Is the Oakland Temple the "Icon" of that City?

[smac97]

You know how some cities have this or that landmark - typically a man-made structure - that ends up being the visual iconographic shorthand reference to the city itself?

• New York City = Statue of Liberty (Times Square, Empire State Building)
• Washington D.C. = Capitol Building
• San Francisco = Golden Gate Bridge
• Seattle = The Space Needle
• St. Louis = The Gateway Arch
• Paris = Eiffel Tower
• Sydney = Opera House

Many cities seem to not have this sort of thing. 

• LA is a huge city, but no particular "landmark" (the "Hollywood" sign, maybe?).
• Las Vegas . . . the "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign?
• Philadelphia = the Liberty Bell?

Anyway, I just saw a trailer for an upcoming movie starring Pedro Pascal called Freaky Tales.  It is set in 1987 in Oakland, California.  We know this because we get giant on-screen cards saying "The Year: 1987" and "The Place: Oakland, California."  This latter one is immediately followed by an "establishing shot" of, well, Oakland:

It is an utterly unremarkable night shot of what could be virtually any street in any city in the world, yet the thing that tells you "Oakland!" is in the background: The Oakland Temple.

So, is the Oakland Temple the "Icon" of that city?  Or is Oakland more like LA or Vegas or Philadelphia (yes, they have iconographic representations, but they are not immediately recognizable as representing the city per se)?

Thanks,

-Smac

[let’s roll]

58 minutes ago, smac97 said:

You know how some cities have this or that landmark - typically a man-made structure - that ends up being the visual iconographic shorthand reference to the city itself?

• New York City = Statue of Liberty (Times Square, Empire State Building)
• Washington D.C. = Capitol Building
• San Francisco = Golden Gate Bridge
• Seattle = The Space Needle
• St. Louis = The Gateway Arch
• Paris = Eiffel Tower
• Sydney = Opera House

Many cities seem to not have this sort of thing. 

• LA is a huge city, but no particular "landmark" (the "Hollywood" sign, maybe?).
• Las Vegas . . . the "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign?
• Philadelphia = the Liberty Bell?

Anyway, I just saw a trailer for an upcoming movie starring Pedro Pascal called Freaky Tales.  It is set in 1987 in Oakland, California.  We know this because we get giant on-screen cards saying "The Year: 1987" and "The Place: Oakland, California."  This latter one is immediately followed by an "establishing shot" of, well, Oakland:

It is an utterly unremarkable night shot of what could be virtually any street in any city in the world, yet the thing that tells you "Oakland!" is in the background: The Oakland Temple.

So, is the Oakland Temple the "Icon" of that city?  Or is Oakland more like LA or Vegas or Philadelphia (yes, they have iconographic representations, but they are not immediately recognizable as representing the city per se)?

Thanks,

-Smac

90+% of Angelenos can identify the LDS temple in Santa Monica…it and the Griffith Observatory are two of the most iconic structures in LA, more iconic than anything downtown.

[smac97]

3 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

90+% of Angelenos can identify the LDS temple in Santa Monica…it and the Griffith Observatory are two of the most iconic structures in LA, more iconic than anything downtown.

Yep.  But I think far fewer outside of LA/CA are familiar with the LA Temple or the Griffith Observatory.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

You know how some cities have this or that landmark - typically a man-made structure - that ends up being the visual iconographic shorthand reference to the city itself?

• New York City = Statue of Liberty (Times Square, Empire State Building)
• Washington D.C. = Capitol Building
• San Francisco = Golden Gate Bridge
• Seattle = The Space Needle
• St. Louis = The Gateway Arch
• Paris = Eiffel Tower
• Sydney = Opera House

Many cities seem to not have this sort of thing. 

• LA is a huge city, but no particular "landmark" (the "Hollywood" sign, maybe?).
• Las Vegas . . . the "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign?
• Philadelphia = the Liberty Bell?

Anyway, I just saw a trailer for an upcoming movie starring Pedro Pascal called Freaky Tales.  It is set in 1987 in Oakland, California.  We know this because we get giant on-screen cards saying "The Year: 1987" and "The Place: Oakland, California."  This latter one is immediately followed by an "establishing shot" of, well, Oakland:

It is an utterly unremarkable night shot of what could be virtually any street in any city in the world, yet the thing that tells you "Oakland!" is in the background: The Oakland Temple.

So, is the Oakland Temple the "Icon" of that city?  Or is Oakland more like LA or Vegas or Philadelphia (yes, they have iconographic representations, but they are not immediately recognizable as representing the city per se)?

Thanks,

-Smac

It is natural for it to become that…or it was.  I lived across the Bay and my high school was on a hill, so I could see Oakland when I had a clear view east.  The only building large enough at that time (50 years ago) to stand out was the temple which was up in the foothills, so not lost in the masses (they chose a great location when they built it) and when the light hit the gold steeples, the eye was drawn to it.  I was there at night on a few occasions but don’t remember looking across the Bay then.  Wouldn’t been out on the fields or east side of the buildings at night.  I would not have been in the bus either then and the bus helped give needed elevation to see over the houses.    Might have been different with competing lights, but seems likely to still stand out.

Edited February 18, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

It’s not on the government’s designated landmark list…while other churches are.  I wonder why.

https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/list-of-designated-landmarks

Edited February 18, 2025 by Calm

[Calm]

So searching came across this post.  It would appear the Temple doesn’t stand out from all positions around the city.

Quote

I’ve heard similar variants about the Oakland Temple serving as a navigational aid to mariners on San Francisco Bay. I doubt that one’s true–the Temple doesn’t show up on any of the region’s navigational charts, and is actually relatively inconspicuous from the harbor

https://www.templestudy.com/2008/12/12/temple-lights-guide-pilots/

[Dario_M]

I think that's just accidentally. Those things you call landmarks are just famous structures and that's why people pay attention to it. Every city has something that can catch your attention. That doesn't mean perse that that building is made as a landmark for that spesific city. 

[sunstoned]

I grew up in Northern California.  Even though it was a 6-hour drive, Oakland was the closest temple.  Our ward charted buses that we took on youth baptisms for the dead excursions.  Afterward, we would drive across the bridge and spend the evening running around Fisherman's Warf.  Good times. I was sealed in the Oakland Temple. IMO, it is a handsome building and is situated on a hill that gives it great visibility. 

[Devobah]

California Native here! I grew up in Concord, which is about a 30 minute drive to the Oakland Temple. It's always been "my temple" in that regard. I don't know if you could consider it a "land mark" per se, but you can definitely recognize it. It sticks out very much from the green hillside. 

I remember reading an article in the East Bay Times that the Oakland Temple is a common spot for the Latino community to take pictures for the girl's quinceanera (apologies I don't know who to do a tilde on the keyboard) There was a big picture of the temple and the Church is more than happy to rent out the areas for special events and concerts. I'd highly recommend anybody who wants to go make a trip to go, even if Oakland isn't what it used to be.

I think this is the article here (Apologies again since it's behind a paywall)

The Oakland temple grounds also have cool overlook of the rest of the bay and it's the best on a clear day. And don't forget to hit up Fenton's afterwards for some great ice cream!

[Danzo]

59 minutes ago, Devobah said:

California Native here! I grew up in Concord, which is about a 30 minute drive to the Oakland Temple. It's always been "my temple" in that regard. I don't know if you could consider it a "land mark" per se, but you can definitely recognize it. It sticks out very much from the green hillside. 

I remember reading an article in the East Bay Times that the Oakland Temple is a common spot for the Latino community to take pictures for the girl's quinceanera (apologies I don't know who to do a tilde on the keyboard) There was a big picture of the temple and the Church is more than happy to rent out the areas for special events and concerts. I'd highly recommend anybody who wants to go make a trip to go, even if Oakland isn't what it used to be.

I think this is the article here (Apologies again since it's behind a paywall)

The Oakland temple grounds also have cool overlook of the rest of the bay and it's the best on a clear day. And don't forget to hit up Fenton's afterwards for some great ice cream!

One way to do an ñ is to hold the alt key down and type 164. To do a capitol Ñ then hold down the alt key and type 165.

 

[longview]

22 hours ago, let’s roll said:

90+% of Angelenos can identify the LDS temple in Santa Monica…it and the Griffith Observatory are two of the most iconic structures in LA, more iconic than anything downtown.

There is no beating the San Diego Temple. I never been to that town.

[Stargazer]

15 hours ago, Dario_M said:

I think that's just accidentally. Those things you call landmarks are just famous structures and that's why people pay attention to it. Every city has something that can catch your attention. That doesn't mean perse that that building is made as a landmark for that spesific city. 

True, but even incidental landmarks can turn eventually into a recognized landmark, and a symbol of a city. London England used to have the clock tower of the houses of Parliament as the main landmark (you know, "Big Ben"). But they built a huge ferris wheel on the opposite bank a few years ago, and now that is also a major landmark of the city. It's called the "London Eye". It's pretty magnificent -- I've been on it, and it does have quite the view!

[Stargazer]

59 minutes ago, longview said:

There is no beating the San Diego Temple. I never been to that town.

One of my granddaughters was married there. It's gorgeous in person -- we went down there for it.

[Robert F. Smith]

On 2/18/2025 at 11:47 AM, smac97 said:

You know how some cities have this or that landmark - typically a man-made structure - that ends up being the visual iconographic shorthand reference to the city itself?

• New York City = Statue of Liberty (Times Square, Empire State Building)
• Washington D.C. = Capitol Building
• San Francisco = Golden Gate Bridge
• Seattle = The Space Needle
• St. Louis = The Gateway Arch
• Paris = Eiffel Tower
• Sydney = Opera House

Many cities seem to not have this sort of thing. 

• LA is a huge city, but no particular "landmark" (the "Hollywood" sign, maybe?).
• Las Vegas . . . the "Welcome to Fabulous Las Vegas" sign?
• Philadelphia = the Liberty Bell?

Anyway, I just saw a trailer for an upcoming movie starring Pedro Pascal called Freaky Tales.  It is set in 1987 in Oakland, California.  We know this because we get giant on-screen cards saying "The Year: 1987" and "The Place: Oakland, California."  This latter one is immediately followed by an "establishing shot" of, well, Oakland:

It is an utterly unremarkable night shot of what could be virtually any street in any city in the world, yet the thing that tells you "Oakland!" is in the background: The Oakland Temple.

So, is the Oakland Temple the "Icon" of that city?  Or is Oakland more like LA or Vegas or Philadelphia (yes, they have iconographic representations, but they are not immediately recognizable as representing the city per se)?

Thanks,

-Smac

I was born in Oakland, which used to be a nice place.  Now it is a zombie city, along with Frisco and Berkeley.  I  have not been there for many years, but I imagine the temple is protected by armed guards.

[Robert F. Smith]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

It’s not on the government’s designated landmark list…while other churches are.  I wonder why.

https://www.oaklandca.gov/topics/list-of-designated-landmarks

They called it "holy hill" many years ago, due to all the other churches near the temple.  I attended the temple dedication by Pres McKay back in 1965.  Joseph Fielding Smith played piano while his wife Jesse Evans Smith sang "Bless this House," and "He Who Hath Clean Hands and a Pure Heart."  A powerful occasion.

[rodheadlee]

6 hours ago, longview said:

There is no beating the San Diego Temple. I never been to that town.

Yepper 

[gmormon]

When I think of an iconic temples. I originally only thought of the Manti Temple driving up from Thistle seeing it down the highway all lite up on the mountain side, but now I include both the Timpanogoes Temple and the Bountiful Temple. I have just recently saw a picture of the Saratoga Springs too it was sitting at the end of a main road...

[Dario_M]

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

True, but even incidental landmarks can turn eventually into a recognized landmark,

Yes, because people make it that way. 

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

and a symbol of a city. London England used to have the clock tower of the houses of Parliament as the main landmark (you know, "Big Ben").

Yes i know. 

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

But they built a huge ferris wheel on the opposite bank a few years ago, and now that is also a major landmark of the city. It's called the "London Eye". It's pretty magnificent -- I've been on it, and it does have quite the view!

Wauw that thing must be huge. I also wanna sit in it. And enjoy the Londen view.  

11 hours ago, Stargazer said:

 

[Mfbnew]

On 2/18/2025 at 11:51 AM, let’s roll said:

90+% of Angelenos can identify the LDS temple in Santa Monica…it and the Griffith Observatory are two of the most iconic structures in LA, more iconic than anything downtown.

Hmmm-yeah but City Hall has to be up there too along with a few others. That round, tallest building in downtown whatever it is- 🤨 has to be "up there"

too.  If someone presented big city skylines and you wanted to identify them, I always find LA easily.  I mean it is something you can literally navigate by- are you east or west, north or south of downtown?   Easy!  Where's that big round thing? 

 

  Downtown

  Century City PLUS downtown- note "round thing" in distance.  Century City is west of downtown, 

So was the photo made at sunset or sunrise?   

Today's puzzle, for all of you who are puzzle freaks!   Incidentally the temple is between downtown and century city - and invisible here!

(Round Thing is US Bank Bldg.)

 

 

Edited February 22, 2025 by Mfbnew