New Cathedral in Oakland, CA

  • Thread starter Thread starter bankerdavid
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh brother. After watching that video, I dislike the church even more. That is, to be sure, one of the ugliest churches I have ever seen. Not that the building itself is ugly, but as a church it is. It in no way resembles a church and I would gladly trade all of their symbolism with the light and glass for icons, statues, and stained glass. Why people think that something like this horrific structure in any way qualifies as a church is beyond me.

Yes, ancient is different than Byzantine which is different than Romanesque which is different than Gothic, but each of those styles can be clearly identified as a church. This new cathedral looks like all of the office buildings around it.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Oh brother. After watching that video, I dislike the church even more. That is, to be sure, one of the ugliest churches I have ever seen. Not that the building itself is ugly, but as a church it is. It in no way resembles a church and I would gladly trade all of their symbolism with the light and glass for icons, statues, and stained glass. Why people think that something like this horrific structure in any way qualifies as a church is beyond me.

Yes, ancient is different than Byzantine which is different than Romanesque which is different than Gothic, but each of those styles can be clearly identified as a church. This new cathedral looks like all of the office buildings around it.

In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
I guess that’s what being human is all about. Some likes it, some doesn’t. Some likes Novus Ordo, some likes Tridentine. Potato, potahto, tomato, tomahto.

Wherever I am when I go to Mass, it’s not the building that makes Mass a heavenly experience, it’s the Mass. Many churches today are non-descript, my parish church, for example, used to be in a gymnasium, now it’s in a steel building. I don’t particularly like the building, but faithful to my parish, I go to Mass every day there, support it, the church and my parish. Other churches are different. In California, there’s all the Missions available for those who want to visit them. And I love the old school Spanish Mission churches. I’m from New Orleans, with fantastic St. Louis Cathedral, and the huge church at Loyola University. I’ve been to many churches in Rome, the Philippines, seen the National Basilica in DC. They’re all different, all have their own charm and uniqueness. This is another unique church building. But guess what, we’re there to worship the Lord, no matter what the building looks like.
[/rant]
 
this is from wikipedia so i take it with a grain of salt, but:
Gothic architecture is most familiar as the architecture of many of the great cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches of Europe. It is also the architecture of many castles, palaces, town halls, guild halls, universities, and to a less prominent extent, private dwellings.
Click to expand...
In other words, a Gothic Church, in its day, would have looked like all the office buildings around it
 
SenorSalsa said:
this is from wikipedia so i take it with a grain of salt, but:

In other words, a Gothic Church, in its day, would have looked like all the office buildings around it
Click to expand...
Actually, it’s the other way around. Many of those other buildings got many of their artistic and design cues from churches.
 
Who ever made that…thing… obviously never read this book "Ugly As Sin: Why They Changed Our Churches From Sacred Places to Meeting Spaces (by Michael S. Rose). It is an excellent book explaining why a church needs to look like a church. This place looks like a hockey arena. 😦
 
Lepanto said:
Actually, it’s the other way around. Many of those other buildings got many of their artistic and design cues from churches.
Click to expand...
the question of which came first is irrelevant. The point is people seem to want Gothic looking Churches because “you can tell it’s a Church”, but in reality, when Gothic Churches were being built, they would have looked normal when compared to the other buildings.
 
SenorSalsa said:
the question of which came first is irrelevant. The point is people seem to want Gothic looking Churches because “you can tell it’s a Church”, but in reality, when Gothic Churches were being built, they would have looked normal when compared to the other buildings.
Click to expand...
Wrong. I was recently in Amsterdam and had the opportunity to see some grand old Gothic churches. There are other buildings near and around them that are built in similar style (also Gothic). But guess what? You can certainly tell exactly which ones are churches. Also, I was in Greece that same trip. Many of the old churches in Athens are built in the classical Byzantine style and so are many of the other ancient buildings. Again, you can tell exactly which ones are churches. On Santorini, the churches are made of the same whitewashed stone as all the other buildings on the town but you can tell which ones are churches.

With the Oakland cathedral, however, I would not have known by looking at the picture that it was a church unless the thread said so.

Let’s discuss the plainess of the church. What was the very first thing the Protestants did during the Reformation?

In Christ,
Rand
 
Teakafrog said:
Who ever made that…thing… obviously never read this book "Ugly As Sin: Why They Changed Our Churches From Sacred Places to Meeting Spaces (by Michael S. Rose). It is an excellent book explaining why a church needs to look like a church. This place looks like a hockey arena. 😦
Click to expand...
The plans were drawn up and approved under Bishop Cummins. Bishop Vigneron came in later. He was able to make a few changes, such as moving the tabernacle back into the Sanctuary, but nothing substantive without a complete re-do.
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Wrong. I was recently in Amsterdam and had the opportunity to see some grand old Gothic churches. There are other buildings near and around them that are built in similar style (also Gothic). But guess what? You can certainly tell exactly which ones are churches. Also, I was in Greece that same trip. Many of the old churches in Athens are built in the classical Byzantine style and so are many of the other ancient buildings. Again, you can tell exactly which ones are churches. On Santorini, the churches are made of the same whitewashed stone as all the other buildings on the town but you can tell which ones are churches.
Click to expand...
May I ask how you could tell which buildings were Churches?
Let’s discuss the plainess of the church. What was the very first thing the Protestants did during the Reformation?
Click to expand...
In Christ,
Rand
Click to expand...
Somehow it seems like an unfair comparison to compare a Catholic Church to the deeds of the Reformers.

The first thing the Protestants did was break from the Catholic Church and its Teachings.

The unbeautifying of the churches, which I suppose is the answer you want, came later, and was the result of the belief that the church was not truly the house of God anymore than your house or mine. It came from their belief that the tabernacle contained God, and that the church should therefore be made accordingly.

You will of course, come back and say that the people in Oakland, therefore, must deny this belief as well, as their new cathedral is “plain”. But I contend that it is not plain, it is simply built in a newer form of architecture, which I contend is not at all plain, as much as it is “common” because many impressive structures are built in the same style, much like you said many buildings were built in the Gothic style. One architect saw the good things of one style, and decided to incorporate it to their buildings. That is how areas end up with buildings that look like they fit together. I would not expect a Gothic or Romanesque Church in the middle of a large city like Oakland any more than I would expect a spanish mission-style church to be in Rome. It wouldn’t fit. Even looking at the new Co-Cathedral in Houston, it takes queues from older styles, but is modernized to fit in with the styles of the city.
 
RLT said:
Probably by the use of ecclesiastical elements that would have been absent from secular buildings of the same architectural era.
Click to expand...
you mean like the giant cross and Jesus that are visible from the outside of the Cathedral?
 
SenorSalsa said:
you mean like the giant cross and Jesus that are visible from the outside of the Cathedral?
Click to expand...
You can put a giant I-beam cross and a projection of Jesus on any building, but those alone won’t make a building look like a church.

First and foremost, the building has to speak for ITSELF before any decorations are added. It has to announce to any passersby, loudly and clearly, that it is a church. It shouldn’t have to rely on decorations before a viewer realizes that it is a church (or moreso a cathedral). This building, sadly, screams corporate office tower.
 
Lepanto said:
You can put a giant I-beam cross and a projection of Jesus on any building, but those alone won’t make a building look like a church.

First and foremost, the building has to speak for ITSELF before any decorations are added. It has to announce to any passersby, loudly and clearly, that it is a church. It shouldn’t have to rely on decorations before a viewer realizes that it is a church (or moreso a cathedral). This building, sadly, screams corporate office tower.
Click to expand...
I am just looking to find out what these magic qualities are that say “I am a Church/Cathedral”.
 
SenorSalsa said:
I am just looking to find out what these magic qualities are that say “I am a Church/Cathedral”.
Click to expand...
Not magic…just the philosophy of beauty, an expression of wisdom known since before Christian times but often ignored these days.

The philosophy of beauty says that you can start by looking at the building’s three major ontological attributes:
  1. Consonantia: that which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionate
  2. Integritas: that which is beautiful exhibits wholeness
  3. Claritas: that which is beautiful is ontologically clear
Just google them.

Regarding the building in question, I think that attributes 1 and 2 are questionable, but it definitely fails attribute 3.

These same principles of the philosophy of beauty also apply to other areas of endeavor, not just architecture. This is why so many people have a gut-level disdain for abstract “art.” They may not be able to explain ugliness, but they know it when they see it.
 
Neil_Anthony said:
LOL that one looks like the last parts of the tower of babel that got put up after everyone got confused from their languages being changed!
Click to expand...
This one reminded me of the wooden Trojan Horse in an old movie. But, I believe that in the case of an earthquake wood will fare better then the glass in Oakland.

Both of these buildings are not in my taste. Isn’t it great that every does not find beauty in the same things.😉
 
Dale_M said:
Congratulations on your new cathedral!

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk117/trialaccount96/NewOaklandCathedral.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk117/trialaccount96/NewOaklandCathedralCloseUp.jpg

http://i278.photobucket.com/albums/kk117/trialaccount96/NewOaklandCathedralModel.jpg
Last photo is of a model of the cathedral, courtesy of SFGate.com
Click to expand...
wtf!?! Beam me up scotty…the alien ship has landed in Oakland.

This is why modernist chruches are closing. This is not Catholic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top