Erik's Rant
 

June 4, 2004

The Oakland Cathedral

I have to admit that I have been laboring under false information. When writing about the new Oakland Cathedral, I thought that the whale skeleton thing was still going on. I was wrong. That was the design by the hip and trendy Spanish architect. The current one appears to be more like the reactor core of some new-fangled power plant. It is hard to believe, but it seems to be even uglier than the original proposal.

Now, good luck finding an image. The Oakland Diocese has only written stuff under the Cathedral Project section. I don't blame them for not hyping it.

Mark Sullivan asked me what I thought of a proposed alternative from a Notre Dame architecture student. I finally got around to looking at it.

It is fine, but not what we need. We need a striking cathedral that reflects California, not some imitation revivalist thing. Certainly architects must take the best from the past, but Catholics do not need to stop at the Baroque (this coming from a harpsichordist!).

If I were designing a new cathedral, I would look towards the Arts and Crafts movement, which has profoundly influenced our local architecture. It is a striking style, encourages good ornament (indeed requires it), has roots in the Gothic without simply aping the style, has proven to be quite suited for our climate and native materials, and would provide a signature church that would reflect our own time and place (as the approach can even bring in modernist styles and make them work).

I would design using California serpentine and granite, redwood, oak, bay laurel, stained glass, glazed ceramic, brick, and ferrocement. It would be full of wooden sculpture, bas relief, glazed ceramic stations of the cross, candles, and icons. It would be thoroughly Catholic, while taking the best of art and architecture across the spectrum. It would have a choir loft with a magnificent pipe organ. The ornament would reflect California: poppies and eucalyptus would lend their forms to magnificent cast-iron window frames as well as screens for side chapels. The tabernacle would be front and center, made of high quality California woods, hammered copper, jade and gold. There would be a high altar for the regular celebration of ad orientum Latin masses (of either missal).

Vestments, processional crucifixes, thurifers, etc. would be designed to harmonize with the elements of the architecture.

As for light, there would be just enough, not the obnoxious dazzle of white that modern churches seem to favor, but ample, warm light, coming through stained glass, as well as from candles and mica lamps. The floors would all be stone and mosaic. The social hall would be full of rich tapestries and leaded windows.

However, I am not an architect and so nobody asked me to design our cathedral. Oh well.

Posted by erik at June 4, 2004 12:07 AM | TrackBack
Comments

Oh well. Guess I'll have to leave out the lead. It's what brought down the Roman Empire, dontcha know. ;-)

Posted by: Meredith at June 6, 2004 4:04 PM

Stephen is right. Glass is hard on the digestion, and there is that lead issue.

Posted by: Erik Keilholtz at June 5, 2004 11:59 PM

Meredith - skip the windows!

Posted by: stephen at June 5, 2004 5:17 PM

Dios mio... it sounds like Paradise!

...California serpentine and granite, redwood, oak, bay laurel, stained glass, glazed ceramic... wooden sculpture, bas relief, glazed ceramic stations of the cross, candles, and icons... California woods, hammered copper, jade and gold.... ample, warm light, coming through stained glass, as well as from candles and mica lamps... stone and mosaic... rich tapestries and leaded windows...

Good enough to eat.

Posted by: Meredith at June 5, 2004 1:23 PM

YOu could build my church any time!

Posted by: alicia at June 4, 2004 7:01 PM

But I wish you WERE on the design committee! It sounds like a beautiful vision.....

Posted by: MamaT at June 4, 2004 6:06 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?