Tuesday, October 9, 2018


What do you think?


The Egyptian said...

The 1st one posted is insipid, why in the name of heaven would you NOT put the sanctuary back where it BELONGS
# 2 BIG improvement but too white for me, ferns instead of a proper altar back, and good grief GREEN pews?
# 3 looked good before but yowza, it is over the top gorgeous
# 4 don't see an after, dynamite would be a good tool for renovation
# 5 shoot the idiot that removed the high altar
# 6 The stone is an improvement but I was never a fan of Mary and Joseph floating in
air, they need something substantial under them, and so does the tabernacle

Anonymous said...

#1 A big improvement. Good lighting can make a world of difference.

#2 The green pews kinda work for me with the medium brown floor - it's a "foresty" vibe. I've never cared for the isosceles trapezoid base for an altar, but that's just me.

#3 "Starry, starry night.....paint your palette blue and gray..."

#4 Way too much going on in way too small a space

#5 The nekkid apse is overwhelming

#6 Most improved of the lot

John Nolan said...

The church in No.3 is badly proportioned - far too wide for its height. It needs side aisles separate from the nave. The 'after' picture reminds me of St Pancras - the railway station, not the nice neo-classical church on the other side of Euston Road.

rcg said...

Generally feel the same as everyone else. I laughed at John Nolan’s comment because I had the same general impression of a connectiong walkway in an airport, subway, or train station. I like Craftsman style quite a bit and think it can be done beautifully for a church. The FSSP church in Kansas City, Saint Philippine Duchesne, pulls it of pretty well with a Spanish influence.