America's Favorite Architecture

1990?

Yes, it took more than 80 years to build and wasn't finished until 1990.

Kinda limping into this competition, eh? Sorry, but I dont understand how this is #3 . #23 I could understand.

A truly spectacular structure! If you go to Washington, DC, do NOT miss this building!

Darth Vader - that's cool but the building itself looks like one of hundreds in Europe.

Vaughan was Bodley's apprentice only, not a chief designer. Phillip Frohman who took over after Vaughan was fired (after Bodley's death in '07) had far more influence in the eventual, built design.

Interesting... Didn't even know we had a Cathedral...

National Cathedral? Do we have a National Synagogue? National Mosque?

"If you go to Washington, DC, do NOT miss this building!"

Exactly why it shouldn't be number 3. Most people do miss this building when they go to Washington, and is not half as famous as St. Patrick's in New York...

I suspect that those who think that the National Cathedral should not be listed at Number 3 have never actually been there.

It is a stunning building (it is the cathedral for the Episcopal Bishop of Washington but has a national/international focus) as it also contains the seat of the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, whose administrative offices are in NYC.

This has been the site of funerals for Reagan, Ford and countless other national figures, and has an amazing ministry in the community.

I liked it better the first time, when it was called Notre Dame.

People don't quite get the grandeur unless they've been inside. You could lay the Washington Monument on the floor in there from front to back (fact).

Surprised and delighted to find this so high up. It is Washington's least-known gem (well, apparently *not*). Yes, the exterior is a bit typical Old Europe Cathedral...except for the whimsical little touches like the gargoyles (look around and you'll find the aforementioned Darth Vader gargoyle and at least one of a former headmaster at the adjacent school) but the interior is magnificent in its own right and filled with history (several famous Americans entombed inside). Also, the grounds and outbuildings are wonderful in their own right.

Perhaps it should say 1907...that's when the majority of the design work was done.

Washington is full of "national" institutions--museums, galleries, National Presbyterian Church, Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception--as well as numerous cathedrals: St. Matthew, St. Sophia, St. John, St. Nicholas...

The Islamic Center opened in Washington in 1957--the first large Muslim place of worship to be built in the New World.

DC has 9 synagogues.

Point is, any of these can call themselves "national" since they are in the National Capital.

I think Matthew's point is well taken. If we look at this building as one designed in 1907, we have to consider it in a different light.

The Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul is a work of art and the practice of patience. The Cathedral is truly a marvel to behold. It's magnificence is overwhelming. The Cathedral is my first choice, but I'll settle for #3.

Clearly, you have to go inside this cathedral to truly appreciate it. I believe it's fair to say that the cathedral is called Washington National Cathedral in large part because that's what the public calls it. And it is open to anyone of any faith, which cannot be said of some of the aforementioned national cathedrals/churches in Washington, D.C.

The National Cathedral (The Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul) is not only a magnificent building but also an outstanding educational and cultural center, offering programs for the entire community. Although officially the Episcopal Cathedral for the Diocese of Washington, it's facilitires are available to people of all faiths. The stained glass windows are a feature not to be missed. From the eastern end (high altar) to the western entrance, you will see a progression of design from traditional to very contemporary. The windows feature both Biblical events and stories of natinal history. One even has a stone from the moon!

As an amateur photographer I have been to the Cathedral many times. The potential for good images never stops no matter how many times you walk around this magnificent building. The changing light created by the sun coming through the stained glass windows is awe inspiring. It deserves this honor. The docents that give free tours are magnificent.

A little known fact as to why it took so long to finish . . . all of the grotesques and finish work was hand carved, some in position. That takes a long time. An absolutly amazing feast for the eyes.

A first thought is Notre Dame de Paris for sure. The country looks too large to pay attention to smth abroad built in this ridiculous Middle Age.

A few more points to consider, re: the Cathedral Church of St. Peter and St. Paul, from a fan happy to see this as #3.
While construction began in 1907, under the Bodley & Vaughan designs for a cathedral "in the style of 14th century English Gothic", both architects were dead not too long after construction began. The finished cathedral you see today is not built entirely to their original designs, but rather a hybrid of several architects brought in over the eventual 83-year construction. (A construction funded entirely through private donations and contributions; the building is still funded this way, today.) Robb & Little came in after B&V with additional changes, followed by Philip Frohman, responsible for several dramatic refinements over the B&V plans, during the final 50 years or so of construction. (In fact the west facade shown in this picture is entirely Frohman's redesign.)
The building is clad inside and out in carved Indiana limestone (some visitors assume it is poured concrete.) Artisans from around the world have contributed to the fabric of the cathedral---the stained glass, the wood carving, the needlepoint, the wrought iron (an astonishing collection of Samuel Yellin iron can be found inside.) While traditional Gothic features abound (the soaring height of the 100' high main vault, the 301' bell tower dominating Washington's skyline, the ubiquitous pointed arches, some 230 stained glass windows providing spectacular color and light) one of the most fascinating elements for me, is the overall story-telling nature of Gothic design.
All the decorative elements convey stories visually, usually without any text; Christian history, American history, humanity's history. From the "Space Window" speaking to the lunar landing (complete with a piece of rock from the moon, built into the window itself) to the West Rose Window and Frederick Hart's Ex Nihilo sculpture series, both speaking to the themes of creation, to the aforementioned head of Darth Vader, a grotesque high up on one of the towers; the iconography program is monumental in scope. Every visit offers a chance to "read" from the nearly countless stories surrounding you.
Simply put, this is architecture that must be experienced in person, whether as tourist, or religious pilgrim (it is a functioning house of prayer, seat for two Protestant Episcopal bishops, and welcomes visitors of all faiths, with a schedule of some 1,600 worship services annually.) Photographs cannot convey the power and meaning of the place. It may be a seen as a unique, faithful rendering of an architectural style in use 700 years ago, but the effect on the visitor remains powerful and real, today.

The National Cathedral has fascinated me since 2nd grade when I began attending school in upper northwest DC. I was able to watch as they completed the west end of the main structure and to watch the completion of the two towers on the western end of the church. When I graduated from high shcool I was still just a few blocks away and the "clackity-clack" of stone bumping stone rattled full stride. I returned from Connecticut, in the late 1980's, to witness the exit cornerstone was being laid. What makes this building unique is the absence of a steel skeleton. This building is solid, a sight to behold. You'll find wonderful historical artifacts encrusted in its stain glass window, a piece of moon rock from Apollo 11, and within the confines of the structure, the tomb of President Woodrow Wilson. By the way, it's the sixth largest cathedral in the world and a definite "must-see" when visiting our fair city.

I'm so glad that this building made #3. It is easily my favorite building in DC and probably in the entire country, as well. I just caught a glimpse of it on the horizon today from my subway ride on the other side of town, and as always, it made me smile to see it there.

As an Aussie I first visited this cathedral in an attempt to obtain some sort of a panoramic view of North West Washington, in order to see how different parts of the city related to one another. However, each time I now visit D.C. I make a point of visiting it in order to spend time in contemplation in one or another of the side chapels, as well as quietly wandering within the cathedral. It is a beautiful building and its style - IMHO, as an architectural layman - looks less incongruous in D.C. than does (for example) the Supreme Court.

People that are so impressed by the national cathedral are those that say, "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like."
Like so many buildings in our nation's capital, in style, it is a copy. Nothing inovative about it. The originals, (In Europe) were "cutting edge." To build something like that in the "modern era" is just common. Beautiful and impressive to look at, but common.
To be considered for this list structures should be "cutting edge" for their day. Not copies of those that were.

Ken, I think you missed the point of this particular listing. It was never about innovation, cutting-edge design, or originality. It is about public likeability, as determined by the many people that were polled to create this ranking.
Much of this list would need to be cut, based on your requirement of being original and daring for their day, not copying any previous styles.
A ranking of purely new, totally original, cutting-edge designs would be fascinating to be sure, but it isn't the point of this particular project.