I know where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I agree.

Traditional medieval cathedrals were built right on the limits of the materials, skills and labour available and still took generations and sometimes still collapsed due to overambition: especially lantern crossings, which are heavy and only supported in the corners.

Builders of cathedrals used the cutting edge tools and techniques of their days. If they'd declared, say, vaulted ceilings "cheating", they wouldn't have done what we see today.

I don't see a tension here: to them, perhaps, the monks are using skill, tools and material God made available to them to do the best they can (also considering the labour force God has not given them). Rejecting God's offer of tools that can make a better cathedral would be like a medieval architect swearing off a horse-powered crane to get a heavy keystone in place.

And for that matter, Gaudi's Sagrada Familia is only as complete as it is due to CNC stone cutting and other modern machinery.

I just wish, considering these kinds machines exist, that we could have them used to make beautiful building again in general, rather than always plumping for a variation on a glass-and-steel box (perhaps it's simply about the cost, but I do wonder if it's also about what's even possible to draw in AutoCAD for a normal architect!).

Something I've wondered about CAD for a long time (as a non-user) is whether the sheer physical labor involved in operating the CAD software influences design choices.

It absolutely does. I've made do, even when feeling I've left a theoretically achievable ideal-to-me outcome on the table, plenty of times with what's easy to do with the tool, in MCAD tools, ECAD tools, drawing tools, as well as software tools like compilers, libraries, OSes, etc. Hell, even the choice to avoid BGA ICs because your assembly ability isn't great can easily in "as good as I can do here right now".

For a quick third-party example: the Apple Mac Mini has a very special and deliberate corner design: it's not a radius, it's a "squircle", which makes the curve blend into the straight edge. Many CAD tools don't natively or easily support this, so you see a lot of slightly less "beautiful" designs with a simple circular radius, presumably partly driven by "this was just easy in the CAD tool".

From Akin's laws: 38. Capabilities drive requirements, regardless of what the systems engineering textbooks say.

I was automatically thinking they are doing it for the process/experience.

I am very aware cathedrals used to be cutting edge architecture/process. And new churches are still being build like that.

But making building that looks 600 years old today is opposite of cutting edge.

Thats why this effort doesnt make sense to me.

It's not as if cathedral designers did it themselves manually. They'd farm it out to legions of "biorobots", not all of whom did it solely for the love of God (not only did stonemasons like to feed their families, occasionally, though not that often, workers could even be prisoners of war). Obviously it was eventually done manually, with some animal effort, out of necessity, but I strongly doubt no computers, hydraulics, electrical power, carbide tips or pneumatics would have been used, had they been available.

I think either way this takes investment and effort. Just because you’re not chiseling it yourself doesn’t make it easy. As well one other factor is that the Carmelites are traditionally a “contemplative” order, so it may be very in line with their traditions to devote their time to God even if it’s via doing it via CAD/CAM.

(Christian, non-Catholic)

I'm not convinced an atheist would write this comment. I mean, you are literally writing about your own religious standards.

Poster here - I am an atheist. I can still be sympathetic to and to an extent even understand others' belief without sharing them.

I don’t think that’s entirely true. Gothic architecture was the state of the art when it arrived on the scene, as were the building techniques involved. Sure, the labor involved dedication, perhaps it was penitential for some, but no one was maximizing for labor and exertion. Labor also cost money.

Exactly this is neither state of the art creative neither its valuable for the journey/hand process.

Catholicism is known for recognizing of value in bringing beauty into the world, but AFAIK it's agnostic (see what I did here?) about using hand vs tech in achieving this goal. Also, it's not replica, it's a new thing following old tradition.

Is it a new thing? Cathedrals were made by creative trying to be creative and push things available at the time. Cutting edge. Lots of new churches being built today are like that. Its actually one of few types of buildings where clients still care less about economics and more about quality/beauty.

This is neither creative nor is it contemplating hand process.

My dictionary defines 'replica' as a copy [of an object]. So unless this monastery is a copy of another monastery (and according to what I read it's not) it's not replica. Not being a copy, it's absolutely a new thing as much as a blues song written yesterday, in spite of blues not being new thing.

replica means that its fake. Yes its a copy, of monasteries generally, not of a particular monastery.

I literally quoted above the definition of the word. I'd rather not re-define it for a HN thread because it's clearly among the worst ways to conduct any discussion. On top of that even your 'copy' is not what it conventionally means. And there's a reason for that. Your personal definition simply isn't productive. It leaves no space for category, style, tradition. Even you yourself would be 'fake' if your definition is true. You know, humans like you definitely existed before you.

It is probably still a multi generational project.