treehugger Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 To what extent does anyone think the Church would go too to protect aesthetics of its property?And if the Church would protect the aesthetics of its property, why the mocking of those who are concerned about their own property?
treehugger Posted July 11, 2012 Posted July 11, 2012 I would not be surprised if after the neighbourhood expressed its dissatisfaction with the plans, that additional inspiration was sought to see if this was still the proper course to take.Your clear and stunningly inspired posts are maddening for those of us who do not post before you post with such eloquence and thoughtfulness.It is unfortunate that estimates of needed space were wrong when it was first built. I wonder if the neighbourhood would prefer the option of building lower which would require buying more land which would mean some people would have to move out? I don't remember seeing any discussion of that in the articles I have read on the subject.The neighbors would opt for higher buildings. The majority of persons I have spoken too, who have done business with the Church all say the same thing "They don't pay that much, but it is work". In that same vein, I tend to doubt the neighbors would be satisfied with the amount of money the Church would offer for land.
blackstrap Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 A quick look at Google Maps show the current property has 16 buildings on it ,none seem to be over 2 stories tall.Which building (main?) is proposed to increase to 9 stories?If the new building were placed in the center of the current complex,there would be at least a block in all directions before any'residential' homes.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 To what extent does anyone think the Church would go too to protect aesthetics of its property?And if the Church would protect the aesthetics of its property, why the mocking of those who are concerned about their own property?none...but when it comes to building and integrity this Church unbelievably good at both.
Freedom Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 I don't know much about the issues at hand but up is better than out. urban sprawl destroys the environment and increases costs. If you live near a university, you are going to end up with big buildings. If we kept our buildings at 5 stories or lower, just imagine what New York would look like.
Freedom Posted July 13, 2012 Posted July 13, 2012 out of curiosity, where would this building go?Are they tearing down the current buildings or building across the road by the temple?
treehugger Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 To what extent does anyone think the Church would go too to protect aesthetics of its property?And if the Church would protect the aesthetics of its property, why the mocking of those who are concerned about their own property?none...but when it comes to building and integrity this Church unbelievably good at both.I disagree Pa Pa, the Church would use all legal means to protect its property.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 14, 2012 Posted July 14, 2012 I disagree Pa Pa, the Church would use all legal means to protect its property.You have me at a disadvantage...define "legal", as is applies to this matter.
treehugger Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 You have me at a disadvantage...define "legal", as is applies to this matter.The point is, the Church protects its property.
Bill “Papa” Lee Posted July 15, 2012 Posted July 15, 2012 The point is, the Church protects its property.This is what I meant they did two things well...Have integrity and build wonderful buildings.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 18, 2012 Posted July 18, 2012 Years ago, I attended a region conference at Salt Lake Tabernacle. President Gordon B. Hinckley, then a counselor in the First Presidency, spoke of the hardship that saints in some primitive, developing area of the Church had endured just to make a one-time visit to a temple. He then observed that we had traveled in our air-conditioned cars over a well-constructed freeway for about 20 miles to arrive at the conference. "Thank you for your sacrifice," he said. The experience has had a continuing impact on me. Were I in the position of these Provo homeowners, I think I would not need to be invited to support the Brethren in this effort to further the work of proclaiming the gospel globally and bringing souls to Christ. Doing without a totally unobstructed view of the mountains strikes me as a small sacrifice given the covenant of consecration I have made.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.