Talk:Australian architectural styles

message: These authors break the Australian styles into six periods, and then produce a list within those as follows:
:Old Colonial Period 1788 - c. 1840; Victorian Period c. 1840 - c. 1890; Federation period c. 1890 - c. 1915; Inter-War Period c. 1915 - c. 1940; Post-War Period c. 1940 - 1960; Late Twentieth Century Period 1960 - 
I'll list the styles they give by separate edit--A  Y  Arktos 08:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A possible list of styles taken from Apperley, Irving and Reynolds 

message: "The term Architectural styles can be used to describe the architectural style of all buildings, but it is primarily used in conjunction with residential buildings, as they account for a greater percentage of buildings overall. Throughout this article a complete list of each architectural style in Australia and summaries on the major styles can be found.  It is generally acepted within Architectural and Historical communities that Melbourne, Victoria contains the greatest depth of styles in Australia. Therefore, it serves as the basis for an analysis of Architectural Styles in Australia."
Removed this part from the intro - The article should be about styles of all types of buildings - here in Canberra plenty of non-residential buildings are thought of in terms of their style - Cameron offices is Brutalist, the National Library is classical, edmund barton is international etc. Also is it really accepted that Melbourne has the greatest depth of styles? While this is a perfectly good introduction for an essay, it does not suit Wikipedia's WP:NPOV style - there are likely to be other editors who will add information which is not just about Melbourne. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The introduction now contains the assertion "Australian architectural styles are as diverse as the origins of the Australian people and the wide continent they inhabit."  I don't think so, for example there was, and is, no indigenous style.  Some of the rest of ny qualms perhaps relate to the prportion of representation, but still, Asian styles seem to be a pastiche (do I mean this word?) rather than relating to those ethnic groups' origins.  I think we really need to watch the generalisations, cite sources for opinions, and preferaby stick to verifiable information--A  Y  Arktos 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indigenous structures are not an architectural style.  The commonly understood scope of  Architectural style does not encompass such structures.  Even the term Vernacular architecture does not include such structures in scope.  Because of their nature, I doubt whether any survive European settlement and the diversity of examples is much less today than was.  Like our understanding of indigenous language, most cultural significance, if there was any, associated with these structures is probably lost.--A  Y  Arktos 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect introduction, and it far surpasses my first attempt. Nick carson 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: *I think the breakdown can really thought of by period first then perhaps use and that this would be generally held.  For example people would look at a church, a railway station or a house and say that is from the Victorian era.  Of course it is generally obvious whether the building is residential or otherwise.  The source I have referred to above, does take use into account - for example several periods have specific eccleciastrical styes.  
:I fully concur there should be no one source, but the book I have referenced above is a basic Australian uni textbook for the history of architecture and borrowed heavily from JM Freeland's definitive Architecture in Australia: A History.  I have no difficulty with any variation to their classification, nor a merger of some of the finer distinctions they draw.  But I do believe in authorities (Wikipedia:Cite sources).  My next steps, in between a schedule of domestic and other duties, will be to try and develop some galleries, illustrating the styles, on this talk page.  Regards--A  Y  Arktos 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is an excellent book on Australian architecture, I added the list you put here to the article in a rough form, which can be expanded hopefully. Im not sure whether the definitions should be by period or by residential/non-residential. While many of the styles such as gothic revival apply to both residential & non-residential it does make some sort of sense putting all the house styles and building styles together. Now that it seems to be accepted that encyclopedic galleries are ok at wikipedia there could be a page of Gallery of Australian architectural styles which has all the thumbnail images with an explanation of which style they are? -- Astrokey44|talk 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel this residential and non-residential split is deffinatly required, and I don't feel there is any need to create seperate articles as it will most deffinatly further complicate things. However, if the ammount of information grows too big for one article then it can deffinatly be split into 2 seperate articles "Australian architectural styles - Residential" and "Australian architectural styles - Non-Residential", but for now I believe the one article is the best solution. Nick carson 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is starting to get very long and unfortunately there is not that much depth in the Residential section which could be fleshed out more if there was more space and less scrolling.  I propose that now is the right time to split it into two separate articles.--Biatch 01:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primary split: residential/non-residential or by period? 

message: I'd copy-edit the article, but missing information in the lead makes it hard to start the job. For example:
:Australian architectural styles range in scope from colonial architecture erected by the British from 1788 [to what?]. 
:...  hence while the British would like to be reminded of their Gothic churches and Tudoresque cottages of a perfect England. [needs comma and further clause]
Can someone oblige? Tony 11:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Too many of us have had a go at it and hence its lack of coherence so far.  Feel free to be bold, but I will try to remedy.  Some of the ideas should be below, for example, reminders of Britain.  It still is in early stages.--A  Y  Arktos 20:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I dont think the sentence "guiding force in the world of modern architecture" is really appropriate since Australia probably hasnt had that big an impact on world architecture, but I wasnt sure what to replace it with -- Astrokey44|talk 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am unaware of any claims that Australia, or any Australian architect, has to be a "guiding force".  I support the recent edit that removed the assertion.--A  Y  Arktos 07:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queries concerning the lead 

message: I am concerned about the section on "Locations of Architectural Styles" and the immediately following one on mapping styles.  The survey is not even the slightest comprehensible or comprehensive.  Nor I think can it be developed meaningfully.  Certainly the major cities have lots of buildings.  Examples of less recent styles however are excellently preserved in rural and regional locales.  The section was included in the original iteration of the article but has not gone anywhere and as it stands is misleading.  I propose to remove it but wanted to allow discussion or improvement first.--A  Y  Arktos 07:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the paragraph should remain, but the lists such as "Styles in Hobart" etc. should be removed -- Astrokey44|talk 13:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locations of Architectural Styles 

message: I am confused by the term Waterfall for Art deco is the term Waterfall common terminology in Australia for 1930s style architecture?  The house illustrated as "Waterfall" is indeed Art deco - (or more accurately Streamline Moderne) the influence of which was often, among other things, the ocean going liners of the era - decks\terraces, large curved windows and balconies.  Lloyd Wrights Falling water was iconic because of its dependence on a  series of self-supporting cantilevers which do not appear to be at all evident in the photograph.  If Waterfall is the term in Australia (I don't know, I've no reason to believe it is not except for a lack of confirmation on google) then I really don't see how Wright's building can be the influence. Falling water site. Giano | talk 12:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Waterfall 

message: Yes, there was indigenous residential architecture.... I mean REAL buildings .... hang in there and I will add the info and cite the references, if you are patient.
--Amandajm 08:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous Architecture 

message: "Australian architectural styles have been basically exotic and derivative. Until recent times building styles were only slightly modified by climate, materials and skills." 
I don't like this intro. It's negative. 
I think that it is true, in that almost ALL architecture of most countries during the period has been derivative. I think that the word "exotic" is misplaced here, because it is not clear to your-average-reader what is meant by this at all. Could it mean minarettes and onion shaped domes? While your-average-gardener might understand, your-average HSC student won't. 
Moreover, while derivative in style, Australian domestic architecture has not been so derivative in form.
While it is true that the Brits imported half-timbering and the Dutch brought Dutch-gables and the Greeks brought a love of cast cement columns, Australian Architecture has been of necessity adaptive towards the climate, materials available and skills. 
In Sydney, to use a very common example, terrace houses with balconies which provied protection from the summer sun and give somewhere sunny to sit in the winter are the rule. Those without balconies are very rare and date from pre 1840. On the other hand, substantial balconies that can be sat upon (rather than a decorative trim) are rare on English terraces. One could of course say that they are derived from New Orleans, or one could see them as a natural response to the climate. 
I think that the intro needs to make a decidedly more positive statement. I'll work on it.
--Amandajm 08:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another example of cultural cringe unfortunately.  There are some distinctively Australian styles, particularly the residential ones.  The true Federation Style was hailed as a "style of our own" in early home magazines.  The Filligree styles of terraces are also distinctively Australian (although similar styles sprang up in areas like New Orleans).  The "Queenslander" is yet another example of an Australian style.  Due to the nature of architecture, however, what isn't derivative.  Almost all European architecture was either based on the classical orders of ancient Greece or ancient gothic styles, and you can't get much more derivative than that !   --Biatch 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The derivative nature of Australian Architecture 

message: Could an example of South Australian architecture be included in picture? I'm not usually parochial, but we do have some stunning public buildings and churches - in Adelaide as well as many country towns. Each state is distinctive because of the types of local materials that were available to the early settlers. In Adelaide, locally sourced limestone and bluestone made for some very attractive buildings. Plenty examples of hideous modern concrete as well, just for the record. Surely SA architecture is worth at least one picture?  JP Psmith 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I agree, the Adelaide area has some stunning buildings and many older than the entire city of Melbourne but until someone can get off their butt and take some pictures of them, they are probably not going to appear here.  Perhaps it is worth taking another trip to over there. --Biatch 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Include SA? 

message: Is a great resource for classification, but it is already out of date.  As a result, I have added some contemporary styles such as Deconstructivist and Sustainable architecture with a handful of examples.  Some other styles which could be added when examples have been sourced (these are probably very rare in Aust) may include Expressionist, Futurist and Retro-Futurist.  --Biatch 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  At least according to Apperley, Irving and Reynolds.  Essentially it is essentially a branch off both the organic and functionalist styles.  It differs in a couple of key ways 1) Organic does not necessarily mean low environmental impact, Does not try to integrate with the earth, and; 2) Sustainable is differentiated through use sustainable technologies such as solar power and water recycling which organic does not. 3) The term 'sustainable' is now commonly accepted in architectural circles, whereas 'organic' is now seldom used.  --Biatch 00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I only have the 1989 edition, which finishes with Late Twentieth Century Immigrants' Nostalgic. So Sustainable doesn't necessarily have an Arts and Crafts influence? Sounds like Sustainable could be applied to a number of styles. Seasalt 08:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Styles not classified by Apperley, Irving and Reynolds 

message: While Apperly Irving and Reynolds wrote a fine book, they are not necessarily definitive. The Federation period has been defined by some others as 1890 to 1918 - the end of WW1 rather than the beginning, making the Inter War period more genuinely Inter War ( ie not including WWI in the period)
I note the division of WW2 at 1940.
As there is generally no such thing as wartime architecture, (or its not recognised in architecture books) the wars seem to be arbitrarily split by authors according to their own interpretation, or at least, thats the impression I have from my own interest in timber framed Victorian and Federation (Edwardian with distinguishable Australian decorative motifs) buildings. Does anyone else have any information on the variability or definitiveness of these dates?
Seasalt 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Federation Period

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Australian architectural styles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223235418/http://www.canterbury.nsw.gov.au:80/library/resource/resthous.htm to http://www.canterbury.nsw.gov.au/library/resource/resthous.htm#styles
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified