Co-Cathedral Of The Sacred Heart At 1111 St. Joseph Parkway

[fernz]

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"

You are only talking about the architectural meaning of the word basilica. In the cannonical sense, the designation of a basilica has nothing to do with the form of the building, but with its artistic and historical significance, as well as the importance it plays in the liturgical and pastoral ministry of the diocese.

Basilica is a title assigned by formal concession or immemorial custom to certain more important churches, in virtue of which they enjoy privileges of an honorific character.

[marc]

Could be worse.

Check out the new (2002) cathedral in Los Angeles:

America's first cathedral (Baltimore) renovated in 2006:

Actually the hallmark to this is the inside. The perspective is stunning. True, you will feel like you are in more of an ancient Egyptian temple, but it is impressive none the less. ALSO- if visiting Our Lady, make sure you check out the mausoleum underground.

[marc]

Although i am glad it replaced a parking lot, and i am well aware of the more Neo-Romanesque look it has to it, i am a bit disapointed by this multi-million dollar cathedral. Look at Cali's Crystal Cathedral. I do believe our architects can come up with something modern and reverent in style while harking back to a more traditional basis. Too much bland stone for my taste. Honestly, even though i feel we need to crank up DT's building arena, i would have rather it taken say five more years in order to crank out something spectacular that would be featured in magazines worldwide. Like some others in the forum, i too favor Gothic and Neo-Gothic cathedrals. Having traveled to England, France, Germany and Vienna, i have seen an extensive number of Gothic architecture. (as many of you probably have too)

I guess i just wish the architect had a bit more imagination. I certainly don't mind stone.......especially when it comes to austere/ reverent invoking structures, i just wish there was a bit more...... busyness to it.

And that dome! In this day and age (check out Berlin) architects can design domes of glass and steel. If they wanted a more modern look without all the Medieval/Renaissance facade frills- why not keep the stark looking stone (with virtually no detail) and put in a glass dome- or a copper dome- or a golden dome?

Finally, before i climb down my ladder from the soap box- without the cross mounted at the top- i do agree- could be an extension of the Justice Building on the North end.

Disapointed.

Maybe the inside will redeem the entire project.

Edited November 29, 2006 by marc

[Subdude]

Although i am glad it replaced a parking lot, and i am well aware of the more Neo-Romanesque look it has to it, i am a bit disapointed by this multi-million dollar cathedral. Look at Cali's Crystal Cathedral. I do believe our architects can come up with something modern and reverent in style while harking back to a more traditional basis. Too much bland stone for my taste. Honestly, even though i feel we need to crank up DT's building arena, i would have rather it taken say five more years in order to crank out something spectacular that would be featured in magazines worldwide. Like some others in the forum, i too favor Gothic and Neo-Gothic cathedrals. Having traveled to England, France, Germany and Vienna, i have seen an extensive number of Gothic architecture. (as many of you probably have too)

I guess i just wish the architect had a bit more imagination. I certainly don't mind stone.......especially when it comes to austere/ reverent invoking structures, i just wish there was a bit more...... busyness to it.

And that dome! In this day and age (check out Berlin) architects can design domes of glass and steel. If they wanted a more modern look without all the Medieval/Renaissance facade frills- why not keep the stark looking stone (with virtually no detail) and put in a glass dome- or a copper dome- or a golden dome?

Finally, before i climb down my ladder from the soap box- without the cross mounted at the top- i do agree- could be an extension of the Justice Building on the North end.

Disapointed.

Maybe the inside will redeem the entire project.

Agree 110%. It is just so mediocre and cheap-looking. For once I would love to see Houston take the opportunity to create some memorable architecture instead of settling for the second-rate. The concrete slab walls on this could come right out of any strip center. This isn't saying churches should be different for the sake of being different. I'm not a huge fan of the LA cathedral by Moneo - it's been compared to a high school gym - but at least some thought was given to the design. The new one downtown looks like the sole consideration was being as bland and inoffensive as possible.

[FilioScotia]

Agree 110%. It is just so mediocre and cheap-looking. For once I would love to see Houston take the opportunity to create some memorable architecture instead of settling for the second-rate.

Gee I guess they should seek you out and apologize to you for offending your architectural sensibilities so egregiously, and apologize for not consulting you first. Maybe we should arrange for everybody in town planning to build something to submit their architectural designs to you for your approval.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You don't like the new cathedral design. Fine. That's your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Decision makers in the Archdiocese don't agree with you. They like the design and it's the one they're building. Where is it written that every structure must represent "important" or "memorable" architecture? And just who defines "important" and "memorable" anyway?

[nmainguy]

Agree 110%. It is just so mediocre and cheap-looking.

That's pretty much what you get when the bishop-who is no expert on design and architecture-tells the architect what kind of dome to put on top. The rest had nowhere to go but downhill.

Once again, Houston settles for the mundane.

[FilioScotia]

That's pretty much what you get when the bishop-who is no expert on design and architecture-tells the architect what kind of dome to put on top. The rest had nowhere to go but downhill.

Once again, Houston settles for the mundane.

Gosh! Imagine that! The person whose organization owns the structure, and the person most responsible for it, and who will be using it the most, having the unmitigated gall to tell the designer what he wants it to look like. What gall! Whoever heard of such a thing?

What is it with you people? I've seen a lot of elitist snobbery in my time but you guys take the prize. You're living proof of something I've believed about architects for a long time. They don't design buildings for the people who will use them. They design them to impress other architects.

Edited December 4, 2006 by FilioScotia

[nmainguy]

Gosh! Imagine that! The person whose organization owns the structure, and the person most responsible for it, and who will be using it the most, having the unmitigated gall to tell the designer what he wants it to look like. What gall! Whoever heard of such a thing?

What is it with you people? I've seen a lot of elitist snobbery in my time but you guys take the prize. You're living proof of something I've believed about architects for a long time. They don't design buildings for the people who will use them. They design them to impress other architects.

Some of us have higher standards. If it makes you more comfortable to call it "elitist snobbery", go for it.

[FilioScotia]

Some of us have higher standards. If it makes you more comfortable to call it "elitist snobbery", go for it.

Well, what would you call it? You are, after all, the one who is saying you have higher standards than the Archbishop. That's the same thing as saying his standards are not as worthy as yours, and it's loaded with the implication that you think those who don't share your enlightened views aren't as intelligent as you. I call that elitist snobbery.

Edited December 5, 2006 by FilioScotia

[marc]

Gee I guess they should seek you out and apologize to you for offending your architectural sensibilities so egregiously, and apologize for not consulting you first. Maybe we should arrange for everybody in town planning to build something to submit their architectural designs to you for your approval.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You don't like the new cathedral design. Fine. That's your opinion, and you know what they say about opinions. Decision makers in the Archdiocese don't agree with you. They like the design and it's the one they're building. Where is it written that every structure must represent "important" or "memorable" architecture? And just who defines "important" and "memorable" anyway?

geez- maybe i am unclear on something. Isn't this forum, for the most part, not only about achitectural information, but one's opinions as well? Perhaps, you should re-exmine the purpose of a forum. Just a thought.

I know i am defending subdude, but, i sort of think the point being made is that millions have gone into a project- and one would think, with all the publicity this COULD get- albeit HOUSTON could get, it sort of misses the mark in terms of lasting for posterity. I can probably bet a substantial amount of money on the fact that decades or generations from now- this particular structure will not be showcased as a trendsetting movement.

And yes, this is my opinion. And yes, i am a bit bitter that i was not consulted on the matter.

[nmainguy]

Well, what would you call it? You are, after all, the one who is saying you have higher standards than the Archibishop. That's the same thing as saying his standards are not as worthy as yours, and it's loaded with the implication that you think those who don't share your enlightened views aren't as intelligent as you. I call that elitist snobbery.

In my OPINION I do have higher standards than the bishop so in my OPINION his standards don't stack up to mine. Does that simple it up enough for you?

And yes, i am a bit bitter that i was not consulted on the matter.

ME TOO!!!!

[Houston19514]

Having heard about the "exciting and wonderous" design of the new LA cathedral, I, too, was a little disappointed the Houston archdiocese didn't go for something a little more excting. But now having seen these pictures of the LA Cathedral, I'm thankful they went with the updated traditional look. The Houston design looks far more enduring and beautiful. 20-50 years from now, Houston will be happy to have a beautiful cathedral with a time-honored and enduring design. LA will still have an ugly (in my opinion) cathedral that will be instantly identifiable as having been built in the first decade of the 21st century. (Think about all of the lovely and innovative 1970s architecture littering the landscape) ;-)

[marc]

Having heard about the "exciting and wonderous" design of the new LA cathedral, I, too, was a little disappointed the Houston archdiocese didn't go for something a little more excting. But now having seen these pictures of the LA Cathedral, I'm thankful they went with the updated traditional look. The Houston design looks far more enduring and beautiful. 20-50 years from now, Houston will be happy to have a beautiful cathedral with a time-honored and enduring design. LA will still have an ugly (in my opinion) cathedral that will be instantly identifiable as having been built in the first decade of the 21st century. (Think about all of the lovely and innovative 1970s architecture littering the landscape) ;-)

i agree in part- i am not too jazzed about the outside of the LA cathedral- as i indicated in an earlier post, i think the inside redeems a bit of the outside.

20-50 years from now............ OK, but isn't that one of the purposes of architecture? to define not only a culture, but also an era? sort of paradoxical, but can't a structure represent a time period- but also be "timeless". think of Gothic cathedrals- they represent a time period, but seem timeless. think of the Chrystler building- again, indicative of the age, but standing the test of time. i do understand that having too many structures which are faddish creates a hodge-podge without symmetry and cohesiveness- i just think this cathedral is so droll, that it will not stand out- but become lost.

m.

[Houston19514]

i agree in part- i am not too jazzed about the outside of the LA cathedral- as i indicated in an earlier post, i think the inside redeems a bit of the outside.

20-50 years from now............ OK, but isn't that one of the purposes of architecture? to define not only a culture, but also an era? sort of paradoxical, but can't a structure represent a time period- but also be "timeless". think of Gothic cathedrals- they represent a time period, but seem timeless. think of the Chrystler building- again, indicative of the age, but standing the test of time. m.

Perhaps the inside of the Houston cathedral will yet redeem it in your eyes as well...

I absolutely agree that a structure can both represent a time peeriod and seem timeless. But they can just easily fail at both.

I just think a number of posters in this thread (and elsewhere on this board, for that matter) are unduly harsh.

Now, the new fire station... THAT is an example of settling for the mundane, and is truly disappointing.

[fernz]

21st Century churches are a joke! I like my churches 14th century.

I can probably bet a substantial amount of money on the fact that decades or generations from now- this particular structure will not be showcased as a trendsetting movement.

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and, obviously, opinions will vary. In this forum alone, some people have complained that the building is too modern and some have compalined that it is not modern enough. Without adding to the varying opinions, I will quote a studio teacher from school, who very likely got this from Philip Johnson: "Great architecture comes from great architects working with great clients." I will not get into the debate of whether this design constitutes great architecture, that debate should happen five or ten years from now, but I will say that the client's wishes and opinions should not be ignored, nor should be those of the community. And to that, I will add this picture, which shows a couple of satisfied clients, and will remind every one that during the design phase the architects and the Diocese were very involved with the Houston catholic community and with the Downtown community.

I don't know how to post a picture, look at the second image at this site: http://www.zieglercooper.com/cathedral_building.htm

[marc]

Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and, obviously, opinions will vary. In this forum alone, some people have complained that the building is too modern and some have compalined that it is not modern enough. Without adding to the varying opinions, I will quote a studio teacher from school, who very likely got this from Philip Johnson: "Great architecture comes from great architects working with great clients." I will not get into the debate of whether this design constitutes great architecture, that debate should happen five or ten years from now, but I will say that the client's wishes and opinions should not be ignored, nor should be those of the community. And to that, I will add this picture, which shows a couple of satisfied clients, and will remind every one that during the design phase the architects and the Diocese were very involved with the Houston catholic community and with the Downtown community.

I don't know how to post a picture, look at the second image at this site: http://www.zieglercooper.com/cathedral_building.htm

You know- i guess i never really thought of that. i am glad the catholic community had some say in it. i am also glad it got the official nod from the Pope. time will tell, yes.

Here is my biggest concern. We all are aware of the plans the Houston 2025 Vision Team has for DT in the next few years. My concern is that this cathedral will get lost- not stand as a beacon.

m.

[fernz]

You know- i guess i never really thought of that. i am glad the catholic community had some say in it. i am also glad it got the official nod from the Pope. time will tell, yes.

Here is my biggest concern. We all are aware of the plans the Houston 2025 Vision Team has for DT in the next few years. My concern is that this cathedral will get lost- not stand as a beacon.

m.

I know what you mean, and I sure do hope that the vision becomes reality.

However the Diocese, and especially Bishop Fiorenza never wanted the building to stand out as a beacon (although I bet the architects would've loved that). His primary goal was to build a Cathedral of the apropriate size to hold the major events held there, and simbolically, he wanted the Cathedral to stand in the middle of the secular center of the city as a reminder of the importance of the religious life coexisting with the secular world. He specifically didn't want to Cathedral to be a grand, ostentatious building. A perfect example is that he specifically asked the architects not to do a tall dome, and most importantly, not to do a gold leafed dome. When Mr. Ziegler suggested to do a gold color painted dome (assuming the issue was cost), the Bishop said he didn't want to even give the illusion of a gold dome.

Yes, a Meier designed cathedral (or pick your favorite star architect) would've been a wonderful addition to Downtown, but that is not what the Bishop had in mind.

[marc]

^^^ Well, then that definately makes sense as to its toned-down low key look. Understated, yet sends a message. i like that. Maybe in its understatement, THAT becomes the "beacon".

Regardless, i will be visiting the cathedral, taking pix. inside and out no matter how much i may delicate flower about it. And i would like to attend a service or two to see all the nooks and crannies.

Does anyone happen to know the general layout of the inside? What i mean is, several cathedrals i have visited are built in a way that us modern day tourists can quietly and reverantly mill around inside without disturbing the congregants or service. Is this cathedral going to be built to allow that?

m.

[nmainguy]

Does anyone happen to know the general layout of the inside?

Floor Plan:

http://www.archgh.org/cocathedral/tour/floorplan.htm

[Guest danax]

You know- i guess i never really thought of that. i am glad the catholic community had some say in it. i am also glad it got the official nod from the Pope. time will tell, yes.

Just wondering if the Pope's blessing become a sort of holy rubber stamp though. Or, maybe they figured a more "modern" design would get a thumbs (or palm) down from the Pope.

It seems the footprint is very crucifix-like, with the sanctuary at the top. I wonder if that was by design? If so, then I think that was a nice touch.

[marc]

Just wondering if the Pope's blessing become a sort of holy rubber stamp though. Or, maybe they figured a more "modern" design would get a thumbs (or palm) down from the Pope.

It seems the footprint is very crucifix-like, with the sanctuary at the top. I wonder if that was by design? If so, then I think that was a nice touch.

Several cathedrals use this type of floorplan. Yes, it is intentional to represent a cross shape. Some very elaborate ones actually use a more Celtic cross type design as well.

Floor Plan:

http://www.archgh.org/cocathedral/tour/floorplan.htm

Thanks very much. Very helpful. Now i am even more intrigued.

[texas911]

I'm not digging the stained glass art work. Should be more traditional, like a rose window.

[fernz]

I'm not digging the stained glass art work. Should be more traditional, like a rose window.

The building has three rose windows. One each at the North, East and West facades.

[fernz]

...simbolically, he wanted the Cathedral to stand in the middle of the secular center of the city as a reminder of the importance of the religious life coexisting with the secular world.

Here is the exact quote:

"This glorious cathedral will stand as a powerful symbol of the transcendence of God, and as an affirmation of the existence and importance of faith in a secular and disbelieving world. The Cathedral will serve as a soul and conscience of the city, reminding us of the importance of the spiritual amind the bustle of the commercial and corporate worlds - of the fact that God exists and faith matters."

[Subdude]

I know what you mean, and I sure do hope that the vision becomes reality.

However the Diocese, and especially Bishop Fiorenza never wanted the building to stand out as a beacon (although I bet the architects would've loved that). His primary goal was to build a Cathedral of the apropriate size to hold the major events held there, and simbolically, he wanted the Cathedral to stand in the middle of the secular center of the city as a reminder of the importance of the religious life coexisting with the secular world. He specifically didn't want to Cathedral to be a grand, ostentatious building. A perfect example is that he specifically asked the architects not to do a tall dome, and most importantly, not to do a gold leafed dome. When Mr. Ziegler suggested to do a gold color painted dome (assuming the issue was cost), the Bishop said he didn't want to even give the illusion of a gold dome.

Yes, a Meier designed cathedral (or pick your favorite star architect) would've been a wonderful addition to Downtown, but that is not what the Bishop had in mind.

Well, if they wanted a building that would not stand out as a beacon, they certainly got their wish. So it is intentionally mundane. Go figure. The logic here, such as it were, totally escapes me. Weren't cathedrals traditionally viewed as holy places that were meant to stand apart (spirtually, not physically) from the secular city? Beautiful decoration can be viewed as honoring god and the religious ideal, not mere ostentation. I'm not just arguing here for decoration, but it seems that the whole conception behind the building is intellectually pinched. It's all about blending in, coexisting with the secular, and being as inoffensive as possible, but it has nothing to say about faith, spirituality, or what makes religion special to some people.

[ricco67]

Well, if they wanted a building that would not stand out as a beacon, they certainly got their wish. So it is intentionally mundane. Go figure. The logic here, such as it were, totally escapes me. Weren't cathedrals traditionally viewed as holy places that were meant to stand apart (spirtually, not physically) from the secular city? Beautiful decoration can be viewed as honoring god and the religious ideal, not mere ostentation. I'm not just arguing here for decoration, but it seems that the whole conception behind the building is intellectually pinched. It's all about blending in, coexisting with the secular, and being as inoffensive as possible, but it has nothing to say about faith, spirituality, or what makes religion special to some people.

The thing is that the church really isn't able to win either way. They could build a huge ornate structure, but people would blast it for the waste of money. They could build something modern and modest and they're blasted for being too conservative and not daring enough.

As it's been discussed hear over the years is that we don't appreciate the buildings immediately after they're built. It takes awhile before it's beauty and design is taken into account. The negative comments of Gothic Catherderals in the middle ages are a good example of this.

I never thought about the "low key" approach that the church decided with this catherdral, but I can understand perhaps they wanted something that would not stick out and clash with the skyline as it currently is or simply have it blend in. Again a subtle reminder: The religion is always in the background in what we do and where we go.

[Dallascaper]

I like your new cathedral, the design is clean and comforting - not jarring, like some others. As far as the architecture being too sedated to be featured in magazines, Sacred Heart is not built to glorify Houston, if you know what I mean.

When we built our church several years ago, the modern design was made simple in response to a papal edict. If I recall right, the pope wanted new churches to be free of ornamentation and ostentatious displays of wealth. When built, St Joseph's had no statues, stained-glass, or even a crucifix - it hardly looked Catholic. I suspect Sacred Heart is built with a similar mindset; keep it simple, even for a cathedral. Anyway, enjoy your new addition to the fabric of Houston.

Dallas

[Vertigo58]

That they where planning to build? It was big, had a round end, semi-green ish, and it had a bell tower, that was really tall. Anyone remember?

I know this is an old thread but just wanted to add that the orginal was to have cost too much to renovate in the millions. They figured since the area has had such resurgence in population may as well build a new/bigger/better one. By now you know of the website as many have tagged on. I can't wait for the opening.

I used to attend the old one back in the mid-60s as a kid, my dad played guitar there during Christmas season. Time took it's toll so its just the way things go. I just hope they salvage everything from the original. I personally dig that great gothic revival furnture/items. I recreate these type of items from wood and my interest just grows! I noticed they have already placed the beautiful gold crucifixe on top already. Cool!

[sevfiv]

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?

i never mentioned anything about wanting a particular style - i was just referring to my opinion that many structures built this decade generally end up a downer

Just wondering if the Pope's blessing become a sort of holy rubber stamp though. Or, maybe they figured a more "modern" design would get a thumbs (or palm) down from the Pope.

he looks to be gesturing a "no...nooo thanks!"

I know this is an old thread but just wanted to add that the orginal was to have cost too much to renovate in the millions. They figured since the area has had such resurgence in population may as well build a new/bigger/better one.

just out of curiosity - does anyone know a roundabout figure for a renovation of the older church? and what are the costs of the new one?

Edited January 18, 2007 by sevfiv

[Subdude]

I like your new cathedral, the design is clean and comforting ...

Dallas

Exactly. Comforting, non-threatening, unimaginative, mundane.

Sacred Heart is not built to glorify Houston, if you know what I mean.

Well by that criterion, it succeeds brilliantly.