You statement about the design of Sacred Heart Cathedral in Knoxville is, it seems to me, debatable.
The only criticism I've heard from (some) fellow Knoxville Catholics is that it was expensive. The counter-argument I've heard, is that it was built to last 500 years. Someone said it had "no substance"? I disagree.
To me, it looks like a Catholic Church, which is, I think, what was wanted.
It has an altar --- a real Catholic altar, substantial and of stone, with relics embedded, not a little wooden Cranmer table--- under a baldacchino on which Mass can be celebrated ad oriéntem as well as versus pópulum, a Communion Rail, a respectable pulpit, and traditional sacred art adorning its dome.
Introibo ad altar Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meum.
Yes all the trappings.
Architecturally it is a plastic banana.
It looks Renaissance but does not feel or sound such.
Authenticity is as important in building as it is in theology. A building pretending to be that which it is not, is in my opinion, scandalous.
I have been to the cathedral several times.
There is some exceptional new classical churches. This is not one of them.
Any church or cathedral with the tabernacle front and center, an an altar rail is sight for sore eyes.
Compare to Houston's co-Cathedral of the Sacred Heart.
It looks like a masonic temple.