Via Spirit DailyI read last night about a proposed new Divine Mercy Shrine on the west coast, shown here on the left. I am always happy to see fruit of the devotion to the Divine Mercy, since that devotion means a lot to me and I have had the good fortune to help with Chicago’s Sanctuary of the Divine Mercy.
But I saw something that is all too common when I clicked on the link: a well-meaning client who badly needs an architect who specializes in traditional design. I’m not out to slander the architect here… I don’t know him or anyone at the shrine. I’m sure they all mean well. The society building the shrine has great speakers at their events. But in my opinion, the architect is clearly not up to the job. As someone who wants to restore architectural beauty to the world and loves the Divine Mercy, I plead: Please, please work with an architect who understands traditional design!
The average person might look at this building and say: “It looks like a church. It has domes and crosses and a beautiful site and some rose windows.” And this is indeed true. But a closer look reveals that it is essentially a cross-shaped Wal-Mart with a sloped roof and a few ill-proportioned domes. The porch out front could be located on any number of badly-designed strip malls. Its triangular pediment above the poles (which are substituting for real columns) has almost no relationship to the way pediments are intended to be made. The assemblage of part is improper, the texture and thickness of the walls gives no suggestion of traditional design. The domes are misproportioned and appear to float on the roof tiles with no structural logic. The crosses are enormously large. The red bracket-like Romanesque entablature has no relation to the rest of the design. The rose windows are just holes cut in a paper-thin wall. The lack of traditional details such as a proper entablature on the building and the portico, bases on the columns and wall, and some suggestion of how the stucco-like second story of the front facade holds up the roof really puts this design in the category (in my opinion) of “good pious try, but not good enough.”
This critique might sound like architectural quibbling, but traditional architecture has a grammar and syntax and logic proper to itself. Using the parts improperly or not using them at all is like writing a hymn which is not only not poetic, but which has spelling mistakes and subjects and verbs that don’t agree. A good Christian would not pray like that. A good Christian should not build like that either. It need not cost more. But it needs better design.
The people of the west coast deserve better than this. Christ deserves better than this. Why settle for the mediocrity of a big-box store badly dressed in ecclesiastical costume when the same hard-earned money can get a properly-designed traditional building? See examples below of new design by architects David Meleca, James McCrery and Duncan Stroik. There are many other ready and willing architects as well like Thomas Gordon Smith, Franck and Lohsen and Bill Heyer. The talent is out there. Let’s make use of it and make beautiful buildings!
February 13, 2009 at 6:18 pm
Heck, I couldn’t get past those steps. What a hike!
February 13, 2009 at 8:57 pm
“Please get another architect” but not from Pisa.
February 14, 2009 at 1:42 am
Steps look a little too horn shaped to me. Not the right sort of thing really. As regards the rest well it’s a mess. This is not designed at all.
February 14, 2009 at 4:59 am
Could it really be done for the same price?
February 14, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Try looking at some of the fabulous architectural ideas from Shrine of the Holy Whapping. They’ll put most professional businesses to shame.
You might have to hunt a bit, though… they don’t have a tagging system at all.
February 15, 2009 at 12:14 am
Leah–the answer is a resounding yes! It might not look exactly the same, but give a traditional architect the same budget and he will meet it with a better product.
February 15, 2009 at 7:51 pm
I love the diversity of this! The repeated use of the Crescent Moon lets everyone know that we are submissive not only to Christ, but to the One True Religion, Islam!
Religious symbols have meaning, let’s stick to Christian ones.
February 17, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Maybe it’s because I am not an architect and I have been scarred by too many “space-ship” looking churches in the modern style, but I don’t understand what is wrong with it…
February 17, 2009 at 4:11 pm
So judging by your comments, the architect essentially cut and paste Catholic architectural elements to make it “look” traditional, when he doesn’t understand the language underneath these elements. Interesting. Still, it doesn’t look like a monstrosity (see the Rog Mahal or San Fran’s Washing Machine Agitator, er, Cathedral for what I mean), and that is at least a step in the right direction. As Fr. Z would say, “Brick by brick,” even if the bricks aren’t perfect. ~ Brian in Wisconsin
February 17, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Brian–you are right. These are people who are trying to do the right thing from what I can tell. They just don’t have the right level of sophistication in their architect. It would be like hiring an amateur to paint a new mural for the church when a really gifted artist is ready and available. Both have good intentions, but one is objectively better than the other. I can understand that people are so relieved that the building “looks like” a church that are willing to take second rate “traditional” over proper design. But they can do better!