To see other architecturally significant historical buildings, click HERE:
When a civilization ends, it does not leave behind a tombstone. Instead, it leaves stackings of stones (i.e. buildings.) We lose the remembrance of individual people, the things they said, did, and wrote, but we remember what they built because those things endure for much longer. The Ancient Greeks and Romans tell us about themselves through their Classical Architecture. We remember the Medieval period in Europe from its castles and Gothic Cathedrals. We remember the early 20th century from the Art Deco buildings it left behind. The style tells us something about their priorities, what they believed, what they knew, and what their hopes were. In a sense, the buildings that a culture leaves behind are a kind of epitaph.
Let’s look through the structural epitaphs of our ancestors.
___________________________
St. Louis Cathedral (New Orleans, LA)
This beautiful Cathedral, right inside of Jackson Square in New Orleans, is probably the most recognizable building in the state of Louisiana. A lot of Catholic cathedrals – built in a Gothic or Romanesque style – have two twin pillars. This has twin pillars, but in addition, a third and taller pillar in the center. This is not unheard of, at all, but it might be surprising if you’re expecting more like the Notre Dame cathedral in Paris. But despite the differences between itself and its counter-part in Paris, the architectural connection with Notre Dame is more than you might thing (more on that later.)
Surprisingly (to my untrained eyes this is a beautiful building) the St. Louis Cathedral was met with architectural criticism after its construction, with words like “garish” being used. (via prcno.org)
Avant-garde design
Although it was generally acclaimed, there were detractors, one of whom commented, “When the old structure was torn down, many of the ancient regime of New Orleans wept.” Another called the exterior “garish” and “showy,” complaining that it “fails to impress the beholder with that reverential awe for sacred objects, which constituted such an important feature in the Old Cathedral.”Such criticism might have been directed at any new cathedral replacing the “venerable relic” of the colonial past, but perhaps the striking modernity of the design contributed to the dissatisfaction.
Although it is difficult for us to imagine today, St. Louis Cathedral was avant-garde in its day. It embodied one of the latest concepts in French Romantic design — the idea of combining elements from several historical styles in one structure. As architects during the 1830s and 1840s began to explore a wide variety of historical periods, the Greek and the Gothic came to be regarded as twin examples of design creativity and freedom. Although totally different in appearance, the two styles were thought to be related in spirit by their common originality. Modern French design theorists embraced the idea of combining elements of each in imaginative and original buildings.
This fusion of the two styles is what de Pouilly achieved in his design. Rather than electing to build in the Greek Revival style, as had James Gallier Sr. at Gallier Hall (1845) or in the Gothic Revival, an example of which is the Leeds warehouse (1849), de Pouilly chose the more modern path of utilizing elements from both styles. His combination is so successful that no particular design source dominates the composition.
While the spires and towers are Gothic references, the central section recalls Renaissance church facades, and the framework of arches, pilasters and ornament is derived from Classical architecture. De Pouilly was creating a new and modern way by combining historical motifs into a whole that is an expression of his own imagination rather than imitation of past styles.
If you look at the Cathedral more closely, you might notice that it does show signs of being a blend of architectural influences. It is a beauty, in my opinion, though perhaps we can forgive the early critics for their response. In the 21st century, we live in a blighted landscape of ugly buildings and architects run wild. The fear of change, or an aversion to it, is not always unwarranted. In this case, though, I think the architects did well.
Despite some key differences, many believe the Notre Dame in Paris influenced the design choices:
Perhaps inspired by Notre Dame
De Pouilly’s final design was preceded by several compositions that may have helped him arrive at his unique solution. One preliminary sketch is for a Gothic-style edifice resembling the famous Notre Dame in Paris. Another incorporates a Classical-style portico and copious statuary. In the 1849 design that was adopted, de Pouilly brings life to the remark of an esteemed Parisian designer who said, “While a modern building must be a mélange, it must also be a homogenous whole.”
One feature of the 1849 drawing is a distinctive central spire composed of a decorative, open, wood and wrought-iron framework. Unfortunately, this unusual element was slated over early in the building’s history. In spite of the increasing use of architectural iron by 1850, its popularity alone does not account for this unique feature. In seeking de Pouilly’s inspiration, one is drawn to the writings of Victor Hugo. While it is little known today, the famous 19th-century French author was intimately involved in the intellectual and architectural criticism circles of his day. His notable work of fiction, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, was an indictment of the Renaissance, which he characterized as a period of “magnificent decadence.” Hugo encouraged the appreciation of Gothic buildings through this popular novel, which was almost surely known to de Pouilly.
Hugo especially admired the long-disappeared spires of Notre Dame, calling them “perforated, sharp, sonorous, airy,” a description perfectly suiting the spire created by de Pouilly, who was perhaps inspired by Hugo’s picturesque and romantic description of a lost architectural treasure.
A lasting design
Today, not only parishioners, but also locals and visitors from around the world, appreciate St. Louis Cathedral for its spiritual, historical and aesthetic qualities. It is only fitting that all who cherish our past should contribute to its longevity.
I recommend taking a virtual tour of this cathedral, if you can’t go in person. I will provide a couple tours below:
For a longer and more detailed view of the building’s art and architecture, I highly recommend this tour:
