What do you prefer in a church building from a liturgical sense?

[OraLabora]

You are quite correct, it not a Church requirement, but I have to say, tabernacle placement typically says a great deal about a parish. Yes, in some very limited cases (some cathedrals, basilicas, etc.) it makes more sense to have the Blessed Sacrament reposed in a chapel outside of the sanctuary, but in the huge, huge majority of parish churches the best place for the tabernacle in the rear center of the sanctuary.

“Monastic simplicity” has grown on me over the years. I have come to embrace it. What I detest however is “fake simplicity”, that’s not simple (it’s political) and typically quite expensive.

One thing you’ll find frequently in a monastic church, is a processional crucifix rather than a fixed crucifix. Monks seem like they always use a procession to get from point A to point B

At Mass at our local abbey, the monks enter in procession through a side door leading into the choir, then up the choir to the altar (for the priest-monks) or the choir stalls (brothers). The acolytes lead carrying the processional crucifix, which is then affixed to a stand next to the altar for the Mass.

Outside of Mass, the processional crucifix remains beside the altar.

 

[jaimeleglise]

I like ornate, European style, gothic cathedrals. Notre Dame de Paris, Notre Dame du Monde
(Montreal) and Notre Dame des Victoires (Boston).

 

[GoGoDiego]

A great church building for me is a church building that
– has ornate retablo/s
– has the tabernacle within the sanctuary or at least visible
– awe-inspiring upon entering
– good acoustics
– full of sacred art

 

[EricF]

This is an interesting question. I really like several types. The ornate, Holy Name in Chicago, the Cathedral in St Louis, St Mary Major in Rome are definitely up there. I don’t mind the ornamentation when they tell Christian stories. My home church is more modern, and I love it as well. Some of my most spiritually intense experiences have been in very plain adobe churches in New Mexico, and one in a lower chamber, almost a cave or grotto in the monastery behind the Basilica of St. Francis in Assisi.

 

[Solomonson]

Very interesting (name removed by moderator)uts. I would love to combine long held favorites of a great many like:

• Centrally located tabernacle
• Proper crucifix with corpus.
• Proper altar with mensa and relics.
• Communion rail.
• Sensible location for the baptismal font.
• etc., etc., etc.

With things that I have come to admire in ecclesial architecture:

• Building configurations that maximize one’s visual and audio exposure to the sacrifice atop the altar. (Los Angeles’ Cathedral is the best I have ever personally experienced at this.)
• Excellent ecclesial artwork. (LA’s tapestries are another outstanding example.)
• Buildings that are not terribly expensive to maintain – or build in the first place. (LA’s Cathedral is NOT an example of this.)
• Excellent audio systems, etc.

Sadly I have never seen both groups mixed very well and that’s a shame.

 

[Vico]

What do you prefer in a church building (parish church) from a liturgical and operational sense? A number of things are important to me.

What I like:

• It has to be “liturgically correct” in a simple sense even if it’s not mandated by the Church. It has to have kneelers, the tabernacle in the rear center of the sanctuary, a proper crucifix with corpus on display, etc., unless there are serious reasons preventing this. Even the simplest and most economical buildings can be “liturgically correct.”
• I like buildings that place a person’s ability to view and hear the celebration over excessive ornamentation and brick-a-brac.
• I appreciate structures that are easy and low cost to maintain – both inside and out.

What I dislike:

• Expensive structures or ornamentation that struggle to look humble.
• Designer churches whose designs derive from modern art.
• “Bowling lane” churches that make it very difficult to see or hear what’s going on atop the altar.
• Controversial decorations in any way.

Those large cathedrals of the Middle Age style were constructed for the people that had no personal access to the Scriptures in their own language. One form is the The cruciform cathedral ornamented to teach key doctrines to their people. Key concepts shown by that form are God’s just judgment and salvation through the life, crucifixion, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In the west statuary and windows are used and in the east Icons are used. Mosaics are used in both and some use bas-relief. Another ideas is that one becomes aware of God’s presence through the senses, in the experience of the splendor and beauty of God’s house, which we ourselves should also manifest as faithful saints.

 

[Phemie]

Monastic simplicity.

I also appreciate that.

I have to admit that, as much as many people seem to loathe it, I want to visit the Notre-Dame-du-Haut chapel in Ronchamp, France. That stark interior seems to me to foster prayer without distraction.

 

[Kielbasi]

• Buildings that are not terribly expensive to maintain – or build in the first place. (LA’s Cathedral is NOT an example of this.)

old school style church buildings can be incredibly expensive to maintain, especially old school features like steeples. big expense.

the big expense in many projects is land acquisition esp in large cities. move it to the sticks, cuts costs not always practical. st pat cath in nyc was built in a rural area

 

[AnnArbor]

Clean lines, clear windows, tabernacle in a dedicated chapel. Simplicity of decoration.

 

[janeway529]

Likes: Simple yet refined, Majestic yet not grandiose, Acoustics, Sacred Art, Pews with kneelers (over chairs with kneelers), slanted floor “stadium seating” (see Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels), Reredos, Well-done modern/post-modern architecture (LA Cathedral, St. Bernard Abbey in Alabama, New Calamdoli Hermitage,…)

Dislikes: Columns that block views of the liturgical action, Bad Acoustics, Side altars/shrines more ornately decorated than the Altar and/or Sanctuary (it’s esp. distracting when its in the Nave), All-wooden reredos covered in gold-leaf (saw this tacky monstrosity in a parish which essentially turned into an “un-wreckovation”)…

No preference: Stained Glass Windows, Tabernacle placement, …

Not a fan: Gothic-styled churches – too dark and not enough sunlight to see stained glass windows.

 

[ctb95]

Very interesting (name removed by moderator)uts. I would love to combine long held favorites of a great many like:

• Centrally located tabernacle
• Proper crucifix with corpus.
• Proper altar with mensa and relics.
• Communion rail.
• Sensible location for the baptismal font.
• etc., etc., etc.

With things that I have come to admire in ecclesial architecture:

• Building configurations that maximize one’s visual and audio exposure to the sacrifice atop the altar. (Los Angeles’ Cathedral is the best I have ever personally experienced at this.)
• Excellent ecclesial artwork. (LA’s tapestries are another outstanding example.)
• Buildings that are not terribly expensive to maintain – or build in the first place. (LA’s Cathedral is NOT an example of this.)
• Excellent audio systems, etc.

Sadly I have never seen both groups mixed very well and that’s a shame.

Any large church building is going to be difficult (and expensive) to maintain. However, I am highly critical of Our Lady of the Angels because of it’s astronomical cost to build, and what we got in the end looked more like a spaceship than a church. A more traditionally built church would have not only been more beautiful, but much cheaper as well.

For example, the dioceses of Raleigh and Knoxville are building massive new cathedrals in a more traditional style (Romanesque) and their projected costs are a fraction of what it cost to build the cathedral in LA.

For comparison:

Sacred Heart, Knoxville: will seat 1,000, projected cost 25$ mil.

Holy Name, Raleigh: will seat 2,000, projected cost 41$ mil.

Our Lady of the Angels, LA: seats 3,000, final cost 189.7$ mil.

What really hurts is that the Archdiocese could have restored the earthquake damaged St. Vibiana Cathedral for less than 20$ mil, or could have made one of the large, beautiful old churches in LA (such as St. Vincent) the new cathedral.

 

[ctb95]

Not a fan: Gothic-styled churches – too dark and not enough sunlight to see stained glass windows.

That’s interesting. I like Gothic churches for the opposite reason: they bring in lots of light. Any well-designed gothic church will be filled with light on any sunny, or even not so sunny days. I’ve been in gothic churches where the evening sun shines through, and the result is incredible.

In church architecture, we seem to be moving away from modernism and post-modernism and back toward more traditional styles. We seem to particularly be seeing a resurgence of Romanesque Revival architecture, but not so much Gothic, which I think is a shame.

 

[Solomonson]

Any large church building is going to be difficult (and expensive) to maintain. However, I am highly critical of Our Lady of the Angels because of it’s astronomical cost to build, and what we got in the end looked more like a spaceship than a church. A more traditionally built church would have not only been more beautiful, but much cheaper as well.

That’s not really true. At least once a year I attend a conference that is held in an a multi-use building on the local fairgrounds. It holds nearly 2K of us. It’s a concrete block building with a concrete floor and an insulated metal roof. Were it upgraded (from the beginning and not as a retrofit) and outfitted as a place of worship, it would make a GREAT place of worship that would take minimal maintenance – barely any at all.

Our Lady of the Angels is as expensive as it was for 4 main reasons. It was designed to last hundreds of years in an earthquake zone – there is a HUGE amount of concrete and rebar in that structure. The furnishings (whether you like them or not) are typically original works of art. Its basement is a full mausoleum and some of the building materials (e.g. real alabaster and a full copper roof) are ridiculously expensive.

To suggest that it looks like a “spaceship” is out and out malarkey.

For example, the dioceses of Raleigh and Knoxville are building massive new cathedrals in a more traditional style (Romanesque) and their projected costs are a fraction of what it cost to build the cathedral in LA.

For comparison:

Sacred Heart, Knoxville: will seat 1,000, projected cost 25$ mil.

Holy Name, Raleigh: will seat 2,000, projected cost 41$ mil.

Our Lady of the Angels, LA: seats 3,000, final cost 189.7$ mil.

What really hurts is that the Archdiocese could have restored the earthquake damaged St. Vibiana Cathedral for less than 20$ mil, or could have made one of the large, beautiful old churches in LA (such as St. Vincent) the new cathedral.

Do you have any idea about the difference in building costs between Los Angeles and Knoxville/Raleigh? Any at all – even when it comes to a single family house, excluding the cost of land?

I agree that LA should have kept St. Vib’s.Thank God that the city and a private developer preserved it. Neither St. Vib’s nor St. Vince’s was suitable as the cathedral for BY FAR the largest archdiocese in the United States.

Both are too small and lack suitable support services.

It would be interesting to know how much the OLA cathedral would cost to build were it built in a place like Nashville out of common materials and without concerns for earthquake safety?

 

[ctb95]

That’s not really true. At least once a year I attend a conference that is held in an a multi-use building on the local fairgrounds. It holds nearly 2K of us. It’s a concrete block building with a concrete floor and an insulated metal roof. Were it upgraded (from the beginning and not as a retrofit) and outfitted as a place of worship, it would make a GREAT place of worship that would take minimal maintenance – barely any at all.

Our Lady of the Angels is as expensive as it was for 4 main reasons. It was designed to last hundreds of years in an earthquake zone – there is a HUGE amount of concrete and rebar in that structure. The furnishings (whether you like them or not) are typically original works of art. Its basement is a full mausoleum and some of the building materials (e.g. real alabaster and a full copper roof) are ridiculously expensive.

To suggest that it looks like a “spaceship” is out and out malarkey.

Do you have any idea about the difference in building costs between Los Angeles and Knoxville/Raleigh? Any at all – even when it comes to a single family house, excluding the cost of land?

I agree that LA should have kept St. Vib’s.Thank God that the city and a private developer preserved it. Neither St. Vib’s nor St. Vince’s was suitable as the cathedral for BY FAR the largest archdiocese in the United States.

Both are too small and lack suitable support services.

It would be interesting to know how much the OLA cathedral would cost to build were it built in a place like Nashville out of common materials and without concerns for earthquake safety?

Fair points.

I didn’t take into account earthquake-proofing. However, I still think it was much too expensive. The amount budgeted for the altar, ambo, etc, for example, was outrageous. And we’re not exactly talking baroque splendor here.

I should have said large tasteful church buildings. Block walls and floors don’t do it for me, personally, unless it’s the only option.

I stand by my spaceship opinion. So I guess we can agree to disagree.

 

[Solomonson]

Fair points.

I didn’t take into account earthquake-proofing. However, I still think it was much too expensive. The amount budgeted for the altar, ambo, etc, for example, was outrageous. And we’re not exactly talking baroque splendor here.

I should have said large tasteful church buildings. Block walls and floors don’t do it for me, personally, unless it’s the only option.

I stand by my spaceship opinion. So I guess we can agree to disagree.

Be careful. Those numbers are what benefactors donated in order to be noted as the people who paid for the ambo, altar, pews, etc. It’s not what they actually cost. I suspect you got your numbers from the Wiki on COLA – the cost part I wrote myself based on donor schedules.

The “spaceship” quip is just rude. You could say it simply looks like an office structure or maybe a performing arts space given its location, but a “spaceship”? No.

Raising money in that manner is quite common.

 

[ctb95]

Be careful. Those numbers are what benefactors donated in order to be noted as the people who paid for the ambo, altar, pews, etc. It’s not what they actually cost. I suspect you got your numbers from the Wiki on COLA – the cost part I wrote myself based on donor schedules.

The “spaceship” quip is just rude. You could say it simply looks like an office structure or maybe a performing arts space given its location, but a “spaceship”? No.

Raising money in that manner is quite common.

Would the term “office structure” be any less offensive? COLA at least has the advantage of being more unique than an office building. Either way, I think I’ve gotten this thread a little off topic.

 

[Horton]

Fair points.

I didn’t take into account earthquake-proofing. However, I still think it was much too expensive. The amount budgeted for the altar, ambo, etc, for example, was outrageous. And we’re not exactly talking baroque splendor here.

I should have said large tasteful church buildings. Block walls and floors don’t do it for me, personally, unless it’s the only option.

I stand by my spaceship opinion. So I guess we can agree to disagree.

I agree with you on the outward appearance of COLA. It wouldn’t be my preference at all. I prefer church buildings styled on the old great churches of Europe. A church building that is instantly recognized as a church.

I really don’t care much for the modern parish church buildings either, especially the half circle ones.

 

[Vico]

Very interesting (name removed by moderator)uts. I would love to combine long held favorites of a great many like:

• Centrally located tabernacle
• Proper crucifix with corpus.
• Proper altar with mensa and relics.
• Communion rail.
• Sensible location for the baptismal font.
• etc., etc., etc.

With things that I have come to admire in ecclesial architecture:

• Building configurations that maximize one’s visual and audio exposure to the sacrifice atop the altar. (Los Angeles’ Cathedral is the best I have ever personally experienced at this.)
• Excellent ecclesial artwork. (LA’s tapestries are another outstanding example.)
• Buildings that are not terribly expensive to maintain – or build in the first place. (LA’s Cathedral is NOT an example of this.)
• Excellent audio systems, etc.

Sadly I have never seen both groups mixed very well and that’s a shame.

Cathedral Of Our Lady Of The Angels Church (555 W Temple St, Los Angeles, CA 90012):
Built 2002
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

---

St. Vincent de Paul Church (621 W Adams Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90007):
Built 1925, second Roman Catholic church in Los Angeles to be consecrated.
http://www.stvincentla.net/church/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/St-Vincent-Inside-e1466709831849.jpg

 

[Phemie]

Cathedral Of Our Lady Of The Angels Church (555 W Temple St, Los Angeles, CA 90012):
Built 2002
https://images.fineartamerica.com/i...els-church-los-angeles-ca-david-zanzinger.jpg

---

St. Vincent de Paul Church (621 W Adams Blvd, Los Angeles, California 90007):
Built 1925, second Roman Catholic church in Los Angeles to be consecrated.
http://www.stvincentla.net/church/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/St-Vincent-Inside-e1466709831849.jpg

I can spot the altar immediately in the St. Vincent de Paul church, but even after looking repeatedly at the picture of the COLA I can’t spot an altar anywhere.

 

[Kielbasi]

I agree that LA should have kept St. Vib’s.Thank God that the city and a private developer preserved it. Neither St. Vib’s nor St. Vince’s was suitable as the cathedral for BY FAR the largest archdiocese in the United States.

Both are too small and lack suitable support services.

another alternative would have been to erect a couple of new dioceses out of LA’s land area. the existing buildings could handle a smaller task for each.

all of the dioceses in america broke off from another at one time or another, Pittsburgh was part of philadelphia until 1843