I was not prepared to love this building as much as I do. The sweep of the nave is remarkable. The image of Mary over the front door is stunning. The tapestries stand on their own.
I would be cautious about such claims as often they are repeated by people who often don't understand what they are saying. All buildings are built directly on the ground and the part that touches the ground is called the foundation. So, there is a logical impossibility to the statement. HOW it was built on the ground is what matters. And I cannot say if there was a foundational flaw but I would be interested is see what you read. Thanks.
@@architecturecodex9818 "In engineering, a foundation is the element of a structure which connects it to the ground, transferring loads from the structure to the ground." Perhaps this was the meaning behind the comment? From the article: "...the old Cathedral lacked a foundation, reinforced walls and essential seismic safeguards."
@@jnuval One of my beefs about architecture journalism is the lack of architects writing articles. So you are interpreting the language correctly, but again the author is not clear. Obviously the building is on the ground and therefore must have a foundation. Now, it may not have been the kind of foundation we would design today to fight seismic forces - avoiding rigid setting and in some cases loading the building on polymers that can absorb some of the shock. So perhaps they should have written "...the old Cathedral lacked a seismic resistant foundation, reinforced walls and..." It reminds me the story told when Abraham Lincoln, who was 6'-4" tall was asked "How long should a man's legs be?" And he said, "Long enough to reach the ground." Thanks for your comments.
I agree. I also like the way they "replace" stained glass as the primary decoration of the nave - adding human form and color in a very traditional manner.
@@architecturecodex9818 And also that they include saints, those who would probably become saints, and the rest of us who strive for holiness and saintliness in our lives.
Traditional? You have to be joking. It is such a confusing building. Finding the tabernacle was a task and a half… this is not beautiful… this is hideous.
JC, not joking. The overall linear layout of the nave and transept is very traditional albeit as I noted in a form that does not first appear so. As for the location of the tabernacle, you have to realize that until the 17th and 18th century, tabernacles were often not even in the church proper, but often in the sacristy. So, in church time, the tabernacle's placement at the center altar was recent. It made more sense when everyone faced the altar, ad orientem. But I find a celebrant who stands in front of the tabernacle, with his back to the Blessed Sacrament a disrespectful arrangement. I could point out that placing the Tabernacle on a side altar is the preferred method in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, but that does not help the feelings of some Catholics. I feel as you though, and when I design Catholic Churches, I make sure the tabernacle is easily visible from the nave.
@@architecturecodex9818 - thank you for your response. I am not sure in what sense you are using the word ‘traditional’ but this building is nowhere near what traditional is in the sense of clear lines and a not-so-confusing orientation. Visually, it is not pleasing. Acoustically, surprisingly its reverb is not so intense as I thought it would be. It is quite balanced. This building certainly fits the specifications of a liberal design and is very un-Catholic in comparison to truly traditional churches. If we are to talk of traditional churches with tabernacles other than on the high altar, yes. Most side altars had a tabernacle. This was to accomodate frequent use of the high altar (especially if the Bishop was visiting or it was his cathedral) and to allow the faithful closer veneration without being disturbed by various activities in the sanctuary. A tabernacle in the sacristy was to prevent sacrilege (and if a church had no other tabernacle) when no one was present for a lengthy period or during Easter Triduum when the Blessed Sacrament was in repose. What bothered me was the altar piece - from some other distinguished parish - placed at the back of the Cathedral led my eyes to believe I was heading up and towards the altar. There was a lamp above it giving the illusion. Then I finally asked where is the tabernacle? I had completely walked past it. A cathedral or a parish church should lend itself toward the altar and give very clear lines of where the important parts are otherwise a church building is not serving its purpose by directing the Faithful to Our Lord. Thank you again for your response and a very happy and holy Christmas to you and yours.
@@CJCappella Merry Christmas to you to. Perhaps in a person to person conversation we would see that we agree on more things. I was trying to make the point that in spite of the modernity of the form, there are a lot of traditional elements regarding the layout, the use of light and art, the outer walls of a complex and not just a building, etc. As for tabernacle locations... I am constantly frustrated by pastors, with strong preferences and no understanding of architecture, GIRM or liturgical design, moving things around and disrupting the architecture. So perhaps we went at different times and had different experiences because things move in churches constantly. God bless.
I was not prepared to love this building as much as I do. The sweep of the nave is remarkable. The image of Mary over the front door is stunning. The tapestries stand on their own.
I should get back there and see it again.
Try to get a copy of the DVD "Divining the Human" about Nava's inspiration and execution of the making of the tapestries. Just so beautiful.
I have seen a number of documentaries on his work for the cathedral... very inspirational.
It was mentioned in an interview that the previous cathedral, St. Vibiana, was built without a foundation and directly on the ground.
I would be cautious about such claims as often they are repeated by people who often don't understand what they are saying. All buildings are built directly on the ground and the part that touches the ground is called the foundation. So, there is a logical impossibility to the statement. HOW it was built on the ground is what matters. And I cannot say if there was a foundational flaw but I would be interested is see what you read. Thanks.
@@architecturecodex9818 "In engineering, a foundation is the element of a structure which connects it to the ground, transferring loads from the structure to the ground." Perhaps this was the meaning behind the comment?
From the article: "...the old Cathedral lacked a foundation, reinforced walls and essential seismic safeguards."
@@jnuval One of my beefs about architecture journalism is the lack of architects writing articles. So you are interpreting the language correctly, but again the author is not clear. Obviously the building is on the ground and therefore must have a foundation. Now, it may not have been the kind of foundation we would design today to fight seismic forces - avoiding rigid setting and in some cases loading the building on polymers that can absorb some of the shock. So perhaps they should have written "...the old Cathedral lacked a seismic resistant foundation, reinforced walls and..." It reminds me the story told when Abraham Lincoln, who was 6'-4" tall was asked "How long should a man's legs be?" And he said, "Long enough to reach the ground." Thanks for your comments.
I love the tapestries and the symbolism they represent.
I agree. I also like the way they "replace" stained glass as the primary decoration of the nave - adding human form and color in a very traditional manner.
@@architecturecodex9818 And also that they include saints, those who would probably become saints, and the rest of us who strive for holiness and saintliness in our lives.
@@architecturecodex9818 @eddie mag They were also added to help with the acoustics in the building.
🏏👨🏻🎓🕯️⭐️🙏🏻🙏🏻🤩👩🏻❤️👨🏻👩🏻❤️👨🏻
😃🤔🙂
Traditional? You have to be joking. It is such a confusing building. Finding the tabernacle was a task and a half… this is not beautiful… this is hideous.
JC, not joking. The overall linear layout of the nave and transept is very traditional albeit as I noted in a form that does not first appear so. As for the location of the tabernacle, you have to realize that until the 17th and 18th century, tabernacles were often not even in the church proper, but often in the sacristy. So, in church time, the tabernacle's placement at the center altar was recent. It made more sense when everyone faced the altar, ad orientem. But I find a celebrant who stands in front of the tabernacle, with his back to the Blessed Sacrament a disrespectful arrangement. I could point out that placing the Tabernacle on a side altar is the preferred method in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, but that does not help the feelings of some Catholics. I feel as you though, and when I design Catholic Churches, I make sure the tabernacle is easily visible from the nave.
@@architecturecodex9818 - thank you for your response. I am not sure in what sense you are using the word ‘traditional’ but this building is nowhere near what traditional is in the sense of clear lines and a not-so-confusing orientation. Visually, it is not pleasing. Acoustically, surprisingly its reverb is not so intense as I thought it would be. It is quite balanced. This building certainly fits the specifications of a liberal design and is very un-Catholic in comparison to truly traditional churches.
If we are to talk of traditional churches with tabernacles other than on the high altar, yes. Most side altars had a tabernacle. This was to accomodate frequent use of the high altar (especially if the Bishop was visiting or it was his cathedral) and to allow the faithful closer veneration without being disturbed by various activities in the sanctuary. A tabernacle in the sacristy was to prevent sacrilege (and if a church had no other tabernacle) when no one was present for a lengthy period or during Easter Triduum when the Blessed Sacrament was in repose.
What bothered me was the altar piece - from some other distinguished parish - placed at the back of the Cathedral led my eyes to believe I was heading up and towards the altar. There was a lamp above it giving the illusion. Then I finally asked where is the tabernacle? I had completely walked past it. A cathedral or a parish church should lend itself toward the altar and give very clear lines of where the important parts are otherwise a church building is not serving its purpose by directing the Faithful to Our Lord. Thank you again for your response and a very happy and holy Christmas to you and yours.
@@CJCappella Merry Christmas to you to. Perhaps in a person to person conversation we would see that we agree on more things. I was trying to make the point that in spite of the modernity of the form, there are a lot of traditional elements regarding the layout, the use of light and art, the outer walls of a complex and not just a building, etc. As for tabernacle locations... I am constantly frustrated by pastors, with strong preferences and no understanding of architecture, GIRM or liturgical design, moving things around and disrupting the architecture. So perhaps we went at different times and had different experiences because things move in churches constantly. God bless.
@@architecturecodex9818 - you are so right! Thank you again.