fernz Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 I did notice that they will not be installing any windows near the ground... I think this is more to deter vandals than to provide clerestory lighting.That is not accurate. There are several strip windows going all the way to the ground, separating all the curved chapels from the main walls. Clerestory lighting was in fact a design element. Some lower windows were removed beacause there were concerns they would be too distrcting from the interior.I don't like the dome on it. You can tell they designed it using CAD because its too perfect. Looks good in line drawings but from the street perspective its to shallow. Reminds me of Moe's hair cut from the 3 stooges.If you visit the architect's office you will see several models that were used for the design, some of them for the dome only. It is my understanding that it was the Bishop's desire to have a shallow dome, because of a particular church that he likes in Italy that has that type of dome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Fernz, welcome to the system and excellent post. Do you have a hand in any part of this project? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted November 5, 2006 Share Posted November 5, 2006 Fernz, welcome to the system and excellent post. Do you have a hand in any part of this project?Thanks ricco67. I am not involved in the project, but I do know some people who used to be and they kept me informed of the progress. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houstonian in Iraq Posted November 6, 2006 Share Posted November 6, 2006 Here are some pics for those out of town(like me) or those that never make it downtown(taken early Oct) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted November 11, 2006 Share Posted November 11, 2006 For the latest pictures, visit the Archdiocese website:http://www.archgh.org/cocathedral/photos-other.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texas911 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 The dome still looks goofy. Especially with the street level perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 to me it looks very cold and institutional - very 2000's Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 to me it looks very cold and institutional - very 2000's Agreed. I find it to be a big dissapointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 to me it looks very cold and institutional - very 2000's I agree, it looks very 2000's. Is that a bad thing for a church being built in .... 2006? I still can't understand Houston's obsession (and most of the US for that matter) of wanting churches to be built in some sort of neo-whatever style. If anything, this Cathedral is not modern enough! What would the gothic cathedrals be like if they had been built to mimic previous styles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 18, 2006 Share Posted November 18, 2006 You may or may not care for it but it is definatly of the 21st century: Jose Rafael Moneo Cathedral of Our Lady of the Angels Los Angeles, California http://www.arcspace.com/architects/moneo/cathedral_feat/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 19, 2006 Share Posted November 19, 2006 21st Century churches are a joke! I like my churches 14th century. At any rate, I took these this afternoon. It's so Government I can't stand it: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
texas911 Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Looks like it would survive a cat 5 hurricane though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 True. Looks like it's built from the same material as Toyota Center. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Could be worse. Check out the new (2002) cathedral in Los Angeles: America's first cathedral (Baltimore) renovated in 2006: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 Could be worse. Check out the new (2002) cathedral in Los Angeles: America's first cathedral (Baltimore) renovated in 2006: the new cathedral is all pomp and no circumstance. interesting? yes. needed? probably not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fernz Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 (edited) The L.A. Cathedral is a great example of modern religious architecture. I know of course a lot of people prefer the old-style and decry the death of classic church design, but that is not new and thankfully has never stopped architects from trying different things:The term Gothic was first used by art critics, during the Renaissance, who were referring negatively to the style of art and architecture that did not conform to the Classicism of Greece and Rome. The critics came up with the term because they thought the Goths had invented the style. They were incorrect in their thinking that it was the Goths who, in their opinion, were responsible for the destruction of the good and true Classical style. The people of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries recognized the originality of the style and referred to it as "opus modernum" (modern work)."Why "Gothic?" Because that was the term applied to a style of architecture (dominant from the C12 through the C15) that was itself regarded as crude and primitive in contrast to the beauty, symmetry, and formality of classical (ancient Greek) architecture" Edited November 20, 2006 by fernz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MexAmerican_Moose Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 look on the bright side, at least it replaced a parking lot Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted November 21, 2006 Share Posted November 21, 2006 look on the bright side, at least it replaced a parking lotNo kidding! Besides, just wait until they start building that new downtown jiffy lube- er... fire station. Then we'll really have something to delicate flower about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilioScotia Posted November 24, 2006 Share Posted November 24, 2006 (edited) The word "cathedral".I realize the term has become a generic word for a very large church, but there's a more precise meaning. "Cathedral" comes from the Latin word "cathedra", which was the official chair or throne of a bishop or Archibishop. In general use, "cathedral" is the official home church of the diocese, where the Bishop or Archbishop sits and presides, and the word refers to its function, not to its appearance. Unless it's the official church home of the diocese, the church really should not be called a cathedral. In every diocese, there is just one cathedral, most of the time. Galveston-Houston is one of the exceptions, with two co-cathedrals, one in each city, and a new cathedral now under construction for the Houston end of the arch-diocese.The Episcopal Diocese of Texas has one cathedral, Christ Church in downtown Houston. Edited November 25, 2006 by FilioScotia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tony Posted November 26, 2006 Share Posted November 26, 2006 How would you define 'basilica'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilioScotia Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) How would you define 'basilica'?The word "basilica" is used to describe the style of architecture that's been used in building churches since ancient times. It refers to form, instead of function. Whereas, the term "cathedral" refers to function instead of form. Here's what Dictionary dot com says about "basilica." "an early Christian or medieval church of the type built esp. in Italy, characterized by a plan including a nave, two or four side aisles, a semicircular apse, a narthex, and often other features, as a short transept, a number of small semicircular apses terminating the aisles, or an atrium. The interior is characterized by strong horizontality, with little or no attempt at rhythmic accents. All spaces are usually covered with timber roofs or ceilings except for the apse or apses, which are vaulted." Edited November 28, 2006 by FilioScotia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 How would you define 'basilica'?Architecturaly it contained a central nave sometimes flanked by at least one aspe-but usually a pair-and side aisles lined with columns.In practice it was a public building that contained markets, courts and various other public functions.Ultimatly the term and architectural concept was appropriated by certain christian sects.One of the earliest was the basilique de Pomp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) Architecturaly it contained a central nave sometimes flanked by at least one aspe-but usually a pair-and side aisles lined with columns.In practice it was a public building that contained markets, courts and various other public functions.Ultimatly the term and architectural concept was appropriated by certain christian sects.One of the earliest was the basilique de Pomp Edited November 28, 2006 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) I'm not getting how their existence in 2nd century BC Pompei dispels the "myth" that basilicas were of a religious origin.Well, first off, "BC" should dispel it had anything to do with Christianity and second, any architectural historian will tell you basilicas were created as secular spaces devoted to public markets, courts, assemblies, etc. They were not originated to house religious events.Even earlier basilicas in Rome lend credence to the fact they originated as purely secular places. Edited November 28, 2006 by nmainguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Well, first off, "BC" should dispel it had anything to do with Christianity and second, any architectural historian will tell you basilicas were created as secular spaces devoted to public markets, courts, assemblies, etc. They were not originated to house religious events.Well, first off, you didn't say "Christianity", you said "religion" and any historian will tell you religion existed before Christianity.Second, as I said in my post, I was not and am not questioning your conclusion that basilicas were originally created as secular spaces. I agree. No need to repeat it again. All I said (and in fact said quite explicitly) was that their mere existence in the second century BC does not prove that they were secular structures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Well, first off, you didn't say "Christianity", you said "religion" and any historian will tell you religion existed before Christianity.Second, as I said in my post, I was not and am not questioning your conclusion that basilicas were originally created as secular spaces. I agree. No need to repeat it again. All I said (and in fact said quite explicitly) was that their mere existence in the second century BC does not prove that they were secular structures.My original intent was to correct filio's incorrect definition-not to debate religion or the appropriation of an architectural style by religion. I think I succeeded in that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) My original intent was to correct filio's incorrect definition-not to debate religion or the appropriation of an architectural style by religion. I think I succeeded in that.And my original intent was to correct the inaccurate impression you left. I think I succeeded in that. ;-)(and by the way, Filio's definition was not incorrect; perhaps incomplete, but not incorrect.) Edited November 28, 2006 by Houston19514 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 Wednesday, August 09, 2006 BEAUMONT (AP) - Pope Benedict the Sixteenth has designated Beaumont's Saint Anthony Cathedral as the fourth basilica in Texas.Church official says basilica status recognizes the cathedral's artistic and historical significance.The honorary title makes Saint Anthony one of about 60 basilicas in the United States. It comes in Saint Anthony's centennial year.Other Texas churches that have been named basilicas are St. Mary Cathedral-Basilica in Galveston, Basilica of the National Shrine of the Little Flower in San Antonio, and Basilica of Our Lady of San Juan Del Valle-National Shrine in San Juan.The Catholic Diocese of Beaumont requested in September 2005 that the Vatican consider granting the designation.(Copyright 2006 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.) linkFrom Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 From the Chron today: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FilioScotia Posted November 28, 2006 Share Posted November 28, 2006 (edited) (and by the way, Filio's definition was not incorrect; perhaps incomplete, but not incorrect.)Thanks for the support, but Houston19514 isn't wrong in this. His information is more complete than mine. I was only trying to define the word "basilica" within its commonly understood Christian context, but the word predates Christianity in Roman culture by many centuries. Before the Christian era, a basilica was a secular structure of the type Houston pointed out. They were built as public markets, courts, assemblies, etc, and not necessarily for religious events. Not unlike the George R. Brown Convention Center, or Reliant Center. In the 4th century AD however, as Christianity became the official religion of Rome, Christians took over many public buildings and turned them to their own uses. They especially liked the large basilicas because they were perfect for large religious gatherings, so over many centuries, basilicas came to be identified with the Christian church. Basilicas aren't the only vestige of ancient Rome that's still around today. Think about local governmental divisions across the Roman Republic and later the Empire. The country was divided into provinces, the equivalent of modern states, and provinces were divided into Dioceses, the equivalent of modern counties. When the western empire collapsed in the fifth century, and the Church of Rome grew to replace the government that had disappeared, the church appointed Bishops to rule the local dioceses, and the term "diocese" survives today as the word for an area governed by a Bishop. Edited November 28, 2006 by FilioScotia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.