Mormon Churches/Temples

[crash575]

The brickwork looked real good. The bricks were each unique which combined with the grout gave the building a "hand laid appearance ". However there are large expansion joints that run the height of the building every 15 or 20 feet (very distracting).

Ablarc, the rendering shows only one steeple without an angel on top:

 

[itchy]

Re: Cambridge Developments

It's too bad Mormons tend to be so skittish with their spires (at least in this part of the country). I'm assuming it's out of a fear of offending neighbors, but it certainly takes the effect of their architecture down a few notches. A good case in point is the temple over Rt. 2 in Belmont... It could have been an impressive building were it not for the emasculated steeple.

 

[ablarc]

Re: Cambridge Developments

Well, they're sometimes targeted by the prejudiced, so I guess they're just lying low.

 

[czsz]

Re: Cambridge Developments

I think in Belmont they were "targeted" by zoning laws...

In either case the controversy produced a uniquely syncretist Mormon steeple that borrows from traditional New England elements. This process was common in earlier periods (witness the different styles of mosque by region). Boston's new mosque conforms with recognizeably "Boston" architectural features as well.

 

[itchy]

Re: Cambridge Developments

^^ cz, I wasn't complaining about any "regional elements" that the Mormon churches incorporate. What annoys me is that the steeple looks disproportionately small, given the size of the church. A traditional New England steeple would be great here (not to mention totally fitting, since the church's brickwork makes it a fairly "New England" structure), if it were in better proportion. It looks gimpishly small here, though -- most likely for the reason that ablarc hints at.

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Cambridge Developments

Before it burned, the Mormon church at Longfellow Park in Cambridge also had a steeple that struck me (and others) as much too narrow.

 

[itchy]

Re: Cambridge Developments

Agree. That is getting rebuilt, right?

 

[jass]

Re: Cambridge Developments

I think in Belmont they were "targeted" by zoning laws...

Church's dont have to follow zoning laws (see brookline black blob discussion)




WTF is up with those giant brick "windows" though??? Do mormons not do stained glass?

It's nice to see a decent looking church however. Im in California right now, and it's packed with evangelical churches that have all the glamor of a costco.

 

[blade_bltz]

Re: Cambridge Developments

It's nice to see a decent looking church however. Im in California right now, and it's packed with evangelical churches that have all the glamor of a costco.

Where in CA?

Here's a glamorous California church. (Though it lost its spire in '06)

Ame Otoko

And speaking of Mormons, the spire of this Oakland Temple is anything but skittish. It's probably one of the clowniest buildings I've ever seen...yet it manages to give me chills in the worst way.

 

[kennedy]

Re: Cambridge Developments

It's nice to see a decent looking church however. Im in California right now, and it's packed with evangelical churches that have all the glamor of a costco.

"Prefabricated steel buildings! Custom built to your pleasure! Perfect for your church!"

 

[a630]

Re: Cambridge Developments

Regarding the Belmont Temple - it was proposed in 1996 and was built in 1998, before RLUIPA - the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Churches have gained significant protections from zoning since RLUIPA. The original temple design in Belmont had 6 steeples that exceeded height restrictions in the town.
Neighbors challenged the protection of the Dover Amendment - a very old MA statute that allows steeples and smokestacks to exceed height limits. Check it out: http://www.massbar.org/for-attorney...review/2003/v87-n3/zoning-the-dover-amendment
The Superior Court ruled against the church and after that the design was trimmed down to one steeple - I think the town allowed a variance for this one, may have gotten sued again, don't remember.
Other concerns of the neighbors included impacts of construction - during excavation there were appeals to cease construction because of cracks in the foundations of neighboring homes - and access to the temple - you can only access it from Route 2 and "no temple access" signs are posted throughout the abutting neighborhood.

 

[AmericanFolkLegend]

Re: Cambridge Developments

The Mormon church in La Jolla is pretty iconic. It's set up on a hill near a highway. I nearly got in half a dozen accidents staring at it while driving by when I lived out there.

 

[ablarc]

Re: Cambridge Developments

The original temple design in Belmont had 6 steeples that exceeded height restrictions in the town.

SIX !! Heavens to Betsy !!

Neighbors challenged the protection of the Dover Amendment - a very old MA statute that allows steeples and smokestacks to exceed height limits.

Shadows, no doubt.

The Superior Court ruled against the church and after that the design was trimmed down to one steeple...

Wisdom worthy of Solomon.



(Actually, this reminds me of Switzerland's prohibition of minarets. The issue is anything but architecture.)

 

[Ron Newman]

Re: Cambridge Developments

Note that Mormon temples are a different thing (much larger, much less common, different function) from Mormon churches. I believe Belmont is the only temple in New England.

 

[itchy]

Re: Cambridge Developments

Mormon structures are definitely grander in the West -- throughout high school, my Mormon friends would talk jealously about the huge temple in San Diego (La Jolla). I would never have argued with anyone stating this fact, and that's why I said that Mormon churches/temples tend to be, er, wimpy "in this part of the country."

I think we in the East are too wary either when it comes to architecture (even "traditional" colonial architecture) or Mormons -- or (most likely) both. All of the Mormon churches/temples I've seen -- two churches in Cambridge, a church in Boston, church and temple in Belmont, churches in Lincoln Center and Harlem, NY -- have all been a bit shy in the spire. Maybe it's a coincidence, probably there are counterexamples, but it's definitely the sense I've gotten.

 

[ablarc]

Re: Cambridge Developments

All of the Mormon churches/temples I've seen -- two churches in Cambridge, a church in Boston, church and temple in Belmont, churches in Lincoln Center and Harlem, NY -- have all been a bit shy in the spire.

Maybe so...but the Lincoln Center church has a gold-plated angel on top.

 

[czsz]

Re: Cambridge Developments

And speaking of Mormons, the spire of this Oakland Temple is anything but skittish. It's probably one of the clowniest buildings I've ever seen...yet it manages to give me chills in the worst way.

Doesn't look very "clowny" to me. In fact, it looks like it appropriates a distinctly California art deco tradition. Slap a marquee on it and it could be an old Hollywood cinema.

 

[blade_bltz]

Re: Cambridge Developments

Well, to me it's the four spires on the lower tier that scream Disney and not, say, Los Angeles City Hall. Hence, clowny.

Perhaps this is the "wary Easterner" in me talking.

 

[czsz]

Re: Cambridge Developments

If you just concentrate on the outline, it looks a lot like this, actually:

 

[tobyjug]

Re: Cambridge Developments

In either case the controversy produced a uniquely syncretist Mormon steeple that borrows from traditional New England elements. This process was common in earlier periods (witness the different styles of mosque by region). Boston's new mosque conforms with recognizeably "Boston" architectural features as well.

It gives banal a bad name. Talk about trying to keep your head down! I'd rather have seen Keble College meets Salt Lake City!