For Bay Areans who would like to experience this phenomenon for yourselves, head on down to Lake Merrit. At the right time of day, the Cathedral of Sauron[1] will send blinding beams of light right into traffic. Fun times.
New York City has some impressive semi-useful structures. My two favorites are part of the subway system.
One of them is just this impressively massive railway arch going over the end of the N-line. It's kind of like the five-layer interchanges on highways. You've got a normal city street, and above it, an elevated subway line, and above it a freight train tracks going cross-ways. It's like one of those multi-layered highway interchanges, but you can just walk right in and see it up close at 0 mph.
The other one is something similar at I think the Smith & 9th street stop in Brooklyn. You've got a canal, with a drawbridge that lifts straight up to let ships through. And then above THAT is a subway station. You're standing on this subway platform, and it looks completely normal, like any other platform in the city. And then you look behind you and you're five stories up or so.
They're impressive engineering feats, and also a little bit extravagant. They could have moved the pieces around quite easily to avoid building such large and expensive and difficult structures, but for whatever reason (bureaucracy? union graft? the architect was a little cracked? because fuck you, that's why?) they decided to go out of their way and build something which would be a wonder if it weren't so mundane.
I disagree. Certain useless structures can be pretty cool, but they get boring quickly. The most interesting cities are those built around a variety of useful structures.
For example, what makes Venice really cool (IMO, of course) is not just the fact that there are canals and boats everywhere, but that these are all fundamental parts of the everyday lives of the citizenry. The canals and boats aren't useless touristic scenery, but are how the city works.
There are a lot of Christians who think Jesus might not have been too excited about a $190 million church. But supposing that to be an accurate representation of Jesus' thoughts, like any other group that gets very large, you're going to have lots of nominal members that only nominally seem to exhibit the group's core ideas, despite the fact that they may gather more attention (especially if the core ideas tend to involve things that don't gather as much attention while teaching that everyone is preconditioned to be very bad at being like that, including the nominal members who are - in theory - trying to become more like that)
I would be intrigued to hear Jesus Christ's thoughts on a $190 million church
As would we all. But I'll say this, the Christian relationship with money and with power is strange and counterintuitive, and the numbers don't generally add up the way a humanist would want them to. For example, the obvious argument -- that's a lot of money, it could be used to help the poor! -- was tried on Jesus once, and didn't carry much weight:
Matthew 26:6-13
While Jesus was in Bethany in the home of Simon the
Leper, a woman came to him with an alabaster jar of very
expensive perfume, which she poured on his head as he
was reclining at the table.
When the disciples saw this, they were indignant. “Why
this waste?” they asked. “This perfume could have been
sold at a high price and the money given to the poor.”
Aware of this, Jesus said to them, “Why are you
bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to
me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will
not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my
body, she did it to prepare me for burial. Truly I tell
you, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the
world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of
her.”
For a more obvious example, take Jesus' death itself. His ministry lasted a short three years -- imagine what he could have done, what he could have accomplished, had he lived a full life! He could have overseen the founding of his church. Made it as powerful (or not) as he liked. Taught us so much more. Healed so many more people. He gave all of that up, for gains that are . . . suspiciously spiritual in nature.
But that's God's way. It can seem sideways and backwards sometimes if you don't know him, and sometimes even if you do. He seems more interested in what the process of caring for the poor does to people than in absolute increase in worldwide living standards. More interested in what being and seeing a martyr does to people than in saving his devoted servants from the flames. More interested in HOW the problems of this world are overcome -- us AND him, not just one or the other -- than in how fast they are overcome.
That doesn't excuse expensive cathedrals, but it may help explain why the argument about them isn't straightforward. Things are complicated, and not always what they appear. I know "God works in mysterious ways" can be seen as an excuse not to explain anything, but honestly, just the documented ways we already know he's worked are much, much weirder than building something beautiful to inspire key people.
If that all sounds like sophistry, I can't disagree that it kind of is. I myself am critical of robes and trappings and cathedrals. It smells a bit too much like materialism for me, just as icons smell a bit too much like idolatry. I know, Catholics would say it isn't, but I'm still suspicious. I know, God might have his reasons, and he can tell you to do anything he likes, but I still wonder. Are they acting on words of prophecy, or just habits and best intentions?
And then there's the issue of appearances. When the world looks at a $190 million church, do you think they see love for God, a tribute to holiness? I guarantee you they see greed and pride. That's not something to take lightly.
So yeah, I don't approve either . . . but it's complicated.
Well, the divine part is lost on me, but when I think of the churches, cathedrals and convents of my country (Portugal), I can't help but be glad that our kings did decide to pay for their construction; they're just fantastic works of art.
And in a way, it protects them from destruction; even as we become less religious (and we are), we still pay a lot to conserve and restore them, which I doubt would happen if they were just four blank walls and a cross.
That said, I have some doubts the above mentioned cathedral will be regarded anywhere near our Manueline monasteries in centuries to come.
When we have visitors we always walk them by there, if it's sunny, to show them the effect. I don't think, in this case, it's enough to melt car parts, but it's a good 30+F over the ambient temperature.
Also known as the Cathedral of "Christ, my eyes!"
[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_Christ_the_Light