San Francisco Cathedral Architecture

[ibkc]

So are many other styles, many of which are of far greater antiquity and in my opinion, beauty.

A Gothic cathedral would have looked silly perched on the OLAC site. I personally would have preferred a cathedral based more on the California Mission-style (OLAC obviously took some design points from the venerable California Missions), but I would take OLAC over a Gothic structure for Los Angeles any day.

Yeah, sure, fine, whatever. I didn’t mean this to turn into a “Gothic vs. Every Other Kind of Architecture” argument. I simply used it as an example of an architectural style which was developed according to Catholic theology, specifically for the needs of the Catholic Church. In using it as an example I did not mean to imply that I think it is the only acceptable style. The larger point is that the contemporary architecture used in OLAC and other cathedrals is not identifiably Catholic, and the connection to Catholic theology is not apparent (if it is there at all).

 

[LUISV]

No, and I don’t plan on ever stepping foot in the place. I guess I’m a snob. Catholic churches should look like Catholic churches. This is some absurd experiment in Catholic architecture… it’s too bad that the Archdiocese is going to be stuck with this monstrocity until some act of -]mercy/-] God brings it down with an earthquake.

Then they should build a Catholic cathedral on that site.

It’d be a nice place for a church.

She was built to withstand all but the worst San Andreas has to offer. Angelinos build well you know? Saint Vibiana guarded her Cathedral since 1876. It took the Northridge quake of '94 to damage it enough to justify replacing it. It was saved, decomissioned, refurbished and is now in the care of history. A piece of Los Angeles preserved for the future.

I agree to some extent. Don’t like it all that much myself. But Roger put good money into it and the quality shows. Its the sign of the times I’m affraid. As I said before, preserve what you have.

Who knows, 1000 years from now some one will be blogging about that grand old church on West Temple.

 

[Navarre]

Yeah, sure, fine, whatever. I didn’t mean this to turn into a “Gothic vs. Every Other Kind of Architecture” argument. I simply used it as an example of an architectural style which was developed according to Catholic theology, specifically for the needs of the Catholic Church. In using it as an example I did not mean to imply that I think it is the only acceptable style. The larger point is that the contemporary architecture used in OLAC and other cathedrals is not identifiably Catholic, and the connection to Catholic theology is not apparent (if it is there at all).

Neither is Gothic. In fact it’s often Protestant.

As far as “connections to Catholic theology” I have never been inside of another edifice in the USA that did a better job of supporting the celebration of the Mass than OLAC.

 

[Navarre]

She was built to withstand all but the worst San Andreas has to offer. Angelinos build well you know? Saint Vibiana guarded her Cathedral since 1876. It took the Northridge quake of '94 to damage it enough to justify replacing it. It was saved, decomissioned, refurbished and is now in the care of history. A piece of Los Angeles preserved for the future.

I agree to some extent. Don’t like it all that much myself. But Roger put good money into it and the quality shows. Its the sign of the times I’m affraid. As I said before, preserve what you have.

Who knows, 1000 years from now some one will be blogging about that grand old church on West Temple.

What a refreshing post!

From a structural engineering/seismic management standpoint, OLAC is absolutely first class.

Time after time in history, artists (including architects) have been derided only to become celebrated near the ends of their lives or once they were dead. Then even the most uninformed would know to stop attacking and learn to appreciate the work of (say) Frank Lloyd Wright.

I’m not sure how history will judge Moneo and the OLAC, but my guess is that it will be rather positive.

 

[iceman]

I wrote this back in 07 on another thread but it applies here as well:

Re: Traditional Church Structure

---

What was lost with the more modern style of church, which followed Vatican II, was the cathedral-like structure and setting which promoted/inspired a reverence for the Divine. Modern churches, in their quest to be more “receptive” and congregation-oriented, and unintentionally in my opinion, have subverted the Holy nature of the Church and the reverence for the Divine which it should always inspire.

 

[ibkc]

Neither is Gothic. In fact it’s often Protestant.

Gothic architecture is “often Protestant”? How so? You do realize that Gothic architecture precedes Protestantism by quite a long time, don’t you?

 

[Lepanto]

Just what is “real art?”

I think you are actually asking what is real beauty? Is it simply in the eye of the beholder? Is it completely subjective? No, it is not.

According to the science of aesthetics, beauty has three main elements:

1. CLARITAS: That which is beautiful is ontologically clear.
2. CONSONANTIA: That which is beautiful is harmonious and proportionate.
3. INTEGRITAS: That which is beautiful exhibits wholeness.

These principles guided all artists and architects in the Western tradition until the advent of Modernism. (Compare a Rubens painting vs. a Picasso, for instance.)

The LA, San Francisco, and Oakland cathedrals all fail these fundamental and classic tests of beauty.

 

[Lepanto]

Gothic architecture is “often Protestant”? How so? You do realize that Gothic architecture precedes Protestantism by quite a long time, don’t you?

Correct.

Gothic architecture = 11th century
Protestants = 16th century

Difference = half a millenium!

 

[Navarre]

Gothic architecture is “often Protestant”? How so? You do realize that Gothic architecture precedes Protestantism by quite a long time, don’t you?

It doesn’t keep Protestantism from employing its use. Widely at that. In fact the tallest church in the world, the Ulm Cathedral a prime Gothic structure that started construction as a Catholic parish and finished as a Lutheran parish.

When I think of Gothic churches, Ulm and Saint Patrick’s in NYC are they first that come to mind.

 

[Lepanto]

It doesn’t keep Protestantism from employing its use. Widely at that. In fact the tallest church in the world, the Ulm Cathedral a prime Gothic structure that started construction as a Catholic parish and finished as a Lutheran parish.

When I think of Gothic churches, Ulm and Saint Patrick’s in NYC are they first that come to mind.

Yes, yes, yes! They borrowed the best from us, and they were smart to do so!

In fact, many of the old churches in the heavily Protestant parts of Europe were STOLEN from the Catholic Church during the Reformation.

Any Protestant church older than 500 years was originally built as a Catholic church. (Construction of the Ulm Cathedral began in 1377, almost 150 years before Protestantism…although the building is Protestant now.)

 

[Navarre]

What was lost with the more modern style of church, which followed Vatican II, was the cathedral-like structure and setting which promoted/inspired a reverence for the Divine.

Not so. Take my beloved California for example. When the California Missions were erected they were just about as “modern” as things got, out of necessity. They were attacked (as other styles are now attacked) as being crude, boring, lifeless structures. Now however the style is beloved in many parts of the USA. Even without their individual history the California Mission Style makes for a space that “promotes/inspires reverence for the Divine.” Yet they couldn’t be less Gothic-like (or fancy) if one tried. There are other example of California Mission Style architecture.

Modern churches, in their quest to be more “receptive” and congregation-oriented, and unintentionally in my opinion, have subverted the Holy nature of the Church and the reverence for the Divine which it should always inspire.

I think what a great many misidentify as “modern” are actually utilitarian in design. They are built in that style out of necessity because of construction costs concerns, construction speed concerns and maintainability, NOT for the reasons you suggest.

If memory serves the Archdiocese of Los Angeles once erected 16 parishes in a single year back in the 1960’s. Try doing that today with any style. Their model back then was to buy a piece of dirt, erect a large multipurpose building, some classrooms and a rectory to get a parish started. In time the parish would raise its own funds to build their actual church and the multipurpose building would become either the parish hall or a gym. Guess what? Due to declining attendance and giving, the actual church never got built in some cases! They’re still celebrating the Mass in the original utility building!

Then someone comes a long 40 years later with very little knowledge of history and proudly proclaims this ~!@#$%^&()_+ “modern” church building! It has ruined my reverence for God! Those ~!@#$%^&()_ “liberals!”

There is a parish like that in my community and one hears those comments. Sometimes it’s difficult not to laugh – or cry.

 

[ibkc]

If memory serves te Archdiocese of Los Angeles once erected 16 parishes in a single year back in the 1960’s. Try doing that today with any style. Their model back then was to buy a piece of dirt, erect a large multipurpose building, some classrooms and a rectory to get a parish started. In time the parish would raise its own funds to build their actual church and the multipurpose building would become either the parish hall or a gym. Guess what? Due to declining attendance and giving, the actual church never got built in some cases! They’re still celebrating the Mass in the original utility building!

Then someone comes a long 40 years later with very little knowledge of history and proudly proclaims this ~!@#$%^&()_+ “modern” church building! It has ruined my reverence for God! Those ~!@#$%^&()_ “liberals!”

There is a parish like that in my community and one hears those comments. Sometimes it’s difficult not to laugh – or cry.

So… you honor these people by by putting up a concrete structure meant to imitate a cardboard box? I don’t get it. I also thought that as Catholics we are supposed to honor God as best we can while helping the poor and needy.

 

[Navarre]

So… you honor these people by by putting up a concrete structure meant to imitate a cardboard box? I don’t get it. I also thought that as Catholics we are supposed to honor God as best we can while helping the poor and needy.

OLAC is not “meant to imitate a cardboard box.” Faulty premise.

As I said OLAC does a better job of supporting the celebration of the Eucharist then any other church I have been inside of in the USA.

That’s a pretty good way to honor God.

 

[WhollyRoamin]

(I am still waiting for the infamous picture sisters who danced around the altar when the cathedral was first opened to appear.)

We’re talking about bad architecture in this thread.

Ridiculous liturgies will be ridiculed in a seperate thread.

Unless you’d like to make comparisons between the altar table and a helipad-- I’m down for that discussion.

 

[Lepanto]

Not so. Take my beloved California for example. When the California Missions were erected they were just about as “modern” as things got, out of necessity. They were attacked (as other styles are now attacked) as being crude, boring, lifeless structures. Now however the style is beloved in many parts of the USA. Even without their individual history the California Mission Style makes for a space that “promotes/inspires reverence for the Divine.” Yet they couldn’t be less Gothic-like (or fancy) if one tried. There are other example of California Mission Style architecture.

Nobody is suggesting that all Catholic churches need to be Gothic.

There are many other styles besides Gothic that are equally beautiful in their own ways (Romanesque, Byzantine, Rococo, etc.). Churches built in these styles leave people, even centuries later, in complete awe, whereas the ones based on Modernism leave people gasping in bewilderment or even nausea.

What we’re talking about here is the complete and intentional rupture of our architectural patrimony. We have to call a spade a spade.

 

[benedictgal]

Our Cathedral was done in the Frenc Gothic style, very beautiful and quite conducive to prayer. Both Cathedral Basilicas of St. Louis in St. Louis, MO, different as though they are, are still magnificent and quite conducive to prayer. The newer of the two, moreso, because the mosaics direct our thoughts to that heavenly liturgy.

Even though I have never been to St. Peter’s in Rome (and only observe it during the Papal telecasts), the grandeur, the beauty and the majesty of the building certainly directs my attention to something greater than all of us. Michaelangelo, et al, certainly had a deep understanding of the Sensus Fidei because their work reflected it in a larger-than-life way.

When I see the examples of the things that California has constructed, it certainly pales in comparision. Not many know this, but, there are no right-angles at all in OLAC. It was designed to reflect the human imperfection. But, what about the glory and majesty of God? Where is that in these buildings?

That is where the problem lies, in my opinion.

 

[ASD]

Our Cathedral was done in the French Gothic style, very beautiful and quite conducive to prayer. Both Cathedral Basilicas of St. Louis in St. Louis, MO, different as though they are, are still magnificent and quite conducive to prayer. The newer of the two, more so, because the mosaics direct our thoughts to that heavenly liturgy.

Even though I have never been to St. Peter’s in Rome (and only observe it during the Papal telecasts), the grandeur, the beauty and the majesty of the building certainly directs my attention to something greater than all of us. Michaelangelo, et al, certainly had a deep understanding of the Sensus Fidei because their work reflected it in a larger-than-life way.

When I see the examples of the things that California has constructed, it certainly pales in comparision. Not many know this, but, there are no right-angles at all in OLAC. It was designed to reflect the human imperfection. But, what about the glory and majesty of God? Where is that in these buildings?

That is where the problem lies, in my opinion.

I don’t think I have enough knowledge about architecture to comment on the question of how the new Cathedral reflects glory, grandeur, beauty, etc.

But, IMHO, therein lies a real problem. I often think that one of the sublime things about Christianity is that it’s good enough for both sophisticated intellectuals, like St. Thomas Aquinas, and my grandfathers, who left school very young. So, I would say that any architecture that only speaks to relatively knowledgeable people isn’t catholic, and hence, in a sense, not Catholic.

Old-fashioned Church architecture, in contrast, “direct[ed] our thoughts to the heavenly liturgy” in appropriate ways. The thoughts of everybody; people who think it’s beautiful and people who think it’s kitsch; people who dig 20th century architecture and people who can’t appreciate it.

Bottom line: I don’t really care whether the architecture of the building has merits in some abstract or academic sense. I care about the effect, or the intended effect, it has on how Catholics understand what it means to be Catholic.

Over the line: If my description is accurate at all, then a sad note: Like so much Church history: It’s as much about what kind of figure a bishop cuts at cocktail parties as anything else.

ASD​

Traditional Latin Mass: Translation and Grammar

 

[Navarre]

We’re talking about bad architecture in this thread.

Ridiculous liturgies will be ridiculed in a seperate thread.

Unless you’d like to make comparisons between the altar table and a helipad-- I’m down for that discussion.

Nothing “bad” about OLAC’s architecture.

You’re the guy that offered a view from a 50’ boom of the OLAC as eye level. LOL! You also described a very minimal slope as a “climb.” I was very surprised you did not dig-up those photos.

I would take that OLAC’s wonderful altar (at least the mensa) over a shelf on the back wall anytime.

 

[Navarre]

I don’t think I have enough knowledge about architecture to comment on the question of how the new Cathedral reflects glory, grandeur, beauty, etc.

But, IMHO, therein lies a real problem. I often think that one of the sublime things about Christianity is that it’s good enough for both sophisticated intellectuals, like St. Thomas Aquinas, and my grandfathers, who left school very young. So, I would say that any architecture that only speaks to relatively knowledgeable people isn’t catholic, and hence, in a sense, not Catholic.

Old-fashioned Church architecture, in contrast, “direct[ed] our thoughts to the heavenly liturgy” in appropriate ways. The thoughts of everybody; people who think it’s beautiful and people who think it’s kitsch; people who dig 20th century architecture and people who can’t appreciate it.

Bottom line: I don’t really care whether the architecture of the building has merits in some abstract or academic sense. I care about the effect, or the intended effect, it has on how Catholics understand what it means to be Catholic.

Over the line: If my description is accurate at all, then a sad note: Like so much Church history: It’s as much about what kind of figure a bishop cuts at cocktail parties as anything else.

ASD

Let me add my own corollary. First, there is no way the people who post here are a representative sample of all Catholics, or even all Catholics in the USA. Therefore, while I most certainly agree that OLAC does not speak to the majority of people who post here, I do believe it does to a majority who take the time to worship there – highly knowledgeable, abjectly illiterate and everyone in between.

 

[benedictgal]

Nothing “bad” about OLAC’s architecture.

You’re the guy that offered a view from a 50’ boom of the OLAC as eye level. LOL! You also described a very minimal slope as a “climb.” I was very surprised you did not dig-up those photos.

I would take that OLAC’s wonderful altar (at least the mensa) over a shelf on the back wall anytime.

However, there is something amiss about this particular Cathedral. The pictures seem to indicate that the design doesn’t take into account the fact that something greater than ourselves occurs there. The statuary is not beautiful nor does it reflect the beauty and divinity that even the pagan Greeks did with their pieces. Inasmuch as what was shown is supposed to be a statue of Our Lady, the Athena Parthenos, pagan though it be, is a much more beaufiul work.

Regarding altars, they are supposed to look, well, like altars. It is not a table. Inasmuch as we will be consuiming the living flresh of the God made man, it is the Altar of Sacrifice. I have seen pictures of the sanctuary. It is very abstract and empty, for lack of a better word. It does not matter if the altar material is made from the finest Turkish marble and crafted in Italy. What should matter is that the entire buiding, exterior and interior, should help bring our minds and hearts to the Divine Majesty of God.

Neither this building, nor the one in San Francisco, would appear, in my opinion, to achieve that purpose.