Post intelligent and civil comments. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the NLM
Nice building. During the Romanesque era were many churches built with windows as large as these? (No critcism intended; in fact, I like them...just wondering.)
Yee ha, it looks like an actual church!
I think they may be an example of eclectic development (I agree it works very well, though), though French late Romanesque churches did have almost as much glass in them as early Gothic. I do not know, though, what is the case in Italian examples, which this resembles more closely.
Wow - The USC Catholic Group has come a long way in a short amount of time.
Firstly, this is certainly a great improvement on church building and actually looks like a church - as someone has already said. By way of constructive suggestions, I would be inclined to suggest that the patrons take a look at the lovely Provencal neo-romanesque church built by the Abbey of Le Barroux which, I think, very successfully integrates the characteristics and elements of romanesque common to the area in the South of France to central Italy. For example, I wonder about those tripartite openings in the apse - certainly, they are not to be found, for example, in the apse of the abbey church of Sant'Antimo near Montalcino. Also, the church, as it stands at present, is 4 bays and an apse. However, I would have been inclined to think that romansque churches would have been built in 3 or 5 or 7 even 9 bays: that is in lengths of odd numbered bays. It would be worth checking the very long nave of the Basilique de St Sernin in Toulouse on that one. Also, in Provence and in northeren and central Italy there is no shortage of light. Thus, windows as large as those suggested in the drawing would have been a very unusual sight in the central Italy. Think, for example, of San Pietro and Santa Maria Maggiore in Tuscania. Also, the tower, should that not be free standing?
I will return to your comments at greater length but let us remember that while we strive for continuity with the past with regards to craftsmanship, iconography and design, it need not be necessarily archaeological. The great neo-Gothicists like Cram freely combined elements from different places and periods and knit them into a harmonious whole. This requires work, of course, but it is a challenge worth taking.
Harmony of parts and of the whole. That is an essential principle and it simply does not work in the proposed drawings. If you want to call it something else please do but it is not neo romanesque. At best it might pass for pastische - but nobody want that, do we?
While I have some comments on the interior, and perhaps a few proportional tweaks on some of the facade details, I think on the whole the basic shape is quite harmonious. Perhaps it could be a bit longer but that is an aesthetic/liturgical criterion, not necessarily an archaeological one. The only thing I might change that is terribly significant would be moving the sill/dado level of the windows up by about maybe six or seven feet.
If you want to take a look at Saint Sernin in Toulouse, here is a link:
http://images.google.it/imgres?i...m%3D1%26hl%
3Dit
It should be borne in mind that building in the tradition of western christianity means building according to a certain canon which has evolved over two milennia. I am afraid that just patching bits and pieces together according to subjective reactions is as far from that tradition as is Rudolf Sacwarz or vand der Mies.
Here is an example of the kind of walls that you will expect to find in Italian/Provencal romanesque. This photograph was taken at Le Barroux -hune planes whish are decorated in fresco inside - as at San Geminiano:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jea...ann/2596569443/
I agree, the windows are oddly large and the tracery very lean, but as Matthew points out there is room for development. The overall space is really more like a typical Victorian romanesque barn like church (no aisles). The details will make all the difference.
My biggest concern is how the screen dividing the apse from the nave will be designed. The rough sketch looks almost like an iconostasis which feels wrong to my eye. I'd be looking at Torcello for a model. This piece of the puzzle is very important to the success of the project as a whole, I'd say.
I have not come yet to consider the interior but you hit the nail on the head describing this as a Victorian barn church. Its whole idiom is alien to the mediterranian and has next to nothing to do with the romanesque school as understood in those parts. I am not suggesting that this chapel ahould be an aecheological specimen. WHat I am suggesting is that if we are to build in the Romanesque idiom we are going to have to re-discover the romanesque forma mentis and build accordingly.
Here are some pictures of Sant'Antimo
http://images.google.it/imgres?i...l%3Dit%26sa%
3DN
The sanctuary configuration needs definitely to be carefully studied. I had not considered the screen itself but I am a little concerned about the spatial configuration. I would have preferred a single space with the altar behind the roodscreen rather than dividing the apse off as a separate reservation chapel but I suspect this has to do with getting around LA diocesan regulations which probably favor keeping the tabernacle somewhere obscure. Here, at least, it's on axis with the altar.
The "active" portion of the sanctuary could, nonetheless, become a bit larger and a hanging tester or canopy over the altar would be rather nice. Of course, I imagine there are further studies that will be undertaken at some point as the design develops.
Paul--I agree there is a canon, but I also think there is a happy, creative medium between pedantry and sloppy eclecticism, so long as a practiced eye is at work. There is room for some tweaking but I hardly think it is a "pastiche," a term which really tends to be used more as one of abuse than having a meaning fixed enough to be useful.
Here is the interior of Sant'Antimo. there are no huge windows here, nor in Toulouse, nor in Tuscania, nor in Pisa nor anywhere else in Provencal/Italian ronamanesque. I should clarify, I am not talkng about pedantry. I am talking about an honest intellectual effort to build according to the forma mentis of the romanesque. There is wide latitude within this matrix for creative development. You simply cannot honestly take bits and pieces of various romanesque building and add on 14 century Emglish windows and call that a creative neo-romanesque.
Here are the photographs:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Imm...ta_centrale.jpg
And some more:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Imm...chi_di_luce.jpg
The sanctuary at Sant'Antimo:
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Imm...al_matroneo.jpg
One common - and entirely legitimate - reason behind combining differing styles of medieval architecture is that medieval churches didn't stand still. For instance, it was not at all uncommon to knock out early Gothic windows and install larger windows with later tracery styles - or to build towers in two separate centuries (see Chartres for the most obvious example). Remodeling was constant except in areas that were too poor to remodel or so rich as to tear down and start over in a new style on top of earlier foundations (like most of the Gothic cathedrals).
I do agree that the length of the church seems a little stubby, but I am not at all certain that there is as decided a preference for an odd number of bays in Romanesque as there is for an odd number of columns on the flanks of Greek temples. I'd have to pull out pictures and plans to check.
Just off hand with a quick googling - Ste Chapelle in Paris has four bays in the nave - the first bay (which might throw you off) is a two-story porch.
It might help our mood about scale and proportion to remember that this is not a parish church but a chapel.
Additionally, it is worth keeping in mind that as a chapel, the exterior of this building cannot be considered in isolation--it will be part of a large group of buildings representing many architectural styles. Many of the older campus buildings are sort of Romanesque-Italianate as Matt points out, but they're American college buildings--they're not actual Romanesque buildings. The chapel fits in with those buildings. It stands out a little in not being red brick, though.
For reference:
library
United University Church
Whatever else it may be, it's much better than what they have now. No more mural of Jesus embracing a student in a USC sweatshirt!
This new chapel has has 5 bays doesn't it?
Daniel Hill is correct. The chapel does have five bays but one is obscured by the misplaced tower.
As for the Sainte Cahpelle, well this is not an exercise in romanesque architecture and as for building to reproduce the subsequent historical evolution of what was or started out as a romanesque church: I think it is a waste of time. I could just as easily be done in Disney land.
My point here is that is there is to be a recovery of the Catholic tradition of ecclesiastical architetcure, it must begin by a recovery of the forma mentis underlying it. Otherwise we are going nowhere and there is not much poit in having a vast architectural patrimony if we are not willing to take it seriously, study it and arrive at its inherent fundamental organisational structure so as re-employ it in contemporary church architecture.
At first glance this is really nice. But at second glance? The windows are totally wrong. I was going to say that the over-all impression is that of a pastiche, but someone above already used that word; so, here it is again. And, the sanctuary-'iconostasis'-apse arrangement doesn't make architectural sense. Nor does the lack of side aisles. In addition, but of equal importance, is that one notices that the list of art and appointments to be commissioned does not include the organ. This is a very serious oversight - or, neglect -in a building of seemingly high aspirations.
I have just looked at the interior pland and drawings and would agre that they are seriously deficient in many ways - most noticeably the almost total dissociation of the abse from the rest of the building. Hardly any better is the positioning of the sanctuary in the nave of the church. It shuod also be noticed that the altar, what is supposed to be the central focus of the church, while on a raised dais, is just dumped on the floor without a a step underneath it (how, for instance, is one to conduct the ceremonies of Benediction of the Blessed Sacrament at this altar when you do not even have a step on which to kneel in front of it?). Also, while this very small altar is not quite the fashionable square ones currently in vogue with the liturgical "specialists", it still is not covered with a ciborium - as would be the case in a romanesque church. Then there is the "gathering" bit around the altar - all of which suggests a very dated approach to the liturgy and one certainly not capable of accomodating the provisions of Summorum Pontificum. The interior here is, unfortunately, nothing less than the usual run of the mill stuff that we have come to expect from persons such as R. Vosko except that it is better "dressed" up. Indeed the interior, as far as the development of architectural history is concerned, has the distinct look of a earlier church which was severly "reordered" in the 1970s. Why bother wanting to reproduce this in a "neo" version?
"Indeed the interior, as far as the development of architectural history is concerned, has the distinct look of a earlier church which was severly "reordered" in the 1970s. Why bother wanting to reproduce this in a "neo" version?"
my thoughts exactly, and I agree with you regarding the undelying canon that needs serious re-discovery.
However, I think that perhaps there are constraints and a few different ideologies running here at the same time. There is a stong "traditional" push but elements of the passe 1970's church linger. For instance they want monuemantal doors that also have windows and are 'welcoming' an interesting mix, since doors are supposed to be the 'barrier,' the entry to which is a 'crossing over.' hence windows would be like 'opening your presents early' or wrapping someting in clear plastic and putting it under the christmas tree.
There is a grand piano within the plan by the way, but yes, no organ.
I would suspect that the apse-design is also of this nature. They are incorporating traditional designs as much as possible for a liturgical style that is, historically, alien to the architecture.
Nevertheless, this is a positive step and will be a long standing symbol of catholicism, even if the interior is re-ordered in about 20 years.
Read what I said about the sanctuary arrangement. I would prefer a more traditional arrangement (with more space and a canopy over the altar), without the screen, but remember this is Los Angeles, and this may be an attempt to get around peculiar local legislation. There may be extra-architectural bureacratic forces at work and we should be careful to make assumptions. I'm not saying not to comment, either, as there is a place for legitimate critique (and I plan to do an essay on traditional sanctuary planning in general at some point) but we just need to understand it's unfortunately not just up to the architect to make such calls and often he has to make the best of idiosyncratic stylistic and compositional requests from clients and their superiors.
We're all trying hard to do this stuff well. This does not mean everything will be perfect right away but we should nonetheless recognize significant steps forward, which this clearly is.
Matthew, this is not a criticism, but your comments above may not be entirely accurate. One has only to look a little northward to Santa Paula where Thomas Aquinas College is building a chapel ( a very huge one at that ) which is the most traditional thing ever built in the L.A. Archdiocese since the V2 reformation.
Since we haven't seen what the interior is going to look like, we can't say yet whether they are trying to get around the "peculiar local legislation," and trust me, PECULIAR is too weak a word for things around here.
My point is since TAC is building such a magnificent church, I think USC is more or less headed in the right direction. At the same time, yes, we can only hope and pray things will work out for the best for the sake of Tradition. There are quite a few parish churches around here which look nice on the outside but whose interiors look either like a pious auditorium or the food court space at the mall.
=====
FranzJosf wrote:
"Nice building. During the Romanesque era were many churches built with windows as large as these? (No criticism intended; in fact, I like them... just wondering.)
Franz, windows of the size and style would be found more with English churches than "Romanesque" ones. There is one or two much older ones here in Los Angeles with large windows like that in the upper Mid-Wilshire area. ;)
yes, but TAC is a private college, the university would come under the direct control of the diocese and be more susceptible to its regulations. It is essentially a diocescan chaplaincy as far as i can see.
USC is also a private college.
Matt--you may be right, as I forgot about TAC. I just have seen similar arrangements elsewhere (the Toronto Oratory) that were attempts to dodge an archbishop with weird ideas about liturgy.
I think that the rediscovery of deeper chancel plans (or the implementation of something like Comper did at Cosham, which has ancient roots) is an extremely important aspect of the revival of traditional architecture. I also know that sometimes clients' preferences (as well as those of the diocese) make that difficult and we often must meet them halfway. We can nonetheless rejoice we have come this far.
The proportions of the window are off, to be sure - which would be less objectionable if this were in, say, Newfoundland or Juneau, but the general rule is that the sunnier the clime, the more that windows must modulate excessive light from outside. The stained glass will need to be painted and etched heavily to compensate for the glare of southern California light.
The design is deliberately eclectic. Hammerbeam vaults are a late-gothic innovation, though certainly romanesque vaults were often of wood. The hall-church spatial form is evocative of central European precedents, but of varying periods. And the tower is actually a bit narrow and short in terms of proportions.
That said, the choice of facing materials, if genuine, would be superb and the overall configuration of the internal space should be acoustically excellent. I've seen a lot of neo-classicist/baroque designs that do far worse on both those scores.
While the criticism of the design's flaws is legitimate, I think we would do better to be grateful that it looks like a church at all. Given the bizarre liturgical proclivities of the USC Catholic Center (see catholictrojan.com if you really want to know), this design is much better than I would expect. And a lot of what the interior design lacks can be fixed later.
Paul,
Who is "van der Mies" that you mentioned. Is this "Mies van der Rohe" or someone else.
I refer to the fact that TAC is practically independant of the Archdiocese, while this chapel is an initiative of the archdiocese itself
Etienne,
You are correct. His name is Ludwig Michael Mies. He later added the "vand der Rohe" bit in an aristocratic makeover.
Wow. When I was a student at USC earlier this decade, the Catholic centre was a hotbed of liturgical shenanigans and illicit practices. What happened?! Thanks be to God.
Andrew, it's still a hotbed of liturgical shenanigans. That's why the chapel's nod to tradition is a real shock to me.
I do appreciate all comments and constructive criticisms.
Lay folk (that is architectural laity) might appreciate that there are massively more significant issues at stake in church design than copying venerable historical styles.
Budget, site constraints, seismic issues, building codes, planning and zoning, materials and techniques, archdiocesan liturgical policy, and a whole host of other issues impact the design of churches and create the necessity of architectural compromise in hac lacrimarum valle.
Given the general state of secular architecture and building construction, and the downward trajectory of sacred architecture across the 20th century, I content myself to strive to reclaim an authentically *sacramental* approach to Catholic architecture, to promote a recovery of the iconographic traditions and the dignity of figuration among contemporary sacred artists, and to help Christ's faithful engage in liturgy through the fullness of their will and intellect, senses, cultural memory and imagination as best budgets allow.
Such is also the desire of the Catholic community, the arts and building committee, and the pastoral staff at our Savior Catholic Center.
Despite any imperfections or grounds for criticism in the building (which unlike the Heavenly Jerusalem does suffer from all sorts of compromises), the excellent design team at Elkus Manfredi are very much informed by the Catholic building tradition and very interested to create a truly sacred space for the worthy worship of God by the Catholic community at USC.
For those with criticisms, I would encourage you all the more to keep this project in your prayers, as church building is intended to be an act of devotion.
The design of an actual sacramental vessel is beyond any human ability and is necessarily an opus Christi.
The USC Catholic Center is no longer a hotbed of liturgical shenanigans.
There's a new priest in town, and the students have returned to the center.
Deo Gratias.
sorry to post this as a comment, but I don’t have your email.
i would request to write more about green architecture... eco friendly etc.... as i practice them...
http://www.architectsban.webs.com as
http://www.seekangroup.com
architects
http://www.interiordesignersbangalore.com
asasas
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
