On my recent trip to Utah I saw yet another example of an odd phenomenon--two of those damn ugly buildings right next to each other. It looked like they were separated only by their own grounds. It's bad enough that they're so bad-looking and all look the same, but when they build two right next to each other (or in the case of Mesquite, Nevada, right across the street from each other), it's particularly annoying. This is supposed to attract people to "the only true church?" Shouldn't someone take it upon themselves to sack the church so-called "architect?" Or did they just buy some commercially available floor plan somewhere?

They're just as bad on the inside as they are on the outside. On the inside they give the appearance that you came in the door from a shopping mall, like you were just shopping at Nordstrom's, and now you're in church. And then afterward, you will go back out and into Sears to buy a new table saw. The ones I've been in have a sort of lighting trough that runs along the ceiling that has a bunch of plastic plants with their fake leaves cascading downward. Only the best of taste! The "plants" also get full of dust over time, and no one ever cleans them.

Everything about mormon architecture exemplifies the repressive, lowbrow culture that produced it.

But New England influence? I don't see that ...

red brick buildings with big applied white moldings and single white steeple are "New England" influence.

There was a beautiful little chapel in Hawaii that had been built by the members in the 60's. It was a light colored volcanic rock with all rooms opening to a courtyard. Although not new it was original, fit the surroundings, and was sufficient for the needs of the members. A new "New England" style building was built in the stake and supposedly the beautiful little chapel would be sold soon and torn down relegating the members to the new building. Very sad to me.

bingoe4 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> red brick buildings with big applied white
> moldings and single white steeple are "New
> England" influence.
>
> There was a beautiful little chapel in Hawaii that
> had been built by the members in the 60's. It was
> a light colored volcanic rock with all rooms
> opening to a courtyard. Although not new it was
> original, fit the surroundings, and was sufficient
> for the needs of the members. A new "New England"
> style building was built in the stake and
> supposedly the beautiful little chapel would be
> sold soon and torn down relegating the members to
> the new building. Very sad to me.

My hometown had a nice sandstone chapel with some individuality.It wasn't a masterpiece by any meanss, but it was nicer than the churches being built today. The same thing happened. It was sold to the city for an office building/library and replaced by a cookie cutter building. I don't get it.

Better get those members to clean the plants- a new calling. And I don't like cookie cutter bldgs. either. No originality. No creative minds. But one has to know the reason for all this.....that tithing has to go for real estate,THE Temples, and the fat cats in SLC.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2010 12:51PM by BestBBQ.

It just goes to show that the Morg is not interested in the members or really worshiping; it's all about the money.
Imagine how much money the church is saving by erecting these glorified barns to the lord. It's just a place where you can go and pay your tithing and invest your time into recruiting more suckers for the lost cause.
They certainly aren't building anything for the glorification of their god; it's just utilitarian. Even the majority of the temples are this way (Endowment Barns).

DC is filled with beautiful churches. Most religions wanted a presence in the US capitol, so they invested in fantastic architecture. The best Universalist Church in the US is in DC and is a beautiful Gothic building.


While the Church has their Oz Temple on the North Beltway, the only LDS building in the city is on the southside of Capitol Hill. Nearby are a couple of fantastic churches, but the Capitol Branch, the only one in the city limits, meets in a renovated Safeway. It has a black iron fence, a small parking lot, and the facade of a grocery store partially bricked over. It still has the sloping white arched roof and would serve better as a mechanic's garage than a church.

Why they didn't just tear the ugly thing down and build a new building I'll never know, but I'd be embarrassed to tell people I went to church in that warehouse. Capitol Hill is dotted with beautiful little chapels and the Mormons meet in a barn.

Where I live I can see 5(!) ward buildings complete with white steeples with fake windows painted black (how appropriate)...plus, a temple!

Are you jealous? I consider them eyesores. They are golden arches of religion around here.

Guess it's just cheaper. Why pay for a new design every time you want to put up a new building? Makes sense to me. Just like Galleria.

Wish they'd come up with better designs though. Remember the detached steeples with the giant needle stuck on top?

I think the new stake building in my area is supposed to look like colonial New England. It has phony windows in the front that make it look like it has a second story. The steeple looks too small for the the building and the pillars taper.

As construction costs rise buildings get plainer and more utilitarian looking. Wonder what the cost of building the SLC temple would be today?

Dagny, do you live in Logan?

There are AT LEAST 5 lds stake centers by the hospital in Logan--and, of course, you can see the temple, but it is a long ways off.

AKA the arm pit of Logan.
More specifically I live in AMMON, an armpit of Idaho Falls. No kidding. They changed the name to Ammon. I'm so proud.

My sister's building could not have a steeple because it would violate the building height restrictions. So the poured a concrete pad and mounted the steeple on the ground. It looks really stupid but every building has to be the same and have a steeple bought from a connected steeple fabrication company in Utah.

I showed an ex-boyfriend a Mormon church for the first time. He was an artsy type and really loved architecture. He said it was the ugliest church he saw in his entire life.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/24/2010 05:44PM by munchybotaz.

Cookie cutter buildings for a cookie cutter religion that wants cookie cutter people.

And they're all built from ticky tacky and they all look just the same

The church is cheap. It saves money by using the same plans over and over. They do change some every 20 years or so in Portland Or.

rgrraymond Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The church is cheap. It saves money by using the
> same plans over and over. They do change some
> every 20 years or so in Portland Or.

I think there is more than money involved here. The church in my home town was adequate and nicer than the Mc Chapel which replaced it. I think conformity is part of the equation. What is wrong with having a church that doesn't look like every other church in town?