When I was in architecture school, one of my classes focused on the real or perceived difference between a "space" and a "place". In this context, "space" was used to connote somewhere you could be. Generic and without meaning or significance. Contrasting that, "places" are spaces which have taken on meaning - either through collective experience or just personal history. A "place" for one may not have the same meaning for another. There are a few universally accepted "places" in the world. What makes a "space" into a "place" is important, if often intangible and ethereal.
This morning I sat in the Salt Lake Temple pondering this phenomenon. I love the Salt Lake Temple. It has been the focus of my faith for many generations, and you can almost feel the 120+ years of patrons' experiences in the building. It is sacred because it has been dedicated as a house of worship, but it is also sacred because the experiences and faith and tears of the thousands who have left their physical and spiritual traces on the place.
In contrast, the newly dedicated Ogden Temple is very beautiful and richly appointed - as all temples are. But because it lacks the collective memory and experience, it also doesn't have the same impact on the soul. Yet. The dedication is the same, and the purpose is the same, and the Spirit of the Lord is of course the same. But it will take a significant amount of time for the Ogden Temple to achieve the same sense of "place". I would say that the greater the significance being sought the longer it takes to achieve that sense.
I wonder if anyone else even cares about it. We live in a society and culture that values the new. But I can feel and notice the disparity between the new and the real, and I relish when I can be in those spaces which have become places.
Comments
Southwark Cathedral. :)