The building doesn't need to face Mecca, the qibla (the direction of prayer) does.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2018Mosque's are built to face Mecca correct? Seems like that's the problem - the building can't be flipped. A synagogue or church could certainly be updated to fit onto Jefferson.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2018Yeah, just flip it around and I don't see any issues. Plenty of room for parking behind. This should be an easy fix.
- 6,119
Whether absolutely obligatory or not, the mirhab, the niche in the wall that orients the mosque, is always in the spot closest to Mecca. I'd call it an obligation at this point, even if unofficial. And observant folks are indeed religiously careful about keeping in mind at least the approximate direction of Mecca more or less at all times. That said, the mirhab is an interior feature which needn't be visible from outside at all. (Though there's often an architectural nod that marks it. A small dome above it, say.) And you could move the thing to the corner and still orient it properly. But maybe the safety concern is more about preventing truck attacks and so forth. In which case, it's useful to have the prayer room as far away from the street as possible. Your average mosque is under a bit more threat in the US right now than most other places of worship. It's still pretty statistically small. But people spend a lot of time worrying about the wrong things. (Note the bollards apparently going in outside the ball yard, for instance.)gregl wrote: ↑Mar 20, 2018The building doesn't need to face Mecca, the qibla (the direction of prayer) does.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2018Mosque's are built to face Mecca correct? Seems like that's the problem - the building can't be flipped. A synagogue or church could certainly be updated to fit onto Jefferson.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2018Yeah, just flip it around and I don't see any issues. Plenty of room for parking behind. This should be an easy fix.
- 1,642
Ok.symphonicpoet wrote:Whether absolutely obligatory or not, the mirhab, the niche in the wall that orients the mosque, is always in the spot closest to Mecca. I'd call it an obligation at this point, even if unofficial. And observant folks are indeed religiously careful about keeping in mind at least the approximate direction of Mecca more or less at all times. That said, the mirhab is an interior feature which needn't be visible from outside at all. (Though there's often an architectural nod that marks it. A small dome above it, say.) And you could move the thing to the corner and still orient it properly. But maybe the safety concern is more about preventing truck attacks and so forth. In which case, it's useful to have the prayer room as far away from the street as possible. Your average mosque is under a bit more threat in the US right now than most other places of worship. It's still pretty statistically small. But people spend a lot of time worrying about the wrong things. (Note the bollards apparently going in outside the ball yard, for instance.)gregl wrote: ↑Mar 20, 2018The building doesn't need to face Mecca, the qibla (the direction of prayer) does.mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Mar 19, 2018
Mosque's are built to face Mecca correct? Seems like that's the problem - the building can't be flipped. A synagogue or church could certainly be updated to fit onto Jefferson.
I'll post links to deadly truck attacks in the last five years and you post links to deadly mosque attacks (by non-Moslems) in the last five years.
Would you like to do that?
Let's not get off track. This decision should have nothing to do with religion and everything to do how a building should be built in the city in a corridor that is marked as a mass transit route. There are plenty of other sites in St. Louis if safety from truck attacks is an actual concern.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Ok.symphonicpoet wrote:Whether absolutely obligatory or not, the mirhab, the niche in the wall that orients the mosque, is always in the spot closest to Mecca. I'd call it an obligation at this point, even if unofficial. And observant folks are indeed religiously careful about keeping in mind at least the approximate direction of Mecca more or less at all times. That said, the mirhab is an interior feature which needn't be visible from outside at all. (Though there's often an architectural nod that marks it. A small dome above it, say.) And you could move the thing to the corner and still orient it properly. But maybe the safety concern is more about preventing truck attacks and so forth. In which case, it's useful to have the prayer room as far away from the street as possible. Your average mosque is under a bit more threat in the US right now than most other places of worship. It's still pretty statistically small. But people spend a lot of time worrying about the wrong things. (Note the bollards apparently going in outside the ball yard, for instance.)
I'll post links to deadly truck attacks in the last five years and you post links to deadly mosque attacks (by non-Moslems) in the last five years.
Would you like to do that?
- 1,610
What kind of stupid logic are you using, other than baiting? Who gives a crap where an attack comes from, the point is to try to make it harder. GTFO with that stuff.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Ok.symphonicpoet wrote:Whether absolutely obligatory or not, the mirhab, the niche in the wall that orients the mosque, is always in the spot closest to Mecca. I'd call it an obligation at this point, even if unofficial. And observant folks are indeed religiously careful about keeping in mind at least the approximate direction of Mecca more or less at all times. That said, the mirhab is an interior feature which needn't be visible from outside at all. (Though there's often an architectural nod that marks it. A small dome above it, say.) And you could move the thing to the corner and still orient it properly. But maybe the safety concern is more about preventing truck attacks and so forth. In which case, it's useful to have the prayer room as far away from the street as possible. Your average mosque is under a bit more threat in the US right now than most other places of worship. It's still pretty statistically small. But people spend a lot of time worrying about the wrong things. (Note the bollards apparently going in outside the ball yard, for instance.)
I'll post links to deadly truck attacks in the last five years and you post links to deadly mosque attacks (by non-Moslems) in the last five years.
Would you like to do that?
- 1,642
Let me clear something up before we get back to the main issue.
The last few sentences of Poet's post implied that bollards are silly when in reality Moslem truck attacks have become increasingly regular events. Poet also implies that mosque attacks are of equal concern. The mosque has a right to safety precautions no question but to pretend like Moslem truck attacks and mosque attacks by non-Moslems happen at the similar rates is not true and simply must be pointed out for clarification.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks a truck attack would occur at a mosque but that's another issue altogether.
Back to the historic code. Either everyone follows the code or you get rid of the code.
The last few sentences of Poet's post implied that bollards are silly when in reality Moslem truck attacks have become increasingly regular events. Poet also implies that mosque attacks are of equal concern. The mosque has a right to safety precautions no question but to pretend like Moslem truck attacks and mosque attacks by non-Moslems happen at the similar rates is not true and simply must be pointed out for clarification.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks a truck attack would occur at a mosque but that's another issue altogether.
Back to the historic code. Either everyone follows the code or you get rid of the code.
^ Holy sh*t, I forgot how stupid humans can be some times.
Also in case anyone is wondering, while on a flat map Mecca would appear to be southeast, the "Great Circle" orientation is used. So the angle is more almost exactly 45 degrees northeast.
Except the two aren't mutually exclusive. The entire prayer room can still be angled. It ultimately comes down to security which, like the pray room orientation, can be solved with an architectural solution, not a site plan solution.ImprovSTL wrote: This decision should have nothing to do with religion and everything to do how a building should be built in the city in a corridor that is marked as a mass transit route.
Also in case anyone is wondering, while on a flat map Mecca would appear to be southeast, the "Great Circle" orientation is used. So the angle is more almost exactly 45 degrees northeast.
- 1,642
Let me clarify. Are you referring to me?aprice wrote: ^ Holy sh*t, I forgot how stupid humans can be some times.
Calling people names isn't very nice. I'm downtown a couple days a week. In fact, I'm downtown today. I'm available for lunch if you're interested. I see you're at Washington and Tucker but I can meet you wherever you want.
- 1,610
^ Cool threat, bro.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Calling people names isn't very nice. I'm downtown a couple days a week. In fact, I'm downtown today. I'm available for lunch if you're interested. I see you're at Washington and Tucker but I can meet you wherever you want.
While it's a nice gesture, I don't think it would be the most constructive of conversations. I'm just concerned about extremely offensive generalizations being made about a community of around 1 in 7 people on this planet.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Calling people names isn't very nice. I'm downtown a couple days a week. In fact, I'm downtown today. I'm available for lunch if you're interested. I see you're at Washington and Tucker but I can meet you wherever you want.
EDIT: I'm concerned about offensive generalizations being made about any individuals or communities.
- 1,642
Fair enough. We'll take a rain check. Not sure what I said was offensive but sounds like you're heart's in the right place, I guess. Have a great day.aprice wrote:While it's a nice gesture, I don't think it would be the most constructive of conversations. I'm just concerned about extremely offensive generalizations being made about a community of around 1 in 7 people on this planet.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Calling people names isn't very nice. I'm downtown a couple days a week. In fact, I'm downtown today. I'm available for lunch if you're interested. I see you're at Washington and Tucker but I can meet you wherever you want.
EDIT: I'm concerned about offensive generalizations being made about any individuals or communities.
- 1,610
85% of your posts are purposely offensive and you are being obtuse if you try to intimate anything else.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Fair enough. We'll take a rain check. Not sure what I said was offensive but sounds like you're heart's in the right place, I guess. Have a great day.aprice wrote:While it's a nice gesture, I don't think it would be the most constructive of conversations. I'm just concerned about extremely offensive generalizations being made about a community of around 1 in 7 people on this planet.leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Calling people names isn't very nice. I'm downtown a couple days a week. In fact, I'm downtown today. I'm available for lunch if you're interested. I see you're at Washington and Tucker but I can meet you wherever you want.
EDIT: I'm concerned about offensive generalizations being made about any individuals or communities.
- 733
Geez...America: the internet-based society where feelings get triggered and words hurt feelings. And hard-azzes on a keyboard are produced in mass.
UGH
UGH
- 1,610
Oh good, a voice of reason.whitherSTL wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Geez...America: the internet-based society where feelings get triggered and words hurt feelings. And hard-azzes on a keyboard are produced in mass.
UGH
It's not productive to stir up 'but they do it too'-type justifications, but strictly in terms of whether mosques are subjects of any type of attack there is some data there.
As a couple of examples, the ACLU has a page dedicated to 'Anti-Mosque Activity' with a state-by-state breakdown of events, including four such events in Missouri since 2010. And an article on CNN from August 2017 shows that nation-wide there were an average of 9 attacks per month nationwide in the first half of 2017.
Now, this isn't to say that the current plans are the only possible solution to address a possible attack, nor is it to intimate that anyone bringing up opposition is doing so out of some anti-Muslim agenda. But there appears to be at least some level legitimacy to their their concern, just as there's legitimate concern from the neighbors re: the design of the mosque fitting in with the layout of the surrounding built environment..
Ideally the neighbors can engage with the Qooba Foundation to work out a compromise.
-RBB
As a couple of examples, the ACLU has a page dedicated to 'Anti-Mosque Activity' with a state-by-state breakdown of events, including four such events in Missouri since 2010. And an article on CNN from August 2017 shows that nation-wide there were an average of 9 attacks per month nationwide in the first half of 2017.
Now, this isn't to say that the current plans are the only possible solution to address a possible attack, nor is it to intimate that anyone bringing up opposition is doing so out of some anti-Muslim agenda. But there appears to be at least some level legitimacy to their their concern, just as there's legitimate concern from the neighbors re: the design of the mosque fitting in with the layout of the surrounding built environment..
Ideally the neighbors can engage with the Qooba Foundation to work out a compromise.
-RBB
- 6,119
Actually, my point was that they were both relatively uncommon and that we spend too much time worrying about the wrong thing. There have been a few attacks on mosques. There have been a few truck attacks. The number of dead from both combined amounts to a rounding error when compared to heart attacks, traffic accidents in a single major city, accidental shootings . . .leeharveyawesome wrote: ↑Mar 21, 2018Let me clear something up before we get back to the main issue.
The last few sentences of Poet's post implied that bollards are silly when in reality Moslem truck attacks have become increasingly regular events. Poet also implies that mosque attacks are of equal concern. The mosque has a right to safety precautions no question but to pretend like Moslem truck attacks and mosque attacks by non-Moslems happen at the similar rates is not true and simply must be pointed out for clarification.
I'm not sure why anyone thinks a truck attack would occur at a mosque but that's another issue altogether.
Back to the historic code. Either everyone follows the code or you get rid of the code.
I could equally say that the worry over mad cow disease was misplaced. Doesn't mean people didn't die. Just means it wasn't statistically significant.
My point was (and is) two fold: There is some anti-Muslim anger in the US right now, which has had real world consequences, but moving your mosque away from the corner isn't really statistically justified. The fear is human. Normal. But mathematically wrong, if I understand it correctly. The bollards are an act of fear which is human and normal, but statistically silly. Rather like fear of flying. Saying that you shouldn't be afraid of flying is not remotely the same as saying that people didn't die in plane crashes. Heck, I watch the crap out of plane crash investigation videos. I absolutely think most plane crashes are avoidable and we can learn something from studying them. I also want to fly anytime you give me the chance. And I'd gladly fly in about any airplane of any era, with or without all the fancy safety stuff. Hell, I drive a Miata. Carefully. But it's still a Miata. An old one, even. Calculate your risk. Try to keep emotion out of it. Realize that none of us actually do. Try not to terrorize the other person when they turn out to be human. Calculate your risk . . . Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
In the end, what I wish to say is that I can see a little bit of where both sides are coming from and I hope they can work it out. Both sides have at least some merit. Both worry at least a bit about the wrong things.
- 1,642
^ I appreciate the response. We're more or less saying the same thing.
final agenda for 3/26
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 6-2018.pdf
https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... 6-2018.pdf
Wow. The new house at 4213 Maryland is getting a facade of actual limestone.
- 1,044
Regarding the Mosque, all you have to do is look at the one on Lemay Ferry Rd in Lemay that was converted from a movie theater to see that the discussions about structural requirements are baseless. It sits close to the road with no protection, is not situated in a particular directions and the exterior had little modification. I have always hated how the relatively new church building along Hwy 44 in LaSalle Park was allowed to be constructed in a historic district. I don't want to see political correctness overtake our historic guidelines in this neighborhood as well.
Agree. I also feel that design decisions should not be based in fear. And a religious institution should embody confidence in faith and conviction, not shrink away from the problems of the world like this building appears to be doing. ( I am a Muslim btw if that matters)
- 6,119
You mean the thing on Lafeyette in Soulard? Back behind St. John Nepomuk? It's ugly, but I'm not sure on what grounds you would block it. It faces the street. The parking is in the rear. It has a brick facade. The setback is a little much, but . . . meh, it's next to a highway. And the new mosque looks like it'll be better than both that and the example to which I think you're referring on Lemay Ferry. (I assume you mean the Bosnian Islamic Center at Lemay and Kayser?) Maybe not much better. But better.southcitygent wrote: ↑Mar 24, 2018Regarding the Mosque, all you have to do is look at the one on Lemay Ferry Rd in Lemay that was converted from a movie theater to see that the discussions about structural requirements are baseless. It sits close to the road with no protection, is not situated in a particular directions and the exterior had little modification. I have always hated how the relatively new church building along Hwy 44 in LaSalle Park was allowed to be constructed in a historic district. I don't want to see political correctness overtake our historic guidelines in this neighborhood as well.
Yes, I should assume you could resite the thing so it would be next to the road. Maybe even ask for better materials. But it sounds like the parking will be well screened and the building will be quite visually prominent, in spite of the setback. And at some point if you ask for too much you get nothing. And that site really needs something. It's surrounded by a lot of grim and ugly, so the neighborhood association is making a rather big ask. Literally every prominent corner nearby also has the building behind a sea of parking: McDonald's also at Allen and Jefferson, the vacant filling-station church a block south at Russel and Jefferson, the animal hospital a block south of that at Ann. At some point it sounds like allowing the mosque to follow suit is admitting reality, not advancing political correctness. It's next to Johnny Brock's Dungeon, for crying out loud. If there were an uglier, less human stretch of road in town I'd be hard pressed to figure out which one it was. This will be a VAST improvement on what's already there. No, allowing it isn't political correctness. In fact, I'm wondering on what basis you would really oppose it? This will bring street traffic. People walking. Pedestrians. It will make immigrants feel more welcome. It will improve a pretty bad looking corner. Where's the downside? I was neutral before, but looking around a little bit, I think the preservation board is very much on the right track.
(Also note: that theatre is already pretty well situated to have a mirhab pointing towards Mecca in the back corner.)
Have to disagree here. I don't think bringing up examples of other mistakes like the McDonalds justifies the setback. Yes, the area around the interstate sucks because there is an interstate. But this is where Jefferson could start to become pedestrian friendly. There are plans for this to be the Street Car corridor for Metrolink. Shouldn't we start planning and creating a stretch of road that is built for it?symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Mar 24, 2018You mean the thing on Lafeyette in Soulard? Back behind St. John Nepomuk? It's ugly, but I'm not sure on what grounds you would block it. It faces the street. The parking is in the rear. It has a brick facade. The setback is a little much, but . . . meh, it's next to a highway. And the new mosque looks like it'll be better than both that and the example to which I think you're referring on Lemay Ferry. (I assume you mean the Bosnian Islamic Center at Lemay and Kayser?) Maybe not much better. But better.southcitygent wrote: ↑Mar 24, 2018Regarding the Mosque, all you have to do is look at the one on Lemay Ferry Rd in Lemay that was converted from a movie theater to see that the discussions about structural requirements are baseless. It sits close to the road with no protection, is not situated in a particular directions and the exterior had little modification. I have always hated how the relatively new church building along Hwy 44 in LaSalle Park was allowed to be constructed in a historic district. I don't want to see political correctness overtake our historic guidelines in this neighborhood as well.
Yes, I should assume you could resite the thing so it would be next to the road. Maybe even ask for better materials. But it sounds like the parking will be well screened and the building will be quite visually prominent, in spite of the setback. And at some point if you ask for too much you get nothing. And that site really needs something. It's surrounded by a lot of grim and ugly, so the neighborhood association is making a rather big ask. Literally every prominent corner nearby also has the building behind a sea of parking: McDonald's also at Allen and Jefferson, the vacant filling-station church a block south at Russel and Jefferson, the animal hospital a block south of that at Ann. At some point it sounds like allowing the mosque to follow suit is admitting reality, not advancing political correctness. It's next to Johnny Brock's Dungeon, for crying out loud. If there were an uglier, less human stretch of road in town I'd be hard pressed to figure out which one it was. This will be a VAST improvement on what's already there. No, allowing it isn't political correctness. In fact, I'm wondering on what basis you would really oppose it? This will bring street traffic. People walking. Pedestrians. It will make immigrants feel more welcome. It will improve a pretty bad looking corner. Where's the downside? I was neutral before, but looking around a little bit, I think the preservation board is very much on the right track.
(Also note: that theatre is already pretty well situated to have a mirhab pointing towards Mecca in the back corner.)