Comments on: Parish Church of Santa Monica / Vicens & Ramos

By: Julio

Julio — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:01:32 +0000

First, both the exterior and interior are very interesting and I applaud the level of investigation and the execution in the realized building. Most times, the concept does not come out clearly in the finished building as reality attempts to crush the concept. Although I am disappointed that Corbusier’s Ronchamp was not mentioned at all as a reference point which it most certainly is. We could have heard about where they connected and attempted to divert intellectually from the Ronchamp original; that would have been very interesting.

For those of you that say the interior is boring; I believe that the visual effects of the lighting, shapes of the oculi, and the tinting on the certain sections of the oculi would affect the eye and intesify the experience in person. Some of these experiential effects don’t translate in the form of eye candy (photography). In fact, I think the interior is very interesting.

By: croftDESIGN

croftDESIGN — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 04:49:17 +0000

the exterior is great, wonderful execution of a conceptual idea. the interior, however, as others have mentioned, is not as successful. the interior could relate more appropriately to the building’s strong formal exterior. i especially enjoy how the main facade induces so many feelings, not for the faint of heart, for sure.

By: Patrick Gomez

Patrick Gomez — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:57:58 +0000

It seems to me like the designers did visit the 2004 Venise Biennale and saw the work of Saucier+Perrotte. Take a look at http://www.saucierperrotte.com (click on the red biennale logo) and you will see what I mean …

By: Paul Nelson

Paul Nelson — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:57:01 +0000

Like I accidentally commented on another post, you have to admit, for so impenetrable an exterior, the interior is amazingly uplifting. I do wish they would have extended a bit of the depth of its front facade around to the long sides.

By: casiotimex

casiotimex — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 12:39:39 +0000

trying too hard?

By: CovKa

CovKa — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:19:57 +0000

This is everything what church should not look like.

By: Chiaro Scuro

Chiaro Scuro — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:53:22 +0000

I loved the sketches of the severed fingers

By: wartian

wartian — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:17:51 +0000

without referring to the comments above, i personally dislike the interior. after read thru the comments, i am wright! the interior is hermetic although there are plenty of apertures that bring the light in. from the pictures, it looked stuffy and airless….the the combination of all these finishes are more suitable for fashion boutique or chic hotel.

By: The Big Black & White Zebra

The Big Black & White Zebra — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 18:09:09 +0000

Hey guys, you cannot be serious…

This is amazing, awesome, ethereal… and, that’s what a church should be. It also should give amongst hope and security, a sense of discomfort, and it does!

The originality is exceptional, inside, outside, where ever you look. Not for a long time have I seen an artistic approach in such an architectonic way. The wall behind the altar is a Ben Nicholson or a Graham Sutherland in three-dimension. The detail, delicacy but energy of the sculptures against the searing light that comes from all directions.

It comes through spaces that because the edges are so crisp have an abstract quality emphasised by those planes picked out in gold…

etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., I really could go on and on, and on, and on, and on, and on…

The chapel cross so unusual and seen with the Madonna and angel of the main body of the church. The artistry of the altar, font, etc..

Enough you should really enjoy this, it’s one of the best.

By: Durban

Durban — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:14:22 +0000

@ Korbanzo
“No such thing as ugly architecture?” , “rather conceptual and ugly”, i think if you asked any non-architect, they would say those are crazy statements. Personally i am torn, my architecture education and desire to find the reasons behind forms makes me want to appreciate that street facade … but if im honest, my gut reaction when i saw that was to retch and run away.

I think its important to decide whether you want to design an object of beauty for the average passer-by, something essential, accessible and jargon-free
or
design for the architects/lecturers/journalists to make something really clever and academic that relies on refences and the observer’s knowledge to make a conceptual statement.

im not taking either side, its just an observation. do youall agree?