I was like "this isn't so bad" but then I got to the photo of all the mis-matched bizarre windows on one side, like someone totally screwed up editing a house in The Sims. Yikes. It looks like the architectural version of painting yourself into a corner and just giving up and letting that part be screwed up, rather than rethinking the whole thing to fix it.
The... steeple, I think it's meant to be? Also kinda looks like a mistake, rather than something done on purpose.
The inside's OK but I concur with it still being one of the uglier "nice" churches I've ever seen. Overall looks like it'd be better as, I dunno, part of a monastery or something? Maybe Tony Stark's vacation home or something, from the better angles.
Yeah, absolutely, I liked several of the photos quite a bit. They didn't really say "church" to me, mostly—maybe a really cool library?—but part of it's just that most "nice" churches are really pretty, so the competition's stiff. Given some of the reactions in posts, I actually expected it to be a lot worse than it was.
Absent context I'd definitely take the mismatched-windows exterior shot as the result of something like the Internet-famous time that amateur (in Spain, I think?) tried to restore a painting of Jesus.
[EDIT] My point is, if someone told me some other parts of the building were a mistake, much less something like the Sistine Chapel, I'd be like "no way". That particular view of the building? Someone told me it was a mistake, I'd be like "haha, yeah, clearly, hope they fix it so it doesn't keep dragging down the rest of the building"
