Would you call this a cathedral?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnq
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The inside is even worse!!
 
Lisa N:
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.
Lisa N
Click to expand...
What makes you think they haven’t got views from members of the diocese? Are those views wrong because they don’t match your own? This does not look like a Pizza Hut! What on Earth makes yous ay that this is built to “glorify man?” I know a very orthodox theologian that was once in residence at “tent” looking parish I once attended. I hadn’t really thought negatively or positively about the design at the time, but the theologian once made the point (when he spoke at the RCIA group my wife and I were leading) that the root meaning of tabernacle was “tent.” After that, I particularly liked the design of that parish.
Lisa N:
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.
Lisa N
Click to expand...
My book on The David purchased when we visited Florence does not say anything about the anatomy being the basis for the objections. Regardless, what once was dispised by many is now widely accepted as a masterpiece.
Lisa N:
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.
Lisa N
Click to expand...
Soot is only part of the problem and the rest is a design “flaw” to compensate for the construction techniques. But, if we’re to keep our churches with a traditional design, I guess we are supposed to keep using those flawed designs.
Lisa N:
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
Click to expand...
Go back and read the notes on the design. The glass is shaded. I’m not an engineer, but glass does not conduct heat when it’s not hit by direct sunlight. Also, modern glass has energy efficient coatings. Energy efficiency is requirement of modern building plans and I’m certain that is already considered.

It was not my intent to defend the design. However, I am troubled at the harsh comments against it. It seems these days people are much more comfortable with criticizing things than the compliment. I am not one to support inclusive efforts, etc., so please don’t accuse me of that. I am still puzzled while people seem to have a preference to complain or criticize.
 
40.png
katherine2:
how would you know that?
Click to expand...
Note that he used the word “appears” not that he knows for sure. Also, how would he come to this apparent conclusion? Perhaps by the building itself. How does it point to God or glorify him? It certainly does point to the human architects though… If this were any other type of building in a downtown skyline, it would surely amaze some people and make us wonder who built it. For the Church, in my humble opinion, it does nothing…
 
40.png
harveyc:
It was not my intent to defend the design. However, I am troubled at the harsh comments against it. It seems these days people are much more comfortable with criticizing things than the compliment. I am not one to support inclusive efforts, etc., so please don’t accuse me of that. I am still puzzled while people seem to have a preference to complain or criticize.
Click to expand...
No people don’t have a preference to criticize or complain. The people here are relatively outspoken and you are hearing their opinions. Many of them ARE negative but why are you shooting the messenger? Could it be that the criticism is not simply being nasty but a true reflection of someone’s opinion?

If the building were a different design that happened to be more appealing then I fully expect people would have made positive comments. I think it’s ugly, cold, and forbidding. It doesn’t look anything like a church to me. Now I didn’t say it looked like a pizza hut, that was just a comment made about some of the modern churches—that they are dull and indistinct. This is certainly not DULL. As I said originally, it looks like a mothballed nuclear plant with the scaffolding left up. But that’s just MHO.

Lisa N
 
I feel sorry for the Christians in China who must meet where they can find a place to meet in secret. I am sure they will be disappointed to find out that they don’t have churches because the places they meet don’t look like a church.
 
Lisa N:
No people don’t have a preference to criticize or complain. The people here are relatively outspoken and you are hearing their opinions. Many of them ARE negative but why are you shooting the messenger? Could it be that the criticism is not simply being nasty but a true reflection of someone’s opinion?

If the building were a different design that happened to be more appealing then I fully expect people would have made positive comments. I think it’s ugly, cold, and forbidding. It doesn’t look anything like a church to me. Now I didn’t say it looked like a pizza hut, that was just a comment made about some of the modern churches—that they are dull and indistinct. This is certainly not DULL. As I said originally, it looks like a mothballed nuclear plant with the scaffolding left up. But that’s just MHO.

Lisa N
Click to expand...
Lisa, I disagree. People do have a preference to voice their opinions if it is to complain about something. I have seen it in all segments of life, not just here in the CA forums. I guess it’s somewhat natural in that if something doesn’t need fixing they don’t seen a need to comment. However, the negative comments seem to feed on themselves. I honestly expect that the majority of people that will view this cathedral in person some day will like it.

Also, I’m not shooting the messenger. Why are you shooting someone that disagrees with you? You aren’t, I don’t think, but the same argument can be made for it.

I guess when I see dramatic comments I automatically wonder if a person has an agenda or are not being objective. While many or most of the old cathedrals I’ve visited are quite dark and I find that aspect unappealing, I would never think of using the term “ugly” to describe even that aspect. I would describe the disign of the Oakland cathedral to be “interesting” more than “beautiful” and suspect that it will provoke some feelings of inspiration when visiting it on a sunny day. I’d also rather to sit anywhere in that cathedral than in the back of a very large cathedral. When Jesus preached, people were not ligned up in long straight rows, after all.

Peace!
 
harveyc I bet you would find the same reaction to modern art. It must be an acquired taste. I don’t like modern art or modern buildings. I detest ‘techno’ furniture. Let’s just say I am more likely to buy furniture at Ethan Allen than Dania. It’s just a matter of what appeals to people and is probably based on their experience and upbringing. Honestly it’s not looking for something to complain about. I don’t like cold steel and glass. Maybe it’s a chick thing 😉

Lisa N
 
I don’t know if there’s a connection or not, but when I go to Epcot, I’m always aware of the architecture, and the last time I went for some reason, I felt a sense of unease. I realize what it is now. The entire park promotes I would say subliminally but tangible nonetheless the notion of the Triumph of Man in the world of the future,and many of the exhibits there are abstract, futuristic in design. This abstraction is the “cube” that George Weigel is talking about in the essay, “The Cube and the Cathedral.” Epcot is a tribute to the New Man, and this cathedral is too. Mankind without a sense of the transcendent, just the glorification of himself. To respond to an earlier post, the Church has nothing against progress, but not progress for progress sake, which leads too…? Progress must be attempted with the glory of God as its end. The earlier styles, Gothic, Romanesque, Baroque, etc. even though different from one another and criticized during their time still were based an organic notion of progress. This cathedral, however, severs any break with the past and is conceived within an ahistorical context. Man himself outside time, freed from the past, free to create his future as he sees fit. It’s a monument to us. But the question is, "who are we.?
 
Lisa N:
…I don’t like cold steel and glass. Maybe it’s a chick thing 😉
Click to expand...
I think it could be a cool-climate thing. If they built that cathedral in Portland or Eugene, I’m afraid I might always feel I was freezing in there. Oakland is truly temperate. It never gets cold–overnight freezes are rare, and snow that sticks is even rarer–and it never gets all that hot.

Holy Spirit Church, the Newman Center in Berkeley (adjacent to and due north of Oakland) is all concrete except a rather thin slice of clear glass right under the roof that allows you to see some trees and weather.

People called it “the holy bunker”, but I got so I liked it. I wouldn’t want that to be the norm for every church, but it fit the area and somehow it fit being the church for a university parish. Besides, austere churches have their own special spirituality. It didn’t feel cold to me, probably because after a few months in California, I almost never *got *cold. It was more like going out alone into the desert.

My dad could have gone to that church for a hundred years, though, and he still would have hated it. He doesn’t associate concrete with church, never will, and that’s that. When you have an emotional reaction to a church that is that strong, it’s hard to argue with it!
 
Lisa N:
harveyc I bet you would find the same reaction to modern art. It must be an acquired taste. I don’t like modern art or modern buildings. I detest ‘techno’ furniture. Let’s just say I am more likely to buy furniture at Ethan Allen than Dania. It’s just a matter of what appeals to people and is probably based on their experience and upbringing. Honestly it’s not looking for something to complain about. I don’t like cold steel and glass. Maybe it’s a chick thing 😉

Lisa N
Click to expand...
I do not care for modern art at all either! BLB may have something, though. 😉 It might partially be a “chick thing” as you say. I’m a fairly conservative guy working in banking and a part-time farmer, but tools, steel, machinery, are pretty neat IMO. When we had an audience with Pope John Paul II in the auditorium in 2001 I do recall a pretty modern looking huge bronze tree structure right behind the Holy Father that my wife and I still don’t care for when we look at our vacation photos. The huge statue (maybe 30’) of Mary at Our Lady of Peace in Santa Clara, CA was pretty neat looking when we saw it last week to see the movie Bernadette and listen to Fr. Fessio speak. And sure enough, it was made out of stainless steel. But it wasn’t any more modern looking than the Our Lady of Fatima statue we saw in the Vatican Gardens on our tour of the grounds there during the same 2001 visit.

If you happen to come to visit northern California in 2008, drop me a line and our family will meet you at the new cathedral to see what you think! 😉
 
Heck no! Looks like a building you’d find on star wars or some sci-fi movie. People not being taught to carry their cross, sacrifice things. Consequence; no stations of the cross, no crucifix. Lack of understanding of tradition. Consequence; no statues of blessed virgin mary and saints, no tabernacle, no nothing. This cathedral is an example of the protestant reformation of the catholic church in America. And it is alive and well. Pray for these people.
 
Question:

I thought the faithful was not supposed to be seated behind the celebrating Priest?
 
40.png
harveyc:
It was not my intent to defend the design. However, I am troubled at the harsh comments against it. It seems these days people are much more comfortable with criticizing things than the compliment. I am not one to support inclusive efforts, etc., so please don’t accuse me of that. I am still puzzled while people seem to have a preference to complain or criticize.
Click to expand...
I think it is ugly. We all have our opinions as to what is ugly and not, and are free to discuss such.
 
I like it! I think the idea of walking outside it at night and seeing a warm glow would encourage people to come in and see what it’s all about. Don’t get me wrong, I love the old gothic style cathedrals, but I like this as well.
 
The inside of this place is horrific…it looks like the cross section of a bone with osteoporosis…honestly…When you look at a cross section of a bone from a person with osteoporosis, it is full of little chambers and voids which causes weaknesses, etc…that is what the inside of this thing reminds me of.

I thought there were certain requirements that must be followed in order for a structure to be considered a Cathedral or a Basillica…I guess not.
40.png
BLB_Oregon:
http://www.traditio.com/comment/com0505y.jpg

How high are those ceilings?
I think you’d either be swept away by it or have nightmares.
Whatever reaction it gets in real life, I don’t think it will be a yawn.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top