The newest Cathedral

[Nickkname]

When I see a Church, I see four things:

1. A house of the Lord
2. A refuge for sinners
3. A home for the poor
4. A center of community

This is what I believe a Church should look like. Not like a business. It’s architecture should make our hearts and minds think of heavenly things. It should not make us think of man and his work. Look at the Churches in Medievial times: They were very beautiful, not because of their colors and style, but because they symbolized the Church in Heaven, they made you think of the Lord. Lots of Medievial Churches even includes angels carved into the walls which acted like musical notes, so you could be reminded of Church songs and hymns. This type of architecture is certainly not lost, but it is rare, and the Church is doing what she can to revive the architectural beauty and art in the world.

 

[AlanF]

it makes me sad looking at it
I hope this doesn’t become a trend!!

sigh

I love churches like this:
basiliquenddm.org/

I think it already has become a trend. I’ve seen lots of churches like this.

I hate it when people glorify themselves in Church architecture rather than God. This Cathedral is an example of when man glorifies himself rather than the Lord.

Exactly. Modern designers just want to come up with “clever” designs that will turn heads rather than to glorify God.

It’s just like with the new designs of Britains penny coins (another thing I like to grumble about), they are clever, but they disregard the traditional designs that have been on our coins for centuries. Just someone trying to be clever.
Old coin designs (50p, £1 & £2 are unusual commemorative designes on this page), new coins.

When I see a Church, I see four things:

1. A house of the Lord
2. A refuge for sinners
3. A home for the poor
4. A center of community

This is what I believe a Church should look like. Not like a business. It’s architecture should make our hearts and minds think of heavenly things. It should not make us think of man and his work. Look at the Churches in Medievial times: They were very beautiful, not because of their colors and style, but because they symbolized the Church in Heaven, they made you think of the Lord. Lots of Medievial Churches even includes angels carved into the walls which acted like musical notes, so you could be reminded of Church songs and hymns. This type of architecture is certainly not lost, but it is rare, and the Church is doing what she can to revive the architectural beauty and art in the world.

I agree completely.

 

[bear06]

When I see a Church, I see four things:

1. A house of the Lord
2. A refuge for sinners
3. A home for the poor
4. A center of community

This is what I believe a Church should look like. Not like a business. It’s architecture should make our hearts and minds think of heavenly things. It should not make us think of man and his work. Look at the Churches in Medievial times: They were very beautiful, not because of their colors and style, but because they symbolized the Church in Heaven, they made you think of the Lord. Lots of Medievial Churches even includes angels carved into the walls which acted like musical notes, so you could be reminded of Church songs and hymns. This type of architecture is certainly not lost, but it is rare, and the Church is doing what she can to revive the architectural beauty and art in the world.

I don’t want to sound like I’m defending this cathedral because I pretty much hate the look. That said, I do think even this whacky architect had his eye on heaven albeit a more futuristic looking one. youtube.com/watch?v=3AoFfkSM1xg&feature=related Unfortunately, they missed the boat with this mimimalistic “cool” architecture. It is awe-inspiring but, as you point out, it doesn’t have the usual things that make you think heaven. There’s pretty much just awe. It’s like they tried to make the cathedral a giant parable. You really have to look for the meaning in it all rather than have it be quite apparent. I will qualify that the giant picture of Christ is just about the only thing that is obvious.

Sigh! It’s just goofy. The roof is supposed to symbolize God’s light shining down from Heaven. The back window is supposed to symbolize our beginning. But how? Just because they say so? You shouldn’t have to have a degree in impressionist art to understand the meanings in a Church.

 

[bkovacs]

It looks very… protestant… doesn’t it?

Yeah the reform of the reform is really taking fruit isn’t it!. Ha Ha!!

 

[bkovacs]

Quote from article: “Oakland Interfaith Gospel Choir will perform, public officials and leaders from the interfaith communities will participate and Bishop Allen Vigneron and Cathedral Provost Paul Minnihan will speak to the mission and vision of the cathedral center.”

Sounds real Catholic to me, especially the music.

 

[bkovacs]

Wanna see a more traditional looking modern California Cathedral.
stsophia.org/photo_tour/stsophiaphototour.htm

 

[Sarabande]

Quote from article: “Oakland Interfaith Gospel Choir will perform, public officials and leaders from the interfaith communities will participate and Bishop Allen Vigneron and Cathedral Provost Paul Minnihan will speak to the mission and vision of the cathedral center.”

The term “cathedral center” keeps bothering me more and more.
Do they actually want it to sound like just another corporate and marketing business/sports/fine arts center?

 

[Sarabande]

Wanna see a more traditional looking modern California Cathedral.
stsophia.org/photo_tour/stsophiaphototour.htm

Wow! Absolutely awe-inspiring and spiritually enhancing in all the right ways - at least for me!

 

[AlanF]

Yeah the reform of the reform is really taking fruit isn’t it!. Ha Ha!!

Give it time, thee are still mischievous liberal Bishops out there that need to be stopped.

Quote from article: “Oakland Interfaith Gospel Choir will perform, public officials and leaders from the interfaith communities will participate and Bishop Allen Vigneron and Cathedral Provost Paul Minnihan will speak to the mission and vision of the cathedral center.”

Sounds real Catholic to me, especially the music.

“Interfaith” and “Gospel” seem to contradict each other. Do they also go to mosques and Synagogues and sing gospel hymns?

This sounds suspicious in my oppinion, like they’re trying to strip catholicism of all of its catholic identity so it can fit in with the protestants and look like one of their awful megachurches.

Wanna see a more traditional looking modern California Cathedral.
stsophia.org/photo_tour/stsophiaphototour.htm

The Orthodox Christians should consider themselves lucky that they seem to have gotten through the 60s-70s unscathed.

 

[bkovacs]

Give it time, thee are still mischievous liberal Bishops out there that need to be stopped.

“Interfaith” and “Gospel” seem to contradict each other. Do they also go to mosques and Synagogues and sing gospel hymns?

This sounds suspicious in my oppinion, like they’re trying to strip catholicism of all of its catholic identity so it can fit in with the protestants and look like one of their awful megachurches.

The Orthodox Christians should consider themselves lucky that they seem to have gotten through the 60s-70s unscathed.

That’s your liberal clergy and lay people who run the church!.

 

[Chuy]

It’s a very nice structure. I like it almost as much as OLAC in Los Angeles.

People who attack either structure clearly don’t have a grasp of what is good and bad design. A church need not be a cookie-cuttered gingerbread structure to be beautiful.

 

[Chuy]

I thought “it” was a new museum at the bay area.

The architect is sure proud of it, but it is a waste of money $190 million, the diocese should have given it to the charity or their missions.

Oh, well!

Pax

Frater

Nonsense.

John 12:5 Judas Iscariot asked “Why was this ointment not sold for three hundred denarii and given to the poor?”

John 12:7 Jesus said, "Let her alone, let her keep it for the day of my burial.

John 12:8 The poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me."

(And yes, the church is beautiful.)

 

[Sarabande]

It’s a very nice structure. I like it almost as much as OLAC in Los Angeles.

People who attack either structure clearly don’t have a grasp of what is good and bad design. A church need not be a cookie-cuttered gingerbread structure to be beautiful.

There is nothing wrong with the design. I may not find the design aesthetically-pleasing, but I can appreciate it as a work of architecture by a person who obviously takes pride in his/her designing ability. (My brother is an architect and my uncle is a successful modern artists, so I have a little bit of an understanding or appreciation of this.) The problem lies in the fact that it looks too much like all the buildings that have a secular “connotation” such as newer museums, fine arts centers, sports centers, corporate centers and the like. (They even call it the “Cathedral Center”) There is no evocation of transcendence from the secular to the sacred - especially when you see it from the outside. It just looks like every other modern building, in particular buildings you see being built as fine arts centers.

It’s true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if you go to a museum of modern art, attend a chamber or symphonic orchestra of modern classical music, look at a new structure designed in an innovative and modern way, or watch a show of modern dance, one with practice or training can find beauty in all of that. But that is for the modern arts - and we know that not everyone can appreciate it. It can take a long time for the “average Joe” and even a “sophisticate” to do that or it may never grasp a viewer of any of that. A house of God is for everyone so that when they pass by that church or synogogue, etc. or go inside, they can immediately be transcended. It’s not to be a piece of art which tries to force people find the beauty in it and search for the signs which indicate that it is an actual church and not a “Cathedral Center of modern Art” etc.

 

[Chuy]

There is nothing wrong with the design. I may not find the design aesthetically-pleasing, but I can appreciate it as a work of architecture by a person who obviously takes pride in his/her designing ability. (My brother is an architect and my uncle is a successful modern artists, so I have a little bit of an understanding or appreciation of this.) The problem lies in the fact that it looks too much like all the buildings that have a secular “connotation” such as newer museums, fine arts centers, sports centers, corporate centers and the like. (They even call it the “Cathedral Center”) There is no evocation of transcendence from the secular to the sacred - especially when you see it from the outside. It just looks like every other modern building, in particular buildings you see being built as fine arts centers.

It’s true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if you go to a museum of modern art, attend a chamber or symphonic orchestra of modern classical music, look at a new structure designed in an innovative and modern way, or watch a show of modern dance, one with practice or training can find beauty in all of that. But that is for the modern arts - and we know that not everyone can appreciate it. It can take a long time for the “average Joe” and even a “sophisticate” to do that or it may never grasp a viewer of any of that. A house of God is for everyone so that when they pass by that church or synogogue, etc. or go inside, they can immediately be transcended. It’s not to be a piece of art which tries to force people find the beauty in it and search for the signs which indicate that it is an actual church and not a “Cathedral Center of modern Art” etc.

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I think more and more that the focus with such buildings is not to build works of art in themselves, but to create buildings that best facilitate the sacraments of the Church, most especially the Eucharist.

I have sat in more than one stunning structure during an important liturgy and my experience was impeded by a number of things. Uncomfortable seating (although the pews looked beautiful), no kneelers, poor sight lines, no temperature control, horrible acoustics, odd smell, etc.

I would pick a structure that “looks secular” (although neither this nor LA’s Cathedral looks secular in real life) that has comfortable seating, kneelers, good sight lines, decent HVAC, good acoustics and no weird smells.

 

[JPUSC]

If you look at the picture of the cathedral on the front page of its official website (ctlcathedral.org/), it looks so small and insignificant compared to the other modern structures and doesn’t remind me that Christ is the Light of the world. It almost looks as if its trying to hide behind the other buildings. A church, especially a cathedral should be sending a message to the outside world, just like the spectacular traditional churches that were once the centers of cities and towns.

It is a contrast to Pope Benedict XVI’s words about St. Patrick’s Cathedral: “The spires of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral are dwarfed by the skyscrapers of the Manhattan skyline, yet in the heart of this busy metropolis, they are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God.”

“The unity of a Gothic cathedral, we know, is not the static unity of a classical temple, but a unity born of the dynamic tension of diverse forces which impel the architecture upward, pointing it to heaven.”

That is the problem with modern church buildings. There is a parish in my area where when you walk in, has the smell of a sterile museum. There is a also a balcony on the top level and spotlights pointing at their rock & roll choir as if it were a place for concerts. When designing the place, their aim was to “utilize the environment, taking advantage of the spectacular view of the Pacific Ocean”. As their nice ocean view was supposed to be the center of attention, I couldn’t find the tabernacle anywhere. This is also the parish that was at the center of the abuse crisis in the diocese, I wonder if there is a connection…

 

[Chuy]

If you look at the picture of the cathedral on the front page of its official website (ctlcathedral.org/), it looks so small and insignificant compared to the other modern structures and doesn’t remind me that Christ is the Light of the world. It almost looks as if its trying to hide behind the other buildings. A church, especially a cathedral should be sending a message to the outside world, just like the spectacular traditional churches that were once the centers of cities and towns.

It is a contrast to Pope Benedict XVI’s words about St. Patrick’s Cathedral: “The spires of Saint Patrick’s Cathedral are dwarfed by the skyscrapers of the Manhattan skyline, yet in the heart of this busy metropolis, they are a vivid reminder of the constant yearning of the human spirit to rise to God.”

“The unity of a Gothic cathedral, we know, is not the static unity of a classical temple, but a unity born of the dynamic tension of diverse forces which impel the architecture upward, pointing it to heaven.”

That is the problem with modern church buildings. There is a parish in my area where when you walk in, has the smell of a sterile museum. There is a also a balcony on the top level and spotlights pointing at their rock & roll choir as if it were a place for concerts. When designing the place, their aim was to “utilize the environment, taking advantage of the spectacular view of the Pacific Ocean”. As their nice ocean view was supposed to be the center of attention, I couldn’t find the tabernacle anywhere. This is also the parish that was at the center of the abuse crisis in the diocese, I wonder if there is a connection…

In person that Cathedral is beautiful – inside and out. Have you visited it yet or just looked at photos?

It’s not built on the bay. It’s built on Lake Merritt, so there is no “ocean view.”

It will probably smell a great deal like OLAC where they burn copious amounts of incense – very clean and extremely well maintained. I’ll take that over dusty/musty anytime.

As far as you bring up the “abuse crisis” in this context, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. :sad_yes:

 

[JPUSC]

I’m talking about the outside of this cathedral. In the old days, churches used to be the centers of the towns and cities and generations toiled hard to construct their cathedrals which reflected the might and power of God. If you look at the Oakland Cathedral from a distance, it doesn’t evoke a sense of awe or wonder; it blends in with everything else.

Sure, the building itself looks nice enough, but a person passing by it would not think it is a church. I’ve had Protestant friends feel inclined to enter older Catholic churches when passing by just because they felt like they were walking by something sacred.

Cathedrals, especially, should be designed to evoke a message of God’s presence to the outside world. If the diocese was going to spend millions of dollars on something, then it should look more than an office building.

As far as the abuse crisis, I was referring to the modernity in the Church and in this specific parish, where their emphasis was rather materialistic and worldly. Their intention when building their church was to showcase their expensive ocean view and the tabernacle is hidden from plain sight. It is a parish that makes over $45,000 a Sunday in collections, but the pastor still uses the homily to ask for even more money. Their building reflects what their mindset is. When you lose sight of God, many things can happen.

 

[Sarabande]

I appreciate your (name removed by moderator)ut.

I think more and more that the focus with such buildings is not to build works of art in themselves, but to create buildings that best facilitate the sacraments of the Church, most especially the Eucharist.

I have sat in more than one stunning structure during an important liturgy and my experience was impeded by a number of things. Uncomfortable seating (although the pews looked beautiful), no kneelers, poor sight lines, no temperature control, horrible acoustics, odd smell, etc.

I would pick a structure that “looks secular” (although neither this nor LA’s Cathedral looks secular in real life) that has comfortable seating, kneelers, good sight lines, decent HVAC, good acoustics and no weird smells.

Although, I think there is a problem with incorporating too much of “functionality” and “practicality” into houses of God. Function and practicality are good things. It’s always nice to have comfortable seating, heat, light, air conditioning, etc. but too much focus on the practicality and function of the building as the main part of the design itself leaves a building cold and sometimes too “corporate”. It can work very well and can be impressive for corporate buildings, though.

A good architect will successfully incorporate architecture (the art) with the actual engineering (the practicality and functionality). A House of God that is created for all people - a building that everyone can recognize as a church as a place of refuge, prayer, comfort, etc. - is more important than the creation of an innovative
, functional design or too much focus on an interesting piece of modern art which could be difficult to interpret or to appreciate for its functionality or innovation.

The photograph in one of the last posts does not evoke any thought of a house of God if I didn’t know it was a cathedral. I would just think that it was an interesting building and would wonder what it was for. As a musician and in the arts, my immediate thought is, “Hmmm… interesting, although just another typical, cold building for the performing arts.” It kind of reminds me of the Kimmel Center for the Performing Arts in Philadelphia, although that is more of a box with a large glass rounded roof housing the different halls. (The cathedral has much more glass.) From the outside, it just looks like a typical 21st c. modern corporate building. It’s interesting and has an inner design for the main hall that is shaped like the body of a cello or violin. It’s not particularly ugly in the hall itself, but not that warm and for a place touted for its acoustics and the excuse given to make it, the acoustics are still not as good as the Academy of Music where the operas and ballets are still performed.

In my mind, the functionality and design of this cathedral overpowered the sacred and transendance into spirituality - it became too secular and has lost its intent. To me, that is a failure if most people would not recognize it as a house of God. walking by.

I do appreciate your opinion, though.

 

[bkovacs]

In person that Cathedral is beautiful – inside and out. Have you visited it yet or just looked at photos?

It’s not built on the bay. It’s built on Lake Merritt, so there is no “ocean view.”

It will probably smell a great deal like OLAC where they burn copious amounts of incense – very clean and extremely well maintained. I’ll take that over dusty/musty anytime.

As far as you bring up the “abuse crisis” in this context, you should be deeply ashamed of yourself. :sad_yes:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2334683768_46ed5a0211.jpg?v=0

Looks to much like this!.

img352.imageshack.us/img352/6702/pict433pq2.th.jpgimg352.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif

 

[AlanF]

In person that Cathedral is beautiful – inside and out. Have you visited it yet or just looked at photos?

To me it doesn’t really look any more beautiful than any other modern office block, one could also say the “Gherkin” in London is beautiful.
The things that really matter are: does it envoke a sence of the sacred? Was it designed as a house of God for the glory of God?
For me the answer to both of those questions is a big fat no.

Looks to much like this!.

img352.imageshack.us/img352/6702/pict433pq2.th.jpgimg352.imageshack.us/images/thpix.gif