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

[Subdude]

I want to like it, I really do, but somehow it just reminds me of a big self-storage unit.

[ricco67]

maybe it is....for your SOUL!

[nativehou]

I want to like it, I really do, but somehow it just reminds me of a big self-storage unit.

maybe it is....for your SOUL!

And just like a self-storage unit -- it's got a monthly usage fee!

[Houston19514]

I want to like it, I really do, but somehow it just reminds me of a big self-storage unit.

Let me guess; you have an issue with the name too, right? ;-)

[Jimcj5]

The interior was lit up as I drove home from work last night. The rose window that faces onto San Jacinto, which depicts the Sacred Heart, was very vivid and looked beautiful. I hope that when it's finally opened that it's often lit up like that in the evenings.

[Subdude]

Let me guess; you have an issue with the name too, right? ;-)

No, the name is fine!

[H-Town Man]

And just like a self-storage unit -- it's got a monthly usage fee!

huh?

^^^ Beautiful. Is the background in the Cathedral or just a background to display the statues??

I cannot wait to view this Cathedral once it is completed.

Does anyone know- Will visitors be able to view the inside even if they are not attending Mass?

Larger cathedrals in NY, Chi-Town and LA (along with the plethora in Europe) allow visitors to quietly and

reverantly walk around the nave and narthex areas even though they are not worshiping.

m.

I think that's true of any Catholic church in the world. Just walk on in.

[fernz]

I want to like it, I really do, but somehow it just reminds me of a big self-storage unit.

It must be all that limestone, it's the same material all the self-storage units have...or maybe it's the stained glass.

[Vertigo58]

There will be a TV special ABC 13

March 7 - time 8-9pm

See details attached:

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/feature?sectio...&id=5914120

[ricco67]

Yep.

Already TIVO'ed the time in 2 weeks ago and looking forward to seeing the program.

[dalparadise]

The interior of the place is spectacular. The outside, not so much.

[H-Town Man]

When the Modernist movement began, we made a conscious decision to deny history and culture when designing our buildings. Now we can't bring history and culture back even when we want to.

[Vertigo58]

After seeing the TV special it seems like the paparrazzi/hoopla will linger on for weeks or months. Makes me wonder when a regular Joe like me will get to go inside? Rain check please?

Edited March 12, 2008 by Vertigo58

[texas911]

When the Modernist movement began, we made a conscious decision to deny history and culture when designing our buildings. Now we can't bring history and culture back even when we want to.

I disagree, its full of history and culture. Just not the fake kind.

Edited March 28, 2008 by texas911

[Subdude]

I disagree, its full of history and culture. Just not the fake kind.

And where is this history and culture lurking? I'm not seeing it.

[texas911]

The plan of the church is the classical plan of a cathedral, forming a cross. At the intersection of the cross is a dome. There are rose windows. There are lots of cues taken from old world cathedrals. Only they are rendered in contemporary design and modern construction methods. For example, St. Martins looks wonderful but does a steel and concrete church really need buttresses? That Sacred Heart is devoid of elements like this doesn't make it lacking history and culture. Anyway I applaud the catholic church for moving forward, you can't always look back. Look at the stupid fire station 1 for an example.

[editor]

Old cathedral:

New cathedral:

I like the old one better. But I will say that I really like the new one's belltower. I like how it's separate from the rest of the structure. Very Italian, IMHO.

I just happened to be walking by when the sun flared on it one Sunday morning:

[Subdude]

St. Martins looks wonderful but does a steel and concrete church really need buttresses?

I suppose it doesn't "need" buttresses any more than the cathedral needs its dome or rose window. In both cases they are just decorative elements that reference historic styles, only at St Martins the package on the whole seems far better executed.

[Vertigo58]

I believe THIS WEDNESDAY April 2, there will be a LIVE televised official christening on ABC 13 locally. Hundreds of levels clergy and govt. officials from around the world will be in attendance. Wish I could skip work! I'll be there in spirit.

This will be a big deal down here.

Edited March 31, 2008 by Vertigo58

[musicman]

supposedly the churches in the diocese received 3 tickets.

[fernz]

I suppose it doesn't "need" buttresses any more than the cathedral needs its dome or rose window. In both cases they are just decorative elements that reference historic styles, only at St Martins the package on the whole seems far better executed.

That is not correct. Buttresses are not "just decorative elements". Unlike the dome or the rose windows, buttresses are meant to be a structural element, just like a column would be.

Having fake buttresses in a concrete and steel church is an architectural absurdity.

[Subdude]

That is not correct. Buttresses are not "just decorative elements". Unlike the dome or the rose windows, buttresses are meant to be a structural element, just like a column would be.

Having fake buttresses in a concrete and steel church is an architectural absurdity.

But since the buttresses in this case are not providing structural support, then they are design elements. What on earth is absurd about using different design elements on buildings?

The dome on the cathedral, just like the buttresses at St Martin, are both components meant to evoke traditional architectural features of churches. There's nothing wrong with that. Whether they provide structural support is besides the point.

[Vertigo58]

Flying buttresse's like that of Notre Dame:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_buttress

and we can't forget Pugin's contributions. A true hero of Gothic design:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustus_Pugin

[H-Town Man]

The plan of the church is the classical plan of a cathedral, forming a cross. At the intersection of the cross is a dome. There are rose windows. There are lots of cues taken from old world cathedrals. Only they are rendered in contemporary design and modern construction methods. For example, St. Martins looks wonderful but does a steel and concrete church really need buttresses? That Sacred Heart is devoid of elements like this doesn't make it lacking history and culture. Anyway I applaud the catholic church for moving forward, you can't always look back. Look at the stupid fire station 1 for an example.

There are a few cues to older cathedrals, but the design is incredibly banal overall. You don't have to put in fake structural elements, you could just have carved stone elements that communicate to the viewer the way older cathedrals do. You could have grand windows full of tracery instead of the prison/armory type windows that this thing has.

It's a shame when Shiner, TX has a more beautiful Catholic church than any church in Houston.

Also, I'm not sure about this "moving forward" thing... the church emphasizes its continuity over the past 2,000 years. There is nothing in our older architecture that we are trying to "move forward" from, and most of our attempts since Vatican II to be creative or "progressive" architecturally have failed.

Edited March 31, 2008 by H-Town Man

[H-Town Man]

"Explain to me again why modern cathedrals can't have elaborate designs."

"Well, because of the new technology. You can do anything with steel, so you don't need the elaborate design."

"But you can still have it anyway, right? I mean, just because you have steel and all sorts of other things besides stone doesn't mean you shouldn't make your designs elaborate!"

"It's this thing called 'form follows function.'"

"Okay..."

"A building should only be designed to carry out its function. If its function is to hold people, then it should be designed to hold people. Anything extra, besides maybe a couple of basic statues, is superfluous."

"So we're superfluous."

"Right."

Edited March 31, 2008 by H-Town Man

[musicman]

Also, I'm not sure about this "moving forward" thing... the church emphasizes its continuity over the past 2,000 years. There is nothing in our older architecture that we are trying to "move forward" from, and most of our attempts since Vatican II to be creative or "progressive" architecturally have failed.

The cathedral that opened in LA 5 or so yrs ago is a 21st century design. St. Mary's in San Francisco is also modern. They definitely work well with both cities' style of architecture as does the new Sacred Heart. The Catholic Church doesn't have one style of architecture. Just look at the older vs. the newer churches here.

[texas911]

Well, to architects, it is a big difference.

When you start recreating past design, you walk a tight line between "historical" and cheap Disney. Anyway, a church should reflect the time it was built.

[fernz]

But since the buttresses in this case are not providing structural support, then they are design elements. What on earth is absurd about using different design elements on buildings?

The dome on the cathedral, just like the buttresses at St Martin, are both components meant to evoke traditional architectural features of churches. There's nothing wrong with that. Whether they provide structural support is besides the point.

I disagree; it is not besides the point. There is a big difference between a design element that has a significance that still holds true (such as a dome or a cruciform floor plan) and a "design element" that is untrue to its form.

The dome is not there merely to evoke a traditional feature, it creates a special place in the church under which the liturgy takes place, where the word of God is spoken and where the Eucharist is consecrated. The buttresses used to have a very significant, albeit structural role. If you take that role away, they are just a meaningless, nostalgic, neogothic add-ons. They are no better than the "columns" on the side of Randall Davis' Gotham building in River Oaks.

[fernz]

"Explain to me again why modern cathedrals can't have elaborate designs."

I'll tell you why this Cathedral does not have elaborate designs:

"I wanted something that would be really simple in design, not overly ornate. I didn't want any type of baroque church. Something that would have a simplicity about it but a simplicity that would show its nobility, simple nobility, the elegance of simplicity. I wanted the lines of the church to be clean and attractive, and I think the architects did a very good job."

Archbishop Fiorenza, from the Houston Chronicle interview.

[Subdude]

Well, to architects, it is a big difference.

When you start recreating past design, you walk a tight line between "historical" and cheap Disney. Anyway, a church should reflect the time it was built.

There is a tight line as you say; it is a matter of execution. I can think of several examples of cheap Disney, such as the new downtown courthouse. That said, the old "form follows function" idea is a bit old-fashioned and dated. Decorative elements are a legitimate component of architecture. There's nothing "wrong" in any sense with decoration for the sake of decoration.

It's probably a different argument for a different thread, but I'm not quite sure how to interpret your comment that a church should "reflect the time it was built". Reflect in what sense? And why should they? Is there a moral argument for modern architecture?

To some extent, churches are inherently un-modern. If anything, to me it seems more appropriate that churches should adopt more evocative, historical designs. I simply believe these are more compatible with the religious experience. That is one of my main complaints about the cathedral - the design is modern, but bland and soulless. That hardly seems appropriate for a place that is supposed to convey spirituality. If it takes fake buttresses or whatnot than fine, go for it. Just do it well.