60 Comments | leave a comment | RSS 2.0 for this post | trackback |
| Friday, May 24, 2013 |
|
- A Bird's Eye View
- A Motley Vision
- Adventures in Mormonism
- Blognitive Dissonance
- Book of Mormon Blog
- By Common Consent
- Ethesis
- Face of the Other
- Faith Promoting Rumor
- Feminist Mormon Housewives
- Flooding the Earth With the Book of Mormon
- Golden Road to Samarqand
- Head Life
- Just Sayin'
- Juvenile Instructor
- Messanger & Advocate
- Millennial Star
- Mormon Matters
- Mormon Mommy Wars
- New Cool Thang
- Nine Moons
- Old Testament Blog
- Our Mother's Keeper
- Proud Daughter of Eve
- Segullah
- Sunstone Blog
- Times & Seasons
- Wheat and Tares
- Zelophehad's Daughters
| The Ogden Temple Will Soon Look Like This: |
|
Feb. 18th, 2010 at 11:56 am
|
|
According to the Salt Lake Tribune the Ogden temple is getting a major makeover. So here are some questions for you Mormon Mentality readers: How lonely will the Provo temple feel after this? Nothing against the new temples that have been built recently, but do all the Utah temples really need to look the same? Finally, if it is going to cost the same as it would to tear it down and build a new one, is there a reason why that isn’t happening? The article indicates that the original building was something of an experiment in terms of lower quality construction. My understanding is that we’ve given up on that experiment. Why not just build a completely new building? |
Good point, but what they are doing is probably not as expensive. They don’t waste money. I DO like the new temple designs, don’t get me wrong, but I agree with you that variety would be nice. The Ogden/Provo design is a little bland though. Not that pretty from the outside. |
They don’t look the same. Provo and Manti look TOTALLY different. |
It takes away any sense of permanence that I thought temple architecture was meant to convey. The building is only 40 years old. I guess once they started sticking those Moroni statues on old temples, the restraint was loosened to stop something like this. I hate to think what’s in store for the St. George and Manti temples. |
John Mansfield, I don’t see why they would significantly change the look of either the St. George or Manti temples. They already have that “grounded”, “solid”, historical look people tend to like temples to have. I do think they need to re-remodel the inside of the Logan temple to make it have more of a historic, classic temple feel. I think they may have also gutted and redone the St. George on the inside, but I’m not sure… |
Calm down, Mansfield, the sky’s not falling. They’re not going to mess with St. George and Manti. Besides, the Ogden temple never conveyed a sense of permanence. It reflects disposable, industrial park design inside and out (not really what I want to think about when going to the temple). Even if you go with the tabernacle in the wilderness excuse for its design (and I confess, I don’t know if that’s true or Mormon legend)… well, that doesn’t really symbolize permanence either, does it? It has always been my opinion that the Ogden is much uglier than Provo — I am glad to see that the First Presidency has finally conceded that I am right about that. There are subtle differences to the façade and, of course, the Provo Temple has a much better setting and no unsightly parking garage. I think they’ll keep Provo the way it is to preserve history. So, with a (slightly) better-looking sister temple out there for posterity to gawk at, I can’t really think of a good reason to let the monstrosity that is the Ogden Temple go on as it is. Since Ogden is trying to revitalize its downtown area, perhaps the Church felt it needed to take the lead and clean up its own mess first. However, I’m totally with you, arJ, on the variety thing. I am a little disappointed that it looks so much like the other temples in Utah (except for the weird platform lower story, which you can see better in the aerial mock-ups). Still, based on what it looks like now, anything’s an improvement. Ron, Logan looks different, too. And the Brigham City Temple is allegedly going to be architecturally compatible with the tabernacle across the street, or so goes the local scuttlebutt. That would be cool, because the tabernacle has some gothic highlights that would be interesting to see in a modern temple. I agree, PaulW, Logan needs an interior makeover as much as Ogden needs it on the outside. It’s in bad shape. It’s too bad, too, because the exterior is so great — it’s a real disappointment when you walk inside. Check out the comparison pictures and CGI aerial views that show how the grounds will change and everything here. |
They would change the St. George and Manti temples because they don’t match the 2010 template. Moroni isn’t even anywhere to be found except on pageant nights. The old temples mess up the uniform image that the phrase “LDS temple” is supposed to convey. Being historic and grounded in appearance won’t save them—perhaps it’ll doom them; that’s not the image we’re out to project lest anyone confuse us for our polygamous predecessors. |
John Mansfield, Dude, you are way off base. Are you serious? |
John Mansfield, I agree that there does seem to be a “uniform image” that they are pushing nowadays… but the temples in question are stone, pioneer temples, not 1970s experiments full of office-building acoustical tile and accordion dividers. I would take your side if I really thought this were setting such a dangerous precedent… but I think it’s crazy talk. By your reasoning, they would would have just built a modern-style temple in Nauvoo. Now, putting a Moroni on Manti, St. George, or Logan… that is somewhat within the realm of possibility… and I would hate to see it — but I really don’t think they’ll go there. In case anyone’s too lazy to click over to the link I provided:
What’s kind of unfortunate is that, the one thing that I like about Ogden Temple Square as it now stands is the steeple on the chapel next door — and they’re taking it off. |
Am I serious? Not very; more paranoid in a “I wouldn’t put anything past them” way. Let’s hope that I am way off base. |
There will be more weddings in the Ogden temple now. |
Yeah, I thought about that too, bbell. |
John, I’ve thought the same thing. Although St. George and Manti—and Salt Lake are exceptions. Although, maybe we’re just taking all these temples for granted. We’re incredibly fortunate there. Maybe we should just not complain. |
The St. George Temple is closed for 2 weeks of cleaning. That’s not enough time to gut it and re-do it. I think they did something like that in 1975. |
When I was a worker in the Provo Temple (c. 1987), I attended a “special fireside” for temple workers, at which Fetzer spoke. He spoke at great length about the Provo/Ogden design, specifically claiming that it all came to him in a dream, complete with an angel showing him around inside the proposed building. I’m told that Fetzer hasn’t made such claims during more recent firesides. When I lived in Brigham City (late 1990s), we were in the Ogden temple district, but unless they were on a specific assignment, many locals went to the fairly-equidistant Logan Temple, simply because they liked it more. They certainly weren’t scheduling their weddings in the Ogden Temple. I think the Provo Temple only escaped this semi-disdain due to its proximity to BYU, which in itself made the Provo Temple one of the busiest in the world. Interestingly, the Ogden Temple is across the street from “The Junction,” a large open-air mall development which just happens to include several projects of Property Reserve, Inc., the real estate holding company of the LDS church. Further, Property Reserve has built apartment complexes nearby, the most recent including 210 “top end” units for “superior quality tenants.” In other words, a facelift to the Ogden Temple isn’t just a happy event for the city—it’s a specific boon to marketability for the LDS church’s current real estate developments. Kind of like the “Kansas City area” temple, planned for inclusion in the LDS church-owned Shoal Creek real estate development. |
I would have thought that the experience of converting the Vernal tabernacle into a temple had convinced the Church not to attempt large scale conversions anymore. I hope that Logan, Manti, and St. George stay the same. Salt Lake too! I am a bit sad about the sameness of new temple construction, but at least they’ve left behind both the Provo/Ogden experiment and the Boise/Las Vegas style which looked like a big stake center. |
Nick, That’s very interesting. Two paragraphs from the article are stand out a bit more in light of your comment:
So they admit that downtown redevelopment is a factor, and in other places they also mention new developments near the temple. Clearly having an updated look for the temple will enhance the value of their other real estate holdings. Also, it is interesting that they waited for Emil Fetzer to pass away prior to announcing this project. Maybe this is just a coincidence but perhaps they waited out of respect. |
Yeah, I’m not a fan of the sameness, but at least they chose a less objectionable style. (Those stake center temples look like they sunk into the ground a story or two). |
I think you’re probably right, John. At least when I heard him speak, Fetzer was clearly very proud of the design. Perhaps the spire replacements were just a “holdover” measure all along? |
That said, I have to admit I always liked the original spire on the Provo Temple, especially during major storms. The gold lighting always created an ethereal effect as it reflected on the driving rain, etc. |
The Ogden temple architecture may be a flawed experiment, but it’s better to have a few such than no attempts to try something different. I think it represented its era of design, and without it, the era’s representation diminishes. The story about the angel in the dream brings to mind the teachings about how to interrogate angels to make sure they haven’t come to deceive. |
Of course the Ogden Temple renovation would be one part of the church’s redevelopment strategies. It is a key part. As has been said here, the Ogden temple is an aesthetic sore thumb. Also just as obvious is the fact that the Salt Lake Temple would not be part of the City Creek redevelopment. For the same reasons, St. George Temple or the Manti Temple would likely not see renovation of any kind. When one revitalizes, one should understand what is already vital and what is not contributing. I think the idea that the Ogden Temple is being renovated because it doesn’t match modern temple design is a stretch. I don’t think there’s even a precedent to think that would be the case. As for renovation vs. scrape-and-build, depending on the project, a scrape-and-build approach can actually cost more than a renovation. I would be interested in learning whether the church has a sustainability agenda with choosing to renovate. As an aside, I think the State of Utah has a lot of gratitude to show the church for being a source of employment and capital in the market. Utah remains relatively stable in no small part because of the Church’s real estate development, and cities will reap the benefit for some time. |
I’m convinced an angel came to me in a dream. Well, it was a deceased relative. But I believe it was an actual visitation. The message pertained to me and my life. It’s conceivable that that guy you cited actually had a dream that pertained to his particular field. I’m a believer that way. |
The “tabernacle in the wilderness” thing was real, in that the church architect, Emil Fetzer, specifically said during the design phase that both the Provo and Ogden temples were built with the round, white part representing the “cloud” (our shadow by day), and the steeple in gold (without an angel) as the “pillar by night”. I personally think the designs were very symbolic, thought not well executed to convey the ideas. It’s just the symbols weren’t widely accepted and now Moroni (idol that he is, in violation of #2 of the 10 commandments). Many of you probably noticed they painted the Provo “pillar by night” white several years ago and put Moroni on, thus changing the symbolism substantially. |
It will be sad to see the “Birthday Cake” get a make over. The uglyness had a special place in my heart. Wonder if they’ll ever get around to doing Provo. Be hard to close that down due to the MTC / BYU factor. |
Now that you mention it, kevinr, I have heard the “shadow by day / pillar by night” version. Symbolically, I love that idea. Would that I could say the same for its execution. Besides, it’s not much of a stretch to apply that to any number of single-spired temples. I support taking Moroni off the Provo temple and painting the spire gold again. Now that Ogden (as we know it) will be no more, I think the Provo temple needs to go all out period: Pull up the marble flooring in the foyer. Put the fluorescent lights back in the celestial room. Reinstall the white escalator (or did only Ogden have that?). Perhaps they could also rent temple clothes and show the endowment films from the 70s… it would be like going to Salt Lake and seeing it “live.” |
If there’s any consideration of a similar makeover for the Provo Temple, I’m betting it will be announced right about the time the Payson Temple is finished and dedicated. Then they’ll have another “close” temple to handle the disruption. |
Yeah, it’s not pretty as it is, but honestly, my first thought upon hearing the news, was more along the lines of |
TA, I frequently take issue with the machinations of the modern LDS church. (Like how many temples could they have built with the over $20,000,000.00 LDS paid to eliminate the legal rights of gay and lesbian couples in California?) In this instance, however, I think it’s somewhat unfair to suggest that the project is a spendthrift exercise in “making a building prettier.” This project will provide many Utah residents with construction-related jobs over the course of 18-24 months. It will put food on the tables of many families, and probably rescue at least a few “small” businesses from collapse. In the midst an economic slump with roughly 10 percent unemployment, projects such as this may be one of the best ways the LDS church can use its financial resources. |
Since I served in the Ogden Utah mission in the 1980s, my dozens of slides of the Ogden temple taken at different times of day and in different weather conditions, with different lenses to boot have formed the backbone of my missionary slide show, which I continue to present in a concise 4-hour format, when invited to do so. Now I’m happy to say my slides/images will soon be collector’s items! I’m totally stoked. |
It’s worse than that Nick. Not only did members of the Church spend millions of dollars fighting any-sex marriage, but they forced proponents of the same to spend millions fighting for it instead of whatever good they would have otherwise put their money to. |
Nick, I didn’t know that funds appropriated to temple construction or other worthwhile endeavors of the church were diverted to attacking gays. TA, That it would be “prettier” is another debate altogether. |
To be clear, nasamomdele, I was not suggesting that LDS church funds already appropriated to temple construction were diverted to promoting anti-gay legislation. The “over $20,000,000.00″ which I referred to was in the form of LDS member donations, made in response to Thomas Monson’s call to arms. Those funds could have been donated for temple construction, for the Perpetual Education Fund, for disaster relief, or any of a whole list of positive, worthwhile endeavors. |
you’re right Nick, I really didn’t take the time to think of the good it would spread through employment and such, like I said, that was my initial reaction. |
I like the Ogden Temple, it’s retro looking. I liked downtown Ogden better before they started sprucing it up too. |
If you all haven’t seen it (shameless promotion), my post on the remodeling of the Provo Temple Grounds, has some interesting parallels. |
Jared T., Thanks for the link! Interesting that they’ve tried to make it more appealing for wedding photos. I wonder if there was too much wedding traffic at Mt. Timp. I also wonder how quickly Ogden and Provo were seen as design mistakes. As strange as I think they are, I still think they are better than Boise and such. |
SUNN, That makes one of you. Ogden was always a great place- from Harrison Blvd to the East, 25th Street between State and Wall, anything South of 40th Street, and anything North of 12th Street. Basically, most places surrounding Ogden have always been great. |
I’ve always thought of Ogden as a big hotbed of crime and violence. |
AnneGB, Kind of the West Valley of the North? |
Nasamodele, what can I say, I like places that are on the verge of urban decay… I was helping some dude clear out the old Ogden Desk building a couple years ago was pretty interesting there’s a tunnel under that part of 24th… pretty cool. |
Provo and Ogden were design mistakes. Even I could spot that as a child in the 70s. |
I was thinking more of the east LA of Utah. Based entirely on impressions and generalizations assumed by watching the news. But West Valley is right up there, too |
I’m a big fan of abandoned buildings. West Valley just doesn’t have enough of em for my liking… |
I was married in the Ogden Utah Temple about ten years after I attended its dedication. To me, it will always be beautiful in the same way that the Waters of Mormon were forever beautiful for the events that occurred there. The sunlight reflected from the windows and the backdrop of the mountains in the distance seem to me to compliment the beauty that the present form of the building already has. I hope that that the new version will make a successful contribution to the continued revival of downtown Ogden. |
SUNN, Don’t take my comment personally- I mostly mean that the public in general does not really enjoy downtown Ogden and much of the core city. It is generally blighted in the physical and demographic sense. The trouble is that this doesn’t do much for the prosperity of Ogdenites and the businesses that choose to locate there, not to mention the recreation opportunities that don’t see as much visitation as might be possible. FWIW, I am a preservationist at heart. I love downtown Ogden’s character. I would hate to see a bunch of Solomon Centers or otherwise new architecture go in. There are opportunities for that kind of thing, but I would hope they would be highly limited. I would rather see people take advantage of 20% historic preservation tax credits on renovations and retrofits. |
Kind of the West Valley of the North? That is not particularly fair, or at least it is horribly out of date. West Valley is a big place, and as of late it is becoming one of the most highly developed and “forward looking” areas in the state, along the lines of the Fort Union area in many respects, plus an incredible amount of new housing stock. Salt Lake City proper, by contrast, has long been almost entirely built out, and as a consequence has far more of the urban and residential blight than West Valley does, in its present incarnation at least. Thirty years from now will be a different story. |
As far as Ogden is concerned, it has serious problems but the overall change (for the better) from fifteen or twenty years ago is astounding. I think Ogden’s main long term problem is not urban blight, but rather the roads in the southern half of the city, which ought to be a case study in how not to do urban planning. Half of the time you just can’t get from here to there (east to west in particular) without taking extended detours or routes that are more than a little capacity constrained, like arterials running down what were originally intended to be narrow residential streets. Of course, it is also unfortunate that Ogden never ended up with a major (research) university. Logan is great, but it is not exactly centrally located. How Utah State ended up getting located there rather than in Weber County is I think a matter of some historical curiosity. Ogden has all sorts of generic businesses, and quite a bit of manufacturing these days, but a center of (high) technology it is not, and I think that is unfortunate. |
Oh I get ya Nasamodele, I was just being silly, but yeah I was seriously considering buying this house on 25th street built in 1880… |
Ok, so after reading the first few entries I became disgusted with all of it. The temple is a house of GOD and you thinking that a particular temple is UGLY (inside or out) is ridiculous! You should be ashamed of your shallow lives! We have been instructed to do our work at our own temples. ie if you live in Ogden, you go to Ogden. Can we be more worthless as human beings that we have to judge a house of the Lord from it’s architectural design? Are you an architect? Where you one in 1971? Didn’t think so. I am quite sure that when the church leaders got together and decided to redo the out side of this one they did not have in mind all the ugliness that you are bringing to the table. Ok, I am sorry that I did not read all of the entries before I became upset with this. And again I do apologize. Can we not throw mud at any of our temples? That would be nice. Thank you. And by the way, if you don’t think Ogden as a city is cool, you have never really been there. |
“We have been instructed to do our work at our own temples. ie if you live in Ogden, you go to Ogden.” Citation, please? |
You people have way too many temples as it is. However, imagine if they wanted to do major upgrades to the Salt Lake Temple. I can’t imagine the hysteria that would cause. |
We have been instructed to do our work at our own temples. ie if you live in Ogden, you go to Ogden. Not exactly true. After they dedicated the Toronto temple, most adult members started traveling there, but a great many (maybe as much as 40%) continued to go to Washington, as Canada was a foreign country and many members who had rented a car or a van or a bus to go to the temple could not take it over the border. Youth trips were almost exclusive to the DC temple. And with passport requirements, there are lots and lots of Saints who are closer to Toronto who can’t cross. Plus, we rebuilt Nauvoo as a tourist destination. SLC and Provo are two of the most popular destinations for weddings. And you still owe a citation. |
Nice one This article indicates that the original building was something of an experiment in terms of lower quality construction.Thanks for sharing your pic to us. More power to your site! I love it G-d bless ;-) |
They can expand and update the look without departing completely from the style. In 40 years people will wish we had the original temple. |
I am having a real problem reconciling this. The LDS official only said it appeared “Dated”. No costs have been publicized. Wouldn’t the needless spending of probably 8-12 million dollars be better spent on water wells in 3rd world countries, schools, the growing of food. It doesnt matter what the outside looks like, its the work on the inside. For me this is a waste of Church members tithing, better spent clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. Just Sayin’ |
It’s not just an aesthetic update. Every temple (and building, really) needs to be remodeled periodically. |
Thats a pretty good looking temple |
Go Ogden! I was born and raised in Salt Lake but spent 4 years in Ogden while attending Weber. I also use to live in the the newer apartments to the West of the temple. For my senior project I was able to create renderings for the Junction similar to the ones shown for the new renovated look. I still have some of them on one of my websites http://juggernautstudio.com/gallerycat/renderings/ After living there and seeing the changes that are happening in Ogden, it is one of the top places I would want to live in Utah! When I first lived there everyone called Ogden O-town. The stands for Outstanding in my book. If I where a real estate developer in Utah I would definitely look into Ogden. |
When in lovely Ogden, Utah, be sure to visit GIANT PILE OF DIRT SQUARE! It makes our town look SOOOOOO much better, I think. I mean, who needs the splendor of Christ when you can look at a Giant Pile of Dirt?! |
@SRD: It’s a construction site right now, for cryin out loud. What do you expect? Pristine landscaping? I know it’s a stretch to believe, but that pile of dirt won’t actually stay there. As far as all other comments: I am somewhat torn on the whole remodeling. After all, they should have asked MY opinion first. :) Seriously, though – renovations were necessary due to some underlying structural issues and it appears they decided that, since they were going to have to do major work anyway, they might as well beautify the whole thing. I will miss the old design – not so much because I thought it was beautiful (or not) but because it is so familiar. I also disagree with the decision to remove the spire from the tabernacle. (But as I implied above: They didn’t ask my opinion.) I do want Ogden to come back to life, though, and if this new design helps that goal (which is yet to be seen) then I’m all for it. Ultimately, though, it’s the work INSIDE the Temple that is important, and that will not be diminished in the least by the changes. |
