Ogden Temple to be revamped

[Just_A_Guy]

Story here.

Mixed feelings about this. The "cupcake" design has nice symbolism, but it looks awful.

[applepansy]

There is nothing at the Church's website about this announcement.

[Wingnut]

Yes, there is.

[bytebear]

I just caught that article. It is the ugliest of the temples, but not just because of the design. The Provo Temple is similarly designed but looks nicer on the hillside. The Odgen temple grounds are so plain and boring, that this will be a nice change. And I noticed they are taking down the spire from the chapel next to the temple. That's a good idea, because it does overshadow the temple.

[applepansy]

The building next to the temple is the Ogden Tabernacle.

Thank you Wingnut. I couldn't find it.

[Just_A_Guy]

The Ogden tabernacle was, apparently, the last one the Church ever built; and personally I'd like to see it keep some semblance of historical integrity. If the new temple design can't hold its own against the adjacent historical edifice next door, perhaps the architects ought to go back to the drawing board?

[annamaureen]

It's a matter of opinion whether the temple is "ugly" or not.

[KCGrant]

I'm excited the church is investing in an update for the Ogden Temple! That part of the city has been changing rapidly and it will be good to see the temple and temple grounds catching up to that progress.

K.C. Grant

author of Abish: Daughter of God

[tubaloth]

They say "The entrance to the temple will also be moved from the west side to the east side, where it will face Washington Boulevard."

But then they say "Inside the temple, some rooms will be reconfigured, but the core building design will remain the same."

I don't really see how those two can go together. I mean the funny thing was I was at the Ogden Temple (I saw some reporters outside) and this was the reason.

But if you move the entrance I assume to the temple. Don't you need to move the lobby and everything else from the west side to the east side.

I do think they need underground parking.

The Ogden tabernacle was, apparently, the last one the Church ever built; and personally I'd like to see it keep some semblance of historical integrity. If the new temple design can't hold its own against the adjacent historical edifice next door, perhaps the architects ought to go back to the drawing board?

Do you see there rendering of what the tabernacle is going to look like?

[john doe]

It's a matter of opinion whether the temple is "ugly" or not.

I'm not going to say it is ugly, I've never been inside that one. But even in the 70s I remember thinking that the outside design was quite odd.

[Just_A_Guy]

Do you see there rendering of what the tabernacle is going to look like?

I did. It just seems odd that in some areas the Church fights so hard to be allowed to put steeples on its temples because they're "houses of worship" and steeples are part of the American religious tradition and all that--but then we're willing to cut a rather intriguing steeple off a sixty-year-old tabernacle for no reason other than a sudden fear that it will compete aesthetically with a nearby (taller?) temple that has stood for forty years.

[Elphaba]

As someone who lives in Ogden, I say Thank Zeus!

The current design is ugly. Just plain ugly. It's the only ugly temple design in the bunch. It's made fun of all the time ("Beam me up, Scotty!"), to the point that it is the butt of a lot of jokes. I can't help but think this is at least part of the reason for the new design.

And I think the new design looks lovely, and more in keeping with the solemnity of the Church's other temples. People aren't going to be making "cupcake" jokes about it any longer.

Downtown Ogden has changed, much of it for the better, but not all of it. I personally believe that eliminating the chance for people to make fun of the temple's design is a very good thing for the Church, and will enhance the better improvements that have been made.

There's a reason why the Church is doing this, and I believe it's because they knew, that temple is just plain ugly!

Not that I've ever noticed.

Elphaba

[applepansy]

I'm excited the church is investing in an update for the Ogden Temple! That part of the city has been changing rapidly and it will be good to see the temple and temple grounds catching up to that progress.

K.C. Grant

author of Abish: Daughter of God

I'm a bit sad about the change. I had considered the changes in downtown Ogden just the opposite. Finally downtown Ogden was looking as if it was up to Temple standards.

[ryanh]

I'm glad for the update and change.

On the negative side, parking was beyond capacity, and it was hard to get into a session on Saturday! Apparently it was a near-record breaking attendance day. The Bountiful temple is already VERY busy. It won't be very fun to have Ogden off-line for up to two years.

Perhaps this is part of the reason for the announcement of a Brigham City temple? I do hope that it is operating before the Ogden is closed for renovation.

[snjlucas]

The Ogden and Provo temples are not ugly, they are just unique. These temples serve a purpose in the history of the church in that they were less expensive to build yet are very efficient in their function. The church has spent much on restoring/perserving history including rebuilding the Nauvoo temple or converting the old Vernal tabernacle into a temple. I don't know why history has to be destoryed here with the extensive renovation of the Ogden temple facade and tabernacle spire removal. Our history is worth preserving. The Ogden temple, like others, is a perfect house of the Lord and derserves to be preserved for the role it has played in church history.

[dizzysmiles]

It is symbolic symbolically represent the cloud and pillar of fire, however they did paint the fire part of it white. I loved doing baptisms there, but anything to clean up ogden at this point will be good!

[Moksha]

This would look nice in Ogden

So would this with an Angel Moroni top

This one too. (Had to replace the Trondheim Cathedral with another picture - this one is of Monte Carlo)

Edited May 1, 2010 by Moksha
Trondheim picture was not displaying

[ZSEdwardson]

I am kinda bummed, I wish that there was more uniqueness in temple designs, as they are getting very "Cookie cutter" and lack a uniqueness.

[Dravin]

I am kinda bummed, I wish that there was more uniqueness in temple designs, as they are getting very "Cookie cutter" and lack a uniqueness.

I can understand that from a aesthetic point of view, but ultimately what is important about temples is what makes them the same (they are Houses of the Lord).

[Jenamarie]

I can understand that from a aesthetic point of view, but ultimately what is important about temples is what makes them the same (they are Houses of the Lord).

Also, it drastically cuts costs for the church if they don't have to come up with a completely unique design for every Temple. It takes time and money to come up with and design blueprints, sometimes *years*, so if they can have a few base models to start from, then tweak them to fit the size of the lot and meet local building codes, then they have more money available to build more Temples.

[dizzysmiles]

I also hear they want to get more weddings. Personally. a lot of people tend to not get married in the ogden temple compared to the other prettier ones. Purhaps, this will help everyone from flocking to other crowded ones?

[Wingnut]

The Ogden and Provo temples are not ugly, they are just unique. These temples serve a purpose in the history of the church in that they were less expensive to build yet are very efficient in their function. The church has spent much on restoring/perserving history including rebuilding the Nauvoo temple or converting the old Vernal tabernacle into a temple. I don't know why history has to be destoryed here with the extensive renovation of the Ogden temple facade and tabernacle spire removal. Our history is worth preserving. The Ogden temple, like others, is a perfect house of the Lord and derserves to be preserved for the role it has played in church history.

The Provo temple had very specific symbolism as well, which is completely moot now that they've painted its spire. The Ogden temple had similar symbolism.

It is symbolic symbolically represent the cloud and pillar of fire, however they did paint the fire part of it white. I loved doing baptisms there, but anything to clean up ogden at this point will be good!

[MarginOfError]

The Ogden and Provo temples are not ugly, they are just unique. These temples serve a purpose in the history of the church in that they were less expensive to build yet are very efficient in their function. The church has spent much on restoring/perserving history including rebuilding the Nauvoo temple or converting the old Vernal tabernacle into a temple. I don't know why history has to be destoryed here with the extensive renovation of the Ogden temple facade and tabernacle spire removal. Our history is worth preserving. The Ogden temple, like others, is a perfect house of the Lord and derserves to be preserved for the role it has played in church history.

No, I'm pretty sure that they are ugly.

But regardless, the Church strives very hard to provide architecture that is pleasing to they eye and does not detract from the surrounding areas. The temples aren't really supposed to blend in, but they really shouldn't be the worst looking thing in the area either. If the area around a temple is upgraded in such a way that the temple becomes a drag on the rest of the surroundings, it is only respectful to the temple and the community to give the temple a similar upgrade.

One possible measuring stick you could use to determine when a temple needs an upgrade is if it's presence deflates local property values. I wouldn't be surprised if the Ogden temple was deflating property values in its area.

[ZSEdwardson]

For years, the eiffel tower was thought of as the ugliest thing known to man. Thankfully, the french didn't tear it down.

[talisyn]

Eiffel Tower vs. Ogden Temple.

Nope, not even going there. I think the design of the Ogden temple had a purpose, it was approved by the First Presidency after all. I just don't think the majority of the members have the spiritual maturity to appreciate it