[HN Gopher] Barcelona's Sagrada Familia will be completed in 2026
___________________________________________________________________
Barcelona's Sagrada Familia will be completed in 2026
Author : mooreds
Score : 414 points
Date : 2024-03-25 13:06 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnn.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
| anon291 wrote:
| The article mistakenly refers to Sagrada Familia as the cathedral
| of Barcelona. It's not. It's a minor basilica, not a cathedral.
| diggan wrote:
| The actual cathedral of Barcelona is "The Cathedral of the Holy
| Cross and Saint Eulalia", which yeah, is not Sagrada Familia -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_Cathedral
| amarant wrote:
| I'm curious what "minor" means exactly in this context?
|
| I've seen the Sagrada familia, and it ain't small!
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| Organizational hierarchy of the Catholic Church: a building
| is a cathedral if and only if it is the seat of a bishop, no
| matter how grand or modest the building is. There can not be
| more than one cathedral in a diocese.
|
| But colloquially, Sagrada Familia is what most people would
| consider a cathedral.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > There can not be more than one cathedral in a diocese.
|
| There can be, though it's not common:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-cathedral
| prmoustache wrote:
| Also a basilica can be a cathedral and vice versa. Saint-
| Denis in Paris is both a basilica and cathedral.
| areyousure wrote:
| The page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilica_of_Saint-
| Denis states
|
| > Although known as the "Basilica of St Denis", the
| cathedral has not been granted the title of Minor
| Basilica by the Vatican.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Does it matter when it has been called like that for more
| than 12 centuries?
| pas wrote:
| Well there's a lot of people with the family name King,
| but you know, they still have to play (and win!) the
| fancy hat game to be actually granted royal rights.
| prmoustache wrote:
| In that case it is different because it is/was a building
| used by the french church. Not some random one named like
| this by someone with no relation to the church.
| epolanski wrote:
| A cathedral is the official seat of the local the bishop and
| the Sagrada Familia isn't one.
|
| A basilica on the other hand is an honorific title granted to
| some churches by the pope for historical/religious reasons.
|
| An interesting note: Saint Peter in Rome, the most famous
| church in the christian world is not a cathedral itself as it
| is not where the pope has its seat, that's actually another
| basilica in Rome, Saint John Lateran, which makes it the most
| important church in the catholic hierarchy with the title of
| "Omnium Urbis et Orbis Ecclesiarum Mater et Caput", or
| "Mother and leader of all the churches in the world".
| bombcar wrote:
| The other interesting thing about that is the cathedral
| seat of the Pope is outside the Vatican City - so it is in
| his religious territory as Bishop of Rome but not in his
| secular state.
| anon291 wrote:
| It's also why St Peters is not the cathedral of Rome.
| It's not in Rome.
| pmontra wrote:
| It's been not in Rome only since Vatican City came into
| existence in 1929. It's been in Rome every single year
| before then.
|
| Saint John Lateran is also not in Italy [1] due to an
| extraterritoriality treaty in 1929, part of the same
| treaty that established Vatican City. By the way, that
| church is exactly 1700 years old this year.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archbasilica_of_Saint_J
| ohn_Lat...
| anon291 wrote:
| I should have said it's why it can't become the cathedral
| of rome.
| epolanski wrote:
| I don't know whether this is correct, as the Vatican
| itself falls into the Rome diocese and has no separate
| one.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diocese_of_Rome
| epolanski wrote:
| I don't think this is correct, the territory belongs to
| the vatican state as many other buildings around Rome
| they are not formally located in Italy.
| mminer237 wrote:
| It belongs to the Holy See, but it's outside of Vatican
| City. It's kind of like how Guernsey is owned by the
| British Crown, but it's not part of Britain.
| epolanski wrote:
| I'm not 100% of all legalese technicalities but I know
| for a fact vatican law applies there and it's managed and
| guarded by vatican's gendarmerie (my ex went to the
| university behind the basilica which is also part of the
| Holy See).
| ianburrell wrote:
| They are like foreign embassies, part of Italy but under
| ownership of Holy See. The Holy See is different than
| Vatican City. The Vatican City is independent country
| governed by the Holy See, the head of the Catholic
| Church.
| dhosek wrote:
| The Dedication of the Basilica of St John Lateran is one of
| the observances in the Catholic liturgical calendar with
| its own special mass readings that supplant the normally
| scheduled readings for the day (most of the liturgical
| calendar consists of dates relative to the start of Advent
| which happens on the fourth Sunday before Christmas). If I
| remember correctly, this is one of the feasts considered
| important enough to supplant the normal Sunday readings if
| it happens on a Sunday. (Also, worth noting that it's one
| of the feasts celebrated in both the Latin and Eastern
| churches.)
| diggan wrote:
| Religions like to "rank" things so it's clear who's on top
| and who's on the bottom. In terms of churches, same thing
| applies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilicas_in_the_Catho
| lic_Chur...
|
| In short, the "major" is reserved for four top churches in
| Rome. "Minor" is used to signal that the church is of
| significant importance, but not as important as the major
| ones. It's not related to the size at all :)
| eadmund wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilicas_in_the_Catholic_Chur.
| .. indicates that there are four major basilicas and almost
| 2,000 minor ones.
|
| Seems like the four major basilicas have historical (maybe
| even pre-Schism?) associations, while the minor ones are
| designated by the pope.
| eadmund wrote:
| > The article mistakenly refers to Sagrada Familia as the
| cathedral of Barcelona. It's not. It's a minor basilica, not a
| cathedral.
|
| There may not be enough institutional knowledge at CNN about
| Catholicism that the editors would know that there is a
| difference between a basilica and a cathedral.
|
| This is the sort of thing that the folks at GetReligion.com
| were trying to address: not advocating any particular religion,
| but helping newsrooms 'get' religion, in the senses of
| understanding it and of not getting things wrong. The example
| at https://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2023/12/29/why-we-
| di... is a really good one: the New York Times in 2014
| published 'the vast Church of the Holy Sepulcher marking the
| site where many Christians believe that Jesus is buried.' There
| was no-one on the editorial team that handled that article who
| knew enough about Christianity to know that Christians don't
| believe Jesus is buried anywhere.
| pradn wrote:
| There is this odd split in American society that makes this
| possible. You can go through your entire life, end up a
| professional journalist at the Times and not actually have
| asked someone about their sincerely held faith and practice.
| Kids rarely talked about religion in HS, outside of like the
| Interfaith club. (I ran my high school's and we had an annual
| panel of a rep from each major religion. I was was quite
| popular.)
|
| Colleges, especially large ones, do have tons of students of
| different faiths, but I felt contacts were still minimal. My
| randomly-assigned freshman year room-mate was a devout
| Christian and would sing in worship - super wonderful guy.
| But after that, not much. It's so easy to just hang out with
| people similar to you - at all stages of life.
|
| Even when you meet someone of a certain faith, you're likely
| to experience that interaction through holiday, festival,
| food, dress and so on - think asking a Muslim about Ramadan
| or being invited to a Hanukah party - but you're not likely
| to ask doctrinal or theological questions.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Well, the other thing is that many, perhaps most, religious
| people don't know very much about their religion. Very few
| Catholics would know the difference between a cathedral and
| a minor basilica, say (which is what started this thread
| off in the first place). Actually, I'd argue that this
| isn't a religious question, anyway; it's administrivia.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Is that true? I wouldn't know what a minor basilica is
| per se but I definitely know what a cathedral is. I'm
| orthodox but I think nearly all lay orthodox christians
| can name their own bishop and the cathedral of his seat,
| the definition of cathedral being kind of implicit in
| that administrative awareness. Maybe it's different for
| catholics? I'll ask some, I am curious now.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I don't think most Catholics would know what a minor
| basilica was, and I'd expect most to misidentify the
| Sagrada Familia as a cathedral.
|
| And that's before you even get into pro-cathedrals and
| things...
|
| 70% of Ireland is nominally Catholic, and look at the
| confusion over this, say: https://www.irishtimes.com/irel
| and/dublin/2023/06/22/dublin-...
|
| Like, the church had to come out and clarify that Dublin
| didn't have a cathedral.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| Yeah I'm ready to concede this, mostly based on a poll I
| just saw showing half of canadian catholics not knowing
| what transubstantiation is.
|
| But still I think these are bad examples. If asked before
| this thread I would have said sagrada familia is a
| cathedral. But that's out of ignorance about that
| building, not about what a cathedral is. The dublin
| confusion looks similar to me: those people may know well
| what a cathedral is and just thought the pro-cathedral
| was one.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| What on earth is going on in that picture of St Andrew's
| Church?
| rsynnott wrote:
| Luxury mass.
|
| Nah, some event, I assume. It's a big church in the city
| centre, and I'd assume it has virtually no parishioners
| these days, so wouldn't surprise me if they use it for
| other stuff.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| The Orthodox Church wasn't nearly as affected by
| modernism as Catholicism was.
|
| You can see it directly in church architecture. Compare
| Catholic Church interiors from the early 20th century and
| ones now. Now do the same comparison for Orthodox ones.
| It's clear that the former desperately don't want to be
| Catholic anymore.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| This is correct. Catholics pretty much gave up on talking
| about the faith to anyone, whether to the general public
| or even their own children during the 1960s.
|
| And it's not only administrivia, for example only half of
| US Catholics have heard about transubstantiation and only
| a third believe in it. [1]
|
| 1. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-
| reads/2019/08/05/transubst...
| philsnow wrote:
| > only half of US Catholics have heard about
| transubstantiation and only a third believe in it.
|
| The USCCB is trying to work on this, we're almost 2 years
| into a 3-year Eucharistic "revival" (that word has weird
| connotations for me, but it's the word they used),
| https://www.eucharisticrevival.org/
| panopticon wrote:
| > _only half of US Catholics have heard about
| transubstantiation and only a third believe in it_
|
| That's a startling figure, but I've been out of the
| church for a while. I recall that being taught during
| first communion and confirmation.
| pradn wrote:
| That's true for nearly all folks who would tell you
| they're part of a certain faith. As in any time, only a
| few minority ever seem to want to contemplate creation,
| the nature of god, the particular logics behind faith,
| etc etc. That's not all bad - people come in a million
| types.
|
| For most, faith and culture are intertwined as they go
| about their day. You fast because of course you do, not
| because you know the thousand-year history of that
| practice and the relevant scriptural phrases.
| trompetenaccoun wrote:
| I have the opposite impression. Among Westerners Americans
| seem like the group where Christianity still plays the
| largest role in the average person's life. They talk about
| it a lot, to the point that I find it annoying. It's not
| just people who believe in it, the atheists and secular
| ones among them constantly complain about how bad religion
| is and how much they hate it. That's something you simply
| don't see in Western Europe, it's a topic that doesn't
| really come up much because most younger people don't care.
| They never go to church, they aren't involved with
| religious folks, they simply don't think about it at much.
|
| The only other country I can think of that comes close
| would be Poland, if that counts as Western.
| bluGill wrote:
| You misunderstand how Americans talk about religion. A
| lot of us are religious and we talk about it - but we are
| careful to stay in generic terms because historically -
| back in the old country (Europe) we would be encouraged
| to shoot/kill someone of a different religion. America
| tended to put a lot of different religions together and
| so very religious people had to figure out how to get
| along with someone strong in a different religion to get
| things like a mayor elected.
|
| Of course today few in Europe would go to war over
| religious differences. The world has changed (for the
| better unless by odd chance you happen to be the same
| religion as me - note I do not state which religion that
| is - this omission makes this a statement you can agree
| with whereas if I stated the religion you would disagree)
| pradn wrote:
| Yes, America is one of the most Christian of the major
| Western countries. However, the geography of faith is
| quite varied. We run around in cars, jetting to exactly
| the institutions we want to patronize. So it's possible
| to easily stay only in your own community.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| I spent most of the first 30 years of my life surrounded by
| and friends with one flavor of deeply religious Christian
| or another (if my high school had had an 'interfaith' club,
| the faiths would have been 'Baptist' or 'Dutch Reform'),
| including Catholics. I say that to point out that the only
| reason I know there's something special about 'cathedrals'
| as opposed to other churches is because I read a bit of
| trivia once about what counts as an English city.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > I say that to point out that the only reason I know
| there's something special about 'cathedrals' as opposed
| to other churches is because I read a bit of trivia once
| about what counts as an English city.
|
| If that trivia was that a cathedral is required to make a
| city, or that the presence of a cathedral makes a place a
| city, then that is _wrong_, though commonly believed. It
| was the case during the 16th century, kind of (Henry VIII
| did it) but it became far messier after that; by the 19th
| century non-cities with cathedrals and cities without
| cathedrals both existed.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Yeah, I should have specified that I was making no claims
| as to the modern accuracy of the trivia.
| rhplus wrote:
| _There is this_ constitutional right _in American society
| that makes this possible._
|
| Change two words in your opening sentence and the rest
| reads like the system is working as intended!
| pradn wrote:
| The legal regime just prevents the state from going too
| far in promoting one faith. But whether you encounter
| someone with a different belief system depends on
| geography, modes of transport, openness to other beliefs,
| etc. There's a lot more to it! I'm thinking of it as a
| stochastic process.
| triceratops wrote:
| > There may not be enough institutional knowledge at CNN
| about Catholicism that the editors would know that there is a
| difference between a basilica and a cathedral.
|
| I find it shocking that writers there have heard different
| words for "big impressive Catholic church" but lack the
| intellectual curiosity to learn the difference. Words are
| what they deal in all day.
| pas wrote:
| People who are interested in quality writing probably don't
| end up at CNN? (Or don't spend much time there.)
| pteraspidomorph wrote:
| This is just bad journalism. The subject doesn't matter;
| you'd expect news reporters to put some effort into fact
| checking and generally telling the truth.
| hannasanarion wrote:
| I sincerely doubt that the New York Times as an institution
| is unaware of the fact that resurrection is a core tenet of
| Christianity. The BrietBlart-class right wing news media
| loves to make a big deal out of a hardly noticeable editorial
| mistake like the incorrect tense in an unimportant double-
| appositive clause.
|
| Getting the difference between a Cathedral and a Basilica
| wrong is also not an example of "news media being anti-
| religion" because most religious people, including probably
| most American catholics, hardly know the difference since
| it's a piece of nomenclature that only matters if for some
| reason you've been charged with buying the right ceremonial
| hat for the guy in the back office.
|
| Obviously they should correct it, because it's journalism's
| job to educate people, but I would stay far away from
| claiming it's any kind of institutional hostility to religion
| to make a typographical error or repeat a common
| misconception. Newspapers make these kinds of minor errors
| about all topics all the time:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/30/reader-
| center/corrections...
| bigbillheck wrote:
| That's one possibility, another one might be that it's easy
| to write "is buried" when you meant "was buried" and can be
| hard to catch the error.
| vidarh wrote:
| Well, it's also the case that plenty of Christians don't
| believe in the resurrection. E.g from the UK:
|
| https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/10/quarter-
| christia...
| FrontierProject wrote:
| This was one of the foundational points of Gnosticism in
| early Christianity. It's worth noting that this position
| is considered heresy by most of the major established
| branches of Christian tradition.
| mizzao wrote:
| They should switch it over to this one, because it looks far
| more awesome than the current one.
| Cheer2171 wrote:
| I literally couldn't care less, but I'll wade into the depths
| of pedantry with you. It did not refer to the "cathedral of
| Barcelona", it just called it "the cathedral". Cathedral has an
| official meaning in Catholicism, but the colloquial use of
| cathedral in the US means "large fancy church building" and not
| "Capitol of a Catholic jurisdiction".
|
| Pitt didn't call their big building the Cathedral of Learning
| because their equivalent of a bishop in their organizational
| hierarchy sits there.
| seydor wrote:
| why not a major basilica. it s pretty big
| pas wrote:
| it's a technical term in Catholicism, it's a rank
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basilicas_in_the_Catholic_Chur.
| ..
| weatherlight wrote:
| I live here in Barcelona, it's a sight to behold :) It's minor
| basilica, not a cathedral though,
| jihadjihad wrote:
| It's amazing if you haven't gone, especially when sunlight
| streams in through the windows.
|
| I saw a quote while I was there that was something along the
| lines of, "Gaudi is not an artist with whom posthumous
| collaboration is possible." A couple minutes walking around the
| church is all that's needed to confirm that notion.
| diggan wrote:
| > I saw a quote while I was there that was something along the
| lines of, "Gaudi is not an artist with whom posthumous
| collaboration is possible." A couple minutes walking around the
| church is all that's needed to confirm that notion.
|
| Maybe I misunderstand "posthumous collaboration", but the
| church is literally being built after Gaudi's demise by a bunch
| of other people, isn't that posthumous collaboration?
| overview wrote:
| It's referring to the collaboration on the design itself.
| diggan wrote:
| Even that isn't true. Lots of original models/drawings have
| been lost, new designers interpret or reconstruct what they
| think Gaudi wanted to do, based on incomplete plans or
| where decisions weren't fully made.
|
| Not to mention new materials are available today that are
| being used and new processes/workflows which change the
| results slightly too.
|
| Sagrada Familia isn't a 100% implementation of the original
| vision, as even the original vision was incomplete when
| Gaudi died.
| rob74 wrote:
| Ok, maybe he didn't specify how all the statues, doors,
| windows and other embellishments should look like, but
| the basic structure and shape (the three portals and the
| 18 spires which also determine how the support columns in
| the interior of the church are placed) is the same as in
| Gaudi's original plans.
| matthewdgreen wrote:
| The original statement still makes sense, though, if you
| correctly interpret it as critique and warning.
| CPLX wrote:
| Sometimes people say things indirectly.
|
| In this case what they are saying is that Gaudi's design
| sense is so unique and iconoclastic that it's essentially
| impossible to mix it with other styles of design.
| lucianbr wrote:
| Buzzword bingo isn't restricted to software. The
| statement just says "Gaudi was a great architect". But it
| sounds more impressive to talk about "posthumous
| collaboration", especially if you don't analyze it.
| epolanski wrote:
| > Sagrada Familia isn't a 100% implementation of the
| original vision
|
| That's what makes it more interesting and fascinating.
| mgkimsal wrote:
| Maybe not on the design and original plans? IIRC they're
| trying to do everything according to original designs, which
| would not be 'collaboration', just... implementation. It's
| been over 30 years since I was there though - some friends
| who went more recently said a lot more has been done since
| then. Might be fun to go back and look for the differences,
| but I do not remember much detail, just a sense of 'big'.
| gorbypark wrote:
| If I am not mistaken, the original designs were destroyed
| during the Spanish Civil War.
| whereismyacc wrote:
| Yeah iirc his studio burned down at the hands of
| anarchist vandalists.
|
| Building some great indulgent monument to god wasn't
| exactly uncontroversial in the political climate at the
| time, as I understand it.
|
| Anyway, his plans wouldn't have been detailed enough to
| just go and build it. There was a lot of interpretation
| to be done in any case.
| epolanski wrote:
| I think all of this makes it a more fascinating building.
| wzdd wrote:
| It's just a nice way of saying it's difficult work because
| Gaudi was a genius and they can't hope to equal him. It
| doesn't mean they won't try their best.
| azulster wrote:
| i understood it to mean that the architectural vision of
| Gaudi was so original and singular that and future work could
| only be completion of an original design, an imitation of the
| already completed work, or an obviously seperated style (like
| inserting a jazz solo in mozart)
|
| in contrast other architects worked within a well defined
| style with rules and systems that can be worked within by
| modern architects to "posthumously" collaborate. like how you
| can use the principles of gothic architecture to add a modern
| addition to a gothic cathedral. the only principle Gaudi
| followed was natural inspiration and his own interpretation
| of that, something nobody could ever define
| cmpalmer52 wrote:
| I'm not particularly religious and not Catholic, but the
| Sagrada Familia brought me to tears. The interior is one of the
| most beautiful man-made spaces I've ever seen.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Same. Just from sheer beauty of the place got me
| brandall10 wrote:
| Agreed, went last summer and have told at least a dozen
| people how it's the most impressive interior I've been inside
| in my 48 years.
|
| Stayed for 3 hours just to observe the shifting light. I'll
| be in Barcelona again on Thurs, can't wait to go back.
| dannyphantom wrote:
| I hope you have a great trip! If you find yourself with a
| window of free time, there is a bakery called Pastisseria
| Hofmann that makes a sweet cream filled croissant that is
| dangerously good. We got one in ~2018 and have wanted
| another one _since_ haha
| thekid314 wrote:
| I have the same problem, but with a bakery in St. Louis
| Senegal. That darn brown butter filled pastry is still in
| my dreams.
| eps wrote:
| If you haven't been to Park Guell, it's also worthy a
| visit.
| silent_cal wrote:
| This makes me happy as a Catholic.
| arcade79 wrote:
| Atheist here; I _love_ visiting buildings like that. Sagrada
| Familia is truly beautiful. I like it _way_ better than
| St.Peters in Rome.
| throw0101b wrote:
| "How Beauty Draws Us to God":
|
| * https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/how-
| beauty-d...
|
| See also perhaps longer presentation (50m) from Bp. Robert
| Barron, "Beauty in the Catholic Tradition":
|
| * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbfWTlPt8mU
|
| The debate of religion and (forms of) art has an interesting
| history:
|
| * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iconoclasm
| diego898 wrote:
| I had this exact same experience - it was (and is) hard to
| explain to other non-religious people who haven't seen it.
| I'm not even particularly prone to being moved to tears by
| beauty... one of the few times in my life this happened to
| me.
| tummler wrote:
| Same; the most spiritual experience I've had in a man-made
| structure. Had chills the entire time.
| leononame wrote:
| Same for me. It took me completely by surprise, but as soon
| as I stepped inside, I started to cry. I don't like it that
| much from the outside (though I don't mind it either and
| appreciate it's unique style in contrast to a lot of people
| that seem to hate it) but on the inside, it really is
| amazing. I'd visit Barcelona just for the Sagrada Familia
| bloomingeek wrote:
| My wife teared up and I was stunned. We arrived in the
| morning and the light was pushing the color out of the stain
| glassed windows! My neck was sore for a few days after
| looking up at the ceiling so much.
|
| Waiting in line outside was even fun, just looking at all the
| detail.
| hylaride wrote:
| I saw it 20 years ago and it was impressive, but it's hard to
| take in fully with the crowds.
| brabel wrote:
| I was there around 20 years ago as well, and I remember it
| was mostly empty, which added to the feeling of grandeur. But
| I was there in winter, of course.
| lqet wrote:
| > It's amazing if you haven't gone, especially when sunlight
| streams in through the windows.
|
| I have been to Barcelona 4 times since I was a kid (1998, 2006,
| 2009, 2014), and every time the Sagrada Familia looked a little
| more finished, but still far from being completed. It blows my
| mind that it will finally be completed in 2 years.
| gigatexal wrote:
| Same. It was such an amazing experience. We really want to go
| back. Just to sit there in awe of all of it.
| changoplatanero wrote:
| Gaudi dedicated his life to making a monument to Jesus and
| after he died it's become a famous monument to Gaudi
| dugmartin wrote:
| I've tried to explain to people what that sunlight through the
| upper stained windows does to the light in that huge room but
| failed. It is like the light around you is alive. I think I
| stood there for five minutes silently just taking it in.
| martibravo wrote:
| It won't. Gaudi's plan was to build a big staircase in front of
| it creating a new public square next to the temple, replacing
| some apartment buildings currently being used. Gaudi's project
| won't be finished until then.
|
| There's some pushback from the neighbors because finishing it all
| means bulldozing hundreds of apartments, although those
| apartments were bought at a discounted price decades ago because
| everyone knew they had an expiration date. And now that it's
| here, they want to keep their apartments even though they were
| told about the Sagrada Familia from the start.
|
| PS: Gaudi's name is Antoni, in Catalan. Not Antonio. He was a
| proud Catalan, he was arrested for talking in Catalan.
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| > There's some pushback
|
| Quite understandable as well. The thing is big enough as it is.
| Bought at a discount or not, bulldozing that many homes in an
| overpopulated city that already struggles for space due to its
| geography is a little ludicrous.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Modern Architecture is ludicrous.
|
| We build and build depressing neighborhoods in cities for us
| to all flee to historical centres to experience beauty for a
| minute. I mean if you are in the US you are lost anyway, but
| the Europe has some beautiful cities (Amsterdam, Venice,
| Palma, Rome, Vienna the list continues), but none of them are
| modern.
|
| The citizens should be helped to find replacement, but please
| let's put some beauty back in our cities and give prominence
| to Gaudi's architecture (although maybe it's not the
| prettiest it's at least fun)
| helpmefindpurp wrote:
| > I mean if you are in the US you are lost anyway, but the
| Europe has some beautiful cities, but none of them are
| modern.
|
| stop treating us like some kind of zoo animals. The reason
| why the old tenaments were demolished is because their
| living conditions brought fire, disease, and discomfort
| with them.
| rsynnott wrote:
| > and give prominence to Gaudi's architecture
|
| I mean... It's right there, you can't miss it. It's not
| like it's currently particularly well-hidden.
| EdiX wrote:
| Ironically the Sagrada Familia is an example of modern
| architecture.
| martibravo wrote:
| Yes, Catalan modernism is relatively modern. For me it's
| one of the most beautiful 20th century architecture
| styles.
| rob74 wrote:
| It was modern at the time, same as Art Nouveau and Art
| Deco, but then those were (unfortunately) pushed aside by
| Bauhaus, Le Corbusier and post-WW2 concrete brutalist
| architecture.
| javier123454321 wrote:
| I mean, it lacks most of the defining characteristics of
| modern architecture. It is highly ornate, for one. I
| would not put it in the category of modern, aside from
| describing the time period which it came to be. Art
| noveau seems more appropriate a description.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Yeah modern in the historic classification of the term,
| not in the way of speaking. Most people normally consider
| modern housing last decades. Lots of building up untill
| the second world ware are gorgous, but not considered
| modern by most people.
|
| For instance Berlage in Amsterdam is modern in your
| classifcation. And his buildings grace Amsterdam, but
| most people would consider them "older", he was living
| around the same time of Gaudi.
|
| https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrik_Petrus_Berlage
| martibravo wrote:
| As someone from Barcelona, I really wanna see it finished
| completely. Those apartments had an expiration date the
| moment they were built in the 60s. Everyone who bought them
| at a discount knew that they were going to be torn down when
| the temple itself was finished.
|
| I feel it's like those people that buy a house near an
| airport, they pay pennies for it, and then start lobbying the
| government for a change in air traffic routes.
| unglaublich wrote:
| Exactly. Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all
| losses should be covered.
|
| It's bizarre that at the same time, real estate investors
| think all value increases are rightfully theirs, but they
| should be protected from any decrease in value.
|
| You can hardly call it 'investing' if you're protected from
| the downsides.
| bjackman wrote:
| I don't oppose destruction of housing because of people
| losing their investment - expropriate it for all I care.
| But reducing the housing supply is bad for everyone.
| That's the important problem with nimbyism: it's not that
| it demands unfair advantages for homeowners as investors,
| it's that it prevents development that is needed for a
| better world.
|
| There's definitely an argument to be made that globally
| iconic feats of architecture have intrinsic value that's
| more important than a bit of housing. But you do need to
| account for the social impact of aggravating housing
| scarcity to make that argument.
| bluGill wrote:
| We need to build more housing, but that doesn't mean we
| need to keep existing housing. Most old buildings should
| be replaced - they were not built with modern codes in
| mind and so are expensive to heat, dangerous in fire,
| have not accessible bathrooms, or other such things wrong
| that are difficult to correct.
| ossobuco wrote:
| > Nimbyism at its finest: all gains are mine; all losses
| should be covered
|
| Nimbyims? This is corporate capitalism at its finest.
| Private profits, socialized and externalized losses.
| seanalltogether wrote:
| Yeah, the Glory facade needs an approach. It can't simply
| dump out onto the street.
| xyzelement wrote:
| If this logic holds, then we should be open to bulldoze the
| Sagrada Familia itself to make more apartments.
| martibravo wrote:
| Sagrat Habitatge (Holy Accommodation in Catalan)
| diggan wrote:
| > bulldozing that many homes in an overpopulated city
|
| As far as I understand, only one building (many flats though)
| would have to be removed in order to fit the staircase.
|
| Problem is that there isn't a lot of space available to put
| the people whose home you just removed, so seems unlikely to
| happen unless our local government suddenly solves some
| really hard problems.
| cprecioso wrote:
| and i would say probably those apartments aren't even hosting
| locals currently, just digital nomads in overpriced airbnbs
| martibravo wrote:
| Yes.
| diggan wrote:
| I mean, most of them are hosting "locals" as in residents who
| live in Barcelona. I just took a look now and there are at
| least 90 apartments available on Idealista for rent in just
| the ~3 surrounding blocks around Sagrada Familia.
|
| So while in general the whole "touristic flat rentals" stuff
| is clearly hurting the city, maybe over-dramatizing the
| impact isn't super useful. Overall the situation sucks
| though, as prices seems to still go up :/
| martibravo wrote:
| That's a whole other thread. The new Rent Control law has
| hurt (a lot) long-term rental for locals and long-term
| residents. All offers on Idealista and other portals are
| for contracts of up to 12 months, short term rentals under
| Spanish Law. Those are not rent-controlled contracts.
|
| In my part of Eixample there aren't any long term units
| available.
| diggan wrote:
| Ignore what it says in the listings, even if they say
| "maximum 11 months contract", once you speak with them
| and indicate you know the situation and regulations,
| they'll be open to sign proper contracts, unless the
| owner is a huge asshole (which, many are, sadly). And
| yes, this works even in Eixample.
| lqet wrote:
| > Gaudi's plan
|
| It is incredibly rare for a large cathedral to be completed
| just like the original architect envisioned it, without any
| compromises made along the way*. It may even be said that a
| large cathedral is _never_ finished - all the large cathedrals
| have a standing team of builders, usually with a tradition
| going back to the middle ages, and require constant maintenance
| work. "Finished" is thus a difficult term for such a building.
| But if major construction will stop in 2026, with the building
| no longer having any obvious large missing parts, I am totally
| fine with calling it "finished", even if the original plans
| were different. My understanding is that they already deviated
| from the original plans decades ago.
|
| * I think Cologne cathedral was completed more or less
| according to the original plan, but only because historism was
| en vogue and they found the original medieval plans by chance
| in the 19th century. Strasbourg cathedral is a good example for
| a cathedral which doesn't look at all like the original
| architect envisioned it, with a long history of re-planning and
| some aesthetically botched construction works.
| diggan wrote:
| > My understanding is that they already deviated from the
| original plans decades ago.
|
| Yes, a lot of models and plans Gaudi created for Sagrada
| Familia were incomplete when he died. It didn't help either
| that his studio(s) were ransacked during the civil war, so
| even if he had a 100% vision, the war would ensure those
| plans didn't survive.
| ddalex wrote:
| > "found" the original medieval plans "by chance"
| rsynnott wrote:
| I assume in this case they're defining finished as within the
| realms of the possible; kind of seems improbable that the
| staircase thing will ever happen?
| prmoustache wrote:
| > There's some pushback from the neighbors because finishing it
| all means bulldozing hundreds of apartments, although those
| apartments were bought at a discounted price decades ago
| because everyone knew they had an expiration date. And now that
| it's here, they want to keep their apartments even though they
| were told about the Sagrada Familia from the start.
|
| Well, I would say this point becomes moot if they didn't have a
| permit for it from a start.
|
| Also there are laws that are likely to supersede any expiration
| date that was set by who knows who in a different era.
| tuwtuwtuwtuw wrote:
| Gaudi has been dead for 100 years. I don't think he has any
| vote on whether construction is done or not.
| pimlottc wrote:
| I read that and saw a lot of other articles about this
| controversial stairway, but I haven't been able to find any
| actually plans or renderings about what it would look like,
| particularly in context to the existing neighborhood. Do you
| know of any?
| seanalltogether wrote:
| https://pic.blog.plover.com/art/sagrada-familia-spires/sf-
| fl...
|
| Everything south of the text 'Gloria' in this picture is
| apartments right now. The main entrance to the basilica
| effectively has no approach.
| nashashmi wrote:
| When I was there, they said the project will finish in 2150.
|
| So they will be working on this for 200 years. The only
| institution that could survive that long is the catholic
| church.
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| That's a funny inversion of the usual NIMBY logic, where some
| space is set aside to build apartments but then kids start to
| play on it or whatever, and then there's no way apartments can
| be built there.
| chrisdroukas wrote:
| There are a number of material and technology advances [1] that
| accelerated the pace of the Sagrada Familia's construction -- the
| techniques used to construct the basilica have evolved
| significantly since construction began.
|
| https://www.archdaily.com/964178/from-handcrafted-stone-to-3...
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| I should most definitely hope so considering construction
| started in 1882.
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| This is excellent.
|
| I will have to travel there to see it in real life once it is
| done. Construction over such a long span is impressive.
|
| The design looks fragile. I will have to find some better photos.
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| I feel like the only person in the world who was thoroughly
| underwhelmed by it and really don't see how its future space
| requirements for a staircase can be justified.
|
| This isn't me trying to be edgy, I like cathedrals, this one (and
| his general style) just left me cold. Duomo in Milan was far
| better imo.
| RajT88 wrote:
| I wasn't underwhelmed per se (the thing is mind-bogglingly
| huge).
|
| I just was on one of those "middle aged friend couples go to
| Europe" trips. Most of my world travel has been solo, and I
| like to briskly walk around for miles and miles and just see
| how the city is laid out. "Slowly shambling around cathedrals"
| was much of the trip, so I was frequently irritated on that
| trip, particularly so at Sagrada Familia as it must have been
| the 12th cathedral we shambled around in 3 days.
| simonbarker87 wrote:
| > I like to briskly walk around for miles and miles and just
| see how the city is laid out
|
| We would travel well together. My wife and I usually do this.
| We regularly clock up 20-25km a day of just walking around a
| city, often for 3 or 4 days in a row. We will happily walk
| from the centre out the the suburbs. From the far west to the
| far east of a city. We'll retrace our steps and then take a
| right that looks vaguely interesting. We only start to use
| the transit system to get further out or when we are short on
| time.
| dncornholio wrote:
| I had the same type of feeling. Sagrada felt more like a zoo /
| tourist attraction then an actual religious building. The
| design is impressive but it didn't bring the uumpf that Duomo
| did.
| tgv wrote:
| Because it's so crowded, I guess. It's a nice place,
| especially the exterior and the workshops. The interior feels
| too bland.
|
| Milan's Dom isn't that impressive to me, but perhaps that's
| because I've seen more grand, old churches, and the Sagrada
| Familia felt like something different.
| azulster wrote:
| ironically i had the same feeling when i visited the vatican,
| and they were holding mass while i was visiting!
|
| tourist attraction is always gonna feel like a tourist
| attraction i guess
| mhd wrote:
| I liked other cathedrals better, too, but I got a lot out of it
| by contrasting the medieval versions with this. I mean, you got
| a lot of the same motivations, just with different art styles
| and materials. Reflecting on that, it made me change the way I
| view older churches.
|
| Granted, the LOTR of Lothlorien helped, too (I only saw the
| Sagrada Familia in 2022). To past generations, "Gothic" means
| something quite different, as we see it in our current context,
| with darkened fronts and comparisons to buildings that allow
| even more glass. But back then it was all light and organic.
| The SF seems to go in the same direction, but unhindered by
| medieval masonry and mathematics.
|
| Then again, I also like brutalist churches...
| randomcarbloke wrote:
| I can't help but see la Sagrada familia as "organic
| brutalism" I think it's quite vulgar despite also liking
| brutalism.
|
| If it were not for the glass the interior would feel like a
| sixties community centre.
|
| The exterior, a roughly shaped mound of excrement with some
| ornate extrusions. :)
| prmoustache wrote:
| It is not like there is one medieval/gothic style though.
|
| Compare Chartes in France, Firenze in Toscana or the mosque-
| cathedral of Cordoba and you have entirely different styles
| in and out.
|
| I like the Sagrada Familia for its singularity but it indeed
| looks like it has been created by a child with modeling
| compound.
| weatherlight wrote:
| #notacathedral
| jonjacky wrote:
| George Orwell called it "one of the most hideous buildings in
| the world." (I don't agree, but I see his point -- it's
| certainly one of the most eccentric, and it's huge.)
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| I've only seen it in pictures, but I'm not a fan either. Looks
| completely secular, might as well be a concert hall or
| something. Maybe that's the point, throw an as wide net as
| possible to appeal to everyone to try to justify the cost.
| simonklitj wrote:
| This is an interesting comment to me! How do you define
| secular-looking? Is it a lack of some particular design
| element?
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| It simply lacks Catholic design elements. The stained glass
| is a jumble of nonsense, not even a nice pattern like the
| Muslims do, and I suppose there is an altar and a crucifix
| in there somewhere, but they drown in all the visual
| clutter, like they're ashamed of it.
|
| It's possible, even likely, that the pictures don't do it
| justice, so I will take a look in person at some point, but
| I don't have high hopes.
| AlanYx wrote:
| There's a rhyme and reason to the stained glass that's
| tied into the other symbolic elements embedded in the
| architecture. For example, the color scheme shifts as you
| pan from the nativity side through to the passion side.
| The lower panels are not totally abstract; there are
| vague shapes that sort of remind you of figures, flames,
| etc. but then it tends to pivot towards full geometric
| abstraction as you raise your head.
|
| Like the Mezquita in Cordoba, it's hard to get a sense of
| how intensely all the combined elements make an
| impression just from photographs.
| fvdessen wrote:
| The whole church is completely covered in innumerable
| fractals of catholic symbolism and its main tower will be
| topped by a 29 meters high cross. Maybe you just don't
| like the style, which is understandable as it is quite
| divisive.
| rsynnott wrote:
| Secular? I mean, it's not conventional 19th century cathedral
| design, certainly, but it has more religious symbolism than
| you can shake a stick at.
|
| Gaudi himself was deeply religious; this wasn't just the
| church commissioning a famous architect for the sake of it or
| anything. It was very much a labour of love for him, AIUI.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| I can't see it in the interior shots. It's possible that
| it's all there but drowned out by bad HDR photography, so I
| will have to take a look for myself.
|
| Also I'm not sure if it's really Gaudi's work, for example
| how the altar is way forward is an innovation from the
| 1970s.
| killthebuddha wrote:
| +1
|
| As another comment suggested, I think it's the crowds and the
| commercialism. It might as well have been erected inside Disney
| World. Maybe I'm insensitive, but it takes more than the
| literal/physical art (the building itself) to move me.
|
| Edit: For example, just walking around the Gothic Quarter at
| night was a significantly more moving, cathartic, or "timeless"
| experience for me.
| lucianbr wrote:
| I didn't know about it before visiting it, and when I was
| there, I was surprised to realise that they have charged me
| admission into a construction zone.
|
| Also, it was nice, but I have no clue what the adulation in
| this thread is about. It's just a huge church with a lot of
| stone and colored glass.
| throw__away7391 wrote:
| I do not like this building, I don't care for it aesthetically,
| but more significantly it's too new to be culturally
| importantly. Old churches/mosques/temples can have historical
| significance, but such is completely missing in this case.
| There's a joke going around that it's the first cathedral
| constructed as a tourist attraction which is both hilarious and
| accurate.
|
| Before the modern era constructing expensive religious
| buildings could perhaps be justified, but after the 1800s
| people ought to have known better and these can't lay claim to
| represent the city as earlier projects could. It belongs in the
| same category as the castle at Disneyland.
| Tactical45 wrote:
| The true beauty is in the inside.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Same. The crowds and tourist atmosphere certainly don't help,
| but even disregarding them I wasn't impressed with what I saw.
|
| Same goes for the few other gaudi buildings I peeped at, as
| well as park guell. I can understand how their design in the
| late 19th/early 20th century would be very novel, but it all
| just seemed merely whimsical rather than inspiring or thought
| provoking.
|
| If we're comparing late 19th century basilicas, Sacre Coeur
| takes top billing in my book.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| You're not the only one. Although the lighting _inside_ may be
| beautiful, it is to me, from the outside, fuglier than fugly.
| Totally and utterly grotesque. I 'd be tempted to say a wart in
| the city but then Barcelona and its superblock is not a
| beautiful city: it's got nothing on, say, Paris or Rome. So
| that wart is on par with the rest of the city.
|
| FWIW I find everything made by Gaudi to be completely
| grotesque.
|
| I don't care about the groupthink: to each its own bad tastes.
| gadders wrote:
| I went 20 or so years ago and again 3 years ago. Really, really
| worth the visit.
|
| Also great to see Christianity's best days of building cathedrals
| (basilicas) didn't end 500 years ago (and I'm not even
| religious).
| boringg wrote:
| Is this one of the longest running construction projects of all
| time?
| loloquwowndueo wrote:
| Not really. Plenty of churches have taken as long or longer to
| be built.
| boringg wrote:
| In the current era though?
| tokai wrote:
| not even close
| rwmj wrote:
| Cathedrals (or technically in this case, a church) being built
| over decades or centuries is pretty common! This might be one
| of the quicker ones.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_Cathedral took six
| centuries, although they started and stopped a few times.
| boringg wrote:
| Fair but those projects didn't happen during the 1900s where
| i would expect them to take long times for procurement and
| build.
| rwmj wrote:
| While it took less time (a mere 74 years) Liverpool
| Cathedral is an example of a long-running 1900s project.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_Cathedral
| boringg wrote:
| Great example. So with my qualifier Sagrada Familia might
| be the longest running modern day piece of construction.
|
| Also Liverpool is one impressively sized cathedral.
| boringg wrote:
| I should add ... in the modern era.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Looking at the surrounding building of the Sagrada, just makes me
| wonder again, what the hell happened to modern architecture.
|
| Modern architecture has destroyed our cities. It's hard to find a
| building build after WO2 that's actually pretty, let alone an
| entire neighborhood. Nothing compared the historic cities of
| Europe.
|
| In a time when it's cheaper then ever to build, they've not been
| able to build anything even close to pretty. The best they do is
| a bad copy of old style.
| boringg wrote:
| People de-risk their asset by building it as easy to not offend
| as possible so if they have to sell it they can find a buyer
| with relative ease.
| pixl97 wrote:
| You may be understating this quite considerably.
|
| I remember reading Future Shock when I was quite young and
| the parts about people changing jobs quite often and living
| closer to nomads stuck with me, even though I have to say
| I've forgotten most of the book.
|
| Simply put anything modern is likely to change its purpose
| many times in the lifetime of the building. A company might
| have its headquarters in one place for 100 years, but
| probably not. It may move to a bigger building, be bought and
| dissolved, or go out of business before the usefulness of the
| building itself. Having a generic asset is worth more in
| cases like this.
|
| Same with housing and the 'millennial grey' people point out
| these days. Most people expect to move many, many times
| within their lives. I've moved 10 times myself, and I know
| people that have moved far more than that. A house is rarely
| looked at like a forever place, and few families seem to keep
| their houses in the family for multiple generations. Add to
| this that family size in the US is rapidly shrinking there
| are a lot of people who know their assets won't be passed on,
| but sold instead.
| hannasanarion wrote:
| The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look
| pretty in pictures.
|
| > Modern architecture has destroyed our cities. It's hard to
| find a building build after WO2 that's actually pretty
|
| That's because the things that get preserved are the things
| that are pretty. You think Romans built their outhouses and
| warehouses and cheap apartments to look like the colosseum? No,
| that shit was ugly too, that's why it's not around any more.
|
| This is called "survivorship bias". Don't base your opinions of
| the past exclusively on the things that survived til now. The
| things that survived til now are, by definition, the exception
| to the norm from the time. Not every european building is a
| work of art, not every Lancaster Bomber avoided being shot in
| the engines, not all the dinosaurs were animated skeletons.
|
| > Nothing compared the historic cities of Europe.
|
| What do you think Barcelona is?
|
| > In a time when it's cheaper then ever to build
|
| HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHA.
|
| No. [https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/construction-costs-hit-
| hig...]
| airstrike wrote:
| _> The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look
| pretty in pictures._
|
| I'd say that's their stated purpose, not their inherent one.
| Beauty is only useless to those who choose to believe so.
|
| If you're not convinced, I recommend Roger Scruton's "Why
| Beauty Matters"
|
| https://vimeo.com/549715999
| gravescale wrote:
| I know the economics must somehow make sense, but it's still
| hard to wrap my head around the fact that even with quite
| literally once-unimaginable computing power, semi-magical
| modern materials, structural theory, decades of recorded
| research and testing, international standardisation, leaps in
| simulations, optimisation, robotics, pneumatics, hydraulics,
| electronics, networking, transmission, logistics and supply
| chain engineering, economies of scale that dwarf the
| imagination of the most ardent technologist of
| yesteryear....humans still can't stack bricks or nail frames
| cheaply enough to reliably put roofs over heads.
|
| It's a hell of a Red Queen thing.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| "Won't", not "can't".
| gravescale wrote:
| You're right, but there's a lot of people here making
| excuses predicated on treating entirely socially-
| voluntary problems (like providing no public transport,
| or allowing regulatory capture to inflate costs) as laws
| of nature.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| We can do that. But we can't make new space.
| pegasus wrote:
| If the footprint is so expensive, you'd expect more
| investment in building quality, not less.
| azulster wrote:
| bricks and wood are unable to maximize the quality of a
| limited footprint. an expensive plot of land in a city
| needs to be built to certain quality standards to make
| sure it is affordable and safe. this is only possible
| with steel and concrete.
|
| brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over
| 3 stories
| pas wrote:
| Of course depending on the definition, but light-framed
| wood is good for around 5 stories. And mass timber (eg.
| CLT - cross-laminated timber) is good up to ~20. And for
| the foundation concrete is still needed. But a lighter
| one.
|
| https://www.construction-physics.com/p/mass-timber-is-
| great-...
| pchristensen wrote:
| Much of American cities and outer areas of are 0 stories
| (big lots, wide roads, etc), or maybe 1-2. Building
| technology is not the limiting factor.
| nick__m wrote:
| brick and wood alone can't build safely and cheaply over
| 3 stories
|
| Tell that to those architects:
| https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/worlds-tallest-
| woo...
| astrange wrote:
| That's not plain wood like American houses are made of,
| it's a new kind of engineered material that's made out of
| wood called CLT.
| hannasanarion wrote:
| Because the footprint is so expensive, you don't have the
| cash to invest in quality without making the building too
| expensive for the people who are going to be using it.
|
| And the footprint isn't the only thing that's more
| expensive, all the cool new technologies that your
| grandparent comment brought up are all more expensive to
| implement than structures without them. The existence of
| those technologies implies the existence of skilled
| professionals to plan and install them. It used to be
| that you just needed to pay your architect and engineer
| and builders, now you gotta also pay your crane operators
| and electricians and plumbers and acoustic consultants,
| and fire protection experts, and geologists, and network
| engineers, and energy consultants, and accessibility
| consultants too and they all want to be paid well for
| their expertise.
|
| The proliferation of skilled professionals reduces the
| appetite in the population in general for unskilled
| manual labor, so that gets more scarce and expensive too.
| Gotta pay the builders well or else they'll quit and
| change careers to be one of those professional types.
|
| Add to that the regulatory and compliance requirements
| that raises the floor of acceptable quality (building
| MUST be energy efficient, accessible, fire-safe,
| earthquake-safe, minimally ecologically impactful, etc
| etc etc) and your wiggle room for where to focus your
| "quality" budget is pretty tiny and exterior aesthetics
| rapidly sinks to the bottom of that list.
|
| [disclaimer: I actually disagree with the people who say
| that new buildings are ugly. I actually like the
| modernist and international style aesthetics that are
| artistic declarations of raw functionality. My town has a
| brutalist city hall where the council chamber juts out in
| an overhang, so when you walk by you can look at it and
| say "that funky structural appendix is the exact room
| where people are making important decisions at this very
| moment" which I think is cool. This post-modern concert
| hall just opened a few blocks from me and I think it's
| pretty sexy: https://wysomusic.org/wp-
| content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2021-11... ]
| balfirevic wrote:
| > We can do that.
|
| Can we? Construction is heavily impacted by cost disease.
|
| My friend recently had a house built and the plot of land
| was around 15% of the cost of the entire project. The
| land in more premium location would still end up under
| 30% of total cost.
| pas wrote:
| Short answer to the riddle is: not enough demand to warrant
| investment (because you would need a long string of a few
| magnitudes bigger projects). Basically, the same structural
| problem that plagues nuclear power plant construction.
|
| All those fancy technological advancements did almost
| nothing to the typical housing construction, it's still a
| lot of manual work, a lot of specialized tasks (site prep,
| foundation, frame/structural stuff, roof, insulation,
| plumbing, sewage, wiring, HVAC, connecting utilities), a
| ton of waiting, lots of logistics. An enormous amount of
| babysitting (project management) of the builders, because
| everything is basically custom/one-off.
|
| https://www.construction-physics.com/p/which-construction-
| ta... cheaper
|
| https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-there-so-
| few-... scale
|
| https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-its-hard-to-
| innov...
| hannasanarion wrote:
| There's a lot of costs that go into construction, the
| actual expense of putting together the parts to make the
| thing was at one time the biggest one, but not any more.
|
| With all those new technologies that increase the
| efficiency of buildings and construction come technicians
| who expect to be paid well for their expertise, so for
| every manual job removed there's an expert who needs to be
| paid about as much or more to operate or plan the labor-
| saving technology so implementing the technology may not
| actually reduce the cost to the builder at all.
|
| For the parts that do still require manual labor, that's
| been getting a lot more expensive and hard to find, because
| hand-in-hand with people specializing in all these fancy
| new technologies, the appetite for manual labor employment
| in developed economies has fallen, which pushes up the cost
| of the parts of construction that technologies hasn't
| changed.
|
| Regulations and requirements have also massively
| proliferated in the last century. The number of inspections
| and approvals that any piece of construction needs is
| pretty crazy compared to the prewar era, plus new
| requirements and design limitations set by law that, while
| good for society (anti-fire, disability access), can
| sometimes drive up costs or limit design choices because
| ramps take more space than stairs and fire sprinklers
| represent a doubling of the amount of plumbing work you
| need to do.
|
| Land has gotten progressively more expensive as it has
| become more scarce. Sprawl kinda reached the limit of what
| commuters are willing to tolerate in the 90s, so nobody can
| do cheap greenfill development anymore (anecdote, my
| parents had a new house built on the outskirts of Phoenix
| in 2006, with a 70 minute _minimum_ driving commute, which
| I would absofuckinglutely never tolerate for myself): you
| need to buy more expensive interior land to redevelop. God
| help you if your local land use regulations require you to
| provide free parking, in which case you may be forbidden
| from building on as much as 2 /3 of that very expensive
| land you just bought.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| > The purpose of most buildings is to be useful, not to look
| pretty in pictures.
|
| Architecture is the only art where you're forced to
| participate. So we could pretty much say the opposite,
| buildings should, among other things, contribute to make a
| place nice. Or at least not make it more miserable.
|
| > What do you think Barcelona is?
|
| Most of Spanish cities are built with crap buildings dating
| above the 60s. Just concrete blocks, in some cities even with
| just plain grey and humidity stains. It doesn't matter how
| historic the city is, because the "historic center" it's just
| a small spot surrounded by uglyness.
| astrange wrote:
| If your only complaint is the buildings are grey then try
| painting them.
| throwaway91838 wrote:
| >That's because the things that get preserved are the things
| that are pretty. You think Romans built their outhouses and
| warehouses and cheap apartments to look like the colosseum?
| No, that shit was ugly too, that's why it's not around any
| more. This is called "survivorship bias".
|
| The interior of the small apartments in Pompeii are
| beautifully decorated, and at the very least more skillfully
| so than most medieval churches, and we are talking about a
| small run of the mill rural Italian town.
|
| The reason Roman architecture is gone, is that the christians
| scrapped them for building materials to build churches,
| something that still happened until relatively recently (see
| the Temple of Ceasar pillaged in the late 15th century).
|
| The Colosseum itself is a pretty bad example of architecture
| left intact, it's literally sawn-off in half.
| bluGill wrote:
| > > Nothing compared the historic cities of Europe. >What do
| you think Barcelona is?
|
| Not historic. Well some of it is, there is a tiny small town
| core that dates back to Roman times. The vast majority of the
| city only dates back to the 1900s. They were just lucky that
| Gaudi and other great architects practiced then and built
| landmarks that really should be preserved for as long as we
| can. Don't make a mistake though, Gaudi and peers built the
| city we know in the 1900s which isn't very old.
| nextworddev wrote:
| It is much cheaper to build McMansions, etc
| bluGill wrote:
| McMansions are also functional. They may not look good, but
| they do what people need in a house well (obviously with
| thousands of different McMansions there will be thousands of
| different things). I have a house in 1970 - it is okay, but
| modern houses of a similar size are a lot more functional
| because space is used differently. I've been in houses built
| in 1920 which were really bad - they looked nice but as an
| engineer I see a lot of things that are just wrong.
| prmoustache wrote:
| The thing is, most of the 60's/70's building look like shit
| from outside but are pretty nice and super funcional from the
| inside while some older ones were made for an era where people
| had huge hotel particuliers with servants and stuff and the
| current appartments have been build by splitting those in
| parts. Those appartments that aren't as well made/functionnal
| despite being nice to look at and having lots of vertical
| space, nice carved/moulded ceiling, etc.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| In Spain it's not only 60s/70s, pretty much everything build
| between the 60s and the 90s is not only ugly AF, but very low
| quality. And Barcelona is not even the worst offender. In
| northern spanish cities there's a lot of grey in the
| buildings, with basically no insulation in a humid and cold
| climate. My GF used to joke it was colder inside her home
| than outside.
|
| After the new construction code in the early 00s the quality
| has improved a lot but we still build very ugly buildings.
|
| No wonder why people chose to gather and spend their time
| where the historial centers are.
|
| Seems architects really refuse to extract some lessons from
| this.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Well I hate to say it as I am also living in Spain, in the
| south, but there is definitely a culture of making stuff
| with the minimum effort and a lack of focus on quality.
|
| And I too do joke that it feels colder inside than outside
| from mid november to mid february.
| wkat4242 wrote:
| And half the Barcelona buildings from the 60s/70s were made
| with concrete that turns to sand when it gets wet
| (aluminosis). People have died in buildings that suddenly
| collapsed.
| harry_ord wrote:
| The cold thing was the biggest surprise when I was in
| Barcelona one November
| LtWorf wrote:
| > having lots of vertical space, nice carved/moulded ceiling,
| etc.
|
| Do you mean that being habitable without air conditioning is
| a negative feature?
| azulster wrote:
| "Do you mean that being habitable without air conditioning
| is a negative feature?"
|
| in a specific climate, sure. but in other climates high
| ceilings might just be a burden on the air conditioning
| system
| prmoustache wrote:
| I didn't say that. Maybe I haven't phrased it correctly but
| it was meant to be understood like "despite lots of
| vertical space, nice ceilings, etc". These are nice things
| but it doesn't really matter if the floor space is
| illogical, the kitchen is barely larger than a small
| wardrobe and you have a piece of corridor that barely has
| any purpose, is difficult to organize and is only wasting
| space.
| bnralt wrote:
| I've found most of the 60's and 70's building in the U.S. to
| be just the opposite myself. Often stairwells are hidden,
| sometimes behind multiple doors, so even going up a single
| flight of stairs usually involves waiting for an elevator. A
| lot of places seem to use space in a bizarre way - lobbies
| that are much too large and empty, the functional areas being
| cramped and small. Ceilings that are much too high, which not
| only waste space but lead to many functional issues (changing
| a bulb that's 16 feet up is much more difficult than changing
| one that's 8 feet up). Windows that are pulled back from the
| wall so they get much less natural lighting.
|
| The whole thing feels like the architectural profession
| became interested in impressing each other with designs that
| they thought looked cool, and seemed to forget that people
| actually had to use these spaces. The areas here with
| buildings from that area usually feel much more dead than
| areas with buildings from almost any other era.
| MattGaiser wrote:
| You are understating cheaper to build. A lot of the beautiful
| buildings took decades if not centuries to construct. Cost
| hundreds of millions of dollars inflation-adjusted. They are
| also extremely expensive to maintain, as stone is expensive in
| so many ways.
| mikey_p wrote:
| Check out Brent Hull on YouTube who is answering this very
| question. His basic premise is that post WWII the focus on
| efficiency and mass production ruined the craftsmanship that
| went into older buildings.
| nemo44x wrote:
| I love Brent and his redesigns of existing buildings are
| really eye opening. It really shows how bad people fail at
| building traditional buildings today. He makes a compelling
| argument for why his redesign makes more sense and to my eye
| the buildings tend to look much better and simpler too. It's
| based around some basic theory that had served builders well
| for a long time and has been thrown out to build gaudy things
| that imitate very poorly.
|
| One of my favorite observations of his is that a modern cheap
| door isn't even really a door - it's more a simulation of a
| door than an actual door. It is made of plastic and filled
| with foam but is made to look like wood and has stiles and
| rails and fake paneling pressed into the moulding to look
| like what people think a door looks like. And it comes in a
| pre-fabricated frame and is installed, not crafted. But it
| doesn't feel like a door or sound like a door. Just a flimsy
| thing that closes a passage off. And we admire _installers_
| today, not _craftsmen_.
|
| One thing about him, and I think he acknowledges it, is that
| efficiency and mass production are why so many more people
| can live in relatively nice homes today. Not everyone (in
| fact most people can't) can live in a well crafted home made
| from the best materials, etc. But I do agree with him that
| developers could at least try and make things that are rooted
| in some sense of design principal.
| pas wrote:
| Meh, we're still very very far from mass-production. We got
| rich and spend a lot of that on inefficiently building higher
| quality houses.
|
| https://www.construction-physics.com/p/which-construction-
| ta... cheaper
|
| https://www.construction-physics.com/p/why-are-there-so-
| few-... scale
| nemo44x wrote:
| A few things. first off, we have code now. Until the 1950s you
| could do whatever you wanted. But nowadays there a bunch of
| things that need to be "up to code" and it's not just internals
| like electrical, etc. Stairways, railings, heights, room sizes,
| construction technique, etc are all affected by this. And we
| continue to add more and more code for things like efficiency,
| etc. And this isn't a bad thing - code means we have safer
| buildings and when someone buys a building there's at least a
| minimum standard that has been met.
|
| So this means you are going to build in ways that are proven
| and will be up to code. Which leads to the second thing.
|
| Construction materials have become standardized over the last
| 100 years or so. We went from a world where things were crafted
| to a world where things are manufactured and installed.
| Buildings are made mainly of commoditized parts and materials
| today which makes a lot of things look simplistic and similar.
| This is good in many ways because when a craftsman was hand
| carving things they were not very productive and it cost a lot
| of money. Today, a worker is amazingly productive since their
| tools are powered and their materials are pre-fabricated and
| just need to be cut to size.
|
| Lastly, buildings are far more complex today than 100+ years
| ago. Lots more electrical and plumbing, complex HVAC,
| insulation requirements, etc. These things were not considered
| long ago. You had carpentry and maybe a bit of plumbing and
| some basic electrical.
|
| You can still get really nice custom work done and it's
| unbelievable expensive.
| alistairSH wrote:
| Be careful to avoid survivorship bias here. Only the "best"
| buildings from Medieval and Renaissance times (or even later
| into the 1800s) are still around. Many of the buildings we
| constructed in the second half of the 20th century will be gone
| in 100 years or so.
|
| Also, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I know there was a
| lot of criticism when the Louvre built the pyramid, but I quite
| like the contrast of traditional and modern.
| kiney wrote:
| Nope, visit ANY old german village that wasn't bombed during
| ww2. Most of the old houses still stand and every single one
| is prettier than what is being build today.
| pixl97 wrote:
| And how much would that same house cost to build now?
|
| Again, this is survivorship bias at best.
| hnuser847 wrote:
| Yes, only the best buildings from hundreds of years ago have
| been preserved, but that still doesn't explain why we build
| ugly buildings right now. You would think we would be able to
| draw on centuries of architectural trial and error to
| determine what is objectively pleasing to people. Instead
| it's like the past never existed. Architects keep building
| hideous blobs of steel and glass and wondering why people
| don't like their creations.
| azulster wrote:
| "hideous blobs of steel and glass" were originally known as
| glorious and beautiful modern architecture. oversaturation
| makes the creative into the tired and boring
| ReptileMan wrote:
| I am not sure - I can see why Empire State or Chrysler
| are majestic, but WTC was hideous. And I saw them
| simultaneously for the first time. The shard is probably
| nice, shanghai tower is not too ugly, burj khalifa is ok
| - but almost everything else is eyesore.
| astrange wrote:
| Everything about building in the US is either forbidden or
| mandatory; "liking" doesn't come into it, there generally
| isn't a choice in the matter.
|
| The main aesthetic reason new buildings don't look like old
| ones is Baumol's cost disease, i.e. nobody can hire that
| many laborers anymore.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| There are lot's of city centres in Europe in France, Italy,
| Belgium etc. where entire neighborhoods survived, and they
| look great.
| azulster wrote:
| new york city's brownstones are considered beautiful and
| iconic now, but when they were built they were described as
| cheap eye-sores and a blight upon the beautiful city.
|
| i imagine a similar trend must exist for most of the
| European cities. people's aesthetic usually rejects the
| new, but recognizes the beauty once it is seen as old and
| classic
| brabel wrote:
| I think the ultimate city if you like old European
| architecture is probably Prague. It's a big city and most
| of it is amazing.
|
| You're totally right that France/Italy/Belgium all have
| amazing towns to visit. But in case someone is looking for
| a random tip elsewhere: Cesky Krumlov
| (https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cesk%C3%BD_Krumlov),
| which is in today Czechia (handy in case you happen to
| visit Prague), but used to have a large German population
| before WWII. It looks wonderful, perhaps the most perfect
| Medieval town I've seen.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Yeah Prague is awesome; although same as Amsterdam, and
| other bigger cities the chaos of the cities at times is a
| distraction. Cesky looks lovely, France also has amazing
| places. I do think this is the most perfect Medieval town
| though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mont-Saint-Michel
| netbioserror wrote:
| You must not travel a lot. There are huge numbers of historic
| villages and towns with original or very old architecture. If
| we were dealing with survivorship bias, we should expect
| essentially random buildings scattered around cities, not
| entire towns or contiguous historic districts.
| alistairSH wrote:
| I was thinking of iconic buildings - cathedrals, etc.
|
| Thinking of old towsn in the UK, many are picturesque, but
| those old cottages tend to have limited windows and low
| ceilings make them far less functional by modern standards.
| skinner927 wrote:
| You may want to double check that the historic buildings
| you see in historic districts are actually, uhh, historic.
| Historic building codes have been around for hundreds of
| years in some areas and many of the buildings are rebuilds
| and ones that didn't fit the mold have been rebuilt.
|
| Not that modern concrete architecture is not a blight on
| our cities, but not all historic buildings were originally
| as charming as we may see them today.
| ebiester wrote:
| We underestimate the pressure the world has been under in the
| last century. In 1950, we had about 2.5 billion people. Today,
| we have 8 billion. We had to find accommodations for 5.5
| billion people who all expected to have a greater standard of
| living with electricity and living space; something had to
| give.
|
| We had to be more parsimonious with the materials at our
| disposal.
| hollerith wrote:
| "We had to find accommodations for 5.5 billion people" is
| irrelevant to a discussion of one city in Spain that did not
| grow quickly: Spain has its own architects that haven't been
| influenced much by architects in countries like Nigeria and
| India where the population grew very fast.
| pas wrote:
| Population of Barcelona grew from 500K to more than 1.7M in
| 70 years.
| hollerith wrote:
| OK (that is much faster growth than Spain as a whole) but
| the 5.5 billion new people is still irrelevant.
| superturkey650 wrote:
| It's not irrelevant as a ratio. 2.5 billion to 8 billion
| is very comparable to 500k to 1.7 million. The population
| tripled in 70 years and, in the current times, you also
| have to deal with all the existing architecture and
| infrastructure in the city that wasn't built for anywhere
| near that population level.
| pixl97 wrote:
| People really don't understand how big the 'boomers'
| generation really was. Populations exploded in the post war
| era and with the rapid rise in technology people were
| disinterested in doing things in the way of the past. In the
| US at least there was a mass migration over the country and a
| massive need for housing that could be quickly built. Later
| this rapid expansion of 'sameness' would be captured in
| popular media in songs like "Little Boxes".
| Gimpei wrote:
| Le Courbousier is what happened. He actually wanted to demolish
| Paris and put up a huge office park. But I love modern
| architecture. Try going to the Salk institute or even the Marin
| County Civic Center. It's pretty mystical.
| wouldbecouldbe wrote:
| Try going to Palma, Salk institute looks like a depressive
| lifeless concrete mess OCD creation.
|
| https://www.spain.info/en/destination/palma/
| bmicraft wrote:
| It really does look depressing, even in the best photos
| coryrc wrote:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salk_Institute_for_Biologic
| a...
|
| is a picture of the named building. Your link, for me, puts
| up a beautiful (sandstone?) cathedral.
| pas wrote:
| Brazilia (the city) is pretty nice. Getting rid of roads and
| keeping/extending parks is much easier there than, in either
| a suburban sprawl or in Barcelona.
|
| The "towers in the park" concept works, if the park is not
| just an artificial green desert. (And the towers are not the
| underfunded "projects"), for example Hong Kong (the island),
| with the green mountain and the walkable seaside promenades
| felt much more livable than even Barcelona.
| Biganon wrote:
| Le Corbusier*
| dbrgn wrote:
| > It's hard to find a building build after WO2 that's actually
| pretty, let alone an entire neighborhood.
|
| Hold on, we're talking about Barcelona... The phallus tower
| (Torre Glories) certainly has a certain aesthetic ;)
|
| A bit on the more serious side: If you ask city planners, they
| will probably be able to list thousands of examples of
| beautiful neighbourhoods in modern cities. They do exist, but I
| agree that a lot of modern buildings appear quite "soulless"
| and exchangeable.
| audunw wrote:
| What happened is that a vast quantity of people moved into and
| around the cities. We also have more strict building codes that
| take into account light, air quality, longevity, energy
| effiency etc.
|
| You're looking at an old city built for a relatively small
| elite over many hundreds of years, and you're surprised why
| cities built for many millions of people over a few decade look
| a bit basic in comparison?
|
| I came across some pre-WW2 photographs of a European city I
| know, of the more poor districts that don't often get
| photographed. You think they looked nice? A modern apartment
| building looks much better than those cheap wooden shacks and
| lasts 100 times longer.
|
| I think there's hope in the long term. My grandmas apartment
| building was built quickly and cheaply and looked like trash
| when I was a child. It has since been renovated with a nicer
| brick facade. Could be better, but it's a step in the right
| direction.
|
| Give it a hundred years and compounding refurbishment and
| survivorship bias will make most cities look great.
| ido wrote:
| I just came back from San Francisco and plenty of post WW2
| buildings there (mostly high rises) look nice.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| Buildings used to be made by rich people or institutions who
| built what they wanted.
|
| Now it's controlled by bureaucrats and regulations.
| azulster wrote:
| old buildings used to also be death traps, we only know of
| the survivors, but lots of old construction would burn down,
| collapse in a minor earthquake, or rot from water.
|
| we only have the survivors to admire now
| reddog wrote:
| You might enjoy the Tom Wolfe book, From Bauhaus to Our House.
| In it he tries to explain the observations you make. Very
| lively, funny writing and you know he is on the right track
| because he was universally panned by modern architects.
| azulster wrote:
| "modern architecture" is a following the same pricniples of
| most architecture, engineer it to be strong enough, for as
| cheap as possible, if you are very very lucky somebody may be
| willing to pay extra to make it look good.
|
| usually the church was more than willing to pay extra for
| beauty, but the average apartment building or urban mixed-use
| building built in the last few decades is likely focused on
| being affordable and efficient.
| throw0101b wrote:
| > _Looking at the surrounding building of the Sagrada, just
| makes me wonder again, what the hell happened to modern
| architecture._
|
| To a certain extent: economics.
|
| Beauty generally does not show up on a spreadsheet, and when it
| does it often adds cost. Glass costs less than steel, concrete,
| or stone, so it's lower CapEx to have glass towers. (Of course
| glass sucks as a thermal insulator, so your OpEx for
| heating/cooling may be higher.)
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Glass is also not heavy, which is very important. (At least,
| relative to steel and brick.)
|
| The modern glass curtain wall is popular because it is not
| load bearing and costs very little extra to hold up. High-
| rise steel frame was very expensive, and high-rise masonry
| basically impossible, because the frames also had to bear the
| weight of their own upper floors. The structural part of a
| modern skyscraper is basically floors cantilevering off a
| small concrete core, and the glass wall simply hangs off the
| cantilever.
| rsynnott wrote:
| I used to work in a Georgian building.
|
| I'll take the ugly 70s concrete block I work in nowadays any
| day. It's _extremely_ difficult to adapt a lot of these old
| forms to functional, comfortable housing and offices. There are
| exceptions, but practicality is a big part of the change.
|
| You're also seeing a certain amount of survivor bias in many
| cities; the old buildings that are still around are the ones
| that someone thought it would be worthwhile to keep around.
| distances wrote:
| We don't have to go that far back in time, European cities
| have loads of beautiful buildings still from early 1900s. For
| example whole neighborhoods of Jugendstil apartment buildings
| that mainly housed working class people moving to cities. New
| construction in these same neighborhoods simply do not match
| the beauty of the existing housing stock. And early 1900s
| housing is usually quite nice if it's been at least slightly
| renovated (double glazing etc).
| javier_e06 wrote:
| I agree. Kids watch Harry Potter and dream about Hogwarts and
| their school pretty much looks like a prison without the
| barbwire and guard towers. They don't play in the woods but on
| a asphalt blacktop or a square of grass. Sad.
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| Scott Alexander has written a good blog post about the numerous
| things that could be contributing to this result:
|
| https://www.astralcodexten.com/p/whither-tartaria
| Lance_ET_Compte wrote:
| The desire of people to drive (and park) their personal
| automobiles everywhere has killed cities. Density is forced to
| be lower.
| Affric wrote:
| Do you mean "Modernist"?
|
| Art Nouveau, Gaudi's dialect being Modernisme, was a movement
| which aimed to democratise and modernise architecture and
| design compared to previous periods.
| levocardia wrote:
| Swaminarayan Akshardham in New Jersey is new and beautiful.
| Probably noteworthy that it is also a religious building. I
| think ugly modern buildings are a problem of aesthetics and
| ambition, not one of finances or possibility. Old buildings on
| American college campuses are wonderful; new ones are dreadful
| yet certainly much more expensive, even inflation-adjusted.
| selimthegrim wrote:
| Did they ever settle up and give the back pay to the
| indentured servants they essentially imported?
| maxglute wrote:
| Mass urbanization, raising wages, labour saving construction
| methods and mass produced materials. I think dutch modern
| architecture does an alright blending blending constraints and
| modernism. Sagrada Familia is not a model for mass development.
| That said, I do love me some blood equity monumentality. It
| would be "neat" importing 10,000 cheap labourers, train them up
| on traditional masonery techiques and build some more
| monuments.
| dist-epoch wrote:
| Finished just in time to praise the coming AGI god.
| jonjacky wrote:
| There is already a former church in Barcelona that now houses a
| supercomputer:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barcelona_Supercomputing_Cente...
| pksebben wrote:
| That thing is just begging for a 007 cameo.
| _giorgio_ wrote:
| Probably 50% of the construction is based on the project by
| Gaudi, which was lost.
|
| It's almost completely a contemporary project.
|
| https://hyperallergic.com/152158/has-gaudis-sagrada-familia-...
|
| https://sagradafamilia.barcelona-tickets.com/sagrada-familia...
|
| "Spanish Civil War: In 1936, during the civil unrest, anarchists
| broke into the cathedral and stole the plans, and destroyed the
| church's crypt. Work only resumed after the unrest ended in 1939.
| The informational remains were pieced together to make Sagrada
| Familia what it is today."
| diggan wrote:
| Where are you getting the "anarchists" part from? As far as I
| know, it isn't known exactly what group was behind the
| ransacking, and the sources you link only talks about "Vandals"
| and "revolutionary groups".
|
| That quote of yours don't seem to be a verbatim quote?
| _giorgio_ wrote:
| https://sagradafamilia.barcelona-tickets.com/sagrada-
| familia...
|
| "Spanish Civil War: In 1936, during the civil unrest,
| anarchists broke into the cathedral and stole the plans, and
| destroyed the church's crypt...."
|
| https://imgur.com/a/tzwQuea
| azulster wrote:
| some people use anarchist as term similar to "vandal",
| "rioter" or "terrorist", just a rogue element at the time
| causing destruction or chaos.
| NoboruWataya wrote:
| But anarchists were a distinct and active political force
| in Spain during (and before) the Spanish Civil War. I
| suspect the page is talking about those anarchists. The
| Catholic Church was on Franco's side during the Civil War
| so a church wouldn't have been an unreasonable target for
| left-wing anarchists, though I have no idea if the claim is
| true.
| captaincaveman wrote:
| Yes, Anarchist were very much a specific thing in that
| context, not as its used today.
| zelphirkalt wrote:
| I don't know how true to history the movie is, but if
| close, then "La Lengua de las mariposas" is a good
| example of basically anyone possibly being accused of
| being an anarchist at that time, if they were againt the
| Franco regime.
| mattxxx wrote:
| Here's a really cool article I read a while back on using
| computers and geometry to finish Gaudi's work:
|
| https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gilfranco-Alves/publica...
|
| It's interesting using computational tools to finish something in
| spirit, that started long before their mainstreaming.
| krylon wrote:
| I saw it in 1999, it was not very finished, but already an
| impressive sight. We tried to climb the tower, but it was very
| busy that day (probaby like any other day).
|
| We did visit Park Guell, though, on that same day, which was less
| crowded, and that was incredible.
|
| If you haven't been to Barcelona, it is an amazingly beautiful
| city. We only spent one day there, which is far too little to do
| the city justice.
| deadbabe wrote:
| When this is done in 2026, we'll be as far away from the start of
| construction as they were from the end of it.
| fetzu wrote:
| We are all time traveling forward at the same speed, dude.
| Invictus0 wrote:
| It is incredibly ugly
| fearthetelomere wrote:
| While still a marvel in its own right, I couldn't help but feel
| underwhelmed when I visited.
|
| After witnessing the architecture of both ancient and
| (relatively) modern Eastern/Southeastern structures, I found the
| Sagrada Familia lacking. It came across somewhat soulless with
| its bleached cavernous interior and uninspired stained glass
| artwork.
|
| That came across harsher than I truly feel, but I think it's
| garnered some undeserved hype especially after 100 years of
| construction. I wonder what structures inspired Gaudi that may be
| lost to time, and what feelings he wanted to evoke in me that I
| didn't experience during my visit.
| chombier wrote:
| Funny, I was there last Thursday and our guide said "supposed to
| finish in 2026, more like 2035 if you ask me!"
| typon wrote:
| One of the most beautiful examples of religious architecture I
| have ever seen in person. Definitely can get lost in the
| thousands of little details. Really puts me to shame calling
| myself an engineer when I other engineers accomplish things of
| that scale.
| iambateman wrote:
| On a perfect afternoon in September, I walked alone through the
| park to find the church.
|
| One moment, only trees. The next, La Sagrada Familia.
|
| To stand there, before the century of brilliance and
| determination that combined to create this mass of stone and
| glass, on the edge between nature and society, and see, and sense
| that I too am seen, was one of the great privileges of my life.
|
| To Gaudi, and his countless collaborators...thank you.
| jeffwask wrote:
| It feels like this is one of the last generation spanning
| projects left. I have doubts that our immediate gratification
| society can still envision and execute on projects of this scale.
| jurgenaut23 wrote:
| Sure, tell yourself that.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| For real this time?
| iammjm wrote:
| Imagine how many hospitals, schools or affordable housings this
| money could've bought...
| af78 wrote:
| TIL construction went on for 137 years without a building permit.
| I find it hard to believe no one realized in such a long time.
| jeroen79 wrote:
| I didn't really like it, it look big and impressing, but its to
| much a mix of styles, new and old and all together weird.
| wewtyflakes wrote:
| Spain going for scoring some late-game victory points via wonder
| construction.
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| Historically, 140 years isn't that long for structures like this.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| I've been and to me it looked more weird than beautiful. Like
| something from the set of Farscape. The quasi-organic forms are
| almost disturbing. I was surprised the clergy of the time agreed
| to it.
|
| Impressive sure, but in the way of "Wow, there is a lot of work
| in this weird thing"
| __loam wrote:
| Gaudi was incredibly ahead of his time with the design of the
| cathedral. Even as a non-believer I highly recommend that
| people visit this building at least once in their lifetime.
| It's unbelievable in person and I actually got vertigo looking
| up into it. It's a truly awe inspiring building and it's
| shocking that it was designed in the 19th century.
| 28304283409234 wrote:
| Can you imagine those sprints and retros?
| jscheel wrote:
| I have always said that most cathedrals, basilicas, etc leave me
| in awe of the catholic church's wealth and power, but do little
| to draw me closer to God. Sagrada Familia left me speechless. The
| way Gaudi works nature and light made me feel close to God in a
| way that I had never experienced before.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-03-25 23:01 UTC)