Space, Race, and Symbol: The Rocket Ship on the Beltway

Two ostensibly discrete movements contributed in shaping the national conscience in the 1960s: The space race and civil rights. Each evoked hopeful optimism for a desperate nation locked in the clutches of a devastating and perpetual foreign war. Each was spearheaded by liberal ideology, progressive confidence and vibrantly passionate individuals. These two cultural phenomena represented the zenith of social and technological progression. Ultimately these preoccupations developed into a national cultural zeitgeist and, in an obscure and abstract manner, became manifest architecturally at the Mormon Temple in Washington D.C. (1968-1974).

Contending with the newly constructed Washington D.C. Temple, Charles Mark Hamilton, in his dissertation on the Salt Lake Temple published in 1977, discounted it as “a counterfeit design,” and characterized it “architecturally and aesthetically [as] an expression of space age expediency that in no way can compare to the hand-crafted “millennial” dignity of forty years of sacrifice needed to raise the spires of the Salt Lake Temple.” (1) True, the efficiency of the modern construction techniques employed in the new temple were a distant cry to the intimate craft employed at Salt Lake, but this condition does not forfeit the validity of its modern design and its ultimate and profound impact on the Mormon faith. Broadcast globally, the Washington Temple represents the futuristic, extroverted and modern paradigm of Mormonism. In contrast, the Salt Lake Temple remains the historic, introverted, and, in a positive sense, antiquated symbol of Mormonism for Mormons. The architecture of the Salt Lake Temple embodies Mormonisms need to separate from popular community while the Washington Temple is in contrast a representation of the need to integrate into global community. By subordinating the Washington Temple, aesthetically and architecturally, and by implication disqualifying comparison to its counterpart based on its “space age expediency,” Hamilton failed to grasp the understanding of the Washington Temple as the most important Mormon temple to be constructed since the Salt Lake Temple’s completion in 1893, and by consequence failed to grasp its global impact as an evangelical tool to the ultimate benefit of Mormonism and the reciprocal global impact the temple ultimately directed toward Mormonism.

In creating the modern iteration (i.e., “counterfeit”) of the Salt Lake Temple, the Mormon Church endeavored to strip itself of the unrelenting and peculiar nineteenth century stereotypes, incurred, in large part, by variant practices such as polygamy. By the 1970’s attrition had long since run its course and the Mormon Church, rid of polygamy, therefore sought greater acceptance with mainstream religions and in a broader sense with mainstream American culture. The materialization of this ambition was achieved architecturally through the sleek vertical lines of the white washed marble walls of the Church’s modern iteration of the Salt Lake temple in Washington D.C. The space age architectural expression of the temple was expressively reductivist, borrowing a slew of formal cues from its 19th century prototype, but entirely rejected the exaggeration of Victorian decoration that branded the Salt Lake Temple as peculiar. Mark Leone argues that the Washington Temple was “a political move designed to challenge and change national conceptions about Mormons . . . [and] a device for making Mormonism into a national religion.” (2) Gordon B. Hinckley, in 1974, generally agreed with this concept by referencing a well used passage from the New Testament as the expression of his sentiment regarding the prominence of the new temple: “A city that is set on a hill cannot be hid.” (3)

The Washington Temple was, therefore not the counterfeit temple, but rather the modern transcendence of the anachronistic Salt Lake Temple, soaring across space, time and context. As a symbol, the Washington Temple redefined the cultural objective of Mormonism as a global mainstream enterprise for the present and the future in contrast to the definition of seclusion and peculiarity that the Salt Lake Temple offered in the past. The distinction between the “hand-crafted” and the “space-age,” as noted by Hamilton is therefore not conflicting but rather the means by which the Salt Lake temple achieves its transcendence to the modern world through the Washington temple.

As one media critic aptly stated during its construction: “The architects of the Washington Temple have taken the endearingly awkward, Grandma Moses-like Gothic form of Salt Lake, streamlined it and blown it up into a stark, ostentatious, oversized billboard in Alabama marble.”(4) The most evident similarity, yet paradoxically also an immediate contrast, to the Salt Lake Temple are the six towers placed at each corner of the elongated central hexagonal block. Bundled together at each end of the Salt Lake temple, the grouped towers display a heavy bulky solidity consistent with the defensive mass of the crennelated Gothic granite forming the exterior walls. The towers of the Washington Temple, rather, are moderately spaced, independent, sleek and attenuated, and most remarkably reminiscent of a streamlined Saturn V rocket. Rather than planting themselves firmly in the earth, each defiantly launches up into the clouds toward Heaven. (Fig. 11) Each dynamic tower is symbolic of the emancipation from the 19th century shackles which continued to bind and captivate the fledgling liberalism within the church.

Precariously positioned atop the dematerialized thinness of the central eastern spire 288 feet above the ground floats an 18-foot modern interpretation of Salt Lake’s iconic Angel Moroni, sculpted by Mormon Avard Fairbanks, a relatively well-known American sculptor who executed important sculptural works in Washington. (Fig. 12) Interestingly during the 1930s Fairbanks designed the original ‘Ram’ radiator ornament for the Dodge Motor Company, a winged mermaid for Plymouth, and a griffin for the Terraplane made by Hudson automobiles, (5) all products of the streamlined modernism characteristic of 1930s and 40s industrial design. Again, as in the larger design, the detail of the timeless symbol of Salt Lake’s iconic flying angel gives way to the streamlined futurism characteristic of the Washington Temple

Architecturally the bold towers of the Salt Lake Temple symbolize the hierarchical authority of the Mormon church, the west towers being an expression of the lesser authority, the Aaronic priesthood, and the east towers the higher authority or Melchizedek priesthood. The towers of the Washington Temple are a restatement of that authority, a template initially conceived in the first temple depict by Joseph Smith in the 1830s. The towers of both the Salt Lake and Washington temples contain three tiered elements, representing the three divisions of presidency within priesthood quorums. In 1974, there still existed racial bias in the Mormon church, that is, all members of African ancestry were barred from entering the temple and therefore denied the “blessings” the white members of the Church were preferenced to obtain. The attenuated towers of the Washington Temple are a compelling restatement of the priesthood authority of the Church, and directly stand as compelling sentinels of the Church’s white male hierarchy, guarding the temple from unauthorized access by members of the Church with African ancestry.

A less obvious comparison is the tradition of symbolic sculpture developed initially at the Nauvoo Temple and refined and advanced in the Salt Lake Temple. The sculptural program of the Washington Temple, rather than continuing in the traditions of the sculptural program of the early twentieth century modern temples (7) regresses by directly referencing the sculptural symbolism of the Salt Lake Temple in an abstract and subdued manner. Franz Johansen reinterpreted Salt Lake’s granite sculptural motifs as large bronze medallions located on oversized and unused symbolic brass doors. Unlike the Salt Lake Temple, though, the sculptural program at Washington was restricted to these magnificent doors, and certain of the sculptures were given prominence based on precedents established at the Nauvoo and Salt Lake Temples. The most prominent exterior sculptural motif of the Nauvoo Temple was the anthropomorphic sunstone capital which when transferred to the buttresses of Salt Lake was stripped of the anthropomorphism and assumed a subdued and less shocking visual appearance. (Fig. 13) The anthropomorphic sunstone reemerges in Washington as the most prominent sculptural symbol both by its location in the upper-left position of the double-doors and through the sculptural artistry. (Fig. 14) Other medallions, present on the doors, abstractly depict the North Star and the Big Dipper, Saturn, the Moon , the Stars, the Earth, concentric circles representing eternity, and seven concentric pentagons representing the seven dispensations. (8)

 The original sculptural program at Nauvoo was awkward and primitive and the system would be refined and embellished at Salt Lake. The sculptural program at the Salt Lake and Nauvoo Temples was an overpowering and dominant aspect of the architecture when viewed in its totality. (9) In contrast the bronze medallions, relative to the monumental symbol of the Washington Temple, play a highly subordinated role in the totality of the scheme. Although de-emphasized nearly to the point of obsolescence, the importance of the inclusion of the symbolic medallions at Washington underlines their profound importance and validity in the modern church.

The conspicuous Washington sunstone, symbolic of the highest degree of post-mortal glory attainable in the Mormon concept of the afterlife, (10) signaled a return to early millennial ideals present in the nineteenth century church, adapted to the twentieth century model. (Fig. 15) In fact, this appliqué was restricted to three temples, the Nauvoo, the Salt Lake and Washington D.C., arguably the most important of the seventeen temples at the time. Following the construction of the Washington Temple, the millennial motifs were never employed again. The decline and eventual disappearance of the sunstone, the moonstone, and the starstone motifs is, according to Laurel Andrew, a phenomenon due to a changing cultural paradigm, from one embracing the temporal and political kingdom of God to one more closely approaching the metaphorical meaning of other religions. (11) In other words, the applied symbolism on the Salt Lake Temple was a vestige of nineteenth century millennial aspirations, and became obsolete for the twentieth century temples, with the Washington Temple as the exception. To be sure, Washington was the modern and futuristic symbol of the Mormon Church, the transcended Salt Lake Temple, hence the muteness and obscurity of the millennial symbols, but the undeniable presence, nevertheless. “The juxtaposition of past and future is a fitting paradox, for the Mormon Church has one foot planted in the Old Testament and the other in the New Technology.” (12)

As evidence of this paradigmatic cultural shift Andrews notes that the degree of symbolism executed in the stones of the Salt Lake Temple was scaled back after the death of Brigham Young in 1877. The planned faces on the sun and moonstones became blank as did the earth stones, now seen as blank globes. (13) The most peculiar sculptural transcendence in the Washington Temple is the Saturn medallion (Fig. 16), which was included in the 1854 drawings for the Salt Lake Temple, but later omitted. (14) Brigham Young required the architects to include Saturn-stones on the Salt Lake Temple facade, an oddity given their complete absence at Nauvoo. The cornerstones of the Salt Lake Temple were laid in 1853 the year, coincidentally, which was ruled astrologically by Saturn, and Young later admitted he was an astrologist. (15) Another astrological symbols included on the Salt Lake and Washington Temples were the Big Dipper and Polaris. (Fig. 17)

Given these similarities, one stark difference between the two temples is the context in which they sit, thus continuing the preceding argument. The idea of one central millennial kingdom was replaced by one of dispersed multiple centers, each occurring around a temple. (16) This begins in Utah with the three nineteenth century temples constructed in various microcosmic centers of the church in Logan, St. George and Manti. In contrast, at a micro-scale the Washington Temple is a decidedly suburban phenomenon “in no way the functioning centerpiece of its immediate neighborhood . . .[but]. . .ministering to a widely dispersed flock that arrives in cars, necessarily [setting] itself apart.” (17) Construction of the Washington Temple shortly followed the completion of the Capital Beltway’s construction in 1964. (18) At a macro-scale, then, the Washington Temple became a suburban center for the nearly 250,000 (19) members residing in the eastern United States and Canada.

The site selected for the temple was one which guaranteed visual prominence on a scale never rivaled and never to be rivaled and, therefore, was understood to be a powerful proselytizing tool. In a memoir produced by Keith Wilcox, the architect of the Washington Temple, he recalled when the prominent site was selected in 1960, Church authorities envisioned the proselytizing potential of the site and wanted a building that would stand out. (20) Keith Wilcox‘s initial assessment when seeing the site from the Beltway: “I saw the highway turned there. I told the Brethren, ‘This temple must be seen as people come down the highway. It will be seen and understood.’” (21) Dean Dinwoodey, a local Church spokesman for the thirty-five stakes in the Washington area was more explicit in his objective for the temple when he expressed confidence that the temple would become something of a tourist attraction and added: “It will be an aid to proselytizing” (22) The potential of a prominent building attracting converts had been successfully tested just a decade prior with the Mormon Pavilion at the 1964 New York Worlds Fair. (Fig. 18) Interestingly, the facade of the Mormon Pavilion was an attenuated version of the east towers of the Salt Lake Temple, to which the Washington Temple has been compared. (23) “The success of the Mormon Pavilion did not end with the closing of the World Fair gates on October 17, 1965. More than fifty million people attended the fair, and nearly six million of them visited the Mormon Pavilion. Nearly a million referrals were obtained and presented to the Missionary Department as a result of the pavilion. About five million Church tracts and pamphlets were distributed at the pavilion. Nearly one hundred thousand visitors to the pavilion bought copies of the Book of Mormon.” (24)

The suburban space-age temple, therefore, dovetailed nicely with the Church’s desire to shed its early isolationist and quirky tendencies tolerated in the isolated western frontier existence and to establish itself as a global entity, as “as a city set upon a hill.” (25) The new icon followed closely the formalism evident in the Salt Lake Temple, but was stripped of most of the superfluous ornamentation in an attempt to recreate the image of Mormonism as progressive and modern. As one writer noted seven years following the construction: “The appearance of the temple, at once the medieval and futuristic, was an architectural idea intended to symbolize timelessness, and from afar the temple, perched lordly on a wooded hill, resembles a couple of space shuttles on the launch pad as much as a feudal castle.” (26)

The paradox created a tension between past and future and just as quickly as the superfluous decoration was removed – and with it the figurative association to polygamy and isolationism – a new modern symbol of the Church emerged in the Washington DC temple, however it was naively adhering to a discriminatory doctrine which threatened to catapult the Church back to its nineteenth century past. The origin of the controversial doctrine can be traced to early writings by the founding father of Mormonism, Joseph Smith. In an oration on slavery and abolition in 1836 Joseph Smith argued a biblical justification for slavery and noted that the “the curse is not yet taken off from the sons of Canaan, neither will be until it is affected by as great a power as caused it to come.” (27) The curse eventually took greater hold during Brigham Young’s tenure as President following the death of Joseph Smith in 1844, in large part because of the isolation and relative sovereignty afforded the Church in the west. As oppressive as the curse was, Joseph Smith’s vagueness created a loophole and there were some black members who had been ordained to priesthood offices in the early Church. In 1949, however, the Church authoritatively rubber-stamped the controversial doctrine by stating that the priesthood ban was revealed by God as a commandment. (28) Mormon authorities further sealed the fate of the African membership by advocating theories in the 1950s (which were regarded as authoritative and hence revealed through God) of pre-existential aberrant behavior on the part of “the Negro.” (29)

Therefore, it was with a mixture of courage, ignorance and naiveté that the Mormon Church proposed the construction of a temple in Washington D.C. on November 14, 1960. Fewer than three years later on August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King, Jr. stood in the “symbolic shadow” of Abraham Lincoln and unequivocally stated “I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal.” Just prior to the King speech, and likely as the result of social pressure from within and from without, the Church made a concession which was reported by the New York Times: “One of the highest officers of the Church said today that the possibility of removing this religious disability has been under serious consideration.” (30) The said officer was Hugh B. Brown, a member of the First Presidency of the Mormon Church. He further attempted to quell the tension created by the aberrant policy in a message delivered in the General Conferences of the Church in October 1963. Ironically, and rather absurdly, while maintaining that the policy was not in violation of civil rights he said:   “We have consistently and persistently upheld the Constitution of the United States, and as far as we are concerned this means upholding the constitutional rights of every citizen of the United States. We call upon all men everywhere, both within and outside the Church, to commit themselves to the establishment of full civil equality for all of God's children. Anything less than this defeats our high ideal of the brotherhood of man.” (31)  While Brown’s oblique statements regarding nuanced differences between civil and constitutional rights are troubling, he was both a revolutionary and liberal voice in the conservative Church and should be credited with beginning important dialogue on race issues the Church. No action was taken, however.

Interestingly, the majority of newspaper articles published on the construction of the Washington Temple between 1965 and 1978 deal with the Church’s racial restrictions. With the death of two status-quo conservative Mormon presidents, Joseph Fielding Smith (32) and Harold B. Lee between July 1972 and the end of 1973, the hope for an eventual retraction of the priesthood ban was seen as plausible. Less than a week after the ordination of Spencer W. Kimball to the Presidency of the Church in January 1974, however, the momentum was quashed. The new president conceded to the press that the ban would be upheld and change was not foreseen in the near future. (33) Then, again, at a press conference at the Washington Temple celebrating its completion, a question regarding the retraction of the racial policy of the Church was posed to Kimball, which he deemed inappropriate, declined comment and deferred instead to his public relations director, who submitted a previously prepared statement written in 1969 defining the Church’s position. (34)

The globally visible Washington Temple conveyed the controversial argument of the Mormon priesthood ban to a world audience. Mormonism’s self-assessment of the Washington Temple as a “monument to spirituality” (35) contrasted dramatically to those speeding by on the Beltway who regarded it as a “monument to racial discrimination.” (36) Mark Leone characterized the temple in 1975 as a “prominent paradox,” visible by millions of commuters traveling on the beltway deeming it at once both “American” and “blatantly racist.” (37) Therefore in a city founded for democratic rule based on the equality of man, the Washington temple rather ironically and antithetically exposed itself and by association the religion it represented as a monument to racial discrimination. Seeming rather oblivious to the racial controversy at hand, Gordon B. Hinckley, in a special publication on the Washington Temple in 1974, on the one hand regarded the ban as a non-issue with its rank-and-file white majority membership and on the other marginalized the entire black constituency in the Mormon Church with his dissatisfying statement:  “But all of this would appear to be selfish indeed if the blessings of these ordinances were available only to those who are now members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The fact is that the opportunity to come into the temple and partake of its blessings is open to all who will accept the gospel and be baptized into the Church.” (38) 

The existence of the Washington Temple directly catalyzed and advanced the decision to repeal the priesthood ban by announcing boldly and unequivocally the inconsistent racial policies of the Church, thereby influencing an increase in political pressure by outside activists in Washington, but also by the more liberal mindset of members residing in Washington and in the Church at large. Because the Washington temple was the first temple constructed east of Utah, the Church was suddenly dropped onto the world stage and unprepared to deal with mounting social pressures aimed at the incongruous racial policy. As Marjorie Hyer describes, “in recent years the Church [had] been under massive social-and some legal-pressures to drop its policy of racial discrimination, which [had] been an embarrassment to some of its members.” (39) In addition to outsiders, eastern members of the church were equally as adamant about lifting the priesthood ban, (40) and it became a source of tension for the entire membership of the Church. (41)

In 1971, again in an attempt to satisfy opposition groups inside and outside of the Church, the leadership established the Genesis Group, an auxiliary program sanctioned by the Church and created “to discuss how the Church might better support its members of African descent.” (42) While the Church adamantly maintained throughout the 1970s that the ban was not a civil rights violation, the Church was most definitely not supporting the needs of the Genesis group as outlined in its charter. The Genesis Group dwindled in number from its original membership of 50 until 1978. (43)

The long overdue announcement finally came on June 9, 1978 when President Spencer W. Kimball announced the retraction of the controversial priesthood and temple restrictions on members of African descent. The following day, June 10, it was plastered on the front page of most Eastern newspapers. (44) (Fig. 19)

The Washington D.C. temple was the most important temple constructed since the Salt Lake Temple in 1893, yet its story is marred by the divisive racial policies of the Mormon Church, having been rightly or wrongly characterized as a “monument to racial discrimination.” (45) This was not unlike the controversy polygamy aroused prior to the completion of the Salt Lake Temple. An interesting paradox emerges, however, because although perceived as being racially exclusive, it also forged the path for the eventual retraction of the longstanding temple and priesthood ban upheld by the Mormon Church. The paradox generated from the ambiguity then implies a further question. What is the legacy of the Washington Temple?

In a typically severe review in 1974, the mercilessly forthright architectural critic of the New York Times, Paul Goldberger, postulated that the Washington Temple would become a landmark of “ersatz architecture,” (46) to borrow language from Charles Jencks, the widely known Post-Modern theorist. Thirty-years following the construction of the Washington Temple, one can legitimately judge the merits of Goldberger’s prescient assessment. To Goldberger’s credit the Washington Temple is fundamentally an ersatz architectural interpretation of the Salt Lake Temple as Charles Hamilton concluded.

Keith Wilcox, architect of the Washington D.C. temple, intended the temple’s architecture to “reflect light to the world.” (47) His thematic concept of light commenced during his education with his architectural thesis in 1953 at the University of Oregon in which he conceived of the concept which best described the spirit of the Mormon Church. He stated, “The one term that seems to encompass these ideas and all others pertaining to the Church is ‘enlightenment.’” (48) While the temple’s presence is imposing and impressive during daytime hours, the temple appearance during the evening is otherworldly and Wilcox should be judged an absolute architectural genius as a result. The white marble’s natural tendency to amplify and reflect the artificial light bombarding it from all sides is exploited in the gravest sense, granting the temple status as the brightest streetlight on the Beltway. It stands unnaturally lit akin to a Saturn V prepped and ready on the launch pad for final countdown. Its presence was such as distraction to evening Beltway commuters that the lights illuminating the south and east facades were ramped down to prevent further traffic entanglements. In quantitative terms, measuring the amount of reflected light in footcandles in the evening would be an astronomical figure. In qualitative terms, this is more difficult to assess. For Mormons, the temple is understood largely in spiritual contexts, as a sacred space, where one receives the “endowment of power” that was originally described by Joseph Smith at the first Mormon temple in Kirtland, Ohio in 1832 (49) Therefore, reflecting the light to the world, as was Keith Wilcox’s intention, takes on a varied and metaphorical meaning in the temple. The temple’s existence symbolized the dissemination and enlightenment of absolute divine truth in a world darkened by myth and misconception. The participant in the endowment ceremony receives “further light and knowledge at the veil,” which is literally understood to be the threshold between earth and heaven. It is at this axis-mundi that the participant takes the hand of God and “enters His presence.” Paradoxically this passage into heaven is understood as both a figurative symbolic ritual and as a literal, intensely sacred and transfigurative event.

The Celestial room of the temple, the hierarchically most important, is understood by the members of the Church to be the literal abode of God. A ubiquitous inscription on all temples of the Mormon Church from the first temple at Kirtland to the most recently constructed reads conspicuously, “House of the Lord.” (Fig. 20) Fundamental to Mormon belief is the idea of God and Jesus Christ as having tangible, flesh and blood bodies. Because the Celestial room of all temples is considered the literal abode of God, most Mormons believe that both God and Jesus have literally at one time or another have been present in those rooms. The result is an intensely powerful and sacred experience, and certainly an endowment of power as Joseph Smith described it. As Laurel Andrews noted in reference to the Salt Lake temple, “the secular qualities of the castellated style can now be seen as not only symbolizing the fortress of the Lord, but also the residence of Christ.” (50)

In a witty contraposition to the experience of the Mormon, one glimpses the Washington Temple’s meaning through the eyes of a non-Mormon in military thriller novel by author Tom Clancy. The fictional Deputy Director of Intelligence, Jack Ryan is caught in an emotional high-powered political game where he must decide between acting honestly or blatantly lying, either way, the likely outcome will result in his professional demise. It is in this conflicted ethical dilemma that the reader is allowed into the tormented mind of the observer:

“Jack looked out the window as they passed the Mormon temple, just outside the beltway near Connecticut Avenue. A decidedly odd looking building, it had grandeur with its marble columns and gilt spires. The beliefs represented by that impressive structure seemed curious to Ryan, a lifelong Catholic, but the people who held them were honest and hardworking, and fiercely loyal to their country, because they believed in what America stood for. . .You could tell what these people stood for. The Mormons tithed their income, which allowed their Church to construct this monument to faith. . .What better proof could there be of what really mattered? Jack knew he wasn't the first to wonder at the fact, not by a very long shot indeed, but it wasn't often that anyone perceived Truth so clearly as Ryan did on this Monday morning.” (51)

Although fictional, the reflected light of the Washington Temple graced Jack Ryan. The symbol of the temple is experienced through very different channels for Mormons and non-Mormons, and even then it becomes deeply personal and individual. For Mormons, the grander experience occurs on the inside, as the culmination of belief. The non-Mormon experiences the temple from the outside as a secular phenomenon and as part of a larger experience of journeying on the Beltway. Due to the contradiction of interpretation by various demographics, Mark Leone argues that “the temple has begun a conversation with its viewers, Mormon and non-Mormon, which is like that between two deaf mutes over an elephant. They both know the object is there but cannot talk about what it means for each other. Neither can even be sure that the other knows the elephant is really white.” (52)

In a retrospective review a decade following the completion of the Washington Temple, Benjamin Forgery writes of the temple as a memorable and likable building but admits that “most of us would not recognize the Mormon symbolism of the temple without being told about it,” and even that is not certain. Surprisingly, this lack of understanding is true for both Mormons and non-Mormons. The exterior symbolism on temples like Nauvoo and Salt Lake was largely abandoned. The architectural symbolism on the Washington Temple is subdued and subtle, but nevertheless there. The reemergence of the early Mormon symbolism is an undeniable link to the origins of the Church and thereby the Washington D.C. temple assumed a status unseen since the completion of the Salt Lake Temple. It bridged the gap between the early and modern church by fully expressing both the formalism of the original temple prototypes and the integrating the esoteric symbolism on the symbolic entrance doors, the most humanly intimate location. These represent the boundary between heaven and earth and through artistic sculpture proffer a didactic lesson on the Mormon belief in immortality and deification of the human being. The reinterpretation of the early temple symbol at Washington contrasted sharply to the temples constructed following Salt Lake and directly prior to Washington. These ran the stylistic gamut of Modernism from Prairie Style to International Style. The steely modernism of each of these tuned their backs on the early prototypes as efficiency became the overriding functional concern governing the formal qualities of the temple.

In an interesting phenomenon, the Washington Temple has been likened to a futuristic rocket ship by more than one observer. Paul Goldberger observes that it is as if “the architects had tried to design Buck Roger’s church.” (53) The associative metaphor is a method whereby one comes to understand the unfamiliar modern building with something that one understands through familiarity. (54) Intensely familiar and recent, at the time of construction of the Washington Temple, were images of the space race, which culminated in the landing on the moon. Sleek and streamlined Saturn V rocket boosters propelling the astronauts beyond the terrestrial frontiers and into space were images seared in the collective memory of America.

© 2010 Steven D. Cornell

Citations:
1 Hamilton, Charles Mark. The Salt Lake Temple: An Architectural Monograph. Dissertation, Ohio State University, 1978. 154.
2 Leone, Mark P. “The New Mormon Temple in Washington D.C.” Historical Archaeology and the Importance of Material Things. Papers of the Thematic Symposium, Eighth Annual Meeting of the Society for Historical Archaeology, Charleston, South Carolina, January 7-11, 1975. ed. Leland Ferguson. Special Publication Series, Number 2. The Society for Historical Archaeology. John D. Combs, ed. 56.
3 Hinckley, Gordon B. “A City Set Upon A Hill.” Ensign. November 1974.
4 Von Eckardt, Wolf. “Spires of Babylonian Solemnity.” Washington Post. June 30, 1973. C1.
5 1913 Avard went to Paris and studied at the Ecole Nationale des Beaux Arts, the Ecole de la Grande Chaumiere, the Academy Colarossi, and the Ecole Moderne. As an example of his work in Washington he executed a number of sculptures for Statuary Hall in the United States Capitol Building including: Abraham Lincoln, Marcus Whitman, John Burke and Esther Morris. http://www.avardfairbanks.com/
6 Various quorums or levels exist in the two priesthoods (i.e., Elders, High Priests and Seventies in the Melchizedek, and Teacher, Deacons and Priests in the Aaronic. Associated with each quorum is a presidency.
7 The three modern twentieth-century temples all employed sculptural motifs which were either literal depictions of scriptural narratives as in the Laie, Hawaii Temple, a program of modernized classicism as in the Mesa, Arizona Temple or the borrowing of prairie school sculptural motifs as in the Cardston, Alberta Temple.
8 England, Kathy, "The Washington D.C. Temple," Ensign. October 1977. 88.
9 Ibid., 88. “A Symbol of the Church, a symbol of the plan of salvation, a symbol of eternity.”
10 D&C 76: 96-98. Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Salt Lake City, Utah: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. 1989. This revelation was received by Joseph Smith in 1832 and included information concerning the three states or glories of the afterlife, the Celestial Kingdom, which was represented by the glory of the Sun, the Terrestrial Kingdom, represented by the glory of the Moon, and the Telestial Kingdom, represented by the glory of the Stars.
11 Andrew, Laurel B. The Early Temples of the Mormons: The Architecture of the Millennial Kingdom in the American West. Albany, New York: State University of New York Press. 1978. 200-01.
12 Brown, Chip. The Mysterious Citadel on the Beltway. Washington Post. May 24, 1981. A1
13 Ibid., 123, 131.
14 Hamilton, Charles Mark. The Salt Lake Temple. 1972 Masters Thesis. University of Utah. 100.
15 Quinn, D. Michael. Early Mormonism and the Magic World View. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 1998. 282.
16 Andrews, 201.
17 Forgery, Benjamin. “The Temple By the Beltway.” Washington Post. November 17, 1984. D1.
18 http://www.roadstothefuture.com/Capital_Beltway.html
19 Fiske, Edward. “Mormons Building New Temple On 57 Acres Near Washington.” July 23, 1972. The New York Times. 50.
20 Forgery, Benjamin. The Temple By the Beltway. Washington Post, November 17, 1984. D1.
21 Dalphonse, Sherri. “Inside the Temple” Washingtonian. 30. November 1994.
22 Fiske, Edward. “Mormons Building New Temple On 57 Acres Near Washington.” July 23, 1972. The New York Times. 50.
23 “To Build A Temple.” Ensign. August 1974. 15.
24 Top, Brent L. “Legacy of the Mormon Pavilion.” Ensign. October 1989. 22.
25 Hinckley, Gordon B. “A City Set Upon a Hill,” Ensign. November 1974. This phrase is borrowed from biblical rhetoric and was employed by Hinckley in an address he delivered to the general membership of the Church about the Washington Temple.
26 Brown, Chip. The Mysterious Citadel on the Beltway. Washington Post. May 24, 1981. A1
27 History of the Church, 2:438-439.
28 "The attitude of the Church with reference to the Negroes remains as it has always stood. It is not a matter of the declaration of a policy but of direct commandment from the Lord, on which is founded the doctrine of the Church from the days of its organization, to the effect that Negroes may become members of the Church but that they are not entitled to the priesthood at the present time."
29 McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine, Salt Lake City, Utah : Bookcraft, 1958. See Moses 7:8, “For behold, the Lord shall curse the land with much heat, and the barrenness thereof shall go forth forever; and there was a blackness came upon all the children of Canaan, that they were despised among all people.” This account was published as part of Mormon scripture by Joseph Smith in the 1830s.
30 Turner, Wallace. “Mormons Consider Ending Bar On Fall Membership for Negro.” New York Times. June 7, 1963.
31 Brown, Hugh B. General Conference address. October, 6, 1963.
32 Joseph Fielding Smith was the Church’s authority on doctrine and was key to the racial propaganda ingrained as doctrine the 1950s with the publication of major doctrinal texts, specifically “Gospel Principles.”
33 Gillens, Peter. New Mormon Leader Won’t Change Traditional Policies, The Washington Post, January 4, 1974. C 11.
34 Turner, Wallace. Mormon Avoids Question on Blacks. New York Times, September 10, 1974
35 Smith, 7.
36 Hyer, Marjorie. “The Mormons move East.” Washington Post. September 8, 1974. PO14.
37 Leone, 55.
38 Hinckley, Gordon B. “Why These Temples.” Ensign. August 1974. 40.
39 Hyer, Marjorie. “ Mormon Church Dissolves Black Bias.” Washington Post. June 10, 1978. A1.
40 Leone, 56. Leone addresses the more liberal nature of Washingtonian Mormons.
41 Life in Washington gives Mormons a New Outlook. Wallace Turner, NY Times, September 16, 1974. p.24
42 http://www.ldsgenesisgroup.org/history.htm
43 “Black Group Clings to Mormon Church Despite Restrictions.” New York Times. April 30, 1978. 23.
44 Hyer, Marjorie. “ Mormon Church Dissolves Black Bias.” Washington Post. June 10, 1978. A1.
45 Hyer, Marjorie. The Mormons move East, Washington Post, September 8, 1974. PO14.
46 Goldberger, Paul. “New Mormon Temple: $15 Million Conversation Piece.” New York Times. November 12, 1974. 30.
48 Dalphonse, Sherri. “Inside the Temple” Washingtonian,. 30. November 1994.
49 Wilcox, Keith Wilson. An Architectural Design Concept for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Masters of Archtecture Thesis. University of Oregon. June 1953. 23.
50 D&C 38:32. Wherefore, for this cause I gave unto you the commandment that ye should go to the Ohio, and there I will give unto you my law, and there you shall be endowed with power from on high.
51 Andrews, 149-150.
52 Clancy, 480.
53 Leone, 44.
54 Goldberger, Paul. “New Mormon Temple: $15 Million Conversation Piece.” New York Times. November 12, 1974. 30.
55 Jencks, Charles. The Language of Post-Modern Architecture. 3rd Edition. Rizzoli: New York. 1977. 40.

Young’s Salt Lake City and Haussman’s Paris: A Tale of Two Cities

Paul Goldberger, the New York Time’s Pulitzer Prize winning architectural critic, on a visit to Salt Lake City in 2007 to deliver the opening plenary at the Utah Heritage Foundation’s Annual Preservation Conference, noted the burden of Salt Lake City’s pioneer era block sizes by suggesting: “this is one real drawback to your urban grid here, that it was designed without pedestrians in mind…” A somewhat presumptuous statement given Salt Lake City’s gridded plan derived from the divinely mandated Plat of the City of Zion.

As a bit of history, the central idea of the original plat depicted a orthogonal delineated city populated by a series of large blocks. In the central block a multitude of twenty-four temples were depicted with one emphasized as the principle temple. The temple was graphically described on an unsigned and crudely drafted sheet depicting the plan, front and side elevations alongside an articulate description. These “houses of worship, schools, etc.” were to accommodate the projected 15,000 to 20,000 inhabitants of the proposed City of Zion. Each of the planned twenty-four “houses of worship, schools, etc” was to be at least as large as the specifications found in the drawings for the principal temple of the Presidency, but was to be dedicated to and managed by the various quorums in the two levels of Mormon Priesthood, the Aaronic and Melchizedek. A revised plat was prepared by Frederick G. Williams to correct oversights in the original plat and was sent to Bishop Edward Partridge in Independence in August of 1833. In the revised plat, the total area of the city was increased from 1 mile to 1.5 miles square, the number of half acre lots was increased from 968 to 2,600 which reduced the average number of people projected per lot from between an estimated 15.5 to 20.7 persons to between an estimated 5.8 to 7.7 persons. One of the three central public blocks (used for storehouses and schools) was removed and the remaining central public blocks were reduced in size from the rectangular fifteen acres to ten acres square which resulted in a uniform block pattern throughout. The axial direction of the central public blocks were changed from a north-south to an east-west direction, the uniform street width of 132 feet was limited to the four major cross-axis avenues and the remainder streets were reduced to 82.5 feet. Finally, names or numerical designations were included for the streets in the revised plat. The gridded plat devised for the City of Zion was not uncommon in the United States during this time, and was primarily based on the ubiquitous Federal land survey of 1785. It was the “utopian premise behind Smith’s plan and how it was to be implemented” which distinguished Zion from other contemporary American cities. Brigham Young, Joseph Smith’s theocratic successor, continued imprinting the Plat of Zion concept, with utilitarian revisions as necessary, on successive colonial settlements in the West. Salt Lake City was laid out with the four principal streets bounding the solitary yet central temple block.

Returning to Goldberger’s assertion, however, so what of Salt Lake City? Because of the overly large block sizes and wide streets the city exudes a suburban feel in its city center vis-à-vis the densely packed fabric of, say, Portland, Oregon. Salt Lake’s streets are monotonous and uniformly rigid which is surprisingly disorienting despite its obscene rationality. As mentioned, the gridded blocks are ten acres in size and require roughly two minutes to walk end to end, eight minutes around. The streets hold to a uniform 132 foot width, averaging approximately 15 feet of sidewalk on either side with 100 feet of road surface, give or take. Young’s 19th century urban framework accepted the intrusion of the automobile with considerable ease and its accommodation has changed little since the extraction of the intra-city trolley system in the 1950s and 60s. However, in anticipation of the 2002 Winter Olympics, Salt Lake City “re-constructed” a much needed light-rail system. The 19-mile light rail system, smartly named TRAX, consists of two lines originating downtown at the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub; one line, which opened in 1999, heads south to Sandy and the other, which opened in 2001, branches east to the University of Utah. Salt Lake City’s Main Street, from South Temple (at the northern aspect) to 400 South (at the southern aspect), was redesigned as a result of the light rail line and now exists as a fresh counterpoint to the surrounding ubiquity of the auto-philic streets. Salt Lake’s Main Street sidewalks are much wider than the typical widths in the rest of the city center; as well there are only two lanes (one on each side of the street) dedicated to the automobile, and of course two light rail tracks. In this five block strip, there are expansive pedestrian platforms at the first, third and fifth blocks providing access to the train and offering a bit of diversity to the street. Here the city comes to life; the shops are vibrant and oriented to the sidewalk and the pedestrian, there exist outdoor dining areas, places to sit, the trees are full and regular, and the architecture exists in the background as a subtext to the street. Main Street is replete with civic amenities, which leaves one to bemoan the drought in the rest of the city. The street itself is a civic amenity.

Brigham Young’s streets were designed ostensibly to accommodate the required turning radius of a team of oxen hitched to a wagon. This archaic function still exists in a majority of the surface streets in the city, however why this remains important is an ongoing mystery, unless one considers the turning radius of the average SUV. Perhaps Young’s prescience anticipated this ungodly environment.

Paul Goldberger continued: “The street means more than the building, and that you can make a great street out of so-so buildings if they are put together well and relate to each other well and make a tight urban fabric, and if you have enough great streets you have one of the most important ingredients of a great city.” Getting at the heart of Goldberger’s argument requires a look at a city known for its striking streets: Paris.

On their face, Paris and Salt Lake City are two of the most unlikely comparitive urban models. Salt Lake once boasted the Paris Department store and the two cities developed into their modern cloak in the 1860s but beyond that, their growth and development resulted from a very diverse set of variables, with a diverse set of end goals, and by very diverse political groups with varied interests. Modern Paris is burdened with its own issues of sprawl, crime and overpopulation, to which any large metropolis is necessarily subject, however it boasts some of the most diverse streetscapes of any city on earth. Goldberger would love modern day Paris with this endless street diversity. It only became a hallowed model of urban planning in the latter half of the 19th century, prior to that time it existed as a medieval rabbit’s warren teeming with narrow twisting roads and dirty alleys. Thomas Jefferson, who spent a considerable amount of his career in Paris as the U.S. Ambassador, stated of cities in general: “The yellow fever will discourage the growth of great cities in our nation & I view great cities as pestilential to the morals, the health and the liberties of man…” Pre-Haussmann Paris was Jefferson’s likely reference in this anti-urban denunciation.

Georges-Eugène Haussmann and Brigham Young were contemporaries. Both exuded a large and dominant personality, accented by their large portly figures. Both are regarded in their locale as pre-eminent urban planners. Haussmann’s modern reinvention of medieval Paris was on a scale unlike any seen before or after, excluding of course cities ravaged by war or natural tragedy. Haussmann's crafty re-urbanization was largely accomplished by obliterating many of the old, twisting streets and leveling rundown apartment houses. The great urban voids were then replaced with the rues, avenues and wide, tree-lined boulevards which is what Paris is heralded for today. Other elements of Haussman's plan included uniform building heights along the grand boulevards with anchoring elements such as the Arc de Triomphe and the Grand Opera House. Haussmann's plan for Paris inspired some of the most important global architectural movements, including the City Beautiful Movement in the United States. During this urban recreation many of the boulevards were just that, just the street. Development followed the street which is an important point which I’ll come back to. Paris seems to just get better with time like a fine Bordeaux.

Salt Lake City, however, seems a stale cola in comparison, which in effect is just losing its gas. As Goldberger suggests, Salt Lake’s streets may be a liability, however taking the high road (no pun intended) its streets may be an endearing and empowering asset. Salt Lake’s streets already fit the Paris template. Unlike Haussmann’s destruction of Paris, Salt Lake simply has to refit its existing network, akin to removing extra and unecessary clothing as temperatures rise. Most importantly, there must exist a defined hierarchy of streets within the city.

The Parisian “Grand Boulevard” street type can be aptly applied to the existing Salt Lake “arterials” accessing downtown. These include 700 East starting at 2100 South and terminating at the landmark anchor, South Temple; State Street starting at 2100 South and continuing to the Beaux-Arts State Capitol (1916), by Utah’s preeminent architect Richard K.A. Kletting, as the landmark anchor; 400 South starting at the Interstate-15 off-ramp with the University of Utah’s John R. Park Building (1914) as the anchor, which was designed, by the way, by the prominent firm Cannon, Fetzer & Hansen; North Temple beginning at Salt Lake’s International Airport with the Salt Lake Temple as the anchor; 500 South beginning at 700 East and extending to Interstate-15; and 600 South beginning at Interstate-15 and extending to 700 East. These streets are hierarchically the most important, functioning as the primary gateways to Salt Lake City and should be the “Grand Boulevards.” These should offer diverse transit alternatives such as TRAX (as on 400 South and planned for North Temple), Bus Rapid Transit lines, and, of course, automobiles. (See Drawing 1) As well, major arterials from I-15 to the south should populate this category and include 1300 South, 2100 South, and 3300 South all extending to 700 East.

 The Parisian “Boulevard” street type should include South Temple (from the University of Utah past the temple and to the Union Pacific Railroad Depot; Main Street from 2100 South past the temple to the Main Street Plaza (where a stoic statue of Brigham Young stands); West Temple from 1300 South past the temple to the huge architectural behemoth LDS Conference Center. The Salt Lake temple exists as a dominant theme in the overall landscape of these boulevards. These streets should mimic the landscape on Main Street described above, still providing space for the automobile but not allowing it to dominate. Again there should be TRAX lines, bus lines, trolley lines, etc. (See Drawing 2)

The Parisian “Avenue” street type should include 100 South, 200 South, 300 South, 200 West, 300 West, 100 East, 200 East and 300 East; essentially, the commercial core of the city outside of the four principal boulevards. The avenues should be pedestrian oriented with wide sidewalks, bike lanes, bus lines, trolley lines, etc. The automobile will still be allowed but will be a very minor theme to the overall street character. Use of one-way directional patterns should abound at this level to create elbow room for a wide variety of users. (See Drawing 3)

The Parisian “Rue” street type should apply to the remainder of the streets from 400 East to 700 East, from 400 West to 700 West, and from 700 South to 1200 South are primarily residential in character and should be redesigned to include dedicated bike lanes, trees, ample pedestrian sidewalks and promenades, etc. Because of the overall use pattern they should be intimately scaled to the human. The automobile traffic present on these streets should be strictly local. (See Drawing 4)

There should be a progressive and radical initiative on Salt Lake City’s part to continue to promote the development of mid-block alleys, an agenda already being stressed in current master planning initiatives. Mid-block alleys are essential to the future vitality and success of the large and unwieldy Zionic blocks. The mid-block alleys create a permeance within the city, allowing it to breathe in a sense. Mid-block crosswalks should be a mandatory component of a mid-block alley. In essensce a secondary block pattern shoud be established which gives primacy to the pedestrian.

Within all of the models described above a rich diversity of street sub-types can and should exist within each of the street types. Looking closely at the “boulevard,” if TRAX is only feasible on Main Street then other streets within this genre should be outfitted with bus rapid transit, trolley lines, bikes lanes, etc. As streets take on a distinct character, the monotony of the grid will be diminished and citizens will form a relationship with the street.

The ultimate function and goal of the street is it’s capacity to transport people and goods from one point to another, in other words a vehicle for commerce. The street is the vehicle for commerce, not the car. The rational grid built by the pioneers in Salt Lake City accomplishes this economic proposition with unprecedented efficiency. The street will accept any number of transportation alternatives to fulfill its function. In fact, with a greater diversity of transportation alternatives, the street will function at its highest and most optimal. Let’s consider a hypothetical: 100 citizens must get from Main Street to the University of Utah. If all were to hop in their cars, in the large parking lot required to house the cars downtown, and get on 400 South, these 100 cars occupying the current three-lane roadway, assuming each car requires at least its own space and the space of a car in front and back for elbow room, the cars would require at least two blocks (roughly 1500 feet in 3 lanes). These cars would require a large parking area on the other end as well. Now if you added TRAX and assumed 75% opted for this mode of transport, the 25 cars now occupying the three lanes would require only a half a block (about 375 feet). A single TRAX car easily would house 75 passengers and takes up only about 80 feet of linear space (compared with 750 feet for 3 lanes of cars or 2250 feet for a single lane of 75 cars). Now if we add bike lanes and give 15 of those people bikes, and 75 still ride TRAX, we have only 10 cars on the road and these cars only require 100 feet of space packed into 3 lanes. This is about 1/8 of the Salt Lake’s typical block. Suddenly there seems to be little need for three lanes of car traffic and the parking areas required at the origin and destination points is absolutely minimal.

Outside of the central city there exists intact neighborhoods with distinct character and rich diversity with established and fabulous streetscapes. These include the Avenues, Rose Park, Glendale, Sugar House, and Federal Heights. By providing transit options to these “streetcar suburbs,” these areas will continue to thrive and add to the vitality of the city. Another important component of Salt Lake’s urban re-invention would be the inclusion of greater Salt Lake in the mix. For example, the southern boundary of Salt Lake exists at 2100 South, at which point the City of South Salt Lake begins. There is nothing architecturally or geographically that separates the two cities. The Grand Boulevards on State Street and 700 East described above should continue through South Salt Lake to the southern “boroughs” of Midvale, Murray, Sandy and Draper.

Transportation is the key. Alex Marshall stated in his profound book entitled How Cities Work: “Every city built has grown from the spine of its transportation system, like flesh around bones, whether it be a river, a trail, a railroad, or a highway. If we want to shape a city, we have to shape its transportation system.” In summation, to borrow a common phrase: “If you build it, they will come.”

© 2010 Steven D. Cornell

Sources:
Goldberger, Paul. Utah Heritage Foundation Annual Preservation Conference Plenary Address.

Smith, Joseph. History of the Church, 1:357-59.

Marshall, Alex. How Cities Work. 46.