4 ms·

Many locals (and at any rate this local) see the Sagrada Família as it currently is as a rather unhappy travesty. There are no construction plans by Gaudí, just

yiyus 7y ago
Most cathedrals took generations to build and diverged from the initial plans during their construction. It is not uncommon that even architectonic styles changed, and the final result was a mixture of romanic and gothic, for example. Sagrada Familia may be an unhappy travesty, but every cathedral is, and few have such a consistent style. Even our cities are unhappy travesties, and I do not think that leaving the unfinished works of deceased architects unfinished would change that. You have all the right to dislike how it is being done, and it may be not exactly what Gaudí thought, but trying to finish it was, in my opinion, the right decision. When you are in the middle of a task that will take generations, it makes sense trying to continue even if some accident happens, like your main architect getting killed by a tram or documents getting lost.
- Schiphol 7y ago
  I'd say our conception of art, and architecture in particular, has changed substantially since the heyday of the Gothic cathedral. We now don't think of buildings as a communal, multigenerational effort. > every cathedral is Actually, contemporary cathedrals (of which more than a few have been built in the XXth and XXIst centuries) are typically completed in a reasonable timeframe. 5 years for Moneo's Our Lady of the Angels; 3 years for Hartman's Cathedral of Christ the Light, and so on. By the way, the Sagrada Família is not a cathedral, but a basilica, but that is neither here nor there :)
Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago
Not an expert in the subject, but my understanding is that Gaudí was aware that the project would not be completed in his lifetime, but wanted it to be completed anyway, and even counted with future technology for help (i.e. some of his ideas could not be realized at his time, but he thought technology would advance enough to implement them after his death). So leaving it as it was in 1926 would actually have been against Gaudí's will, and from that standpoint, continuing it was the right thing to do. I will not comment on decisions taken on the particular execution, as I don't have the knowledge, although as a layman I did like it a lot when I visited around 3 years ago.
inferiorhuman 7y ago
Many locals (and at any rate this local) see the Sagrada Família as it currently is as a rather unhappy travesty. There are no construction plans by Gaudí, just a few sketches, and what architects are doing is mostly theme-park architecture: making concrete look like stone, for example. It would have been much preferable to leave it as it was in 1926. Coming from a city that is having a bit of an identity crisis and relies heavily on tourist money, the impression I got of Barcelona is that the city itself is very much a theme park for English tourists. It really seemed like Catalan culture was whitewashed pretty successfully (e.g. pintxos everywhere). In terms of combating that theme-park mentality, Sagrada Família is certainly not where I'd start (then again I don't live in Barcelona). Parc Güell was especially over the top and cartoonish, less in the architecture, but more in the throngs of selfie sticks. It's gone from a thoughtfully designed park to a caricature. Sagrada Família was, OTOH, a pretty stark contrast. I did the self-guided audio tour and went up into the Nativity facade (not the newer one) and was just floored. I fully expected the audio tour to be full of self-promotion, but even the 99PI episode on Sagrada Família left me with the impression that Gaudí wanted to see SF completed and that currently painstaking effort is being made to keep things as true to his desires as possible. Obviously things won't be done exactly as Gaudí would've done them, but that's an artifact of technology changing over time. Much like any other aged building, Sagrada Família would've needed a restoration at some point. For better or worse, the primary function of Sagrada Família is as a museum / tourist destination and it's been that way for many years.

yiyus 7y ago

Most cathedrals took generations to build and diverged from the initial plans during their construction. It is not uncommon that even architectonic styles changed, and the final result was a mixture of romanic and gothic, for example. Sagrada Familia may be an unhappy travesty, but every cathedral is, and few have such a consistent style. Even our cities are unhappy travesties, and I do not think that leaving the unfinished works of deceased architects unfinished would change that. You have all the right to dislike how it is being done, and it may be not exactly what Gaudí thought, but trying to finish it was, in my opinion, the right decision. When you are in the middle of a task that will take generations, it makes sense trying to continue even if some accident happens, like your main architect getting killed by a tram or documents getting lost.

Schiphol 7y ago
I'd say our conception of art, and architecture in particular, has changed substantially since the heyday of the Gothic cathedral. We now don't think of buildings as a communal, multigenerational effort. > every cathedral is Actually, contemporary cathedrals (of which more than a few have been built in the XXth and XXIst centuries) are typically completed in a reasonable timeframe. 5 years for Moneo's Our Lady of the Angels; 3 years for Hartman's Cathedral of Christ the Light, and so on. By the way, the Sagrada Família is not a cathedral, but a basilica, but that is neither here nor there :)

Al-Khwarizmi 7y ago

Not an expert in the subject, but my understanding is that Gaudí was aware that the project would not be completed in his lifetime, but wanted it to be completed anyway, and even counted with future technology for help (i.e. some of his ideas could not be realized at his time, but he thought technology would advance enough to implement them after his death). So leaving it as it was in 1926 would actually have been against Gaudí's will, and from that standpoint, continuing it was the right thing to do. I will not comment on decisions taken on the particular execution, as I don't have the knowledge, although as a layman I did like it a lot when I visited around 3 years ago.

inferiorhuman 7y ago

Many locals (and at any rate this local) see the Sagrada Família as it currently is as a rather unhappy travesty. There are no construction plans by Gaudí, just a few sketches, and what architects are doing is mostly theme-park architecture: making concrete look like stone, for example. It would have been much preferable to leave it as it was in 1926. Coming from a city that is having a bit of an identity crisis and relies heavily on tourist money, the impression I got of Barcelona is that the city itself is very much a theme park for English tourists. It really seemed like Catalan culture was whitewashed pretty successfully (e.g. pintxos everywhere). In terms of combating that theme-park mentality, Sagrada Família is certainly not where I'd start (then again I don't live in Barcelona). Parc Güell was especially over the top and cartoonish, less in the architecture, but more in the throngs of selfie sticks. It's gone from a thoughtfully designed park to a caricature. Sagrada Família was, OTOH, a pretty stark contrast. I did the self-guided audio tour and went up into the Nativity facade (not the newer one) and was just floored. I fully expected the audio tour to be full of self-promotion, but even the 99PI episode on Sagrada Família left me with the impression that Gaudí wanted to see SF completed and that currently painstaking effort is being made to keep things as true to his desires as possible. Obviously things won't be done exactly as Gaudí would've done them, but that's an artifact of technology changing over time. Much like any other aged building, Sagrada Família would've needed a restoration at some point. For better or worse, the primary function of Sagrada Família is as a museum / tourist destination and it's been that way for many years.