D
dochawk
Guest
And many people put ketchup on hot dogs, but that doesn’t make it any less a perversion . . .:crazy_face:
Why aren’t Catholic Churches as ornate as Orthodox/Byzantine churches?
- Status
P
Peeps
Guest
I’ll stick with my post. It’s all a matter of personal taste and opinion. Architecture, like any other art form, creates emotional and even spiritual reactions in all of us.
Take Frank Lloyd Wright–some people love his stuff (I do!). Others find it off-putting or even ugly. Both reactions/opinions are valid.
I’m guessing that a lot of the buildings in the 1950s were designed that way for a certain reason. I don’t know about the skyscrapers, but I know that we have several neighborhoods in our city consisting of tiny 3-bedroom “box houses” that were built very quickly to accommodate the G.I.s returning from the wars. Interestingly, they are among the hottest properties in our city, as they are empty palettes for those wanting to do their own re-designing.
And–they’re a lot cheaper than the monstrosities that are the norm nowadays–5 bedroom homes where each bedroom is actually a “suite” with a bathroom and office, and the “open concept plan” including a massive kitchen with a huge island, a dining room, a family room, a living room, and sometimes another family room or an office space, along with a deck and screened in porch. Ai-yi-yi!
I personally think many of these homes are hideous outside, as the architecture has to accommodate all those rooms and also be energy-efficient, so there are "bump-outs’ everywhere, and weird roof-lines and bizarre and varying windows and several textures of siding/paint/brick/glass, and most of the colors are muted browns, greens, and more browns.
Not for me! I love the Victorian neighborhoods in our city, with the hot pink, orange, and greens, and names like “The Canary House”! I love all the little closed-in rooms and the built-in shelves and nooks and crannies throughout. I realize that they are energy-pigs (unless they have been cleverly up-dated!). But to me, they’re so beautiful.
Do you see what I’m getting at? I know that there are lots of people who LOVE the look of the design of the current homes. And I know that many people despise the cramped Victorians. It’s just personal preference, personal taste. None of us are right or wrong.
Architecture follows the needs and tastes and the PAYCHECKS of the people who use the building,
BTW, my husband and I are hoping to build a small dome-home when we retire. Reactions are fun–half our friends say, “Eugh!” and the other half say, “Ooh!” We emphasize the energy-efficiency of dome homes so we are really sounding “liberal” these days (heh heh heh–little do they know!).
Take Frank Lloyd Wright–some people love his stuff (I do!). Others find it off-putting or even ugly. Both reactions/opinions are valid.
I’m guessing that a lot of the buildings in the 1950s were designed that way for a certain reason. I don’t know about the skyscrapers, but I know that we have several neighborhoods in our city consisting of tiny 3-bedroom “box houses” that were built very quickly to accommodate the G.I.s returning from the wars. Interestingly, they are among the hottest properties in our city, as they are empty palettes for those wanting to do their own re-designing.
And–they’re a lot cheaper than the monstrosities that are the norm nowadays–5 bedroom homes where each bedroom is actually a “suite” with a bathroom and office, and the “open concept plan” including a massive kitchen with a huge island, a dining room, a family room, a living room, and sometimes another family room or an office space, along with a deck and screened in porch. Ai-yi-yi!
I personally think many of these homes are hideous outside, as the architecture has to accommodate all those rooms and also be energy-efficient, so there are "bump-outs’ everywhere, and weird roof-lines and bizarre and varying windows and several textures of siding/paint/brick/glass, and most of the colors are muted browns, greens, and more browns.
Not for me! I love the Victorian neighborhoods in our city, with the hot pink, orange, and greens, and names like “The Canary House”! I love all the little closed-in rooms and the built-in shelves and nooks and crannies throughout. I realize that they are energy-pigs (unless they have been cleverly up-dated!). But to me, they’re so beautiful.
Do you see what I’m getting at? I know that there are lots of people who LOVE the look of the design of the current homes. And I know that many people despise the cramped Victorians. It’s just personal preference, personal taste. None of us are right or wrong.
Architecture follows the needs and tastes and the PAYCHECKS of the people who use the building,
BTW, my husband and I are hoping to build a small dome-home when we retire. Reactions are fun–half our friends say, “Eugh!” and the other half say, “Ooh!” We emphasize the energy-efficiency of dome homes so we are really sounding “liberal” these days (heh heh heh–little do they know!).
Last edited:
D
DisorientingSneeze
Guest
Urban sprawl. Churches in our area seem to need to be built quickly and enlarged/renovated quickly to keep up with the serious population growth.
Last edited:
P
phil19034
Guest
This is true. I think the suburban sprawl is a major reason for these hideous suburban churches.
They needed to build them fast, hence cheap.
Additionally, due to building codes, insurance, law suites, etc: Parishes rarely use volunteers from the parish for construction work like they did in the past. Everything is contracted out, thus more expensive
T
tafan2
Guest
I believe the architectural types of modern or postmodern are not easily applied to churches of the 70s, 80s, or 90s. The worst of the churches in this are do not follow any of the modern architecture principles. Or at least not well
T
tafan2
Guest
A big difference. When these relatively new churches are being redone, there is no attempt to transform them into something that not work, aesthetically or functionally. Quite the opposite, it is an attempt to bring them into beauty: ie ontologically clear, complete, and proportionality.
Whereas, when older churches were redone in the 70s and 80s:these objective qualities of beauty were removed from buildings that worked well for 100 years.
Whereas, when older churches were redone in the 70s and 80s:these objective qualities of beauty were removed from buildings that worked well for 100 years.
D
Dovekin
Guest
That is precisely the difference I was highlighting by citing Abbots Suger and Bernard.
More importantly, we should appreciate what others have handed on to us. It is fine to recognize deficiencies in those things, the lack of beauty, but that does not mean there were no appropriate motives behind the styles. There may have been a rupture in the 60s as part of a reform, bt that is no reason to introduce another rupture now, just to tear down what has been handed down to us.
People do not always have the same motivations. You need not just to establish that beauty is a good idea, but that your idea of beauty is the correct one.
More importantly, we should appreciate what others have handed on to us. It is fine to recognize deficiencies in those things, the lack of beauty, but that does not mean there were no appropriate motives behind the styles. There may have been a rupture in the 60s as part of a reform, bt that is no reason to introduce another rupture now, just to tear down what has been handed down to us.
E
Exegete
Guest
Some are…
E
Exegete
Guest
For a number of years, the Archdiocese of Los Angeles opened more than one parish every month.
- Status