We had an errand in Toronto today and it’s a long drive so we stopped at this beautiful building near the airport for a walk on the way home. I popped my head in to pick up a brochure and learned that this is the BAPS Shri Swaminarayan Mandir, a Hindu temple built in 2007 with 95,000 cu. ft. of hand carved marble. There are more than 24,000 blocks fitted together puzzle style with no steel hardware or reinforcement. It’s highly ornate and more than a little imposing, but the day was sunny and warm and we had a lovely wander around. It reached a balmy 6 degrees today and actually felt like spring. Tomorrow we’re back to our usual and much more mundane stomping grounds.
©voyager, all rights reserved
WUT? This building is in Toronto? Wow.
WOW. That doesn’t even begin to cover it. That’s stunning.
Impressive, a lot of work was put into that and it’s gorgeous.
Wow.
Very interesting.
I wonder where that came from, a lack of steel or rapid rust in the original Hindu homeland? Earthquake security might be lacking.
Given that it was built in 2007, it would have had to met current standards. It’s a mistake to think everything about modern building is best; there are a great many very old structures still standing around the world that have no steel or reinforcement.
From the brochure:
The Mandir is Canada’s first traditional Hindu place of worship. It was built in a Vedic tradition that dates back millennia.
There were 1500 craftsmen and 400 volunteers involved with more than 1 million hours of service. It is built to last over 1,000 years.
Toronto is in the middle of the North American plate, far from young mountain chains, maybe there aren’t that many earthquakes there.
Ice Swimmer@#8:
I was in Montreal (right next door to Toronto) when the earthquake hit the east coast -- the one that cracked the Washington Monument. I felt it. But maybe a building that’s stacked is more resilient, if it’s low?
Marcus @9: Oh, yeah. And Pittsburgh is right next to New York City. I’d forgotten that.
Caine @6
The trick to building with stone or unreinforced concrete (as used by the Romans) is to design so that everything is in compression. Steel reinforced concrete can withstand tension and is much more efficient material, but corrosion of the steel makes it much less durable. Water inevitably gets in through cracks and the expansion from the corrosion causes more cracks. When the Romans did use reinforced concrete they used brass.
I am curious about how they handled the tensile loads at the base of the more spherical domes. Most old masonry buildings with domes have a chain around the base of the dome.
Marcus Ranum @ 9
It seems there are earthquakes near the East Coast/the mountains there and Great Lakes. I didn’t know that.
That’s gorgeous
—-
That is absolutely true, but they usually also didn’t have to perform to modern standards. Whenever a road bridge needs to be replaced my father in law goes on and on about how the Pont du Gard is still there after 2000 years, but I doubt that it would still be there for 20 years if thousands of trucks drove across it every day.