Most Impressive Building?

The first is the Akshardham temple in Delhi :

akshardham03f.jpg


mood03f.jpg


The central dome(s) , as seen from inside :

allf.jpg


dom05f.jpg


dom16f.jpg


dom18f.jpg


The carvings that cover almost every wall in the temple :

sahajanand05f.jpg


sahajanand04f.jpg


carving03f.jpg


carving04f.jpg


A pillar of the temple :

pillar01f.jpg
 
The temple's bronzework :

panal01f.jpg


panal05f.jpg


Temples usually have a pathway by means of which devotees can circumnavigate the temple , usually in a clockwise direction , called a parikrama . This temple has made such a path , which is also carved , if I'm not wrong :

parikrama07f.jpg


parikrama20f.jpg














And the most impressive thing about this temple is that it was built with donated money , with the organisation being done by volunteers , and that when most people thought that the old art of mega-temple building was dead , this temple was constructed by , and inaugurated in the month of November , 2005 .
 
Although possibly less "impressive" than the first temple you posted, I think the one in Delhi is more beautiful. :goodjob:
 
Before posting images of another temple , I'll post the most impressive image of the Kaba ( the most sacred place for Muslims ) I could find . At first , I did not realise that the things surrounding the black stone were actually people - and then the scale of the whole thing hit me . The show of faith is amazing :

islam-kaba-close.jpg
 
Sobieski II said:
Although possibly less "impressive" than the first temple you posted, I think the one in Delhi is more beautiful. :goodjob:

You say that because I could not find more detailed pictures of the first temple :) . The massive structures surrounding the first temple ( located at the centre of the photos ) are gateways . They have an interesting story behind them . Each king after the first wanted to build something bigger than his predecessors . Alterations to the original temple could not be made , because it was a sacred place , so each king just built bigger and bigger gateways to the temple , as seen by the concentric walls surrounding it . You can spend days exploring just one gateway - the carvings in it are as good as the ones in the Delhi temple . I know , because I've seen them myself .
 
Back to temples . The next temple is built by the same group of devotees who built the Delhi temple . Only this time , they went and built it in London .

The main temple , in its different moods :

mandir06f.jpg


mm_07f.jpg


mm_08f.jpg


mm_20f.jpg


mm_17f.jpg


mm_18f.jpg


The British press about the construction of the temple :

Arun Shourie said:
'It is a miracle... can be likened to the building of the Gothic cathedrals of Europe... There is no doubt that London has acquired a significant new building of traditional Indian beauty and interest... We can be grateful that this has happened in a part of London that needed transforming.'

"By day, London's magnificent Hindu temple is impressive enough, but at night it becomes a truly wondrous sight. It is likely to become one of London's tourist attractions alongside its role as a place of worship..."

"Little short of a genie from a magic lamp could explain how, amid the unremarkable houses and offices that are Neasden in north London, the depressing landscape suddenly explodes upwards into an astonishing temple from the East. Neasden's new mandir looks as if it has been transported on a magic carpet -- this spectacular temple in such unlikely surroundings."

"If ever a place needed a miracle, however, Wembley is it... The miracle has happened. No non-Christian religious organisation in Britain has built with such confidence in the long-term future. It is a beautiful building that enriches London enormously. A vision that beggars belief - a new Hindu temple of historic stature and beauty, a strange and exotic magnificence."

"Something altogether extraordinary has happened in Neasden. There has been an almighty outbreak of Hindu faith. Its the sort that political parties can only dream of harnessing when they talk of community. Whole families have given months, some years, of their time. Bankers have turned electricians, accountants have laid drains. Some have given up their jobs. Solicitors, doctors and architects have sacrificed annual holidays and been assigned by saints what might be seen as labour. Women cook and organise the festivities. Children play their part".

"The new temple in Neasden is a remarkable building by any aesthetic standard and it will probably become one of the sights of London. Amongst other things, the temple is a monument to family values. Visitors have been amazed by the exquisite craftsmanship involved. But this is not just an aesthetic treat in the most unlikely of venues: It is a symbol of the coming of age of Britain's Hindu community."

"It would, I think, appear unlikely and wonderful wherever it was. But in Neasden, it is like an epiphany. The profusion of the carving, so startling at first, is even more startling close up".

"A startling sight... The whole project illustrates the possibilities of drawing on India as the crafts workshop of the world. Indian craftsmen can make almost anything... Asian communities deserve the gratitude of all of us for ornamenting our suburban wastes, for providing us with case studies in the architecture of cultural identity and continuity. The Swaminarayan Mandir serves as a point of reference, a miraculous extreme. A warning against bland assumptions about the inevitability of industrialised and commercialised building production, the gleaming shikaras of Neasden will stand witness to what is possible..."

That is how the British press -- The Times, The Guardian, The Independent, The Telegraph, and others -- wrote last August about the new Swaminarayan Temple in London.

The other great thing about the temple was its location and mode of construction :

Arun Shourie said:
But to get back to the temple. It is located in a 12 acre plot and is made mainly of limestone from Bulgaria and marble from Italy. The limestone and marble were shipped to Kandla and other centres of craftsmen in India. Each piece was carved, shipped to London and eventually the 23,600 pieces were assembled to raise the temple. Adjacent to the temple is a cultural complex covering 100,000 square feet.

The materials alone are estimated to cost anything between £3 million to £10 million. A British architect looking at the architectural plans is reported to have estimated that in the normal course the structures would have cost £50 million - that is, Rs 300 crore. And yet the building was constructed entirely by voluntary contributions of the followers of the Swaminarayan movement.

Among those who made the most significant contribution were children. An average household in Britain throws away about 500 aluminium cans every year. The children went from house to house, restaurant to restaurant, stadium to stadium and collected the used, discarded cans. In this way, they collected about seven million cans. These were given to a reprocessing plant, and the earnings were given to the temple's fund.

Everything about the project is an Indian statement. That scale of voluntary participation was an astonishment to the British papers -- one of them after the other could think of only one parallel: The cathedrals that were constructed, not now but 500 years ago in Europe. The blessing such participation spells will be manifest: Every volunteer worked with his hands and thus learnt the dignity of labour: there was no distinction of wealth, caste or anything else: as every one contributed his might, every one sees the temple as her and his own: as families have laboured together, family ties have been strengthened: the community has acquired a great symbol.

But there is something else also which is specially Indian: It is evident both in the location of the temple and in that mode of financing it. Recall that the temple has been in a particularly squalid part of London, a part that has been the butt of derision and mockery. And recall that one of the main ways of financing has been to recycle refuse, those discarded aluminium cans.

Both features are Indian symbols: For our texts always point to the lotus -- which grows out of and blooms amidst mire. We are taught of the Buddha's garment: By the time he awakened from the path of austerities to the middle path, his garment was in tatters: there was nothing with which to clothe himself: a coarse shroud which had been use to cover corpse lay discarded by the river: the Buddha took the sheet for his garment -- and thereby taught us to make holy that which we find repulsive and unclean.
 
Ansheem enough that place is sublime, it certainly gets my vote.:goodjob:
 
I don't understand why people waste so much money trying to perfectly replicate old forms of art. I think it reduces the aestethic value of the original pieces.

Modern phallic, skeletal, sineous architecture is far more beautiful in my eyes.
 
"Mighty monuments which shall make us the wonder of succeeding ages." - Pericles

@aneeshm - your temple photos are amazing and beautiful!
 
newfangle said:
I don't understand why people waste so much money trying to perfectly replicate old forms of art. I think it reduces the aestethic value of the original pieces.

Modern phallic, skeletal, sineous architecture is far more beautiful in my eyes.

Erm OK, big phallic testaments to humanity having a bigger tadger than someone else are ok, but penis envy is hardly a great way to make a point that's just ego stroking BS, just build something magnificent and the implication will take care of it's self.

In the US the new tower is not meant as a I've got a bigger tadger but as a: we can turn around a tragedy and stick a middle finger up firmly at the idiots. Intent is important, art is also important, show us some modern art worthy of a mention( I don't mean modern art in terms of wrapping buildings up in celophane or cutting up animals and pickling them) And we'll concede the point.
 
Uhh, well ok then. Alls I'm saying is that modern skyscrapers are a testament to the ingenuity of modern mankind, and should never be dismissed as less-than-artistic as, say, a temple. Nowehere did I say taller=better.
 
newfangle said:
I don't understand why people waste so much money trying to perfectly replicate old forms of art. I think it reduces the aestethic value of the original pieces.

Modern phallic, skeletal, sineous architecture is far more beautiful in my eyes.

But that has been done more times than any of those old ones. Huge phallic structures are a dime a dozen.

Think up something new and creative. Now the Burj al-Arab (your big sail hotel) was truly new, creative, and beautiful, so I will give you that much.
 
Wow, some of these are amazing pictures! :)

I took these pics while I was in Chicago a couple of months ago.
One is the Sears Tower and the other is some other random building that looks cool. I loved Chicago. I'll definitely be going back. :D
 

Attachments

  • CHICAGO.jpg
    CHICAGO.jpg
    202.8 KB · Views: 68
  • CHICAGO2.jpg
    CHICAGO2.jpg
    211.9 KB · Views: 53
I'm interested if the Hindus have some sort of rule that the more details and decorations you are able to squeeze to a single cm^2 the more beautiful. I've seen many Hindu temples and most of them seem to have been built according to this philosophy. Frankly speaking I dont find that all that imressive myself. It doesnt leave me any space to think, breathe, rest. I wonder if its a 17th century thing when baroque architecture was at its height here as well.

Ironically enough the most impressive beuilding I've visited so far is the St.Peters basilica in the Vatican.
 
This is a very cool thread. There are so many amazing engineering and architectural marvels around the world. Amazing what humans can do when they put their mind to it, don't you think?

Of the places I've been some of the structures I've marveled at include the Forum and St. Peter's in Rome, The Alhambra in Andalusia, Spain
and experiencing the unveiling of the Statue of Liberty from the "Windows of the World in the WTC are amongst some of my favorites.

I've also been fortunate to grow up in a village where Frank Lloyd Wright built many of his wonderful homes and housed his studio along with a city that developed its own unique style. Explaination from Wiki
Spoiler :

Chicago architecture is famous throughout the world and one style is referred to as the Chicago School. In the history of architecture, the Chicago School was a school of architects active in Chicago at the turn of the 20th century. They were among the first to promote the new technologies of steel-frame construction in commercial buildings, and developed a spatial aesthetic which co-evolved with, and then came to influence, parallel developments in European Modernism..


Here are a couple buildings in Chicago and one in Milwaukee that may not be the most impressive or well known buildings in the world but I think they're pretty cool.

The Monadnock Building Built by John Wellborn Root and Daniel Burnham. Two major contributors to Chicago architecture. What's interesting about this building is it has two halves which provide a unique perspective for examining the history and development of modern architecture. The north part--famed for its lack of traditional ornamentation--is a masonry, wall-bearing structure, the last skyscraper to employ this method of construction, with six-foot thick walls at the base. The south addition, on the other hand, is an early example of steel-frame construction, its underlying structure revealed through narrow piers and wide windows. The radical difference in construction between the two halves marks the building's place in architectural history at the end of one building tradition and the beginning of another.

my.php


The Milwaukee Art Museum and its white concrete Quadracci Pavilion, designed by Santiago Calatrava contains a moveable, wing-like brise soleil which opens up for a wingspan of 217 feet during the day, folding over the tall, arched structure at night or during inclement weather. Quite a sight.

milwartmuseum1qz.jpg


OT but Yankee Stadium held some of the greatest baseball players in history but the structure itself doesn't hold a candle to Fenway Park or Wrigley Field. Believe me, I'm not a Cubs fan but Wrigley is the best stadium in sports. The character and ambience is truly the best I've ever seen and that's hard for a White Sox fan to say.
The manual scoreboard. The flags up top rank what place teams are in and when the game is over there's either a "W" flag or "L" flag waved to tell whether the Cubs won or not. It looks like they lost to St. Louis that particular day. HAH! :D
may209202003202011fz.jpg
 
Back
Top Bottom