Talk:Georgian architecture

message: American editors whose only experience of Georgian architecture is in Colonial American architecture and neo-Georgian need to be careful not to ascribe localisms, such as columns of painted wood or ship-lap clabboards (inherited from East Anglian vernacular architecture), to describe the style as a whole. --Wetman 20:18, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Point well taken, but you should not assume that I am Ameircan simply because I write about it. etc. I checked on some books and found no reference to East Anglian vernacular. At any rate, if you can verify the fact that US Georgian wood buildings have as their source East Anglian buildings then you should put it in. It would be a good addition.Brosi 00:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My point was a general one, not a personal one. American colonial Georgian architecture is a provincial reflection: it does not define the style. That the clapboard siding of East Anglia is the prototype for New England clapboarding is a commonplace.  Isn't it remarked upon in passing in any survey of American colonial architecture? --Wetman 07:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Avoid localisms

message: Yes College of William and Mary is not the best example. Feel free to change it. Faneille Hall in Boston is better, not a classic case either. The main problem I have is ambiguous difference between the Georgian Style and those buildings built during the reigns of all the king George, i.e. Georgian architecture. The term could refer to both. There were a lot of byuildings during the reigns of the king that does not conform to what is now known as the Georgian Style. Should this be discussed?  I.e. how would you rank St. Mary Woolnoth, by Nicholas Hawksmoor). It is often listed as an example of Georgian architecture but is it Georgian in the stylistic sense? Perhaps you know.Brosi 21:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The college of William and Mary (completed 1702) was an unlucky hit: famously one of the very few Baroque structures in the colonies. "Georgian style" simply applies to classicizing buildings built during the reigns of the Georges: "flourishing mainly under George III" is an artifact of insufficient experience with Georgian buildings outside USA: could the reader suppose that fewer structures were built?. Not every chicken coop built was "Georgian": that's what is expressed by the expression "vernacular" building". A good on-line article that sets "Georgian" (which is an American "synonym" for "Classicizing") colonial architecture in historical context is James Deetz, "In Small Things Forgotten: The Archaeology of Early American Life" skim down to p. 110. Deetz gives a sense of building practice.  --Wetman 07:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK You can please remove William and Mary - I found the example in one of my books taht listed it as Georgian - maybe not a good book. But what would a more proper example be in the US. There are dozens of houses, but I was thinking of something a bit more noteworthy. How about the the Governor's Palace in Williamsburg, Virginia (1706-1714)?Brosi 15:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another unlucky shot: the Governor's Palace, Williamsburg, Virginia, was recreated in 1930-34, based on a survey of the foundations, remarks in letters and a contemporary engraving. The interiors are Neo-Georgian, the architecture is in the manner of Sir Christopher Wren. Perhaps British and Irish examples would make more dependable illustrations. --Wetman (talk) 04:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Georgian Style/Georgian architecture 

message: I've flagged the article for expansion, this is a top importance subject and the article has a long way to go to cover the subject adequately. ProfDEH (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to add a link to the preceding Queen Anne Style architecture till I looked at it. Words fail me. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion 

message: From this article it seems that Georgian architecture is so-called because the buildings were built during the reign of kings named George. However, what characteristics of this architecture made it distinctive from architecture elsewhere in affluent parts of continental Europe, or indeed from the styles extant in Britain before the reign of the Hanovers? How much of it was what one might term a "national" architecture? 79.97.154.238 (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: How was it distinctive from, say, French architecture?

message: I have added two photos to the end of the gallery to show Georgian Revival styles, as I do not believe it necessary to create a whole new wiki page for it, as it was  nowhere near the scope or volume of gothic revival. It's informative and shows people the different ways the architecture was used in the early 20th century, such as Page Street's flamboyant checkerboard appearance. Most people won't even see it as they don't scroll down that far. The architect Edwyn Lutyens is referenced in the article specifically so I believe at the very least one of his architectural creations is pertinent. I'm not intrusively adding photos or think we should start a whole new wiki for a tiny stub. Adding the work of Vincent Haris is hardly less relevant than the photo of the 2006 building in Canada that was added. 
I have politely moved the photos to the gallery, and I don't think we should delete them. At the very least there should be a photo of  Page Street, London by Edwin Lutyens (1930), as that was a unique building that shows how neo-georgian architecture was being adapted for modern times as well as being relevant to the neo-georgian section of the article. If the gallery photos are deleted the photo should be next to that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat (talk • contribs) 20:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there is enough of it to justify an article, you just don't want to do it. I'm beginning to be tempted myself. If you search on Luyens & Neo-Georgian you get Park Lane not Page Street - try it. Although it is a mainly English style, if we had more photos they should be more global and much more typical.  Congratulations on choosing the photo of Bristol City Hall that is the least Neo-G possible!  What is the obession with adding this wierd building - whatever it is, Neo-G is little to do with it. Johnbod (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *After conflict: If an architectural work was created after the death of George IV (1830) (I would personally argue the cut off date of George III’s incapacitation and start of the principal Regency of 1811) it cannot be Georgian. By default it must be neoclassical. Lutyens was not a Georgian architect, nor were his buildings particularly Georgian in style, those that took their inspiration from the 18th century, were really neo-Baroque. So really there are better pages for “Georgian-style” buildings. Giano   (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: *Giano, "Neo-Georgian" is certainly a thing, and it redirects here, and has always been covered in the last section. But as we know from the American interpretation of such terms as "neoclassical", "Greek Revival", & most recently "Romanesque Revival", constant vigilance is required to stop the spiral into meaningless broadness. Why Bristol City Hall, looking like Dracula's castle, has suddenly been chosen to be the poster boy is a mystery.  Stepping back the facade at every level - such a Georgian feature!  Johnbod (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Useful link -The Architecture of the Estate: Modern Times. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, I don’t edit this page, I just for unknown reasons have it on my watchlist. I don’t like the term Neo-Georgian or Georgian either. Georgian is too big a scope, so consequently Neo-Georgian must be even harder to define. Anyway, I just googled BCH, and, your right, it’s horrible. The portals remind me of those very badly designed Neo-Byzantinish  1930s Catholic Churches one finds in the prosperous Home Counties towns - the rest is just badly designed civic office architecture - I quite like the canal thing in front. It’s one of those styles Osbert Lancaster probably defined. As I don’t have Mr Lancaster readily at hand to consult, I shall name its style myself: Confused Municipal. Giano   (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neo-Georgian 

message: i think what is and isn't georgian is open to intepretation, but i think even to a layman if you were to show them a photo of bristol town hall the sash windows and minimalistic style looks far more georgian then the more ornate victorian architecture  or anything like art deco of the 1930s
i actually added the photos because i wanted people to realise that the georgian/classical styles don't necessarily follow strict timelines. i think the page street photo would be great to have next to the neo-georgian area of the page. i myself used to think architecture followed strict timelines until i noticed things like the british museum being a pastiche of earlier classical works and of course of ancient greece and rome. i think what makes it georgian would be the type of brickwork
If  Bristol Town Hall was to be built today, I do think it would be attacked as a Georgian pastiche. People don't care for small details.
It would be great if there was a neo-georgian page, though. Stuff like Welwyn Garden City is fascinating.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Menacinghat (talk • contribs) 22:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Alas, you would find many describing WGC as “Queen Anne.” Giano   (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  neo-georgian 

message: I’ve  been looking at this apartment block for some time and wondering if we are being a little too eager to stereotype in calling these buildings “neo-Georgian.” While there are sash windows and the hint of a parapet, there’s precious little else that’s Georgian. In fact the other sides of the buildingS appear to have recessed balconies etc. While there are Georgian influences, I’m note sure there are sufficient to make the building neo-Georgian. Giano   (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, they seem to be a playful hybrid of Modernism with Georgian details used to make a completely un-Georgian whole. I wish this editor would go and write an article on neo-Georgian, ideally not restricting himself to English examples. Johnbod (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand the term, in architecture, “neo” means a revived form, it does not mean a new interpretation. While that form can take advantage of newer building developments (double glazing, plastic impersonating wood and cavity walls etc), it does not mean entirely new features such as recessed balconies, chequerboard walls etc. In short, a “neo” building must be recognisable to its earlier form and I’m not sure this building is. I’m open to being convinced otherwise, but at present I don’t think this building is neo-Georgian. However, I don’t really like the term “Georgian” much either, as to me, it’s all too often used wrongly or when a better and more accurate definition should be used. Giano   (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Really?

message: I have replaced the Lutyen's building with the one you uploaded--2A00:23C4:5385:A200:DD3:8585:6F7B:E62 (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  neo-georgian lutyens building