Would you call this a cathedral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnq
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lisa N:
It’s not that I think all churches should look like Chartres but this particular building looks cold and rather forbidding. It looks like someone didnt’ finish the project and the scaffolding is up. What makes it look like a great celebration of God?

FWIW they think those windows look nice NOW, wait until years of soot, grime and bird droppings ‘grace’ them. We have a glass tower above a building in this city and it looks greasy and grimy. No way to clean it properly and a good rainstorm negates all the hard work. Can’t wait til St Helens blows again and they can figure a way to chip the ash off.
Lisa N
Click to expand...
Great, practical points, Lisa. Aside from the debate on design - these maintenance issues are very real - and expensive.

Our parish built the church (leaving behind the “parish center”, thank God) a few years ago. Of course, the whole project went well over budget and it cost millions. Little did the parishioners realize the high cost of maintenance - and they were none too happy when last year yet another fundraising effort was launched to cover the cost of keeping the new beautiful church beautiful.

I don’t mean to say that our cathedrals should be built with only maintenance in mind (like being able to come in with a hose), but some thought should be given the long range, practical concerns…
 
Lisa N:
It’s not that I think all churches should look like Chartres
Click to expand...
What I don’t understand is this: why can’t the mod. architects build on what’s gone before? Why can’t we have a cruciform with “modern” elements? Why can’t they tweak Gothic or Romanesque, if they want to make a statement? It isn’t that modern architecture has to be bad, in and of itself. It just seems like they sometimes (90%, let’s say) set out to shock the sensibilities of the people for whom the edifice is designed. I don’t think that should be the purpose of a church. It’s suppose to glorify the Holy Trinity.
 
40.png
msproule:
Ugly as sin! Hopefully they still have time to change their mind.

This is a much better choice, if you ask me:
dellachiesa.com/-/article?a=projects-oakland] I agree! 🙂
Click to expand...
 
Alright, I’ve got to throw my two cents in here.

First of all, let’s remember that a “cathedral” is where the Chair, or “Cathedra” of the Bishop is–nothing more, nothing less. (for those saying that this isn’t a cathedral).

That said, as far as architecture, there are some beautiful chapels at Notre Dame Univ. and Georgetown, but the faith and orthodoxy there is certainly something to be desired.
Now, I’m a graduate of Franciscan U of Steubenville, so I’m allowed to say this, but the chapel there on campus is ugly as sin, but the faith and orthodoxy are helping to change the world.
–Clearly faith doesn’t hinge on architecture.
Oh, by the way, where are some of the greatest Cathedrals in the world? Europe.
Where is the faith all but dead? Europe.
 
You have to remember that the word cathedral comes from cathedra which is the chair or throne of a bishop. So where ever that chair is, there is the cathedral.

In the early church, the cathedra was probably the dining room chair at the head of the table in the house where the bishop lived with his wife and family.

BIG churches are an invention of modern times.
 
Looks like somebody’s dog ate a bunch of popsicle sticks then threw them back up.
 
I don’t want to comment without seeing the inside, but from te outside it does not inspire a faith filled response. Who’s their target audience??
 
You sure that’s not the roller-coaster from the amusement park next door? 😉

That one shown on the dellachiesa site - now that’s a cathedral! Old, but new. It would have been a gem in Oakland. And Oakland is in dire need of gems. 😦

Why do we have all these architects trying to outdo themselves with creating “ugly?”

It used to be that man built churches and decorated them to glorify God. What does this roller-coaster contraption glorify? An ego.

I’m sorry that the people of Oakland will not have the inspiration of a beautiful cathedral in their midst. I’m a total anachronism, I guess.

Elizabeth
 
I’m sorry that the people of Oakland will not have the inspiration of a beautiful cathedral in their midst.
Click to expand...
We of the Oakland Diocese are sorry too. 😦
 
40.png
otm:
Because you have some really strong preconceived notions of what a church must look like?
Click to expand...
Well, if “what a church should look like” includes having things like an altar, a tabernacle, stations of the cross, etc., then I guess you could say I have a “really strong preconceived notion”. :rolleyes:

I don’t know what this cathedral will look like on the inside, but I have been inside my share of “modern” churches, and they often don’t have the things I mentioned.
 
I am surprised by the mostly negative comments on this thread about the design for the Oakland Cathedral. I love the fact that the Catholic Church was a patron for the glorious church art of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Michelangelo, Bernini, Leonardo da Vinci, Brunelleschi were modern, cutting-edge architects of their time, sponsored by the Catholic Church. I don’t think Church art and architecture should stagnate but rather should continue to evolve and attest to the glory of God and to his Church. Good thing Michelangelo. Bernini, Leonardo, Brunelleschi, et. al. did not have to deal with world-wide criticism of their art via the Internet!
 
40.png
catsrus:
Being in the Diocese of Oakland, I’ll be the first “Californian” to say it repels me. Where is Michelangelo when we reeeeaaalllllyyy need him?!
Click to expand...
I’m in the Oakland Diocese as well and, while the design isn’t what I would say would be my first choice, I find it attractive and find the extremely negative comments in this forum even more distatsteful.

It is also funny that you bring up Michelangelo as I was thinking of him when reading the negative comments on this thread. Many people did not like The David when Michelangelo completed it and it was damaged by vandals. I was thinking the harsh comments regarding the design of Oakland’s cathedral might be compared to such vandals some day. That is in no way to say that the design of the cathedral is great. To be honest, I simply cannot pass judgement on it until it is completed and I visit it.

As much as I like the Gothic design of old cathedrals, I have to say that most of the old cathedrals I’ve visited in Italy and Portugal were dark inside and sometimes gave me the feeling of being “dungy.” This new cathedral will certainly be lighter and it might be more inspirational to many.
 
40.png
Richardols:
The Host becomes the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ whether celebrated outside on the hood of a car or in an immense 16th century church with a magnificent organ and a 100 voice choir.
Click to expand...
Now that is a great idea, we ought to have churches in the shape of racecars, with a racecar as the altar and the pews in the form of racecar seats. Then we can appeal to the youth! That would be a great modern Church. We must get away from ugly Romanesque, Gothic, Baroque, Roman, Greek and other ancient architectural designs. Think modern. :rolleyes:
 
40.png
harveyc:
I’m in the Oakland Diocese as well and, while the design isn’t what I would say would be my first choice, I find it attractive and find the extremely negative comments in this forum even more distatsteful…
Click to expand...
Why? If the building is being constructed at a cost of millions, wouldn’t SOMEONE like to know what kind of impression it makes? I was watching the World Over and Raymond was speaking to a priest about “Pizza Hut” churches that were the style for a time. A church (IMHO) should be immediately distinguishable as a church. I think that’s one of the major objections. This behemouth could be a sports stadium, a
civic auditorium, a large gymnasium or even an office building.
What about all this glass and steel says “This is a house of God.” It looks like it was built to glorify man.
40.png
harveyc:
It is also funny that you bring up Michelangelo as I was thinking of him when reading the negative comments on this thread. Many people did not like The David when Michelangelo completed it and it was damaged by vandals. I was thinking the harsh comments regarding the design of Oakland’s cathedral might be compared to such vandals some day. That is in no way to say that the design of the cathedral is great. To be honest, I simply cannot pass judgement on it until it is completed and I visit it…
Click to expand...
My understanding was that the major objection to Michaelangelo’s works were the ah um, anatomical correctness??? Not everyone wanted to see full fledged manhood depicted in a large piece of marble. Figleafs aside, having read several biographies of Michaelangelo, he was constantly fighting those who didn’t like the very graphic and accurate works of art. It’s not a matter of thinking David was ugly but just a little too much sensory overload.
40.png
harveyc:
As much as I like the Gothic design of old cathedrals, I have to say that most of the old cathedrals I’ve visited in Italy and Portugal were dark inside and sometimes gave me the feeling of being “dungy.” This new cathedral will certainly be lighter and it might be more inspirational to many.
Click to expand...
Well the older cathedrals have not only had years of soot, pollution and grime to contend with, they were built at a time when construction techniques did not allow so much glass without additional support.

As to this building, even though there is an inner wall, I have to wonder how the heating and cooling will be regulated. Glass conducts heat doesn’t it? I know in Oregon since the weather is cloudy for a time all these houses were built with skylights. Well it turned out not only did they heat the house on already hot summer days but they became filthy and were hard to clean. And if you’ve ever tried to sleep under a glass roof when there is a rainstorm…you get the drift. I honestly think we have some egotistical architect who is not going to have to LIVE with the results of his ‘art.’
Lisa N
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top