it looks like they are using color in place of the lack of detail. They couldn't afford ornate detail so they just added a splash of color to make it special. It draws my eyes to focus on what is below vs. above.

I'm not saying I don't like some of that, I love icons, but it has that Novus Ordo iconography that you'd find in most NO churches these days, so it has that taint to it.

There's a local NO church that uses icons effectively and looks beautiful.

When this video came out, I just had to post it. The Immaculata’s new altar gives such a bad feeling! There were so many beautiful altars through the centuries and this is the best they can come up with? 

The faithful contributed to building this soon-to-be Church. Now complete it. Give us a traditional altar.  

To be fair, I personally think the new Immaculata altar looks better than the one at Econe.

This person needs to get out more.  

You can address me directly.  “This person” is participating in the conversation.

It was asked of the forum: "Any examples of this structure pre-1970?"  I was providing examples, with dates, for the benefit of the forum, they weren't meant for just a single individual.  I do sincerely apologize if SoldierOfChrist felt offended.

I also didn't want to appear to be "calling anyone out" as I was genuinely surprised that there would be a Catholic, especially a traditional one, who was unaware that the cruciform floor plan has been a very traditional architectural footprint of Catholic church buildings for centuries, even the preferred form it might be said.  Typically, when it wasn't used it was because of the extra expense, the larger space wasn't needed, or the lot wasn't wide enough.  There are also many older churches that don't have a transept on either side of the nave but they may have a sacristy extending on one side of the sanctuary, a Mother's Chapel (crying room) and/or a baptistry extending on the other side, and a small asp behind the altar, which gives the building a cruciform shape.

The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, which was pictured, had its cornerstone set in 1920 by James Cardinal Gibbons.  It is well worth a visit if anyone ever has the opportunity, and contains more than 80 shrines and chapels.  I was rather shocked that someone would down thumb it.

Another example of the cruciform plan pre-1970 is St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican, which was constructed between 1506 and 1626.

Oh the down thumbing certainly wasn’t aimed at the cathedral, or even your list of cruciform architectural examples from before the time of the Novus Ordo.  It was your referring to me in the third person and not in a nice way.  It seemed unnecessarily rude.  I also saw that someone down thumbed my question on the first page of this thread, and deduced that it was you.  My apologies if I was wrong in that assumption.  I do leave the house quite often, but rarely get instructed on historical ecclesiastical architecture while I am out and about.  Thank you for the suggestion.  I will give it a try and see what happens.
It should come as no surprise that people born after 1970 would have no idea what things looked like before.  The world we were born into was a mess of ideas that people came up with while tripping out at Woodstock.  I suppose that the previous generation who never fails to remind my generation of how well-catechized they were, didn’t do a great job of passing down the info.  A game of telephone gone awry I suppose. The altars were destroyed and replaced with tables, and a movement of renovations swept through the land, converting the church buildings into a cruciform structure with a table in the center, and seating on all four sides of it.  There was the seating of the large part of the congregation up the length of the church, but also quite a lot of seats on each arm of the cross, facing the center table.  As the Tabernacle had usually been moved over to the side, room was made for the seating of the “presider” behind the altar, facing the people, sometimes with seats for altar “servers” (not boys - servers).  There would often be candles on each corner of the table altar.  A convert to traditionalism, I noted a lot of differences when I began attending the Latin Mass ten years ago.  It seemed bizarre that the Novus Ordo had led to this setup in so many places.  I started digging and found that freemasonic temples all have these fourway tables.  There is usually seating of the majority in the section directly opposite the “President’s chair”, with still a substantial group on each wing facing each other with the table in the middle.  There are three candles on three of the four corners of the table.  Methought I’d come here and ask the question, since it’s usually a good place for information.  I honestly wanted to know whether there was precedence for this setup.  It seems really strange for the SSPX to build a $50million church and not give it a high altar.  It reminded me of the renovations that I’d witnessed with previously rectangular structures getting converted to cruciform and having seating for congregants put on each wing facing the table.  It was an honest question.  If you’re telling me that this design has been around since the 1500’s or whatever, then great.  Thanks for the info!

With regards to the National Shrine, do you have any information on these embellishments?

I would refer one to https://www.nationalshrine.org/art-architecture/.  I'm uncertain about what your question or concern is.  As said, the cornerstone was laid by James Cardinal Gibbons in 1902.  The project was conceived by the entire body of U.S. bishops after they declared Our Lady under the title of the Immaculate Conception as the Patroness of the United States in 1846.  Since its beginning the Shrine has received the praise and support of every Supreme Pontiff: Leo XIII, St. Pius X, Benedict XV, Pius XI, Pius XII ... I'll not go any further with this group :-).  If none of them had a problem with its design I'm not going to.

The free-standing altar was on record back to three years ago. I figured with all that the SSPX has been publicizing the phases of construction, there had to be something on the website. Seeing the latest video yesterday, I wondered whether, just maybe, the construction plan might be to give the workers more room and then add the wall behind the altar once its installation was complete. But no... Not only are there three-year old images, there's even a detailed explanation (dated March 12, 2020) by Fr. Joseph Wood, so they had to have anticipated some confusion and questioning:

One difference in the Immaculata will be a free-standing altar. For many of us, it may be foreign or even a novelty. In fact, for the full solemnity of the liturgy, a free-standing altar is ideal (as one can witness if you visit the main churches of Rome.) As the Old Catholic Encyclopedia from 1910 explains: "Hence it [the high altar] must stand free on all sides, allowing ample room for the consecrator to move around it. As its name indicates, the high altar, being the chief place for the enactment of the sacrificial function, is to be prominent not only by its position but also by the richness of its material and ornamentation." As a practical example, the priest, during a High Mass, will now be able to incense around the entire altar, not simply the front.

So there you have it. Why am I not buying it?   Ressourcement rears its ugly head in the heartland right under everyone's very noses.

See below also the rendering and the floorplan detail, which are exactly as we now see the location of the actual installed altar in the March 2023 video.