Those glorious medieval cathedrals

[Chuy]

Years ago I saw a great documentary on the great Cathedrals of Europe. They went through the history and the methods use to construct these magnificent buildings.

It wasn’t wonderful, especially for the peasants who were taxed to build them, often at the hands of a greedy bishop.

I forget which cathedral it was, but the Bishop was living a luxurious lifestyle and dipping his hand into the cathedral funds. As a result, he would cut corners on the construction. Instead of using good materials, he ordered the architects to use materials that were less expensive, but not conducive for large construction. As a result, when the cathedral was 2/3rds completed, it collapsed, and workers were killed. The people, learning about the Bishops theft and decision making, stormed his residency and killed him through beheading. The Pope hearing of this, sent a new Bishop, who out of his own wealth and good management skills, restarted the project and the cathedral was completed. The people, being Christian and willing to forgive, had a statue of the latter Bishop made and placed on the outside of the cathedral. The statue was of a headless Bishop, carrying his head in his left hand.

Anyway, when I visited Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, I stood inside in awe, realizing the amount of work and sacrifice, people paid to construct it. It also took me back realizing the dignitaries throughout history, who stood at the altar of this building. St. Joan of Arc came to mind, as I passed the statue they have dedicated to her.

Jim

These truly monumental projects are a thing of the past for the most part, even for government and the Church. The price was simply too high…

 

[Chuy]

Actually, it’s preferable to move the Tabernacle out of the sanctuary in the event that a church or cathedral is a particularly popular tourist attraction and will have a large amount of daily traffic by both Catholics and non-Catholics. By moving the Tabernacle to a side chapel, it maintains the reverence for the Eucharist and allows privacy and silence for those wishing to pray in the presence of the Lord. When I was in Spain, the Tabernacle and Blessed Sacrament were almost always moved, even in Cathedrals of Toledo and Seville, for these very reasons.

Absolutely…

I am guessing (for example) that OLAC gets at least 10K visitors/day. Not all will know how or want to act correctly in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

Far better to put the Blessed Sacrament in its own chapel. It also makes it easier on people who are trying to adore Him.

 

[Chuy]

Here’s another image: lh4.ggpht.com/_LHfhbxnW1D8/RohiuEc3myI/AAAAAAAAACI/Kh-FzHmWGP8/Grad+Trip+048.jpg

And another: static.flickr.com/5/5028107_d688378d69.jpg

As I said, it looks for all the world like they ran out of money and could not finish the building by attaching the exterior finish panels.

And here’s an even more detailed image: firsttimesocal.com/admin/images/cathedral-our-lady-of-angels.jpg

Those so-called “attachment points” are NOT “attachment points.” They are primarily a seismic consideration – they are engineered crack containment points that are visible throughout the cathedral. Secondarily they are an architectural detail. You weren’t aware of that, huh? Didn’t you go on a tour of OLAC when you were there? The docents go into detail on the seismic considerations of the OLAC design – including the crack containment points…

See what I mean about commenting about something one does not understand?

 

[VociMike]

Those so-called “attachment points” are NOT “attachment points.” They are primarily a seismic consideration – they are engineered crack containment points that are visible throughout the cathedral. Secondarily they are an architectural detail. You weren’t aware of that, huh? Didn’t you go on a tour of OLAC when you were there? The docents go into detail on the seismic considerations of the OLAC design – including the crack containment points…

See what I mean about commenting about something one does not understand?

Oh spare us. Does every new building in California have an exterior that looks like that? Of course not. So they are a deliberate aesthetic choice, not something forced upon the aesthetics of the building by seismic considerations.

I never said they were attachment points, only that that is what they look like. The exterior looks like it is still awaiting placement of its final exerior surfaces.

 

[VociMike]

Nope. I will apologize for being so direct, however.

Somehow I just knew you wouldn’t retract your grave doubts about my honesty. I just knew it.

 

[chewchoo]

Those so-called “attachment points” are NOT “attachment points.” They are primarily a seismic consideration – they are engineered crack containment points that are visible throughout the cathedral. Secondarily they are an architectural detail. You weren’t aware of that, huh? Didn’t you go on a tour of OLAC when you were there? The docents go into detail on the seismic considerations of the OLAC design – including the crack containment points…

See what I mean about commenting about something one does not understand?

so are you the insulted designer of this monstrosity?
for claiming that everyone else replying to this thread is just expressing their “personal opinion” on modern architecture, why isn’t your’s “just” a personal opinion also? when did you become absolved of the sin of personal opinion?
the only truth is Jesus and everything else is just an opinion.

OLAC is an ugly building and its an even uglier church.

 

[PJM]

FrDavid96
New Member Join Date: October 13, 2008
Posts: 42

Re: Those glorious medieval cathedrals

I am so very grateful to find myself in total agreement with you Father. Stick to your guns, your right on:thumbsup:

I cast “my vote” for *Domus Dei, and against "Built of Living Stones. Amen! *

God’s continued blessings,
PJM
Marian Catecheist

 

[Chuy]

Somehow I just knew you wouldn’t retract your grave doubts about my honesty. I just knew it.

I still have grave doubts that you have ever been to OLAC.

You suggest OLAC was intentionally designed to look as if it was not finished based and what you call “attachment points” when they are an engineered seismic consideration?

Yeah, my grave doubts continue, particularly because you did not concede being wrong about the crack expansion/containment points.

 

[Chuy]

so are you the insulted designer of this monstrosity?
for claiming that everyone else replying to this thread is just expressing their “personal opinion” on modern architecture, why isn’t your’s “just” a personal opinion also? when did you become absolved of the sin of personal opinion?
the only truth is Jesus and everything else is just an opinion.

OLAC is an ugly building and its an even uglier church.

I will pray for you.

 

[chewchoo]

I will pray for you.

thank you

but you didn’t answer my questions.

 

[Lepanto]

Those so-called “attachment points” are NOT “attachment points.” They are primarily a seismic consideration – they are engineered crack containment points that are visible throughout the cathedral. Secondarily they are an architectural detail. You weren’t aware of that, huh? Didn’t you go on a tour of OLAC when you were there? The docents go into detail on the seismic considerations of the OLAC design – including the crack containment points…

See what I mean about commenting about something one does not understand?

Those are nothing more than the termination points of steel reinforcement rods. You will find them in virtually any form of concrete construction, even concrete roads in non-earthquake zones have them. The parking structure of my office building has the exact same look.

The designer of OLAC left them exposed, probably to give the building an edgy, unfinished “industrial” look. I doubt that it was a budgetary issue, since unlike parking structures, the exterior of a high-profile building like OLAC would not be left incomplete.

 

[Chuy]

Those are nothing more than the termination points of steel reinforcement rods. You will find them in virtually any form of concrete construction, even concrete roads in non-earthquake zones have them. The parking structure of my office building has the exact same look.

The designer of OLAC left them exposed, probably to give the building an edgy, unfinished “industrial” look. I doubt that it was a budgetary issue, since unlike parking structures, the exterior of a high-profile building like OLAC would not be left incomplete.

I’m sorry but you are wrong…

They are an engineered feature to contain cracking. It might very well be that the architect wanted to accentuate an engineered feature, but they are not “attachment points.”

ANY in-person inspection would make that quite obvious.

Read Monsignor Francis Weber’s book on the OLAC and learn. Better yet, visit the OLAC, take the guided tour and ask one of the docents for his/her notes. There used to be a great deal of detail on the design of OLAC from both Dr. Moneo and Morley Builders while OLAC was being constructed. Sad some didn’t make the effort to at least skim the material…

 

[jmcrae]

Not at all. I just have never met anyone who has actually spent time attending Mass at the OLAC that felt the need to attack it in the way you did. Your comments sound a great deal like someone trying to evaluate the structure from photos and maybe video.

Nonsense. While it may indeed look “unfinished” to you and others not familiar with the design of the OLAC, that was not the intention of the design nor do the pictures you provided prove that it is. You are merely expressing your opinion which does not jibe with the design.

What do we have to be “familiar with,” to not notice that they apparently forgot to trowel the stucco on?

Those so-called “attachment points” are NOT “attachment points.” They are primarily a seismic consideration – they are engineered crack containment points that are visible throughout the cathedral. Secondarily they are an architectural detail.

“Architectural details” are things like cornices, pillars, gargoyles, and niches. These are not “details” - these are underlay pieces. When our basement looked like that, our Dad wouldn’t let us play in it, until he had a chance to cover over the walls with stucco, so that we wouldn’t pinch ourselves on the extruding metal pieces.

 

[Lepanto]

Here’s another image: static.flickr.com/5/5028107_d688378d69.jpg

I think you are mistaken. That is the Hoover Dam.

 

[chewchoo]

You’re wrong. While that is a quality that is certainly appreciated it is not the primary function of a church building. Its primary function is to facilitate people in receiving the sacraments of the church. …

You are wrong.
.

Given your comments I have grave doubts that you have ever visited OLAC. There is no “deliberate attempt to have the outside appear unfinished” as you suggest. That’s your personal taste talking and you couldn’t be more wrong…

Yeah, my grave doubts continue, particularly because you did not concede being wrong about the crack expansion/containment points.

I’m sorry but you are wrong…
…

okay everybody, it is clear that anybody and everybody who is posting on this thread is WRONG unless of course your user name starts with CH (notice - mine starts with CH too )

sorry, i just kept hearing an echo in this vast building…

 

[JimR-OCDS]

These truly monumental projects are a thing of the past for the most part, even for government and the Church. The price was simply too high…

One of the main goals for building these large elaborate cathedrals when they did, was to stimulate the economy in the areas where they were located. People traveled from all parts of the known world to visit them.

Even today, the economies surrounding many of the cathedrals are tourist economies.

Jim

 

[Lepanto]

They are an engineered feature to contain cracking.

Yes, I know. The sole purpose of reinforcement rods is to reinforce the concrete to prevent cracking. They are called reinforcement rods for a reason. Normally, however, the rods’ terminations are covered up because of their unsightlyness. They are often left exposed in cheap, utilitarian structures where appearance is not that important, like parking garages, factories, or bridges. The point here is that the OLAC designers decided to leave them uncovered as well.

It might very well be that the architect wanted to accentuate an engineered feature, but they are not “attachment points.”

I didn’t say anything about “attachment points.” What are you talking about?

 

[chewchoo]

One of the main goals for building these large elaborate cathedrals when they did, was to stimulate the economy in the areas where they were located. People traveled from all parts of the known world to visit them.

Even today, the economies surrounding many of the cathedrals are tourist economies.

Jim

and so that reasoning could also be applied to the temple in jerusalem, right? one of the main reasons for it being built, twice, was to help the economy… i don’t think so.

 

[Lepanto]

OK, here’s a sight for sore eyes. Proof positive that new churches don’t need to look like Borg cubes.

They can be built right if they are designed with Catholic sensibilities.

adoremus.org/0908GuadalupeShrine.html

Also, I really recommend reading some of the links on this page:

adoremus.org/ArchArticles.html

 

[Chuy]

What do we have to be “familiar with,” to not notice that they apparently forgot to trowel the stucco on?

“Architectural details” are things like cornices, pillars, gargoyles, and niches. These are not “details” - these are underlay pieces. When our basement looked like that, our Dad wouldn’t let us play in it, until he had a chance to cover over the walls with stucco, so that we wouldn’t pinch ourselves on the extruding metal pieces.

I wouldn’t want to think about what sorta person would trowel stucco on tinted architectural concrete that was media-blasted to attain its final texture. Then again, I guess the photos don’t catch that…

Those things you mentioned are often referred to as “hooks and barbs.” Appropriate on some buildings and certainly favored by catalog architects but wholly inappropriate for a clean and crisp structure like OLAC.

And no, they’re still not “attachment” points…