Posted on 06/03/2007 6:16:10 AM PDT by Alex Murphy
It happens throughout the day: Traffic slows near the corner of Grand Avenue and Harrison Street in Oakland as motorists glimpse Christ the Light Cathedral climbing skyward. Cell phones and cameras emerge from car windows to snap photos.
For now, its warm blond bones lay bare. Soon, glass panels will cloak the massive ark-shaped sanctuary. It will anchor a landscaped complex encompassing an open plaza, smaller chapels, offices, a rectory and residence for Bishop Allen Vigneron, gathering places, gardens and a conference center.
It is the newest cathedral in the nation, and the most expensive in American history.
The $190 million, 224,000-square-foot complex replaces St. Francis de Sales, fatally damaged by the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake.
When it opens in fall 2008, the cathedral will bring together two parishes, St. Francis and St. Mary's, also in downtown Oakland.
The sanctuary's pivotal feature is its use of light, which architect Craig Hartman said he introduced in "the most poetic ways" possible.
"It makes the presence of God manifest," he said. "The promise is of a glowing, luminous space -- very spiritual in the way (of) a redwood forest, with light coming through the trees, diffuse and luminous. As the sun moves across the building, (the light) will constantly change."
It's not like anything Hartman has ever built, or has ever seen, and that's no accident.
The plan won Hartman the San Francisco American Institute of Architects Design Award. Hartman has been jetting between projects here and in Beijing, where he designed the U.S. Embassy building on one end of town and the 22-building Beijing Finance Street on the other.
Critics say the money could have been better spent elsewhere, but proponents say the sight of the soaring sanctuary has stirred beatitude throughout the diocese -- and helped spawn a construction renaissance along Lake Merritt.
Within a short span, developers plan to build a restaurant, a Whole Foods Market, and hundreds of business and residential units nearby.
"What Lake people have been talking about for years is finally happening," said Mike Brown, cathedral communications director.
"It's an act of hope and commitment," said Arthur Holder, dean of the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. "It's a kind of positive statement about the future of the church, especially in the downtown area."
The structure is hewn from 26 110-foot curved Douglas fir ribs and 768 horizontal struts, spaced by 26 101-foot high laminated mullions. The curved supports are cemented at the root and held in place at the top by a steel ring; outward pressure exerts a third type of support.
The entire structure rests on a foundation of base isolators intended to protect the cathedral in an earthquake by giving it some flexibility of movement.
"It's really quite interesting and exciting," said Richard Kieckhefer, a professor at Northwestern University who has studied church architecture. "I am particularly interested in the treatment of light."
Only eight curved pieces remained to be set in place Wednesday. Workers prepared to pour the last bit of concrete into a mold for the main entryway. Two sets of massive double doors will open out onto Lake Merritt. By July, crews will begin cloaking the frame in hundreds of glass panels.
Each day, engineers who work in nearby buildings wander over to check the building's progress.
"They're out here every day like locusts," chuckled Brown about the curious engineers.
It may not be the most adventurous cathedral architecture in the world. That honor may belong to the Catedral de Maringa in Brazil, whose conical tower and surrounding geometric protrusions were inspired by Russian sputnik satellites.
And it certainly isn't taking the longest time to build: Construction on France's Notre Dame broke ground in 1163 and wrapped up 182 years later in 1345.
Nor is it the first cathedral to rise from the wreckage of an earthquake: A magnitude 9.5 temblor battered Chile's Valdivia Cathedral in 1960. The structure has been rebuilt 15 times since the 16th century because of damage from quakes and fires.
But Christ the Light is the priciest, and it's the cost that has ignited discord.
Estimates skyrocketed from $131 million in 2003 to $190 million in 2007.
The costs rose partly because of inflation, and partly because some figures could not be pinned down accurately before construction began, Brown said.
Parents in the San Ramon Valley had long hoped the diocese would make building a new parochial high school a priority over the cathedral.
"It might be more prudent and productive to build fewer grand cathedrals and more Catholic high schools," parishioner Bruce Bergondy of Hayward said. There are too few Catholic high schools in the suburbs, yet that's where most Catholics live, he said.
But proponents point out that the cathedral was financed through donations solicited specifically for the project.
None of the financing has come from the $350 million the Oakland Diocese spends annually on social services, schools or church administration, according to the church's finance committee.
Arguments over construction costs also wracked the Los Angeles Diocese when it spent $180 million to replace its quake-damaged Cathedral of Saint Vibiana. Critics dubbed its replacement the "Taj Mahony," believing it to represent the oversized dreams of Cardinal Roger Mahony.
Now, motor coaches line up outside the boxy, auburn Our Lady of the Angels to see the cathedral where actor Gregory Peck's remains are interred.
In Los Angeles, members of the Catholic Workers movement protested the investment in bricks and mortar when services for the poor were so desperately needed.
The director of Catholic Workers of Oakland, on the other hand, was persuaded by Pulitzer Prize winning architectural critic Allen Tempko to support the cathedral, despite its cost.
The pair were among 143 people involved in early planning meetings.
"I had my opportunity to voice my hesitation back in the pre-planning process," said Margaret Roncolli. "Allen Tempko kind of changed my mind on the thing. Even (Catholic Workers founder) Dorothy Day said even the poor need beautiful places to worship."
In 1821, the Baltimore Cathedral became the first major religious building constructed in America after the adoption of the Constitution. Its first major renovation was just completed.
In the past decade, dioceses in Seattle, San Jose, Rochester, N.Y.; Kalamazoo, Mich.; and other cities have undertaken extensive cathedral renovations.
But the building of a new cathedral is rare -- so rare that two art historians teamed up to teach a class in cathedral architecture at the Graduate Theological Union focusing on Christ the Light.
"I think it's wonderful," said Mia Mochizuki, one of the teachers. "The design combines the ethereal and the grounded."
Religious competition? They have to compete with the new eye attracting Mosques that are being built around the US?
I have nothing against spending hundreds of millions of dollars on cathedrals. I just think they should be beautiful. This one will be interesting. I’m not so sure it will be beautiful. The design is too odd. The interior tries too hard to be majestic. It will probably come across simply as overwhelming and empty. And there’s going to be way too much use of cold, sterile-looking gray concrete. Apparently there will be almost no Christian art inside either.
http://www.christthelightcathedral.org/cathedral_tour_bv.htm
2Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.
You wrote:
“This is the problem...people are too concerned with the building that the church attends and not with the state that their heart is in.”
How do you know that is the case here? It seems to me that the thread is about the cathedral. Many more threads appear in this forum about the state of souls than about architecture.
Matthew 7:16 Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
It seems to me that the building in which one worships is made more important that the worship itself. These buildings seem to be their 'fruits' and not the salvation of their flock.
Many more threads appear in this forum about the state of souls than about architecture.
IMHO, there can never be too many threads about the state of one's soul.
In Christ, Wiley
Vladimir,
I looked at the virtual tour and would, on the surface, tend to agree that it may be stretching a bit much...but if they are able to pull it off, it could potentially be one of the great Cathedrals (the question is, are they going to be able to pull it off?). I like the use of the vertical and the architect’s ideal of using light as one of the design elements. As to the concrete and steel, as well as the lack of Christian art, you should consider the National Shrine in DC...it continues to be a work in progress. As are most great churches.
Wiley,
With due respect, you are dead wrong about the majesty in the worship space. A properly designed worship space (i.e., the church building) serves two main purposes: it draws people in and draws their minds toward God as they worship. Secondly, through the artwork in that worship space (the stained glass, the icons, the statuary, even the altar), parents are given a tremendous opportunity to educate their children and learned people are provided an equally powerful opportunity to educate the ignorant and illiterate.
I know of no church building that is designed to be ugly (even the buildings from the 60s-70s “Church Ugly” period were intended to be beautiful in the eyes of the designers). That goes not only for the Catholics and the Orthodox, but for the vast majority of Protestants, as well. Most buildings, including many fundamentalist church buildings that I’ve been in, have tried to have a vertical structure, they are designed so that the congregants’ attention is drawn toward the front, and they attempt to make use of the best craftsmanship in construction that they possibly can. Yes, some do not have steeples (for theological reasons), some do not utilize organs, some make use of flowers more than others, and so on. But I know of very few, if any, that are intentionally designed to be ugly.
If you think about it, it is the scriptural way, too, btw. Consider the beauty of the Temple. And then consider the beauty of the New Jerusalem. Why in the world would we be called to abandon that in these few moments that separate the two?
If you build it, He will come?
Why in the world would we be called to abandon that in these few moments that separate the two?
First, thank you for the spirit of your disagreement. (A refreshing change)
Secondly, I may have made my statement unclear. I'm certainly not saying that a place of worship shouldn't be filled with majesty to honor the Creator of the universe. I'm just afraid that in many cases that the creation (building) is put before the Creator (God). I just believe that the priority should first be the condition of the soul and second the condition of the building.
In Christ, Wiley
You wrote:
“It seems to me that the building in which one worships is made more important that the worship itself.”
The article is about the building of a new cathedral. There’s going to be, therefore, lots of talk about the cathedral.
“These buildings seem to be their ‘fruits’ and not the salvation of their flock.”
What? The article is about the cathedral. Are you really going to say that means they have no other fruits? Are you serious?
“IMHO, there can never be too many threads about the state of one’s soul.”
So there can’t be threads about cathedrals? I guess we can’t talk about the Bible either? After all, that isn’t about the state of one’s soul now is it?
Wecome to North Mexico City.
What? The article is about the cathedral. Are you really going to say that means they have no other fruits? Are you serious?
They may have other fruits, but this is the fruit they/you choose to talk about, not the One who is worshiped. Alex Murphy is good about "stirring the stuff" then watching the stink rise. He's done it this time too. You choose to talk about the treasures here on earth.
Matthew 6:19 Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal: Matthew 6:20 But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal:
I choose to lay up treasures in Heaven where the creator of your building is. Otherwise, I don't care to talk about your building anymore. If you choose to worship that, go ahead. I won't bother you anymore.
In Christ, Wiley
You wrote:
“OK, Fine Vladimir, If you want to talk about the building, go ahead. I’ll talk about Jesus. BTW, do you know him?”
Yes, I know and love Jesus Christ. I know Him well enough that I do not assume Christians do Him a disservice by publishing articles about new cathedrals. How about you?
“I’ll be glad to introduce you. We don’t even need a building.”
But we do need a building. We are men and men live in buildings. Jesus worshipped in the Temple. I don’t see why we can’t worship in buildings as well.
“They may have other fruits, but this is the fruit they/you choose to talk about, not the One who is worshiped.”
The article is about the cathedral. If you think it is morally wrong to write such an article should you best take that up with the article’s author?
“Alex Murphy is good about “stirring the stuff” then watching the stink rise. He’s done it this time too.”
You ARE THE ONE DOING IT. Alex just posted an article. You’re the one whining about the fact that anyone is talking about it. Why are you blaming Alex?
“You choose to talk about the treasures here on earth.”
So you NEVER discuss anything other than Christ? You never watch a baseball game or read a book and discuss it? You never play a game with your kids or work in the yard? Come on! Get real.
“I choose to lay up treasures in Heaven where the creator of your building is. Otherwise, I don’t care to talk about your building anymore. If you choose to worship that, go ahead. I won’t bother you anymore.”
I don’t worship the building. Listen, just because you have no rational argument for your view doesn’t mean you should now accuse me of worshipping a building. Again, I think you might know Christ as you claim.
No contest!
No one can be expected to compete with Saudi money --- the source of all mosque construction in the U.S.
Just sayin' ...
You ARE THE ONE DOING IT. Alex just posted an article. You’re the one whining about the fact that anyone is talking about it. Why are you blaming Alex?
I stand by my statement of Mr Murphy. This exchange proves it. Just check his postings and check mine.
I evidently was wrong when I first said that your disagreement was in good spirit. Your true spirit is beginning to show towards my Born-Again worship of my Lord and Savior. I was wrong. I thought you had a rational discussion. You can respond if you wish, (so you can have the last word) but I'm through with this. Again, you are welcome to join the Bible Study caucus if you like.
In Christ, Wiley
Please ping me the next time you talk about me.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal.
Very well Alex. I will take that into consideration. Would you also like to join the Sunday School Bible Study? I'll be glad to add you to the list.
BTW, you didn't really ping the Religion Moderator about such a trivial matter as this did you? I'll just ping him/her back just to make sure
With due respect,
Very well. It's nice to know that I can post pretty much anything I want and not have to take the credit/blame for its content.
Does this also mean that I can post "Mein Kampf" and not be labeled a Nazi and an anti-Semite? I was making reference to Alex Murphy's posts in the past. I have seen negative and inflammatory post toward Baptist and Protestants by Alex Murphy in the past. It was NOT a personal attack on him but on his post.
But don't worry, I will refrain from having ANY contact with Alex Murphy or his posts since he obviously can't defend them himself.
With respect to the RM,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.