Small Temple design

[KevlarH]

I love that we have a Temple and understand why it is small, because membership in our state is small. (Alabama) LDS Temples - Mormon Temples - Temples of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints I feel guilty about saying this however, but I am disappointed a little in the design. What I mean is, there is many others like ours that look exactly the same except the landscaping. I know there are lots of Temples with similar designs, but all of them usually have something that differs giving it it's own unique look. When I see the wonderful Temple designs in other states, I feel disappointed that ours has no uniqueness to it at all. I know it is the Lords house and that it only matters if he is pleased, but I can't seem to just let it go. Before anyone comes down on me too hard for feeling that way, Brigham Young was disappointed in the original steeple of the St. George Temple. He felt it looked too short and squatty. The steeple was later changed to a taller steeple that it has now. Maybe, if they could just change the steeples of these smaller temples to different designs, it would give each temple a unique look of it's own too.

Edited October 1, 2012 by ldrkholt

[Wingnut]

Smaller temples are possible exactly because they all look identical. "Pre-fab" temples are less expensive to create, making it more affordable and more possible to spread them far and wide.

[Sharky]

I kind of hafta agree with you that many of the new Temples are "cookie-cutter" in design, which makes them less of a "novelty" for members whi have access to other temples to go to see all the new ones.

At the same time, having family that have been general and/or sub-contractors constructing many LDS Bldgs including Temples, I know that by using the same design the Church saves significant dollars on the construction as well as future maintenance.

Most of the civic approval process data can just be duplicated. The specific blueprints copied. The specs & details streamlined. Future maintenance simplified because most of the bldgs are virtually identical. And so on.

There are some significant savings in the logistics of sticking with the same design.

In fact, when it comes to Chaples, the design has become so streamlined that many sub-contractors no longer bid on the because the profit margin is so slim now.

I do agree though, simple changes to the steeple or something would provide a little uniqueness & intrigue.

[KevlarH]

Smaller temples are possible exactly because they all look identical. "Pre-fab" temples are less expensive to create, making it more affordable and more possible to spread them far and wide.

I guess what I was getting at, is I was just wishing that there would be just a few differences that you could look at and say this is the Birmingham Temple, that is the Oklahoma City Temple, this one is the Nashville, or Columbus Ohio Temple etc. Right now the only way you could tell is a name on a picture, or the landscaping.

Somebody humor me who knows how to do photoshop. Put like the Billings Montana steeple on the Birmingham Temple to see how it changes things.

Edited October 1, 2012 by ldrkholt

[Wingnut]

The interiors are different. Not the design, but the decorating.

Besides, I think it's far more important to have them more accessible than it is to have them distinguishable. Most people who have access to a small temple near them previously had to travel six hours or more to reach one, requiring overnight visits. You're the first person I've ever heard complain that they weren't special enough.

[bytebear]

I do miss the grand traditional 6 spire (or inspired) temples, and am glad to see some of the newer temples moving back toward that style. Temples should stand out as uniquely LDS and should be a shining light to the world.

Sometimes smaller, less prominent temples help in areas where the church is less welcome, so the church compromises on size to get cooperation from the community. Often, even before the plans are presented, anti-Mormons will go in with pictures of the DC temple or the Salt Lake Temple telling neighbors this is what they are getting. I really don't think it's cost so much, as getting a city to accept the notion that Mormons are coming. Also with smaller temples, they can use the same land for a chapel and housing for the Temple President.

Also, I believe most if not all temples have custom murals that reflect the area, and some have themed motifs based on a characteristic of the area.

[KevlarH]

I wasn't saying they were not special enough. I was only talking about making each one unique to itself. I mean they just redesigned the Ogden temple which was pretty much like the Provo temple. Wasn't it special enough? I really don't think you are getting what I'm trying to say, but I don't have enough word power to make my point clearer. Oh well.

Edited October 1, 2012 by ldrkholt

[bytebear]

The Ogden temple is being redone because the area is bad and they are trying to revitalize it. In fact, the temple was originally built there to revitalize the area back in the day. It's very specific to the needs of the area. Similarly the East Germany Temple was built without a baptistry (which was added later), and several temples have been expanded to meet the needs of the area, including the Salt Lake Temple which added an annex building, and then replaced it with a newer annex building, and added several sealing rooms.

[KevlarH]

Maybe I should state again that I love our Temple. It is small but beautiful, and I'm grateful that it is here. My only point was that it looks the same as many others, and that I was just thinking (typing too) out loud that I wished we had some distinguishing feature that made it unique to Birmingham, and not also Nashville, Lexington, Columbia, Detroit, Oklahoma City, Cuidad Juarez, Edmonton, Montreal, Baton Rouge, Aba Nigeria, etc., etc., etc. Just a small difference. Utah is full of Temples and all look different. Is it really too much to wish for a small difference? I'm being bad for thinking that?

Our Temple is pretty though: http://www.ldschurchtemples.com/birmingham/gallery/images/birmingham-mormon-temple28.jpg

[bytebear]

Very few temples are unique. Maybe 10 total. The rest of the 150 or so are parts of sets of temples. Even the early temples had similar designs (Logan, Manti, St George) or the next set (Mesa, Cardston Alberta, and Laie Hawaii) had similar design. Then the Ogden, Provo and Jordan River are all kinda the same. Then they when temples exploded they had many with the same design (6 spire sloped roof), and then changed design a bit and built a dozen more.

What I am saying is, don't feel bad that your temple isn't unique. Most temples aren't unique in floorplan or even general style.

Just to give you an idea of how common it is, here is a list of temples with the exact same design (and this is just one of several designs they repeated)

Spokane Washington Temple (59)

Columbus Ohio Temple (60)

Bismarck North Dakota Temple (61)

Columbia South Carolina Temple (62)

Detroit Michigan Temple (63)

Halifax Nova Scotia Temple (64)

Regina Saskatchewan Temple (65)

Edmonton Alberta Temple (67)

Raleigh North Carolina Temple (68)

St. Paul Minnesota Temple (69)

Kona Hawaii Temple (70)

Ciudad Juárez México Temple (71)

Oaxaca México Temple (74)

Tuxtla Gutiérrez México Temple (75)

Louisville Kentucky Temple (76)

Palmyra New York Temple (77)

Fresno California Temple (78)

Medford Oregon Temple (79)

Memphis Tennessee Temple (80)

Reno Nevada Temple (81)

Tampico México Temple (83)

Nashville Tennessee Temple (84)

Villahermosa México Temple (85)

Montréal Québec Temple (86)

San José Costa Rica Temple (87)

Adelaide Australia Temple (89)

Melbourne Australia Temple (90)

Suva Fiji Temple (91)

Mérida México Temple (92)

Veracruz México Temple (93)

Baton Rouge Louisiana Temple (94)

Birmingham Alabama Temple (98)

Porto Alegre Brazil Temple (102)

Montevideo Uruguay Temple (103)

Guadalajara México Temple (105)

Perth Australia Temple (106)

Asunción Paraguay Temple (112)

Brisbane Australia Temple (115)

These temples are variations of the same design as above

Hermosillo Sonora México Temple (72)

Fukuoka Japan Temple (88)

Oklahoma City Oklahoma Temple (95)

Caracas Venezuela Temple (96)

Winter Quarters Nebraska Temple (104)

Columbia River Washington Temple (107)

Snowflake Arizona Temple (108)

Lubbock Texas Temple (109)

Monterrey México Temple (110)

The Hague Netherlands Temple (114)

Accra Ghana Temple (117)

San Antonio Texas Temple (120)

Aba Nigeria Temple (121)

Helsinki Finland Temple (124)

Edited October 1, 2012 by bytebear

[KevlarH]

You actually are making my point. Most Temples have similar styles in design and floorplan, architecturally. But, most have a few differences that are unique enough that you could name what city it is in by looking at it. The one's in the long list you mention might have only a difference in marble, or a surrounding fence that are different. Mostly you have to guess by the landscaping and surrounding area like mountains or desert, or palm trees. I was only thinking out loud that if they had just made each have say a different looking steeple, or different designed windows, just something to be able to look at it and say that one is this temple, or that one is in that city. I'm not trying to make a huge deal out of it, I know it isn't really that important as what goes on within one. I was like I said just thinking out loud some of my thoughts on the design. Even the sloped ones you mention have different brick, or spire designs or something that makes it unique to itself. Seatle and Tokyo are about the same design, but different spires and windows change the look for both. That is all I'm saying. Sorry to create a controversy over this, that was not my intent at all.

[Maureen]

I know what you mean ldrkholt. Edmonton got a mini-Temple in 1999 but Calgary got a spiffy two-storey temple (open house at present), 3 times the size of Edmonton's. What's going on here? Is it some favouritism? What makes Calgary so special? I'm kidding! I believe the Edmonton Temple has served Northern Alberta quite well and those southern Albertans have always had the Cardston Temple; but now some of them won't have to travel as far now that Calgary has been blessed with their brand new Temple.

M.

[bytebear]

You're right. but for the first 120 years of the church, they built maybe a temple a decade or two. Then they expanded to now where we build many a year. You just can't keep up with that kind of volume. Some, like the Philadelphia have a special case for a unique design. But you really can't build that many buildings without having a general plan. It's just too much for the General Authorities to take on. They have more important issues to deal with. I believe each design is prayed about and accepted by the Lord. Imagine having to go through all the details of unique styles for each temple. The Newport Beach temple is the same floor plan ans many others, but was designed radically different in spire, color and general exterior. i believe that was by divine guidance.

And no offense is taken. I am fascinated by temple design and have studied the history of temple architecture in detail. The unique temples all have a story and a reason for their unique designs. It's very interesting to study.

[skippy740]

These smaller temple designs were based on President Hinckley's revelation on how to get it done to bring more temples to the people. He was also very ambitious with temple building... to have a total of over 100 temples completed and in service by the end of the millennium (year 2000). You can't do that using custom designs for each temple. I was serving my mission at the time and was sending investigators to open houses at: Columbia South Carolina Temple, Raleigh North Carolina Temple, Louisville Kentucky Temple, Nashville Tennessee Temple and Memphis Tennessee Temple... everywhere except IN my mission! I was slightly annoyed by that. :)

The Newport Beach temple design had to have many concessions made in order to appease the local (rich) residents. Lights are out by 11pm each night, the pink granite was to reflect the area better, and a shorter steeple. Otherwise, I think it would've been exactly the same as the Redland's temple - particularly with the taller steeple.

Whatever it takes to have an appropriate facility to do the work of the Lord is what the Church will do.

BTW, the St. George temple steeple was replaced after it was struck by lightning. Otherwise, I think it would've been left alone.

Edited October 1, 2012 by skippy740