Friday, August 17, 2007

Buddhist Temple: Crap or not crap?

Around the corner from yesterday's "there's something you don't see every day" shrine is this Buddhist Temple on Parsons Boulevard near Beech Avenue. We'll let you decide if it's Queens Crap or not:


georgetheatheist said...

(without the water.)

Anonymous said...

I think it's one of the rare modern structures that works in its context, actually. It's vaguely late-period Wrightlike.

Anonymous said...

It looks like a Buddist bomb shelter!

verdi said...

This intrusive out of context building
went up in the 1970s......
way before the tear-down boom of today.
It was the first demolition in this architecturally cohesive neighborhood.

In itself it's actually an interesting piece
of architecture and would have been more appropriately sited set into a hillside giving it a Frank Lloyd Wright appearance.
But, it doesn't belong here!

The problem is what was torn down to facilitate building this temple.
There was, one in particular, fabulous architectural of the Waldheim neighborhood's well appointed stately homes.

Destroying it was a shameful disgrace.

I was inside that home before it was demolished.
Too bad the lighting was dim
otherwise, at least, I could have taken some photos
to document all the fine craftsmanship.

One detail that I do remember.....
the carved stone or terracotta lintel
of the fireplace mantel.
It had the Latin inscription, "salve"......
meaning to soothe or soothing (?) !

Imagine sitting before a warm soothing fire and gazing upon all that quality construction and detailing?

Anonymous said...

I have a definite opinion about this building but I'm hesitant to express it because the building is a religious institution or house of God and all.

Anonymous said...

that building been there for awhile, i don't know where have you been!! and i believe that building is being landmarked.

Anonymous said...

What kind of temple can it be if it destroys stately homes? This temple is setting the precedent of being unappreciative. Steer clear!

Anonymous said...

I love this building. It's won tons of archirecture awards.
It's interesting without being ostentatious. Though very large, it sits much lower than the surrounding houses. Compare it to the Y that opened up across the street about 10 years ago. This is a gem.

Anonymous said...

The building as it is, not bad.

Within the context of its setting, not good.

Once again, it shows that the new Americans have no incentive to respect what is here.

Thank you multiculturalists for declaring open season on tradtional values. Thank you clubhouse for giving your little minions carte blanche to despoil the landscape to their little heart's content.

Anonymous said...

Where did you hear it's being landmarked?

I think you're mistaken.

Please enlighten us .

verdi said...

The proper siting of a building is half of its beauty.

This is a building that is improperly situated
on too small a land needs to breathe.

Wright would have never committed
such an atrocity by
inappropriately squeezing it in the way it is.

I've been to "Falling Water" and this it ain't!

Although it is a nicely massed, well proportioned
and such......
you can't put a size # 10 foot into a size #4 shoe.

That would be a bad fit !

Anonymous said...

Is there a passageway connecting the church to an adjoining house? Sort of looks so in the photo.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it's a smuggler's tunnel leading to a holding pen full of illegals.

Could this have been a sort of underground railroad stop for those who debarked from the Golden Venture?

It's been around long enough!

electra said...

This building went up in the early-mid eighties, not the seventies. It is connected to the lovely older house, which is a residence for the priest.