Talk:Bungalow

message: So far, there've been at least two random edits where story has been gratuitously changed to storey. (To add insult to injury, it's only the first occurence that's been changed, and not consistently throughout.) Please see Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#National_varieties_of_English to see why this is a Bad Thing.
And thus, Dear Wikipedians, if you feel like changing the spelling yet again - please don't. --moof 02:34, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Story/storey 

message: The text is an interesting reflection of US usage.  In the UK, at least in the 20th century, 'bungalow' had a rather deprecated implication.  Such buildings were often grouped on marginal land and either had single storeys to reduce building costs or because some element of self-build was involved.  So the wording which implies 'higher cost' of plot etc should be reviewed or referenced to make clearer the US-only context.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.139.187.94 (talk • contribs) .
:I do agree.  I think as I say below in the UK section whomever wrote that really never looked into it.  It is simply not in any way true in the Pacific Northwest or the Southeast or anywhere else I've lived.  A bit more money would buy a ranch in some time periods, a bit more a brick "Tudor" (a style sold by a developer here in Seattle in the early 1900s) A bit more, maybe a large two story 4 square (4 square rooms make up a larger square on each floor)
:In the west of the US, land plots were divided up and individual houses were built by developers.  Small houses, called cottages and bungalows depending on the what sounds more quaint and stylish at any given time were inexpensive and targeted toward the middle class.  In Seattle, these replaced fisherman's huts, some of which are still around.  Some developers, in some areas set out larger lots and built larger houses.    Really, it was down to style and developer preference and target market.  I know my house fits the definition of a cottage and has a big plot of land.  It is build differently than my neighbors, less expensively, but with more land.  As one walks down the street, it is easy to see which houses were built when and how the neighborhood developed.  None of which supports anything in the article which I think really is bad.  There are good sources for this type of material!  184.76.36.97 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 04:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  US usage 

message: I've added a CSB-US template to the Amercian Bungalows section -- this currently takes up over half the article and only deals with styles in a single country. Bungalows in other countries should be included.
:The UK is very under-represented, even though bungalows are widespread here! If there is really SO much to be said about different US bungalows then maybe the US bungalow situation needs its own, linked, article? At present it does over-dominate this article. Timothy Titus Talk To TT 12:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  US-dominated 

message: I've pulled Canadian Bungalow out from under the American Bungalow heading, leaving American Bungalow to deal exclusively with US use of the term.
While the building practices for this type of structure are likely similar in the two countries, having Canadian as its own subdivision on the same levels and American and Irish lets us focus on aspects of the Canadian building that are uniquely Canadian.
While I haven't added any material to the main article, I expect the paragraph about bungalows in Calgary is very similar to bungalows in Edmonton.  Both cities are in the same part of Canada and grew up together.  So building styles that were popular in one city at one time will be similar to building styles that were popular in the other city at the same time.
Same might also be true of other cities and communities on the Canadian prairies like Regina, Saskatoon and Winipeg.
199.213.199.33 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've noted that "bungalow" is used in two different manners in Canada - in Alberta it is very common to see log cabins advertised as vacation rental bungalows, as the lead to this article describes is the practice in South Africa. I've added this info to the article.139.48.25.61 (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Bungalow 

message: When I was attending elementary and middle school in america, the word bungalow was used to refer to temporary buildings.  They usually had raised foundations and were placed on playground tarmac when attendance for the school outgrew the original buildings.  This caused confusion for me later in life when really nice houses were refered to as Bungalow.  I was visiting this article in hopes to find out how the temporary buildings aquired this name.  Anybody have any references that explain this?  Should this article include temporary buildings as part of its definition?  Thanks. 76.245.122.155 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the UK temporary classrooms like those you have described are called Portacabins. 80.2.199.66 (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Temporary Buildings 

message: In Brisbane, perhaps because traditionally most buildings were made of wood, and often on stilts, the word bungalow is scarcely used, including by estate agents. In Adelaide, where the buildings are mainly brick, it is in regular usage, and bungalows sprawl for miles. I'm not sure what the siuation is in other Australian cities. Millbanks (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Australia

message: I see this stuff on here abouth this page being part of project Chicago or whatever, but what happened to the Chicago bungalow section? I remember it being on here before. Did some Chicago hater delete it or something??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.151.85 (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF Happened to the Chicago Bungalow??? 

message: "In Britain and North America a bungalow today is a residential house, normally detached,"
Detached from what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.145.251.34 (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Other buildings. As opposed to townhouses &c. — LlywelynII 14:04, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Detached

message: If bungalows are a "type of house, with varying meanings across the world," then why are there so many photos of American/European houses and nothing else?  I'm working on an article about a national park in Madagascar, and I was going to link to this article, but I'm afraid the over-abundance of Western-centric images will give the wrong idea about the kind of housing offered at the park.  Could someone please help balance out this article? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo bias? 

message: I have added a section on Bungalow in present day Bangladesh.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahmanha (talk • contribs) 18:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bungalow in Bangladesh 

message: I there anyone who has information and would be willing to create a section about the tens of thousands of beech bungalows which once covered the Rockaway Peninsula in Queens, New York?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atefrat (talk • contribs) 08:14, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Rockaway, Queens|The Rockaways]], Queens, New York 

message: Implicit I believe in the term "bungalow" is that is not the normal type of house in the area in question, hence the use of the exotic Bengali term. So much so that in Britain many people do not seem to categorise a "bungalow" as a house at all and believe by definition a house has to have two or more storeys.
I believe this is probably why the word "bungalow" is not used in South Africa except for holiday homes, as it is extremely common for a house to be single storey and it is more common to think of a house only having one storey unless specified otherwise (ie a double-storey house).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.254.132 (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This comment doesn't make much sense. Bungalows can be double-story and are not a synonym for (let alone replacement of) single-story house. — LlywelynII 14:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural aspect of single or double storey houses as the 'norm'. 

message: Contra the current wording of the article, Lancaster very clearly states (first few pages) that the ratty condition of the Company and Raj's dak bungalows gave the term a very low status. It was the verandas that people considered posh. — LlywelynII 14:09, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Status

message: There are a few issues with this section. First, it mentions that such single story residences are suitable for elderly and wheelchair users but ironically shows only photos of houses with stairs leading up to the main entrance. Second, the cost and design considerations seem to be informed only by the American use of the term. I think this section should be moved after the section on global differences in the usage of bungalow and should reflect that the cost and design of a bungalow will also vary by region more clearly.
--Sweeeetheart (talk) 08:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cost and design considerations section 

message: In quite a few places in this Article the former name 'Allahabad' has been used whereas the current BJP State government in power changed the name to 'Prayagraj' about two years ago [sometime in 2018] and 'Prayagraj' is the present official name. [There still exists a separate Wikipedia article on 'Allahabad' and that too should be cahnged to 'Prayagraj/Allahabad'. People may not like these changes but they are a historical fact so the old name may be retained in brackets when first used in an Article. I am surprised some Indian editor has not noticed this and made the appropriate corrections. (I myself am not an Indian and have never been). Sorry if this Section offends anyone. Abul Bakhtiar (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prayagraj/Allahabad city of Uttar Pradesh: 

message: Bungalo is not a house, it is 2A03:EC00:B97B:62EE:F99B:B8BE:ED22:8DB8 (talk) 11:52, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bungalo is not a house 

message: At :Commons:Category:Bungalow Magazine, 1918, thanks to Seattle Public Library we now have a nearly complete run of Bungalow Magazine, published in Seattle 1912-1918, entirely devoted to  (the U.S. sense of) this topic. Someone may find it worth mining. Or further categorizing (I did year-by-year categorizations, but nothing more.) - Jmabel | Talk 01:03, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bungalow Magazine 

message: The text begins with a definition: "only single-story". The first six[!] images of the article show two- and even a three-storey house. You may imagine my disbelieve, when you see the seventh picture: the "Kanzlerbungalow". This is exactly, what the definition of bungalow looked like in Germany in the 60s and 70s, a flat(-roofed) box, sometimes l-shaped (sheltering the terrace), masoned, with basement; every other form of a free standing residence is a house or a villa. The text is not contradictory until the parparagraph "By regions", mainly  alternating between Asia and European countries, which is quite confusing, and, again, the pictures are many, and manyfold. The following "styles" are exclusively regional styles in the US, that may be (or not) called bungalow. It is a frustrating read, especially because of the abundance of pictures that seem to illustrate everything other than the text (or the lemma). Maybe there simply is no practical definition of bungalow in America. In Europe, in Ireland, UK, the Netherlands and German speaking regions at least the understanding seems to be similar: (relatively) low-cost family homes (to get old in). 
A clear etymological and historic explanation with a poignant example (or more) would be great. With the examples from Asia it is hard to tell, if there wasn't a mutual influence, back and forth. MenkinAlRire 20:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this lemma was a house it would collapse