “modern”.

Look up PPG Square in Pittsburgh, PA to see the good, bad and ugly of glass and steel. Some of it is good and very pretty. Some of it isn’t so pretty.

www.ppgplace.com
Click to expand...
I think you’re right. Instead of a recognizable cathedral it looks like the corporate headquarters of the Diocese of Oakland, Inc.

I just finished watching the video and found it painful, especially when compared to the photos of the old cathedral…such a loss of potential.
 
Well, charitably, I would say that your opinion is one of many. Some would say it is beautiful (and I might disagree). I think, if you watch the video and understand the depth of thought that went into it, you may at least be able to “see” it. I don’t think it’s beautiful, but I don’t think it’s a monstrosity either. I’m on the fence about the design, but I see, from their explanation, what they’re getting at.

Some will like it, some will not, as someone else said. I will do my part to foster my diocese, whether I think the structure is beautiful or not…
 
I think it’s important to have a modern building. Catholics / christians aren’t called to be stuck in the past. We don’t reject technology like the Amish. Are we going to be part of the 3rd millenium or not? Or are we going to keep using buildings designed in the 1st and 2nd millenium?
 
bankerdavid said:
Well, charitably, I would say that your opinion is one of many. Some would say it is beautiful (and I might disagree). I think, if you watch the video and understand the depth of thought that went into it, you may at least be able to “see” it. I don’t think it’s beautiful, but I don’t think it’s a monstrosity either. I’m on the fence about the design, but I see, from their explanation, what they’re getting at.
Click to expand...
The video has to go to great lengths to explain things, because nothing shown in it (about the cathedral) is self-evident. I mean, one can only read-in so much meaning into a block of reinforced concrete or a cross made of I-beams before it gets silly. By contrast, true beauty does not require explanation, because it is self-evident.
Some will like it, some will not, as someone else said. I will do my part to foster my diocese, whether I think the structure is beautiful or not…
Click to expand...
My comments are not directed at the people of the diocese, just at the building itself and those responsible for it. If anything, I believe that the good people of Oakland have been cheated out of what could have been a beautiful cathedral for the ages. Maybe next time…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top