LDS Architecture

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Olmec Donald said:

Some of the worst acoustics I've encountered have been in LDS chapels. 
[...]
The solution is to hire an acoustician preferably in the building design phase, because this is the sort of thing that is easier to prevent than to cure. 

It seems as though the chosen solution is, instead, to simply outfit the chapel with a line array of speakers running the length of the room.

As long as you are using the microphone, the sound is generally passable.

 

[Teancum]

18 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

So utilitarian, but with the temples being more intentional about architecture and meaning. I can see that.

Catholics don't always do utilitarianism very well. I've been in incredible churches that didn't have adequate coat racks, or where it was obvious that an entire work crew would have to spend a morning moving a piece because there was no way it was easily going through the doors.

 

Catholics have certainly built some incredibly beautiful Church's.  I he had a chance to visit quite a few in Europe and am always awe struck by so many of them.

[Kenngo1969]

13 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Catholics have certainly built some incredibly beautiful Church's.  I he had a chance to visit quite a few in Europe and am always awe struck by so many of them.

La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and and the mosque-cathedral at Cordoba are ay-freaking-may-zing.  

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

It seems as though the chosen solution is, instead, to simply outfit the chapel with a line array of speakers running the length of the room.

As long as you are using the microphone, the sound is generally passable.

 

That's the problem: People don't actually want to use the microphone ... apparently for fear that they will offend someone if they actually do!  ("Yes, that apparently-foreign object there with the bulbous knob on the end of it?  Yes, that one!  You're supposed to speak into it!"  ) 

P.S.: And yes, I am aware that COVID-19 adds a whole new dimension to people's willingness to do that.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Kenngo1969

[Rain]

12 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and and the mosque-cathedral at Cordoba are ay-freaking-may-zing.  

I debated and debated on Cordoba when going to Spain.  Glad I did! The pictures don't do it justice!

[Olmec Donald]

The effects of early reflections on proximity, localization, and loudness - YouTube

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

It seems as though the chosen solution is, instead, to simply outfit the chapel with a line array of speakers running the length of the room.

Based on my understanding of the way such terms are generally used, I think they normally refer to two different things:

A "line array" is a closely-spaced vertical stack of loudspeaker elements and is usually placed at the front of the room.   A system made up of speakers that "run the length of the room" would presumably be multiple individual loudspeakers at different distances from the microphone, with the signal to each loudspeaker (hopefully!) delayed by a small amount of time corresponding to the time it takes for sound to travel from the podium to that location.

Of the two approaches, imo the line array is the more promising, assuming good quality units.  The problem with multiple delayed loudspeakers is, there will be areas in the room with acceptable intelligibility and areas with poor intelligibility, the latter being at distances in between two speakers with different delay times.  With both approaches one of the issues is multiple early arrival times, but it's potentially worse with the multiple delayed speakers.  The ear/brain system relies heavily on overtone patterns for speech intelligibility, and if the overtones are smeared or scrambled the ear/brain system has to focus harder (and longer) to decipher individual words.  (In case this subject interests you:   The perception of Presence in Halls, Operas, and Classrooms - part 1 - YouTube ; The perception of Presence in Halls, Operas, and Classrooms - part2 - YouTube ;  The effects of early reflections on proximity, localization, and loudness - YouTube )

Neither line arrays nor multiple delayed loudspeakers will address poor room acoustics directly, nor can equalization.  Acoustic problems call for acoustic solutions, and again those are most cost-effective to implement in the design stage, rather than after the room has been finished.  Most of the sound that anyone anywhere in the room hears will be reverberant sound, which means that it will be affected not only by the room's acoustic properties (shape and materials), but also by the off-axis response of the loudspeakers.  Good off-axis response tends to be expensive and involve somewhat wider loudspeaker enclosures, and thus is easier to incorporate at the initial room design stage than to add as an afterthought. 

It is of course quite possible that the acoustic design of chapels has improved since I was active LDS, I hope so anyway. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[mrmarklin]

14 hours ago, Thinking said:

One thing I like about cathedrals is they are open for worship. LDS meetinghouse are only open if there is a meeting or activity going on. The chapel is not "open" for anybody to come and pray or meditate.

The word Architecture in the LDS Church in the last 50+ years is an oxymoron.  Maybe a few temples are OK, but they are also descending into what I call "generic Mormon".

As for visiting, we have visitor centers, but in general our chapels are not open.  IMHO having an open chapel can be a great missionary tool but only if the chapel has great architecture and art.  None of which our chapels or even our temples have.  There is an exception to this of course.  The Rock Church is Cedar City Utah is very interesting and is open quite a bit to the public.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Seriously, it's all but impossible to make the "cultural hall" look like anything other than a basketball court. 😐

The only time I have seen it work was when they strung up a wire grid maybe 9 to 10 feet (might have been 12 as I have no ability to estimate distance, it was strung below the basket ball hoop) above the floor and used that to hang warm small bulb lights and netting.  The netting draped the open areas between the movable dividers that encircled the area so you couldn’t see the brick either.  There was an area that was like a tunnel to enter the space.  Probably the open area was 2/3 to half the size of the court.  Then they turned off the overhead fluorescents  and just went with the new lights which was enough lighting to feel comfortable, but might be hard to recognize people on the other side of the open area as much dimmer, so it was a very intimate and soft and even quiet setting.  Extra dressing of the receiving area with lots of flora surrounding it and more lights, so definite focus of the setting.  Had a quartet playing as well.  Table decoration was in tune.  Chairs were covered in fabric.  They used a lot less tables than most receptions so even that had a sense of intimacy.   I was in awe at how they managed such a transformation overnight.  So very clever, but not something most would think of.  I can see buying the materials for a building and having a key crew assigned to string the netting and lights up for each reception.  One could drop the netting and just use the lighting and add more if one wanted a more casual, energetic, bright feel.  Having a small crew to string stuff up would make it quick and easy as possible as one option to improve the experience of receptions.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Olmec Donald said:

Of the two approaches, imo the line array is the more promising, assuming good quality units.

Y'all could go with the Grateful Dead's "Wall of Sound," their 1974 PA system:

Look at the size of that sucker. 604 speakers total. Each speaker only carried sound for a single instrument or vocal, so it had incredibly clean sound. The people at the back of your chapel would be able to hear just fine, too.

(I'm on this board to give information on all things Catholic and Grateful Dead).

[Olmec Donald]

13 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Y'all could go with the Grateful Dead's "Wall of Sound," their 1974 PA system:

Look at the size of that sucker. 604 speakers total. Each speaker only carried sound for a single instrument or vocal, so it had incredibly clean sound. The people at the back of your chapel would be able to hear just fine, too.

(I'm on this board to give information on all things Catholic and Grateful Dead).

That would definitely get me back to church.  And I would get over all my little doctrinal hang-ups before the first note faded. 

My understanding is that the Dead toured with two such systems, because it took so long to set up and take down.  While they were playing in one city, the other system was being trucked to/set up in the next city. 

 

Edited February 21, 2022 by Olmec Donald

[Freedom]

On 2/21/2022 at 12:48 AM, Rain said:

Can't be Ikea. It would take too long to put them together. 

I bet if you go on your hands and knees, you will find a few discarded allen keys. 

[Paloma]

On 2/21/2022 at 2:27 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

La Sagrada Familia in Barcelona and and the mosque-cathedral at Cordoba are ay-freaking-may-zing.  

Never been there, but you inspired me to look at pictures.  Wow!  Yes, amazing!  Thank you!!

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/21/2022 at 3:16 PM, MiserereNobis said:

Y'all could go with the Grateful Dead's "Wall of Sound," their 1974 PA system:

Look at the size of that sucker. 604 speakers total. Each speaker only carried sound for a single instrument or vocal, so it had incredibly clean sound. The people at the back of your chapel would be able to hear just fine, too.

(I'm on this board to give information on all things Catholic and Grateful Dead).  [Emphasis added by Kenngo1969.]

Which contributions are appreciated greatly!   

[Tacenda]

I think the carrot at the end of the stick is the temple. Why make church's nice?

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think the carrot at the end of the stick is the temple. Why make church's nice?

This probably one of those topics where the church is damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I've heard many posters complain that our leaders should not be spending so much money to make the temples nice, they should use that money on the poor and needy.

And then we have complaints about our leaders not spending money to make the churches look more fancy, as some kind of trick to get more people to go to the temple, or punishment for not going?

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Why make church's nice?

So vandals can have greater incentive to break in?

Seriously, I can only imagine how sad a burglar must be after breaking into an LDS meetinghouse.

 

[Tacenda]

9 hours ago, bluebell said:

This probably one of those topics where the church is damned if they do and damned if they don't.  I've heard many posters complain that our leaders should not be spending so much money to make the temples nice, they should use that money on the poor and needy.

And then we have complaints about our leaders not spending money to make the churches look more fancy, as some kind of trick to get more people to go to the temple, or punishment for not going?

 

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

So vandals can have greater incentive to break in?

Seriously, I can only imagine how sad a burglar must be after breaking into an LDS meetinghouse.

 

I was being a little bit factitious, I wish the church buildings had a better feel. And I understand members wanting to be in a beautiful temple, after being in a chapel that doesn't look it's best. There are nice ones, but currently my ward is in a very old building with the nursery in the basement, and it's dark and the carpet smells and is stained. But again, there are nice ones...I never thought I'd be such a church building snob until I moved to my current address four years ago. 

[JAHS]

Most of the church buildings I have been in have the Chapel near one end of the building and the cultural hall/basketball court at the other end and classrooms lined up around the outer edges of the building.  They often have Two large entrances on either side for easy access with parking all around the building.
They are mostly built to be functional to accommodate a lot of people.

 

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

 

I was being a little bit factitious, I wish the church buildings had a better feel. And I understand members wanting to be in a beautiful temple, after being in a chapel that doesn't look it's best. There are nice ones, but currently my ward is in a very old building with the nursery in the basement, and it's dark and the carpet smells and is stained. But again, there are nice ones...I never thought I'd be such a church building snob until I moved to my current address four years ago. 

My current building was built in the early 90s I believe, and it really shows.  

I think the worst part about the church buildings is that they have absolutely no charm.  Unless you happen to get one that was built by the members before everything got very cookie cutter.

[3DOP]

My wife wrote in 2016 about our visit to Italy for our daughter's wedding, and also about the many beautiful churches we were able to visit while there. I have bolded the part that it seems like we are agreed about in this thread. 

"Photographs don't prepare one properly for opening the door to a church whose foundations were laid in the 14th century, and combined the Gothic, Renaissance, and Baroque under one domed roof. The first observation the soul understands immediately is, 'I am little, God is big.' It's easy, it's ridiculously simple, and it hits right between the eyes. It is also comforting, for it follows that if our God is big, then He necessarily knows of our great need of Him. The theology of architecture is open to the meanest set of eyes, even mine!"

http://acoininthetrevi.blogspot.com/2016/06/comos-jewel.html

 

[longview]

50 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

. . . The theology of architecture is open to the meanest set of eyes, even mine!"

http://acoininthetrevi.blogspot.com/2016/06/comos-jewel.html

I read the post.  Very beautifully written.

A sidelight:  She used the word "baptistry" which is the same word I use and by my church.  But my spell checker wants to use "baptistery".  I wonder what @Scott Lloyd would say about this?

[Scott Lloyd]

7 hours ago, longview said:

I read the post.  Very beautifully written.

A sidelight:  She used the word "baptistry" which is the same word I use and by my church.  But my spell checker wants to use "baptistery".  I wonder what @Scott Lloyd would say about this?

Both are correct. 

[Saint Bonaventure]

I've enjoyed the thoughts and observations, and appreciate the corrections and clarifications. 

I'll share a couple of additional musings:

• I believe that architecture gestures to the attitudes, values, priorities, and means of its designers. In other words, it reveals something of the psyche and resources of those who made it. 
• There is an incredible difference between the architecture of the headquarters LDS temple in Salt Lake City, with its militaristic battlements and towers, and the buildings you all have been making lately.
• The LDS building near me--not a temple, just a meeting house--looks like it is based in the post-WWII architecture that some very mainstream Protestant denominations put up in the suburbs. It looks like a Methodist church in a 1950s neighborhood, if you will. Except that it doesn't have a cross, and that it is stylized in a way I find fascinating. It's like a 1950s building has been idealized, fantasized, sensualized, and/or presented as though in illustration. It's like Disney got a hold of it. It reminds me of when, back in the day, Cosmopolitan magazine wanted to put the "All American Woman" on its cover, and when it couldn't find the right photograph, decided to draw the "All American Woman" on the cover instead. My training has me seeing a gesture to idealization, fantasy, sensualization, illustration. So it's not that the LDS building near me looks like a 1950s church building; rather, it looks like it is fantasizing or idealizing a 1950s building. 

I'm writing in circles a bit.

If there's someone who knows a lot about LDS architecture--an LDS architect, art historian, interior designer, landscaper, etc., I would love a specialized tour of an LDS temple, grounds, or building sometime.

 

Edited February 27, 2022 by Saint Bonaventure
Writing in circles

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Saint Bonaventure said:

I've enjoyed the thoughts and observations, and appreciate the corrections and clarifications. 

I'll share a couple of additional musings:

• I believe that architecture gestures to the attitudes, values, priorities, and means of its designers. In other words, it reveals something of the psyche and resources of those who made it. 
• There is an incredible difference between the architecture of the headquarters LDS temple in Salt Lake City, with its militaristic battlements and towers, and the buildings you all have been making lately.
• The LDS building near me--not a temple, just a meeting house--looks like it is based in the post-WWII architecture that some very mainstream Protestant denominations put up in the suburbs. It looks like a Methodist church in a 1950s neighborhood, if you will. Except that it doesn't have a cross, and that it is stylized in a way I find fascinating. It's like a 1950s building has been idealized, fantasized, sensualized, and/or presented as though in illustration. It's like Disney got a hold of it. It reminds me of when, back in the day, Cosmopolitan magazine wanted to put the "All American Woman" on its cover, and when it couldn't find the right photograph, decided to draw the "All American Woman" on the cover instead. My training has me seeing a gesture to idealization, fantasy, sensualization, illustration. So it's not that the LDS building near me looks like a 1950s church building; rather, it looks like it is fantasizing or idealizing a 1950s building. 

I'm writing in circles a bit.

If there's someone who knows a lot about LDS architecture--an LDS architect, art historian, interior designer, landscaper, etc., I would love a specialized tour of an LDS temple, grounds, or building sometime.

 

Where do you live?

I am equally educated in philosophy and art history if you are ever in LA.

Both display the same trends against representation in the 20th century. Gaudi anyone? 

Yet another unfinished Masters.

 

[mfbukowski]

On 2/20/2022 at 3:39 PM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Every Catholic church is an example of "the medium is the message," right down to the architecture.

Incidentally, that is a misquote.

A "massage" is a bit more intrusive than a message.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Medium_Is_the_Massage

Edited February 27, 2022 by mfbukowski