[Updated] The Provo Temple Grounds Renovation and Mormon Concepts of Architectural Beauty and Utility
[Updates at the end]
This post is prompted by a question by a friend on Facebook. Upon seeing the remodeled grounds of the Provo Temple, my friend asked, to no one in particular, when this occurred.
So, I decided to do a little digging, and it revealed some interesting points. This is a hurried and preliminary post, so take it for what it is. I’m sure some phone calls and other leg work would give more precise information, but I offer this just as a touching off point for further consideration.
Here is a photo (1990s) of the pre-renovation Temple. You can see the drive way that goes around the front of the temple and which was between the Temple and the fountain/flag pole area.
I found a number of points of evidence for a major 2005-2006 grounds renovation, but nothing definitive. My friend served a mission in the Utah Provo Mission until early-mid 2005 and did not recall any construction during that time. This indicates, obviously, that construction began sometime in the spring or summer of 2005. Water Design Inc. [scroll down to the August 13,2005 entry for the Provo Temple] seems to have been a part of the fountain construction. I’m not 100% sure what to make of the August 13, 2005 date but my guess is that this was likely when the fountains were designed or under way. I think the photo given is likely an “after” shot to show the results of the plan. This comment by Emma indicates that when she was married in August 2005 there was heavy construction at the Provo Temple with some wedding photos complete with a crane and orange fencing. On September 19, 2005, there was enough construction occurring that it prompted a question to BYU’s 100 Hour Board about what was going on. The respondent talked to grounds crews about the scope of the project. At that time work had progressed in removing the drive-through and it seems that the fountain had not yet been remodeled. Awaiting government and church clearances, the grounds crew informant could not comment on when the project would be completed. This excellent photo was uploaded in November, 2005, which is right in the middle of my proposed renovation time frame. It is undated, but shows the flag pole still in front of the Temple and orange construction fencing.
On May 9, 2006 a blog entry indicated that construction was still under way. The blog author feared that no wedding pictures would be possible, but to his surprise, the Temple asked construction workers, tools, and cones be removed from the area and the fountains turned on for about 30 minutes while pictures were taken. Apparently the remodeled fountains were operational by this time. This photo shows the grounds fairly far along by mid May 2006. Notice the flagpole has been relocated, the driveway removed, new fountains, and a new plaza area with waterfalls added. Compare with the previous photo.
This June 7, 2006 entry indicates that the construction appeared complete. The author postulated, “Ah! They did this to up the chances of women choosing this Temple to get married in.” Though likely written partially in jest, she was not far off as we’ll see in a minute. This artist’s rendering uploaded August 12, 2006 shows the new position of the flag pole and the absence of the old drive through. Compare with the first photo above.
This wedding photographer gushed on August 26, 2006 about getting her first chance to shoot wedding pictures at the “New” Provo Temple after extensive renovations. Finally, this September 14, 2006 article discusses the extent of the completed renovations and indicates that renovations had been under way for 3 ½ years and had started with simple parking lot lighting changes, and snowballed into a full blown facelift. The article indicates that the flag pole had been relocated specifically to allow for better wedding photos.
So, it seems that changes had been occurring from Spring 2003 (the largest being the addition of the Angel Moroni and the painting of the spire, and then other smaller changes) until sometime in 2005 when the major “facelift” began, which crews completed by September 2006. So, though a spokesperson in 2003 did not indicate any other renovations in the works (perhaps he wasn’t aware, or perhaps the plans had not been finalized for public announcement at that time), it appears that this changed significantly over the next few years. Significantly, according to this September 14, 2002 Church News article, the Ogden Temple, similar in design to the Provo Temple, began what sound like similar renovations on September 3, 2002 including renovations to the fountain, parking lot, and the addition of a Moroni statue. It seems that since construction was expected to be complete by the year’s end (4 months), it is plausible that the major aspects of the Provo facelift occurred from spring-summer 2005 to summer-early fall 2006. The article states no plans for any other additions of Moroni to any other temples (though, of course, Moroni would be added 8 months later in Provo–I find it unlikely that the matter had not been at least considered and more likely that the “no plans” comment indicates that there were no plans *for public announcement* at that time–but I’m not very well versed in how Church PA functions–any ideas?).
Interestingly, the webpage for the MGB+A group indicates that the Church approached them at an unspecified time to “redesign the front plaza of the Provo Temple to boost its appeal and usability for visitors. The client had a vision to make the area in front of the temple a chosen photo spot for weddings and other special occasions.”
I found it interesting to think of improving a temple’s looks so more people would want to get married in it. Though this is not anywhere indicated as the only or even the overriding concern in the redesign, it definitely is a factor. Theologically, any temple would suffice, but aesthetic sensibilities also seem to come into play. Often we hear about how beautiful a temple is. How often do those concepts of beauty stem from the holiness that is automatically ascribed to a temple (the idea that any temple is beautiful because of what goes on there) and how often do they stem from concepts of architectural beauty (Such and such temple is more beautiful than the Provo temple, which has a confounded flag pole right in the middle of the front and gets into every picture) ? How do those two different sources for beauty interact? What might the Church’s willingness to modify the Provo Temple’s exterior indicate about Mormon concepts of architectural beauty and utility? [I'm working off in these last thoughts ideas related to me by Clayton Vance, an MA in the Architectural school at Notre Dame, who is pursuing a study on these ideas and who hopefully will be guest posting with us in the near future]
All of the rest of this aside, I was surprised at how much I was able to learn about this from random blog entries and posted photos! Blog on, folks!
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————
Update: I contacted a representative from the group that designed the grounds and he wrote the following: “We started design around March-April 2005 on this project. We completed construction in the fall of 2005.” Along with that, he passed on a few photos. Here are some clear before and after shots:
Before
After
You know the Cardston temple was closed when I went on my mission so I went through Provo for my endowments. It seemed very utilitarian with function over form. This is also a habit of early seventies architecture and one I find personally drab or downright ugly.
I like the new look and I appreciate the ability to recognize the weakness. Good Change as they say.
Comment by JonW — September 21, 2009 @ 12:11 am
I can’t say that making the temple grounds more appealing and photogenic did make it more inviting to use as a back drop for weddings, but have you considered the security aspect of the alterations? The old drive thru would of been a simple thing to turn into a “drive in”?
Comment by JimB — September 21, 2009 @ 1:27 am
Jared,
First of all, thanks for this very fun post. What a great way to start a Monday. You have some serious gumshoe chops. Do you know when they removed those awesome escalators? I was trying to tell one of my younger friends that, when I was in the MTC, the Provo temple did indeed have escalators that you had to ride up and down before and after the endowment. He didn’t believe me. They have since replaced them with much classier stairways (to heaven?).
Comment by SC Taysom — September 21, 2009 @ 6:50 am
Primary research with an unexpected medium! I love it!
Except for the whitewashing of the spire and the installation of the fiberglas statue (an aesthetic error, IMO — the proportions are all wrong, for one thing), I wasn’t aware of these changes. With such a dramatic backdrop, I hadn’t even been aware of the supposed unphotogenic nature of that temple — I thought the simplicity in front played well off the broken mountain in back, and there could hardly be a more dramatic view than the one you got driving down the Diagonal when the golden spire was lit. The fountain and planters seem a little busy now, don’t they?
But what do I know? At least I can agree that moving the flagpole would make for better pictures
Comment by Ardis E. Parshall — September 21, 2009 @ 6:59 am
A friend who married in the Provo Temple about 16 years ago told me that her sealer had never before performed the ordinance for the living and her wedding was something of a novelty for all the temple workers. I always thought the Provo Temple was a lovely spot with its vast green lawns, the canyon behind, and its position as a crown to the valley, but I suppose it still has those virtues now, plus added wedding photograph utility.
The new driveway layout did make me wonder at first about security concerns, but it looks like there is no barrier other than the curb, so there probably was not concern about intentional harm. There was a fatal accident in ’89 that may have been on the designers’ minds:
“One person is dead and two others are in critical condition following a freak accident Wednesday afternoon that ended at the doors of the Provo LDS Temple.”
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/43067/
Comment by John Mansfield — September 21, 2009 @ 8:13 am
Thanks, Jared.
Taysom, I have a vague memory of the elevator when I was in the MTC (last few months of 1998). The stairway is so much better though.
Comment by David G. — September 21, 2009 @ 8:14 am
Interesting post. I like it. I’m not sure the urge to prettify the front of the Provo Temple came from a desire to have more weddings there (as opposed to Salt Lake, etc.). Rather, I see it as more a manifestation of personal pride of place; them locals wanted nicer temple grounds. It’s not the first temple to get a grounds face lift.
By the way, I didn’t know they took out the beloved escalators. Yeah, they were kind of funny, but riding them, I just knew that this is how it would feel after I was dead . . . cruising on into heaven. (Watch your step at the top!)
And I also agree that adding the Angel Moroni was just wrong. Someday, folks — and I’m a prophet enough to say it — we will look back fondly on those quirky 1970s years and wish we still had those orange spires atop the Provo and Ogden temples. What are they going to do next? Reposition the whole temple to have it face east?
Comment by Hunter — September 21, 2009 @ 9:44 am
Nice work Jared.
Comment by J. Stapley — September 21, 2009 @ 9:45 am
Thanks all.
Steve, I’m trying to remember if there were escalators in 2001 when I entered the MTC, and I don’t remember any! Wow, escalators?? You guys had it easy!
And, I can’t get over how the images were produced at almost exactly the same angles (first and fourth and second and third) so as to allow for really close comparisons. Talk about luck.
Comment by Jared T — September 21, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Regardless of the meanings. I really appreciate the renovation of the grounds. I think the reasoning might be the same for the Logan Temple, as both the Provo and Logan temples had/have huge green spaces that were large and green and that’s about it. The new approach is welcome by me, aesthetically anyhow.
Comment by Tod Robbins — September 21, 2009 @ 12:12 pm
I too think about security concerns. Since the Oklahoma bombing, we have seen many driveways moved from being near buildings. But that may have been only one of the factors.
Comment by Bob — September 21, 2009 @ 1:12 pm
I can never look at a photo of the Provo temple without remembering “The Sugar Beet’s” article about the temple actually being a spaceship of some kind, with a faked (I think!) photo of the temple blasting off into the sky, with flaming booster jets coming out of the bottom of the temple somewhere.
Comment by Mark N. — September 21, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
#5, John, some of the blog entries I read noted similar feelings of being doted on when being married there and not appreciating feeling like herded cattle at the Salt Lake Temple. Which is telling given that the Provo temple has been identified as one of if not the busiest temple in the Church.
#7, Hunter, having been a part of Provo’s single culture for a few years, I can say that the Provo temple suffered an image problem from perspective newlyweds. Specific mention of wedding aesthetics in popular accounts (the 100 Hour Board and blog entries), personnel (the Daily Universe Article), and the designer site, lead me to believe that wedding aesthetics were definitely a consideration, but as I mention in the OP, not necessarily the only or overriding one. However, I would agree that framing that consideration is difficult.
Bob, security could well have been a consideration, I’d like to see more information on that.
Comment by Jared T — September 21, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
#13 Ooh, I sure felt doted on when I got married in the Salt Lake Temple. I felt like a king, and I felt like I looked like a king. I try to recreate that look and feel every time I do an endowment session.
Because of my wife’s mission start and end times, I can narrow the removal of the escalators from the Provo Temple to sometime between June 1999 and January 2001. The Seattle Temple has a somewhat similar internal layout, and it still has escalators.
Comment by Ben Pratt — September 21, 2009 @ 2:51 pm
Ben, you bring up a good point, hopefully everyone feels that way wherever they go.
Comment by Jared T — September 21, 2009 @ 2:55 pm
Setting the driveway back from the entrance, removing escalators, and re-landscaping for the sake of weddings are interesting changes from a perspective of the age of the patrons. These things don’t send the “come back when you’re 67″ message.
Comment by John Mansfield — September 21, 2009 @ 3:41 pm
I doubt changing the grounds is enough to change many opinions about getting married there becasue the Provo Temple itself is the problem, not the grounds. It’s ugly, or, at the least, not very beautiful. I understand the symbolism of the design (which was partially ruined by painting the “pillar of fire” white and throwing an angel on top–why is the statue even needed? Did some visitor not know which church it belonged to?) and it’s a beautiful idea; but symbolism notwithstanding, it’s unappealing architectural design IMO.
Comment by Me — September 21, 2009 @ 4:14 pm
Why do Ward and Stake buildings work so hard to look alike…but Temples not?
Comment by Bob — September 21, 2009 @ 5:41 pm
I think I haven’t been to the Provo Temple since Reagan was president. Perhaps I saw it from a distance ten years ago or so. I’m rather resistant to the idea that every temple has to have a statue, and this is one that definitely shouldn’t have a statue. Looks better than the Moronis they stuck on Hong Kong and Vernal, though. On the other hand, the “gold” spire looked more like dingy orange plastic, and I think the white has to be an improvement.
My wife and I were married in the Manti Temple. When we arrived, we found the whole thing covered in scaffolding for refurbishing. There were still some good spots for photographs, however (such as the west doorway), so it wasn’t a big deal for us. But I can see that some people might be a bit upset about not knowing. A heads-up about the scaffolding when scheduling the wedding would have been a really good idea, especially for those coming from out of state who would have no other way of knowing about any refurbishing plans.
I have a book on the Manti Temple that shows before and after photographs of what they called “beautification” of the grounds north of the temple in the 1980s. “Beautification” consisted of removing the colorful natural vegetation and replacing it with acres of grass and cultivated trees. No thanks. The Manti Temple was designed to fit it with the natural hillside.
Comment by Left Field — September 21, 2009 @ 8:22 pm
Sorry I just do not see the beauty of the Ogden or Provo Temples. I think they an the Boise, Denver temples are about the least pretty ones we have.
Oh and Bob we have lots of temples that look the same… especially the smaller ones. It just was not common to make them that way until we created these smaller temples. Although this movement has been in place for a while now.
Comment by JonW — September 21, 2009 @ 11:35 pm
No. 17 asks, why is the [Angel Moroni] statue even needed?
Why, so it can guide all the airplanes safely into the Salt Lake City International Airport, of course! Duh.
Comment by Hunter — September 21, 2009 @ 11:59 pm
They really needed to have made the whites match in the Provo Temple restoration. Whoever approved that color was color blind.
Comment by Clark — September 22, 2009 @ 10:07 am
I just got in contact with the Grassli group that the Church approached. The rep is going to get back to me with more info, but he mentioned briefly that they had a relatively small window for construction, so they had to work quickly. When they get back to me, I’ll update the post.
Comment by Jared T — September 22, 2009 @ 2:35 pm
I explained the symbolism of the Provo Temple to an African missionary who wants to be an architect, and sent him photos of the temple as it was when I attended its dedication way back when. To another missionary, I said that I thought it was rude to put Moroni on a pillar of fire. And I have periodically joked about doing a YW project wherein we paint the spire gold again. Nonetheless, I am at the Provo Temple every Saturday, and I know from my own experience that there has been a significant increase in weddings since the improvement of the grounds. I always spend a bit of time looking at the flowers–so beautifully placed–and at the fountain. And we even get a little Nativity for Christmas. Nothing like what the SL Temple gets, but nice.
Comment by Margaret Young — September 28, 2009 @ 1:10 pm
Margaret, very interesting! Thank you for your first hand perspective, RE the increase in weddings.
Also, I got a little more info from the designers and a few photos, so I’ll be updating this post this week.
Comment by Jared T — September 28, 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Jared,
Thanks for this post (or re-post). It made me realize that while I have been in Provo since Aug. 1, I have yet to go to the temple. I better get on that, if anything to see the exterior changes.
Comment by Chris H. — October 12, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Thanks, Chris. They are indeed impressive up close.
Comment by Jared T — October 12, 2009 @ 10:34 am
Great post.
I think the temple looked better with the golden spires.
1970s architecture is starting to take on an appealing vintage quality. It’s a shame that the Church painted the gold spire white.
Comment by California Condor — October 12, 2009 @ 5:01 pm
The Provo temple is dead to me. I loved the escalators and I loved the pillar of fire. When I was there this summer I say they painted the pillar of fire white and my wife had to endure a lot of complaining.
Comment by Jacob J — October 12, 2009 @ 11:25 pm
I agree that stairs are better. Did they take the escalators out of the Ogden Temple too?
Comment by Mark D. — October 13, 2009 @ 1:07 am
Yes, they did take the escalators out of the Ogden Temple. They also did a major re-design of the grounds of the Ogden Temple and, like the Provo Temple, added and angel Moroni and painted the spire white.
Comment by GLBJ — October 19, 2009 @ 12:41 pm
If you think the Provo and Ogden temples are ugly, then you don’t have an appreciation for modern architecture. C’mon folks, what’s wrong with some great originality?!
And the spires were better in the gold color, without the angels on top. So cool when lit up at night!
It’s a classic modern design, and you watch… it will become an icon of modern church architecture.
And now, sadly, they’re redoing the exterior of the Ogden temple! It’s going to cost as much as a new temple… for a building that works great AS-IS. What a waste of money! Shouldn’t we be sending this money to feed people in Africa?
I do like the Provo grounds re-design. And a great posting, too. Thanks!
But hey Pres. Monson, LEAVE THE PROVO TEMPLE ALONE!
Comment by Kai — May 1, 2010 @ 2:13 am