Nevada temple problem

[blackstrap]

The proposed design does seem out of place for its location. Why so big? A new temple in my area is half the size and it will serve at least 6 stakes.

 

Anger erupts in Nevada town as residents resist big Mormon temple (msn.com)

[Calm]

4 hours ago, blackstrap said:

The proposed design does seem out of place for its location. Why so big? A new temple in my area is half the size and it will serve at least 6 stakes.

 

Anger erupts in Nevada town as residents resist big Mormon temple (msn.com)

That is a massive temple….https://www.8newsnow.com/news/local-news/exterior-rendering-for-2nd-las-vegas-temple-released-by-the-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints/

Orem, which looks big to me, is 72,000 sq ft

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orem_Utah_Temple

That doesn’t make sense to me.  I know there are a lot of Saints in the area though (have some relatives out there).

Quote

The rendering released is for the Lone Mountain Temple which is expected to be constructed in the northwest Las Vegas valley on a 19.8-acre site southwest of Hickman Avenue, between North Grand Canyon Drive and Tee Pee Lane which is near Alexander Road. It is expected to be a three-story temple of approximately 87,000 square feet, according to the LDS church.

Quote

[Summary: From 1998-2002, there was a decrease in temple sizes. The Church made 32 temples in a row that were exactly 10,700 square feet large. Since that time, there has been a moderate increase in size ranging from around 20,000 to 50,000 square feet.

The average size of all LDS Temples: 38,135 sq ft

The median size of all LDS Temples: 26,969 sq ft

The mode size of all LDS Temples: 10,700 sq ft (32 temples between 1999-2002)

The average size of LDS temples between 1999-2002 was 17,762 sq ft

The average size of LDS temples between 2006-2021 is now 38,024 sq ft

The largest LDS temple was the Salt Lake Temple built in 1893 at 253,000 sq ft, followed by LA, Washington DC, and Jordan River temple.

The smallest LDS temple is Colonia Juárez Chihuahua Mexico Temple at a whopping 6,800 sq ft.]

https://bhroberts.org/records/Mn1dAc-H3DoNb/dimensions_number_of_rooms_and_acreage_of_temples_provided_by_temples_of_the_church_of_jesus_christ_of_latter_day_saints#

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Huh….Red cliffs is 96,000 sq ft, so maybe they are building them bigger now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Cliffs_Utah_Temple

Taylorsville is 73,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylorsville_Utah_Temple

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[blackstrap]

Cardston is 88,000 . 

I think the major concern seems to be the height . 200+ ft 

Remind me , Calm , how did the MTC building in Provo finally work out ? 

[Calm]

Been forever since I drove by there, no family over in that area now, so I had to look it up.  Instead of the original 9 story, it has two 6 story buildings, so there was some compromises. (Added:  looks more complicated than that as the Church got the neighborhood to step down, and then went ahead and made adjustments anyway for some reason)

https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/provo-mtc-open-house-2017#:~:text=The expansion at the Provo,assigned areas around the world.

I will see if I can find reactions of locals.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

Quote

Later in 2012, the church scrapped plans for the 160-foot high structure, citing a number of "complexities and concerns," but maintaining that the MTC expansion was still necessary.

The reversal came less than a week after LDS Church President Thomas S. Monson announced a lowering in the age of service to qualify for full-time missionaries to 19 for women and 18 for men.

Meantime, the LDS Church continued to explore options to enlarge the bulging MTC campus, eventually deciding in November 2013 to expand to the south, where the BYU laundry and auxiliary maintenance buildings were located. It also went through a zoning process with Provo to restrict the height of any new buildings to 125 feet, including mechanical equipment on the roof.

https://www.deseret.com/2017/7/26/20616666/new-mtc-buildings-in-provo-include-larger-classrooms-outside-study-space/

iirc, the protestors wanted it held to the four or five story height they said was promised in 1979, they got 6 stories instead of 9, so not perfect but much better….also I think the taller buildings were set back some, to the south so bordering BYU rather than the neighborhood.

Nine stories in one huge building would have been overpowering there.  Glad they scraped that plan and went with two much smaller ones even if they apparently persuaded the neighborhood to stop fighting it.

https://www.heraldextra.com/news/2012/jul/06/neighborhood-chair-drops-mtc-fight-after-message-from-church/

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[sunstoned]

From what I have read the concern seems to be the height.  Residents launched a balloon up to the proposed height to get an understanding of just how big the building would be.  And yes, it will be very tall.  I'm wondering if the church would be willing to adjust the proposed height.  I'm sure it could be done without compromising the temple's function.

[Calm]

https://universe.byu.edu/2012/10/15/lds-church-scraps-plans-for-controversial-mtc-renovation/
 

Quote

R. Paul Evans, BYU micro and molecular biology faculty and chair for the Pleasant View neighborhood, received a call from the administrative director at the MTC prior to the press release, notifying him of the changes.

The release was issued less than a week after the announcement that ages for missionaries are now 18 for men and 19 for women, a change that has led many to believe the number of missionaries will drastically increase.

“The plans were for a renovation, not expansion,” Evans said. “I think it would definitely increase difficulty housing the increasing number of missionaries since they would be tearing down a building to start the new one.”

This news presumably leaves many members of the neighborhood happy and relieved.

“As a neighborhood we express gratitude to the mayor and councils for their actions in the past months helping us with this issue,” Evans said. “Neighborhoods change, cities change, BYU grows, the MTC will grow. It’s not change that’s the concern. The concern is, do we involve all the people affected in that discussion of the plan for the future?”

During the September 4th town council meeting the issue was more of a preventative nature. Ordinances were reviewed in the hopes of coming to a final product that would protect the residents and their neighborhoods from plans for other unwanted structures.

For this reason, the announcement was a surprise to the community.

“If you look at the efforts of the city and the neighborhood,” Evans said, “everyone just wanted to talk, and this announcement gives them that chance.”

 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, sunstoned said:

From what I have read the concern seems to be the height.  Residents launched a balloon up to the proposed height to get an understanding of just how big the building would be.  And yes, it will be very tall.  I'm wondering if the church would be willing to adjust the proposed height.  I'm sure it could be done without compromising the temple's function.

They have done it before.

[MustardSeed]

Oh gosh, that’s a little embarrassing to me.  😕  then again, I am typically easily embarrassed

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, blackstrap said:

The proposed design does seem out of place for its location.

I don't know. The design looks very similar to the Saratoga Springs temple that was completed last year.

We were out in Utah last week and were barely able to even notice it as we were driving by. The coloring of the materials cause it to blend in with the surrounding background.

Based on where this temple is slated to go (situated beneath a "mountain") and what it's designed to look like, it appears the church is going for a similar aesthetic. I can understand neighbors not wanting it still, but it isn't like the church is intentionally trying to just drop the DC temple into the middle of their neighborhood.

 

[Doctor Steuss]

As an aside, the Las Vegas Temple is only operating at half capacity (and still at somewhat reduced hours), and that's with the (modest) overflow they are (or were) getting from St. George.  There are four rooms.  They only use two.

This just seems so weird to me.

Just kind of looking at the map, I'd gauge that even at the height of rush hour, it'd be about an hour drive from that neighborhood to the already built and underutilized Las Vegas Temple.  Outside of rush hour, you could probably make the drive in 30-40 minutes.

Millions of dollars, in perpetuity, to save a handful of people a 40 minute drive.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Doctor Steuss

[ZealouslyStriving]

I believe the brethren are very aware of the demographics of the areas where Houses of the Lord are being announced, yet they continue to build at an unprecedented rate. I would hope that would show people that they are aware of something coming which we as general members are not yet privy to- perhaps the Second Coming being fairly soon (for which a larger temple infrastructure needs to be in place) or an unexpected massive influx of new and returning members all extremely serious about temple work.

These are very intelligent men, they wouldn't just throw money at building things that are going to be useless. There is a reason behind all this.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Doctor Steuss said:

As an aside, the Las Vegas Temple is only operating at half capacity (and still at somewhat reduced hours), and that's with the (modest) overflow they are (or were) getting from St. George.  There are four rooms.  They only use two.

This just seems so weird to me.

Just kind of looking at the map, I'd gauge that even at the height of rush hour, it'd be about an hour drive from that neighborhood to the already built and underutilized Las Vegas Temple.  Outside of rush hour, you could probably make the drive in 30-40 minutes.

Millions of dollars, in perpetuity, to save a handful of people a 40 minute drive.

I'm not familiar with the area, but could it be that the church will develop homes or rental homes and town homes surrounding the temple?

[Doctor Steuss]

6 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not familiar with the area, but could it be that the church will develop homes or rental homes and town homes surrounding the temple?

Doubtful.  I think pretty much everything North of Alexander is mostly zoned Rural Estates.  There are some finished graded lots just west of the proposed site that are pretty massive (by new construction Vegas standards).  Likely million dollar plus home sites.  The rest of the area is just open land, likely held by investor savvy squatters not looking to part yet.  Everything South of Alexander is already fully developed, with the exception of a few plots by the LDS chapel down by El Capitan.

I think the "light pollution" complaints are absolutely silly.  If light pollution is something that concerns you, then the Las Vegas valley is the last place you should be settling.  That said, the height of the temple will make it, by far (and I mean, by far) the most prominent non-natural feature within miles.  It'll definitely stick out.

[longview]

2 hours ago, ZealouslyStriving said:

These are very intelligent men, they wouldn't just throw money at building things that are going to be useless. There is a reason behind all this.

Is it possible that the existing LV temple will eventually be removed? It is interesting to me that the very large Jordan River temple in SLC was completely demolished and rebuilt. As has happened with a number of other temples.

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Doubtful.  I think pretty much everything North of Alexander is mostly zoned Rural Estates.  There are some finished graded lots just west of the proposed site that are pretty massive (by new construction Vegas standards).  Likely million dollar plus home sites.  The rest of the area is just open land, likely held by investor savvy squatters not looking to part yet.  Everything South of Alexander is already fully developed, with the exception of a few plots by the LDS chapel down by El Capitan.

I think the "light pollution" complaints are absolutely silly.  If light pollution is something that concerns you, then the Las Vegas valley is the last place you should be settling.  That said, the height of the temple will make it, by far (and I mean, by far) the most prominent non-natural feature within miles.  It'll definitely stick out.

I hope the church will do all they can to make it nice for those that live nearby. I heard Texas people are having issues with the soon to be built temple there as well.

[Doctor Steuss]

21 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I hope the church will do all they can to make it nice for those that live nearby. I heard Texas people are having issues with the soon to be built temple there as well.

I'm not sure what could be done.  I just realized that this proposed temple is even bigger than the existing Las Vegas Temple, which is itself a massive landmark.  The proposed site is also fairly close to four different really incredible parks, so even the inclusion of green spaces/gardens might not be all that helpful in placating people (like the Las Vegas Temple, which had absolutely no green spaces around it, when it was built, making the fountain and garden a huge draw and bonus).

I'm having an even harder time wrapping my head around this.  The existing massive Las Vegas Temple is 137 ft high.  I can't wrap my head around another 80 feet of height -- especially in a residential neighborhood with capped home story limits.

It seems to me that a primary goal is for it to be as visible as possible.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Doctor Steuss said:

The rest of the area is just open land, likely held by investor savvy squatters not looking to part yet. 

Is this area likely to be zoned for typical residential housing later or massive lots?

Quote

It seems to me that a primary goal is for it to be as visible as possible.

My guess is that is always one purpose of temples since they started building them on promontories or at the center of the proposed city.

I grew up being able to see the Oakland Temple from across the Bay.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, longview said:

very large Jordan River temple in SLC was completely demolished and rebuilt.

Reference please, wasn’t paying attention when this happened and now I am curious.  And Google just says “extensive renovations”…

Nvm, found a site with more detail…I wouldn’t call it demolished when it was just interior walls that came down.

https://churchofjesuschristtemples.org/jordan-river-utah-temple/#:~:text=The general floor plan remained,of a separate baptistry entrance.

Quote

The Jordan River Utah Temple closed for an extensive renovation on February 15, 2016. The general floor plan remained the same, but selective interior walls came down to accommodate remodeling of the Celestial Room, bride's room, initiatory areas, and the baptistry including the addition of a separate baptistry entrance. The entire interior and exterior were refreshed and beautified with new furnishings, finishes, carpet, artwork, and murals. Escalators were replaced with staircases. Outdated mechanical and electrical systems were replaced with modern equipment including plumbing, heating, and air conditioning. The roof was replaced, and seismic upgrades were made. Modifications to the landscaping have beautified the temple grounds.

 

This is demolished in my view…

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Judd]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Reference please, wasn’t paying attention when this happened and now I am curious.  And Google just says “extensive renovations”…

Nvm, found a site with more detail…I wouldn’t call it demolished when it was just interior walls that came down.

This is demolished in my view…

I wonder if they meant Ogden.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Judd said:

I wonder if they meant Ogden.

I don’t think the Church likes the word “demolished”.  

Quote

On Feb. 17, 2010, the Church announced that the Ogden temple would be closed on April 2, 2011, for an entire remodel of the exterior. The temple was not demolished; rather, the exterior was removed and replaced with new stone and more glass, keeping the interior structure largely the same. Other renovations included new landscaping, new underground parking, and new electrical, heating and plumbing systems.

My bold

https://www.thechurchnews.com/almanac/temples/ogden-utah/#:~:text=The temple was not demolished,electrical%2C heating and plumbing systems.

Jordan’s interior was taken out, Ogden’s exterior was taken down….between the two we have one demolished temple!

Sorry for the derail…my mind is wandering while I wait for the next item on my to do list.

Edited April 23, 2024 by Calm

[Doctor Steuss]

9 minutes ago, Calm said:

Is this area likely to be zoned for typical residential housing later or massive lots?

Most of it appears to be already zoned R-E (Rural/Ranch Estates), which I think for unincorporated Clark County would mean a maximum density of 2 homes per acre.  It's hard to say if it'd stay that way though, as big homebuilders do have some decent political sway in most townships (only place that doesn't tend to budge is City of North Las Vegas).  If one of the valley's big 5 homebuilders were to purchase the vacant lots, they could likely successfully push for a tighter density.

There's a pretty stark dividing line with Alexander.  Everything South looks to be mainly R-2 (up to 13 homes per acre), but everything North (where the proposed Temple site is) is estate stuff. 

What's kind of weird is that there are a few cul-de-sacs speckled about the proposed site that look like they are zoned R-E, but have almost 4 homes per acre -- but the common element "private street" aspect of the cul-de-sac may count towards the density.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, Doctor Steuss said:

Most of it appears to be already zoned R-E (Rural/Ranch Estates), which I think for unincorporated Clark County would mean a maximum density of 2 homes per acre.  It's hard to say if it'd stay that way though, as big homebuilders do have some decent political sway in most townships (only place that doesn't tend to budge is City of North Las Vegas).  If one of the valley's big 5 homebuilders were to purchase the vacant lots, they could likely successfully push for a tighter density.

There's a pretty stark dividing line with Alexander.  Everything South looks to be mainly R-2 (up to 13 homes per acre), but everything North (where the proposed Temple site is) is estate stuff. 

What's kind of weird is that there are a few cul-de-sacs speckled about the proposed site that look like they are zoned R-E, but have almost 4 homes per acre -- but the common element "private street" aspect of the cul-de-sac may count towards the density.

The cul-de-sac behind us was one of the first to break the 1/4 acre requirement of our area, now I understand it to be a common occurrence (something called flag plots were recently approved….more letter of the law than spirit).  They allowed the four houses on our cul-de-sac instead of the two they were officially limited to because the builder said it would not make it cost effective with having to put the road, etc.  My response was “don’t build it if you can’t make money off of it”.  I was really hoping the city would let us keep our extended backyards so I could continue to watch the horses while doing dishes, but they betrayed us instead and wedged those houses into the little spot whether they wanted to go or not (we felt so bad for our new neighbors seeing their fence a foot away from their kitchen window every breakfast we gave them quite a few feet off of our backyard we weren’t using).

All that to say that might be why the cul-de-sacs have a higher density.

[Amulek]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I heard Texas people are having issues with the soon to be built temple there as well.

We are?