Shri Sanatan Hindu Mandir | Brent | Complete

[Brenda goats]

Shree Sanatan Hindu Mandir, is on Ealing Road in Wembley.

North Indian style Hindu temple.

It's pretty authentic looking, in fact it blew me away.

Should be amazing when finished.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUnFC...2Onyzg&index=4

[Harrow + London]

Beautiful! The intricacy of Indian architecture is just breath-taking, and it should add greatly to the vibrancy of the already multi-cultural Wembley

[cnapan]

I visited the Shri Swaminarian Mandir (http://www.mandir.org/) a few years back and it was gobsmacking, both in terms of craftsmanship and also the unlikely juxtaposition with the businesses next-door.

Hooray for another building dripping with 'unfashionable' ornamentation and craftsmanship.

Without wanting to start a culture war(!) it looks a hell of a lot better than the hideous mosques that have gone up in recent years, which mostly look like branches of tescos with a slightly different roof... such a shame considering that some of the world's most spectacular buildings are mosques.

I'm not religious myself, but christianity has really let itself down in recent years. Round our way are a load of evangelical 'churches' which are nothing more than open-plan office spaces that look as such from the road.

So here is a message to all religious people: Please carry on the tradition of making houses of worship as splendid as this new addition to the landscape!


P.S. I know it's meant to be flattering, but the word 'vibrant' seems patronising to me these days. What I like about London is that most of the time there is a simple ease with which people with different backgrounds rub shoulders without feeling the need to congratulate each other for being 'different'.

[jamiefearon]

Wow, outstanding. The people who wanted to build that hideous huge mosque in Newham have a lot to learn. I'm genouly gob-smaked about this Temple, I certainly will be visiting when it's finished.

[Tellvis]

Fantastic traditional Hindu Architecture, this will look wonderful. But I wonder if anyone will post the words 'Pastiche' or cry 'Disneyfication' at this development. That is the usual reply when some say that we should reproduce traditional English Architecture such as Georgian, Vicrorian or Art Dec etc.
This development is proof that new buildings using traditional Architecture still has a place in this day and age if done proper and with craft and skill.

[Lloyd Lost]

Originally Posted by Tellvis

Fantastic traditional Hindu Architecture, this will look wonderful. But I wonder if anyone will post the words 'Pastiche' or cry 'Disneyfication' at this development. That is the usual reply when some say that we should reproduce traditional English Architecture such as Georgian, Vicrorian or Art Dec etc.
This development is proof that new buildings using traditional Architecture still has a place in this day and age if done proper and with craft and skill.

I don't know if pastiche is always necessarily a bad thing, and I don't know if this is it, but it's surely an authentic enough building to escape the label of Disneyfied architecture.

I would say though, whilst it's clearly a beautiful building by itself, it does seem incongruous in the context of its surroundings which the design largely seems to ignore. It is definitely a stunning building but I'm not convinced it does much for the area just by virtue of being plonked in the middle of it. Surely a successful design should always acknowledge its neighbouring buildings, even if they are mediocre to awful. Maybe I'd have to see it in person to get a proper feel for the area.












.

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Lost

Surely a successful design should always acknowledge its neighbouring buildings, even if they are mediocre to awful.
.

That's crazy! How can you even begin to think that way? How can a design be successful if it's borrowing from unsuccessful designs?

A beautiful building stands alone on its own merits. Surely you've noticed the gothic (occasionally Norman) churches and cathedrals we have in England? Very rarely are they joined by any other gothic or Norman architecture, and yet they still look stunning.

Or another example: the Radcliffe Camera in Oxford: an exceptional, neoclassical, round building in the middle of a square, surrounded entirely by gothic, rectilinear architecture.

I suspect the reason the set who usually shout "Disneyland" and "Victoriana" have declined to comment on this Temple is that they daren't insult Hindu tradition.

[jamiefearon]

Originally Posted by Loathing

I suspect the reason the set who usually shout "Disneyland" and "Victoriana" have declined to comment on this Temple is that they daren't insult Hindu tradition.

Rubbish, I have contempt for all organized religions equally and don't care about offending them. People like this temple because they like it. Look at the response when that hideous Mosque was in the planning stages.

[Lloyd Lost]

Originally Posted by Loathing

That's crazy! How can you even begin to think that way? How can a design be successful if it's borrowing from unsuccessful designs?

Well, I never did begin to think that way and I doubt I ever will. I said that the building should acknowledge its neighbours, not mimic them.

Originally Posted by Loathing

A beautiful building stands alone on its own merits. Surely you've noticed the gothic (occasionally Norman) churches and cathedrals we have in England? Very rarely are they joined by any other gothic or Norman architecture, and yet they still look stunning.

I'm not gonna sit here and generalize about how all churches sit in their context well or not so well, but I'd be happy to comment on any specific comparisons if you care to make them. I will point out again that you seem to be misrepresenting my views. I didn't say a building should ape the style of its surroundings I said the design of the building should acknowledge its location instead of just concerning itself with its own plot. I don't think this is anywhere close to crazy but in fact a pretty solid design principle.

Originally Posted by Loathing

Or another example: the Radcliffe Camera in Oxford: an exceptional, neoclassical, round building in the middle of a square, surrounded entirely by gothic, rectilinear architecture.

Again, the fact that one style is being described as neoclassical and round and the other buildings being described as Gothic and rectilinear doesn't in anyway suggest the buildings are indifferent to each other. Anyone with eyes can she the relationship between the Radcliffe Camera and the buildings surrounding it. A symmetrically detailed circle inside of a symmetrically detailed square and both built entirely of sandstone. You could conceive of either one being built to compliment the other.

Originally Posted by Loathing

I suspect the reason the set who usually shout "Disneyland" and "Victoriana" have declined to comment on this Temple is that they daren't insult Hindu tradition.

Hmm... I suspect that's utter cobblers.



.

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by Lloyd Lost

blah blah blah

There's little point responding to the boundless paradox and back-peddling of your words.

[DarJoLe]

Originally Posted by Loathing

I suspect the reason the set who usually shout "Disneyland" and "Victoriana" have declined to comment on this Temple is that they daren't insult Hindu tradition.

Erm, no, nobody's shouting 'Disneyland' or 'Victoriana' because it neither is Disneyland nor Victoriana. It's an authentic build honest about how it has been built, unlike pastiche which is a modern skeleton with clipped on contemporary manufactured superfluous period detail, in other words, fake and apologetic.

That being said, there's nothing particularly innovative or exciting about this temple. It is what it is. Those metal hand rails on the stairs for example - bit odd.

We're building and have built far more interesting religious buildings of this time that are just as spectacular as our ancestor's cathedrals and monasteries.

[mouldss@hotmail.co.u]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

, unlike pastiche which is a modern skeleton with clipped on contemporary manufactured superfluous period detail, in other words, fake and apologetic.

You must hate tower bridge.

[DarJoLe]

I appreciate it as a piece of London iconography but it does look ridiculous when you start looking closely at the detailing and general clunky shape of its individual towers. However as a working bridge its engineering is awe-inspiring. A shame there wasn't enough confidence to leave the towers exposed or make use of the metalwork in the final look of them as they did with the walkway between them.

[Lloyd Lost]

Originally Posted by Loathing

There's little point responding to the boundless paradox and back-peddling of your words.

Ugh, what an utter knob. "I disagree with you so I'll just insult you." There was absolutely no back peddling or paradoxes in anything I said. Feel free to point it out if you want to accuse me of something but If you really don't see any point in responding then don't actually respond.

[mouldss@hotmail.co.u]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

I appreciate it as a piece of London iconography but it does look ridiculous when you start looking closely at the detailing and general clunky shape of its individual towers. However as a working bridge its engineering is awe-inspiring. A shame there wasn't enough confidence to leave the towers exposed or make use of the metalwork in the final look of them as they did with the walkway between them.

They had the confidence to expose the Forth Railway Bridge but Tower Bridge was designed to respect neighbouring tower of London.

I think it looks ridiculously good a pastiche modern skeleton with clipped on contemporary manufactured superfluous period detail, in other words, fake and apologetic most recognised eccentric bridge in all the world.

[DarJoLe]

'Designed to respect', i.e. apologetic. Still, considering today's ridiculous planning situation, good on them for building something tall next to the Tower.

[Loathing]

Darjole, I think you need to look up the word "apologetic".

Anyway, I agree with you that adding a few half-arsed, period details to an essentially steel/concrete structure is pastiche and pointless. However, there's a whole coterie of people in these fora who insist that building anything that isn't "of its time" is a delusion and indeed a crime.

Apropos of the "Disneyland" thing: I can't see how Richmond Riverside is any more Disneyland than this. How do you know this temple doesn't have a steel/concrete core? The Richmond buildings are as sensitive and accurate in detail as the project could afford, and it takes an enthusiast/expert to notice how young they really are.

[Loathing]

Originally Posted by DarJoLe

That being said, there's nothing particularly innovative or exciting about this temple. It is what it is. Those metal hand rails on the stairs for example - bit odd.

Yup, because a 3000-year-old religion really needs your innovation/excitement.

[jamiefearon]

Ando's Church of light is a great example of a modern religious building.

[Loathing]

If you hate all religion, how are you qualified to judge the success/failure of a modern Church?