Talk:Tudor Revival architecture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Distracting blank spaces[edit]

Formatting that encases the framed table of contents in text, in just the way a framed map or image is enclosed within the text, is now available: {{TOCleft}} in the HTML does the job.

Blank space opposite the ToC, besides being unsightly and distracting, suggests that there is a major break in the continuity of the text, which may not be the case. Blanks in page layout are voids and they have meanings to the experienced reader. The space betweeen paragraphs marks a brief pause between separate blocks of thought. A deeper space, in a well-printed text, signifies a more complete shift in thought: note the spaces that separate sub-headings in Wikipedia articles.

A handful of thoughtless and aggressive Wikipedians revert the "TOCleft" format at will. A particularly aggressive de-formatter is User:Ed g2s

The reader may want to compare versions at the Page history. --Wetman 20:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tudorbethan moved to Tudor architecture; I've moved it back[edit]

Please read this before you move the page.

Tudorbethan seems to have been moved to Tudor architecture without any discussion (that I can find). I'm moving it back, as the two concepts are far from synonymous. Tudor architecture is a particular style of domestic British architecture of the 16th and early 17th centuries, whereas Tudorbethan refers, as the article states, to a 19th- and 20th-century pastiche of Tudor architechture, which emphasized especially "the simple, rustic and the less impressive aspects of Tudor architecture". So, different century, different style. Bishonen | talk 08:32, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now without any further consultation it has been moved to Tudorbethan architecture; The move has been summarised as a minor edit, a page move is not minor, and should be discussed before it occurs. I not that User: Neutrality who carries out these heavy handed moved is not a contributor to this page. Giano | talk 10:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the house displayed in this article is not Tudor style, if anything it is more Lutyensesque, arts and crafts, early 20th century. Giano | talk 06:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the image and made some alterations to the page. to define more clearly the style. Giano | talk 07:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion below is copied from Talk: Tudor style where the Tudorbethan page originated Giano | talk 10:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page move/merge[edit]

This page since its creation has always been solely concerned with architecture. The title is in fact misleading, as Tudor style, could be concerned with dress, or in fact anything generating from that era. I propose that the content here is moved and incorporated at the Tudorbethan page, which is the more common name for pseudo-Tudor architecture. This page could then be left a a redirect until some one wishes to write a page about complete Tudor style. Does anyone have a comment, objection or better idea. Giano | talk 12:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I haven't come across the expression "Tudorbethan". Is it an American usage? Deb 21:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
No sadly, it's English, and becoming estate agent jargonese. How do you feel about Neo-Tudor Giano | talk 21:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think Neo-Tudor's better. But it really depends whether it's recognised by the kind of people (don't mean to sound snobbish) who are attracted by that style! Deb 22:14, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"Tudorbethan" is modelled on John Betjeman's 1933 coinage "Jacobethan" which he used to describe the mixed revival style that had been called things like "Free English Renaissance". "Tudorbethan" takes it a step further. We do have a serious article on Googie, after all. Whatever is decided, "Tudor style" should redirect to it, until someone finds a unity in the styles of Henry VII and Elizabeth I. --Wetman 22:21, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't "Tudor style" be a disambiguation page in this case? Deb 22:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea Deb, and .....umm yes that did sound a just a tiny bit snobbish - take it you don't live surrounded by lacquered horse brasses and "olde worlde" charm, under a roof of luxuriant "plasti-thatch". Giano | talk 07:01, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there are one or two genuine Tudor properties near me. It puts things in perspective. Deb 08:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC).[reply]
I hate to disagree with my old friend Wetman, but I also think Neo-Tudor is better, but in spite of that I think we should stick with Tudorbethan, as it seems daft creating even more pages on the same subject. You're right Debs real Tudor puts the imitations in their place so it's very hard to write these pages without letting the POV creep in. Giano | talk 13:02, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a number of "Tudorbethan" houses, in fact a whole street of them, in our neck of the wood, every one with a nicely painted-on "half-timbered" look, which covers ordinary brickwork underneath. The owners regularly repaint the "timbers" black every few years or so and the "infills" white. No wonder, architects call it pastiche. Dieter Simon 23:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone actualy like Tudorbethan? Giano | talk 10:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Tudorbethan is the actual term used by the Oxford Dictionary of Architecture for "a style of domestic architecture involving revival of Elizabethan, Jacobean and Tudor architectural elements..." They also carry entries on Tudor architecture for the actual period style, and one on Tudor Revival, but none on Tudor style. I think we might be justified to keep Tudorbethan. It is a bona fide term, although it uses a critical vocabulary. Dieter Simon 00:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus seems to be to retain Tudorbethan make this a disambig page. I've just re-read Tudorbethan, it seems to me to cover the subject quite succinctly, perhaps the images from here could go there, but most of the info here is already there, what little is not can easily be put there. Concerning the redirect, I think this page should first be moved to Tudor style (architecture) then made a redirect. I'll wait a few days to see if anyone else who contributed to Tudor style has a view and then get on with it. Giano | talk 06:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you here, if there is anything Ican do, let me know. Dieter Simon 23:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I've incorporated much of the information here to Tudorbethan. It reads a little clumsily at the moments so all help welcome! Tudor style is now moved to Tudor style (architecture) and all are redirects. So if anyone wants to start a mammoth gargantuan page on all aspects of Tudor style they now can. Giano | talk 13:58, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this page been moved yet again, is it now in the "style" of itself. I'm getting very confused here! Giano | talk 07:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Below moved from User talk:Giano

Did you read the talk page [1] and the discussions of the editors of this page before you, without discussion, changed it? Giano | talk 07:29, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and the discussion was centered entirely around use of the terms Tudor vs. Tudorbethan which the move does not affect. Additionally, even before the move the opening sentence of the article began "The Tudorbethan style..." (italics added by me).--Lordkinbote 07:42, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It should have read Tudorbethan form, as style implies a pastiche, i.e. a copy not the real thing. Are you saying Tudorbethan which is a hybrid pastiche, is now a pastiche of a pastiche.Giano | talk 08:16, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural literacy is never absolute. It's a relative quality. A populist enterprise like Wikipedia is a constant compromise with mediocrity. In general, at Wikipedia the boldest expressions of self-confidence carry the day. --Wetman 12:40, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Victorian Tudor style or Mock Tudor[edit]

We have some Tudor-style buildings in Australia, which for those dating from the ninetenth century are known to architectural historians as Victorian Tudor and to the rest of us as Mock Tudor. The term Tudorbethan is not at all one that I have come across before. The suggestion is that the style is nostalgic for "Merrie England", "fun-loving Henry VIII", Good Queen Bess and Dashing Sir Francis Drake. The competition for a design for the replacement Palace of Westminster (aka London's Houses of Parliament) apparently specified that the style must be Gothic or Elizabethan. (I note the wikipedia article currently says gothic or classical but one of the references for the article also states gothic or Elizabethan as competition parameters).

The Federation Queen Anne style was an evolution from Victorian Tudor and later there was the Inter-war Old English style which drew on the Queen Anne and "Old English styles popularised by Richard Norman Shaw. Shaw's designs were picked up by spec builders and were popular in Australia as reminding people of "Home". They were also seen to provide respectability for the nouveaux riches.

I would prefer if the article was renamed "Mock Tudor" - a term that allows for both the 19th and 20th century styles. Could we test perhaps how much these terms come up. A Google search reveals we already have a Mock Tudor article, illustrated with the same house as this Tudorbethan article! "Mock Tudor" also gets 123,000 google hits. There are only 748 hits for tudorbethan on Google - headed by this article and then a couple of mirrors. Any comments? I had thought from some of the discussion above that the style was used in real estate ads in the UK and hence it might have more google hits. --A Y Arktos\talk 11:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AYArktos, please take note of the type of articles Google and Yahoo throw up about Tudorbethan and Mock Tudor. You will find that the architectural professional websites will mostly talk about Tudorbethan, in juxtaposition to Jacobethan, for example. If we want to make sure that Wikipedia shows quality professional articles, as opposed to non-professional pages, then we must look for them, and be not be blinded by the sheer number of pages the big search engines bring up:
  • I myself own "The Oxford Dictionary of Architecture" that has Tudorbethan and Jacobethan, but no entry for Mock Tudor.
  • RIBA Journal (the organ of the Royal Institute of Architects) talks about Tudorbethan.
  • the Royal Wolverhampton School
  • www.archiseek.com
  • www.periodproperty.co.uk
  • www.surreyhouses.com
  • Professor Mark Swenarton, Professor of Architecture wrote about "Tudor Walters and Tudorbethan: reassessing Britain's interwar suburbs" in his Planning Perspectives
  • www.merton.gov.uk in their grants discussions
  • www.kingston.ac.uk in their conference on the suburbs where again Professor Swenarton talks about the inter-war years...
These are just the first few pages in Yahoo I looked at, while a group called Mock Tudor and their cd's seemed to fill the first pages of Google. You see, even if professionals talk about Mock Tudor, it is usually in a tone of mockingly referring to the style, but please believe it that you really do have a Tudorbethan style as well as a Jacobethan one.
Pleas don't be tempted to change it to Mock Tudor. Dieter Simon 00:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not tempted to move without discussion and concensus. I note moves leave ongoing redirects, thus a search on Tudorbethan will lead to any newly named article. Wikipedia:Naming conventions states: "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." I don't feel Tudorbethan is easily recognised by the majority of English speakers. I have visited England and toured many country houses and don't ever recall the term being used. I don't like the term "Mock Tudor" either, it just seems more recognisable - is there another more acceptable descriptor?--A Y Arktos\talk 11:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But it is the language of the professional. You could say that about anything a professional uses, his tools of trade, his specialised vocabulary, the processes he uses to work in his job. How many lay people would use these terms unless they are in the know, but the professional person knows it by its specialised name, and it will be found under that in all technical manuals and glossaries and the colloquial expressions will only be mentioned by the way. A colloquialism can always be linked to the technical term, but it should not be used as the keyword in such an article.
The "Naming convention" quote you give does have the proviso "generally", and yes, Tudorbethan is not an epithet the average person recognises recognises easily, but that is not the point. We should strive to use the terms the professional uses, however esoteric it may appear to the average person as he/she comes across it. However, that is where Wikipedia linkage comes into it.
By the way, did you know there is already a Wiki article Mock Tudor in existence? An article that does put into perspective its usage within the term "Tudorbethan"? Dieter Simon 12:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do know about Mock Tudor. I think the two articles should be merged but not going there til we have discussed this article. I appreciate your assertion that many professionals use the term Tudorbethan, but certainly not all, and certainly not Australian architectural historians. In Australia, the professional term is Victorian Tudor. The picturesque characteristics of the Tudor style were important to British settlers in Australia for their associations of "Home" and from there to the ideas of security, freedom and comfort. Its popularity here was based on its presence in many English pattern books. After 1890 to World War 1, the style was picked up in Federation Queen Anne, particulalry influenced by Norman Shaw (as per my comments above). After the war, we have Inter-War Old English, the equivalent of Osbert Lancaster's "Stockbroker's Tudor". The text I am reading says Lancaster's coinage was in use for 50 years but has been abandoned because it has come to be regarded simply as a "joke style", yet it is no more or less a joke style than other styles.
What is the term in the US?--A Y Arktos\talk 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AYArktos, how about actually using the existing "Mock Tudor" article and concentrating in it on the Australian styles associated with M.T., such as Victorian Tudor? Would that not be an worthwhile idea?
As for Google, I think you might be on slightly uncertain ground with M.T. If you are going by actual numbers of websites cited by Google, you will find 90% of the first ten pages of ten websites each cited, are about the music by Richard Thompson, called "Mock Tudor". Is that really representative of the actual "Mock Tudor" architectural style? How about a compromise and keep both articles, and develop both with their own content? Dieter Simon 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This chap Richard Thompson must be really something. Dieter Simon 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Forgoing the indents but still a continuation... The issue is in part that the two articles should be merged, hence I want to clarify the name for this one, the more developed of the two articles - a fork is not really a good solution. I don't propose to discuss a merger until this discussion is resolved.
As for Richard Thompson, the Google algorithm brings to the top sites that are more linked too than others. A search without the word music and Thompson - ie "mock tudor" -music -thompson, which seems to rid us of much Mr Thompson but not quite all still seems to bring 54,800 articles - the sheer difference in volume indicates the difference in accepatability of the terms. (An even more refined search built OR building OR architecture "mock tudor" -music -thompson -richard still brough more than 30,000 articles.
I am not wedded to Mock Tudor as a term, it could be Old English, it could be Victorian Tudor, followed by Inter War Old English ... Tudorbethan though is clumsy and not necessarily widespread - my specific resistance to that term is its lack of use in articles on Australian architectural history although the style is used here with significant cultural associations. It is the same style too - a fork just won't get us anywhere. Wikipedia:Content forking states: Wikipedia articles should not be split into multiple articles solely so each can advocate a different stance on the subject.--A Y Arktos\talk 00:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not having replied earlier but have had to attend a sad family occasion. I should like to say that I appreciate your difficulties in reconciling the Australian usage of "Mock Tudor" with that of the UK usage of "Tudorbethan", however this kind of difficulty is probably not unique. One example which might cause a similar prob. is that of Doodlebug versus V-1 flying bomb. During World War II almost all Londoners and people from the Home Counties (those most affected by the flying bombs) would have called them Doodlebugs (and still do in reminiscences) while the official usage is "V-1 flying bombs", and is named so in the Wiki article. To have called them V-1's during the war would have probably caused consternation (the German V for Vergeltungswaffe would have been misunderstood , to say the least). There are probably quite a number of similar colloquialisms. Anyway, thanks for your understanding. Dieter Simon 01:05, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge from Mock Tudor[edit]

Notwithstanding discussion about what this article could be called, there seems no rationale for the current fork.--A Y Arktos\talk 01:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont see the point of the "Mock Tudor" article, Tudorbethan is the correct architectural name. Tudorbethan has all the limited information that is there. I suggest "Mock Tudor" is blanked and made a redirect Giano | talk 17:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly have a problem with the name Tudorbethan, there are two possible alternatives boht architecturally correct Free Tudor which is already a redirect here or Tudor revival. Whatever the result Tudorbethan has to remain a redirect or whatever as it is an accepted architectural term. Giano | talk 11:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have no issue with Tudorbethan remaining a redirect. Would Tudor revival be an acceptable article name to gather this style up into? It is much easier on the tongue.--A Y Arktos\talk 11:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't really understand the problem, A.Y.Arktos, the Uk accepted form is "Tudorbethan", not "Tudor Revival". "T. R." in its British usage "consists of two distinct strands: "Gothic Revival"...of the Commissioners' Gothic type..., and vernacular forms for houses and country cottages associated with the "Picturesque"(ref.: James Stevens Curl, Oxford Dictionary of Architecture, Oxford University Press). These surely are distinct, even if they may be similar. It is almost as though you were trying to rewrite architecture in the UK. As I said, you seemed quite happy with "Mock Tudor" from an Australian point of view. You could have created an article with that in mind. But just to recreate the architectural scene in one country, because you don't like the sound of it in another country's context, doesn't seem right. Dieter Simon 23:10, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I've never heard of Tudorbethan, it's always been known as Mock Tudor to me, and I came to this article from that name. I think it warrants its own article to be honest, it's quite a well known term in England and there is little mention of it here. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was redirected from its own article "Tudorbethan" to her in first place, without the slightest qualms. So, yes, it would have been better off to have its own (original) article. As for your never having heard of Tudorbethan, that surprises me. There are quite a lot of websites out there that are about the term. See [2] for one, but a bit of Googling would soon put you on the right path to the articles. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

21st-century Tudorbethan[edit]

This whole section seems little more than a stick with which to beat modern(ist) architects, portraying them as bullying style-fascists. Needs drastic re-working and references to satisy NPOV criteriaFrFintonStack 03:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user didn't like the statement "Tudorbethan is not popular with modernist architects and is frequently reviled as pastiche". I've found in my own experience, the more I read about a subject the less emphatic my opinions become. Probably just me. I have reverted our aggressive newbie's "NPOV" tag. Wikipedia issues are worked out on Talkpages. Tags are not a weapon. A little background reading makes discussions more interesting. --Wetman 04:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I am not using tags as a 'weapon': I am following wikipedia's guidelines instructing users to be bold in editing pages. The tag is intended as a indicator that a discussion regarding the section is taking place (which is why I have initiated one above) on the talk pages, not that the matter has been discussed and a consensus reached (in which case the section would be altered appropriately rather than tagged), a discussion that the above user seems to be attempting to suppress rather than participate in. I would also suggest that the use of reverts to remove tags reflecting genuine concerns without discussing those concerns is rather more agressive than inserting such tags. I have not deleted or changed anything in the section other to inset a tag to indicate that I felt it did not meet Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines. I thus believe that the accusation of "agressive[ness]" is out of order. I am am interested as to how the above contributor deduced that I objected to the statement, "Tudorbethan is not popular with modernist architects and is frequently reviled as pastiche", without resorting to (clearly unsucessful) mind-reading when in fact the statement I objected to was the following:
"However they would argue that the intellectual intimidation of those who demand traditional styles from the architectural establishment, and the resultant marginalisation of architects who are interested in them, is itself one of the principal causes of the tendency towards banality which is derided by modernists. Even though the architectural establishment has been attempting to suppress the popular preference for traditional styles for several generations, it has had little success to date, and there is little reason to suppose that it will be more successful in the future."
What I do not "like" are paragraphs that consist of little more than a stream of weasel words that present as fact unreferenced takes on contentious issues, using perjorative and emotive language.
I agree that background reading makes discussions more interesting (though again, I would interested in how the above poster has come to believe I have not done so): what is even more important to discussion and understanding is to avoid projecting one's own meaning onto other contributions, suppressing discussion in the process.
I have reinserted the tag.FrFintonStack 14:18, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one wants to read your mind. Why not simply edit the paragraph that offends you so that it suits your point-of-view? --Wetman 16:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because I thought the reasonable and polite thing would be to discuss the matter first, and to try reach a consensus before altering or removing other contributors' material. Since that seems to offend your sensibilities, I will endeavor to be more forthright in future. Also, because I didn't write the paragraph in the first place, I don't have access to any references that might bring the paragraph into line with Wikipedia's 'Avoid weasel words'. I had hoped that someone might see the tag, follow its direction to here, and to reference and/or edit accordingly. In the absence of relevant references, I can't see what the paragraph might contribute, edited by me or not. I'm am not trying to make the paragraph 'suit [my] point-of-view', I am merely attempting to discuss bringing it into line with Wikipedia's guidelines. I suggest you look at the definition of 'twaddle' on your own user page, and let me know if you don't agree that the paragraph in question is a prime exampleFrFintonStack 18:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is all this getting us anywhere, I don't think? I think Wetman is right, go ahead and edit the para if you think it offensive to modern architects and full of POV or whatever. If you actually do that and people don't agree they'll soon change it. After all, the proof of the puddn' is in the eating. Cheer up. Dieter Simon 00:32, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, FrFintonStack, if you Google or Yahoo you will find an awful lot of websites which use the expressions Tudorbethan in the same breath as "pastiche" and it isn't that far removed from common usage these days. Just ignore the Wiki mirror sites and look through the architectural pages, a lot are quite close to the Wikipedia interpretation. You will find material if you really want to edit the article. Dieter Simon 01:14, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I've already explained that it wasn't the suggestion that modernist architects regard Tudorbethan as 'pastiche' that I disagree with, and that I can't quite work out how that assumption was arrived at in the first place. Instead, it was the suggestion that they 'intellectually intimidat[e]' and 'marginalise' architectural traditionalists (I think the major commissions, influence and theoretical prowess of Robert Venturi would suggest otherwise) have been attempting to 'suppress' popular tastes in architecture and are the primary cause of 'banality' in domestic architecture. Apart from the nNPOV language and overtones of conspiracy theory, none of these claims are referenced and all are attributed to some mysterious third party (yet again, please see Wiki's policy on weasel words and original research). I've also already explained why I didn't go ahead an edit the page: I can remove the perjorative language, but that will still leave unreferenced and weasel-worded claims. I'd rather not delete an entire paragraph without giving its original creator (or anyone else) the chance to add relative references, the absence of which prompted my objection in the first place. That's all I've been trying to do here, and something I've explained above. It's strange that Wetman originally chided me for being 'aggressive' when the problem now seems to be that I attempted to discuss my objections rather than proceeding apace:FrFintonStack 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well this is an intersting brawl I've stumbled on - (shirtsleaves up, waving fists in Marquis of Queensbury rules style, floats like a rhino, sings like a she). My first thought is that there is an entire article on it's own that could be written about the reasons and effects of architectural disengagement from housing, and why it's tacked on at the back of tudorbethan is bit pecular in my opinion, especially considering that we don't have a Residential architecture article (or anything like it that I can find - please let me know if we do). Many other styles are prone to plunder and violation by volume housebuilders in the uk. So maybe it should be taken elsewhere gentlemen.
Regarding referencing, I have a copy of Charlies book "A vision of Britain" (bought for 50p from oxfam with complementary childs sribbling on the flycover - presumably by the 'monarch to be' himself) - Whilst he's not exactly erudite, he does put forward an argument against modernism and for "traditional values" - he might be a good source for some of it (I do wonder if citing charles might infringe "reliable sources" but I guess it would be ok with the right caveats). Another source regarding the "pastiche" designs etc would be the Architects' Journal - Charles sparked a debate within the architectural community about modernism in the mid to late 80's, some of which is recorded in the AJ and will provide rich pickings I'm sure - I'm a long way from my Alumni Library at the moment but when I get over there I'll have a look. Another book I've got on the shelf is "Real architecture" written, I think at least in part, by the pre-eminent would be time-lord Leon Krier (Charles's favourite architect I believe) - There's plenty of bitchy swipes at him in the AJ too. We should look at Poundbury - Charles again - actually, perhaps we're getting to the source of the conspiracy here, was Diana really an ardent modernist? Were her blobitecture proposals to extend Buckingham palace ther real reasons she was bumped of by an aesthetically conservative MI5? Anyway we could contrast poundbury with all the New urbanism in city centres like Manchester and Leeds and parallel a nice contrast of british cultures in the earl 2000's.
I agree that the conspiracy theory nonsense should be removed. PPG 3 should be added as should Towards an Urban Renaissance all of the recent CABE documentation and the TAN 12 welsh guidance - actually I seem to remember that it talks about monotony and pattern book approaches to housing. So how about it chaps - The British housing industry? --Mcginnly | Natter 14:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from 21st century tudorbethan[edit]

"Tudorbethan is not popular with modernist architects and is frequently reviled as pastiche or indeed non-architecture[citation needed]. However it is much more popular than modern styles with much of the British public[citation needed], and this split can be seen as evidence of the estrangement of the architectural establishment from public taste[citation needed].

In the early 21st century United Kingdom, new Tudorbethan housing still predominates[citation needed], as "Colonial" dominates in the US, although this [is?] often perfunctory in execution. Even traditionalists who approve of the use of historical styles in contemporary architecture regret that most Tudorbethan architecture these days is adulterated with other styles and therefore flawed. However they would [delete 'would' here and cite] argue that the intellectual intimidation of those who demand traditional styles from the architectural establishment, and the resultant marginalisation of architects who are interested in them, is itself one of the principal causes of the tendency towards banality which is derided by modernists[citation needed][wow!]. Even though the architectural establishment has been attempting to suppress the popular preference for traditional styles for several generations, it has had little success to date, and there is little reason to suppose that it will be more successful in the future[citation needed][double wow]. This standoff is not conducive to the construction of quality housing because commercial housebuilders are obliged to respond to public taste that is often conditioned by a romantic traditional-looking cottage style idealism, and therefore houses are completed largely without the participation of high calibre architects." - moved from article by Mcginnly

Good move, as a retired architect I rather hoped that someone would sort out this poorly written piece, that makes a good start. By definition modernist architects like modernism, which to me is quaintly old-fashioned in a 1930s sort of way. Builder's tudorbethan is certainly popular with home buyers, and can be done well or badly. The article's photos (which I took) are of houses with an element of fun, not done terribly well and wildly out of place in the west of Scotland where traditional styles are quite different. Further round the coast, an estate in the style is built on a hillside with superb views west over the Clyde obscured by small-paned plastic windows with fake leaded glass. Architects and Planners have frequently made efforts to develop styles reflecting local traditions while being suited to modern conditions: a classic from the 70s was the "Essex Design Guide"[3][4] which took care to set out the local vernacular in that county, but was used by builders as a style book in areas with completely different traditions. ... dave souza, talk 18:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The decline of the style in C20 architectural practice, and its low reputation in architectural writing are insufficiently handled now, with just the John Betjeman poem. The text has been deleted: the other half of the operation consists in replacing it with improved text. --Wetman 19:23, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've sat in planning meetings trying to fathom what aspect of the 'local vernacular' planners are looking for in residential schemes. Often there is nothing appropriate to be found. Rural traditions might produce a local vernacular - but urban settings in the UK, interestingly actually have a tradition of pattern book housing, from the Georgian, through victorian terraces and villas to Voysey inspired suburbia (a counter argument I've yet to put to a planner).
I like the essex design guide - but it's use, to me was always one of shifting the focus away from strict implementations of separation distances and Highways authorities rigid insistances of parking and road standards - shift the cars to the backs and lose the 'line of steel' that disrupts street frontage - these are planning issues not stylistic ones and so can be implemented nationally - most planning authorities attempt to publish design guides these days, but I wonder that the, now compulsory, Design statements acknowledge a failure to effectively 'pin down' the vernacular or, by being prescriptive, stiffle innovation. The double 'bite of the cherry' that highways authorities have always received - being consulted at planning stage, and then making further demands during Section 38 negotiations - remains and acts as a barrier to good design unless you get a highways bloke, who's prepared to think rather than just implement the rules.
I'm not sure tudorbethan is that popular with home buyers these days - the market has moved on, doubtless to return to it in a few years, but these house styles are cyclical. I think it's fair to say that traditional building styles sell better than modern ones in suburban settings - but a lot of new urban development is modern (small m) and the market is reflecting a greater acceptance of other styles as traditional values, wierdly upheld by the baby boomers, are superceded in favour of their children's technological aspirations.
The real debate for me is whether modernism, as a style based on the socialist optimism of the 1920/30s and of technological progress (industrial machines for living), is ever an appropriate style for the domestic realm. If anything, we no longer live in an industrial age anyway, it isn't the progressive power of heavy industry that will emancipate us any more, so, as you say, why should modernism hark back to that age - it's as much an anachronism as tudorbethan is. --Mcginnly | Natter 19:32, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously know more about this than I do, as my new build experience was mostly in other areas, save for one sheltered housing development which was a one-off building: the essence of much "spec builders" work is use of pattern book housing which is subject to severe constraints of requirements and costs. The Design statement guidance pdf linked from that article is interesting, as it asks for attention to "context... what the place looks like and the character that is derived from existing buildings, landscape features and movement routes." With one off designs that's an obvious aim, with pattern book work the options may be restricted to choosing which patterns and having limited options in cladding. There are many styles used which may hint at Eric Lyons and Span Housing rather than the pseudo-Georgian or Tudorbethan pastiche that can make designers wince. Around here, many people have had one-off houses built in very modernist styles – big windows, shallow pitched or sometimes flat roof, timber cladding – which is obviously popular with a minority. The "Grand Designs" tv programme reflected this sort of interest, as well as cases such as the prefabricated green oak framed house. Builder's Tudorbethan is a sort of poor relation, essentially mock medieval elements stuck in a Barbie doll sort of way on to standard house types that could easily be constructed in another style – and probably are. However, they do add variety and can be done well. So in summary, it's probably fair to say that the style can be associated with the problems of repetitive designs put together with little regard for place, and decorative elements that appear particularly false to design purists, but this can also apply to other mass market styles. .. dave souza, talk 22:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since variants were being re-added, I've revamped the section a bit with statements which I consider more justifiable. I'd be cautious about saying no modern architects work in the style: some Royals had a big mansion built by a respected modern architect in a style which reflected Tudor brick construction, though not ye olde half timbering, and I've a dim memory of Mathews / RMJM doing a big council offices building with pitched tiled roofs which was vaguely in the style. I've disambiguated some trade name to Fiber cement siding, but here the name that springs to mind is Supalux, the asbestos free descendant of Asbestolux fibre reinforced building board. Dunno what people use now, but all the recent half-timbering round here is in uPVC. ...dave souza, talk 18:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tudorbethan name invoked[edit]

I recently created an article named Irving Jacob Reuter, which involves his estate. I am no architect, and was wondering if I could get some assistance with it. Some of the links are there, so you should be able to get a view of the building. I just wanted to make sure that my reference to Tudorbethan was correct.

Your learned assistance would be appreciated.

Thanks.

7&6=thirteen 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC) Stan[reply]

Medieval cottages[edit]

The emphasis was on the simple, rustic and the less impressive aspects of Tudor architecture, imitating in this way medieval cottages or country houses.

I don't understand this sentence. If Tudorbethan is copying Tudor, how is that "in this way" imitating medieval cottages? Is Tudorbethan imitating Tudor buildings which themselves were imitating medieval cottages? Can someone explain? Marnanel (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Tudor Revival architecture" moved back to "Tudorbethan architecture"[edit]

Have moved "Tudor Revival architecture" back to "Tudorbethan architecture" because it was not discussed in the discussion pages of Tudorbethan architecture at all. It is no good discussing a move of the article to be moved in the wrong discussion page if it then cannot be seen in the discussion pages of the article that is to be moved. Please follow the right procedure. Readers cannot guess that a move has been discussed somewhere else. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having it out over the name[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 21:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Tudorbethan architecture → Tudor Revival architecture — The name here has been controversial from early on, as can be seen above. When we discussed the corresponding categories, the consensus then was that Tudorbethan was a deprecatory synonym, and that Tudor Revival was to be preferred if only because US references almost without exception use it, and the exceptions always use neo-Tudor; we did not find a consistent pattern in Britain except that Tudorbethan was very frequently used dismissively. Since Tudor Revival was used everywhere and understood everywhere, we decided to prefer it at the time.Mangoe (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point really is that nothing in the talk page of "Tudorbethan architecture" ever referred to these "Category:... pages. There was nothing there to draw attention to the fact that this method of discussion was being used for "T.b a.". Now of course,you are mentioning it, why was it not there before? This has always been part of my watchlist, and it never came up for discussion in these pages. Looks pretty underhand to me. Dieter Simon (talk) 16:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you will check the history you will see that a bot made the move. Can we discuss the merits of the names? Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Looks pretty underhand to me." This kind of language, coming from an admin, is very disappointing. I can assure you (as the CfD nominator) that I have no particular axe to grind one way or another regarding this term. I just wanted consistency, or a solid reason why this splinter category should exist, and none could be supplied, even by its creator. That's all I cared about, period. Please address the topic as Mangoe suggests. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I realize it was Cydebot, Mangoe . However, what I am saying is that some indication should have been made that this was being discussed elsewhere rather than on the talk pages of this original article, so that we can all join in the discussion . As far as I can tell by the history and talk pages, this was not done, correct me if I am wrong! By the time the Bot action took place it was too late to realize what was happening. I think this most important, but if I am wrong, please tell me. Ok, Shawn of Montreal, I do presume it was done in good faith, if it was an oversight and I take it all back. Apologies. Dieter Simon (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The only discussion that took place that Mangoe and I were involved was the CfD. I had no idea a bot would change the main article, nor did I ask for this to happen. I wish you could have been involved in the CfD, because no one, not even its creator, could offer any proof at all that Tudorbethan was either a) distinct from Tudor Revival or b) the preferred name for same. I keep an eye on the CfD stuff but I'm not interested in this article name discussion. best. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent to return to the point) To me, 'Tudorbethan' and 'Mock Tudor' are slightly pejorative, if only in a gentle way. 'Tudor Revival', on the other hand, sounds like the name of an architectural style, as Greek Revival, Gothic Revival, etc. I am not pretending to have done any in-depth research on the matter, but 'Tudor Revival' seems much more appropriate as an article title, particularly if, as Mangoe suggests, it is a more internationally used name. My own area of knowledge relates to Scottish architecture, where terms such as 'Tudor Revival' and 'Tudor-Gothic Revival' seem to be more commonly used, though I have also occasionally seen 'Tudorbethan' in a serious Scottish context. Regards, Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since Wikipedians now have a chance to see what it is all about - which they couldn't before for the above reasons - why not give them seven days to vote on what the name should be and then change it accordingly. I would certainly agree with that. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the name "Tudorbethan".
Perhaps at this stage, I ought to introduce the point that the term "Tudorbethan" was not necessarily derogatory in the intention of those who invented it, that in fact it was probably meant to be taken more lightheartedly, but still professionally seriously. Very many architects - and of course also builders - certainly seem to maintain the term in its everyday usage because it encapsulates the various components which are understood by the term in the article. Certainly very many professional publications use the term, perhaps more so in the UK than in North America, it is true.
Far from being pejorative, Tudorbethan seems to include more seriously and precisely that which belongs to the style as described in the article, if one bears in mind the very many terms which also run under Tudor Revival, such as Tudor Gothic, and the styles it adumbrates such as English and American Queen Anne styles, Shingle style, etc. If Tudorbethan is pejorative then Tudor Revival is woolly to the extent that it does not make it easy to describe it. A tall chimney, a jettied frontage of a house seems to invoke "Tudor Revival" even though it has absolutely no other elements that should also be present to term it "Tudor".
Finally, the way the article was suddenly renamed "Tudor Revival" left it in a very bad state of repairs, since most of the paragraphs still referred to "Tudorbethan", and thus it became a bad article over night.
I therefore advocate the continued use of "Tudorbethan". Dieter Simon (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Simon (talk) 00:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose per WP:OR. Alright, I'll weigh in. Dieter's arguments above leave me with a strong sense of deja vu after having sorted through all of Gianco's arguments at the CfD: where are the proofs for any of these claims? Google reveals that Tudor Revival is vastly more well-known. Therefore it should be the article name, per our naming guidelines. Rather than being "a bad article over night" (sic), the article in its previous form at least reflected some form of consensus, frequently making use of the commonly used term Tudor Revival. No longer. Unless Deiter can provide some documentation for such vague phrases as what Tudorbethan "seems to include" (in his opinion) these changes should imo opinion be reverted. It isn't enough to provide cites that the term is used, no one disputes that. What you'll need is WP:RS to back up your sentiment that "Tudorbethan [...] include(s) more seriously and precisely that which belongs to the style as described in the article," if you want the community to accept the notion that the less commonly used term should take precedence, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Tudorbethan. Support Tudor Revival. My architectural professor and a current practicing historian would smack me down for such a word. Mock Tudor would cause him to go into fits. He stated to me, when I told him that Wiki article was named Tudorbethan "What are they thinking?...none of my contemporaries use this unless they have not studied the style." Also, Mock Tudor sounds like it has attitude. There may be reference to these names, but they should NOT headline the article. Thank you. Norcalal (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Shawn, you are absolutely right, how can I prove which of the two names, Tudor Revival or Tudorbethan architecture, are better qualified to represent the imitations of style that goes/went under either name. If you analysed the article as I now have done, you come to realize that if you changed the article back to Tudor Revival the very same charge could be brought against that name as is happening at this stage against Tudorbethan. Neither does in fact distil the essence of the style(s) better than the other. There is, however, one thing that seems to get overlooked in these discussions: take a look at the Googled or Yahooed websites: under Tudor Revival almost all the websites seem to be North American, and under Tudorbethan (with or without the word "architecture") the websites are other than North American. Might not that have some bearing on what we are talking about?
I am sorry, Norcalal, about your experiences with your professor/historian, but an American professor might precisely do that. Would an English professor necessarily be of the same opinion? That is the point, demographically we are bound to have more North American architects, hence the far greater number of Google Tudor Revival articles, but you are right more people seem to plump for T. Revival. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But Dieter, this is still just supposition on your part. As someone pressing for us to use the less commonly known and used term, contrary to our naming policy, surely the onus is on you to offer some form of proof for these conjectures. As North American-centric claim, I point you to the CFD discussion where User:Peterkingiron, a fairly prolific and knowledgable UK-based editor, states he's never even heard of "Tudorbethan." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point, Shawn, and yes, I have read the CFD discussion you have been concerned with. However, perhaps this might make things a bit clearer citing part of an architectural dictionary:

Tudorbethan

Style of domestic architecture involving revival of "Elizabethan", "Jacobean" and "Tudor" architectural elements, notably "mullioned" and "transomed" grid-like fenestration, freely mixed, sometimes called "Free Tudor".


Tudor Revival

C19 eclectic revival of "Tudor architecture". It had two distinct strands: the style of early "Gothic Revival" cheap churches of the "Commissioners' Gothic" type, and of educational buildings "(Collegiate Gothic)"; and the revival of domestic and vernacular forms for houses and country cottages associated with the "Picturesque". As Tudor architecture was often of brick, the Revival lent itself to the construction of schools, workhouses, chapels, gate-lodges, and model cottages, often with diaper-patterns, small casement windows with leaded lights, moulded-brick chimneys, and even partially timber-framed structures. Later C19 Tudor Revival was part of the "Arts-and-Crafts" movement and the "Domestic Revival", and at its best could produce masterpieces...

— A Dictionary of Architecture, James Stevens Curl (1999), Oxford University Press, p686

He then cites various examples of these masterpieces and where they are. All the keywords in quotation marks in the two sections are in fact headwords which may be looked up in the book (the quotation marks are mine). (A Dictionary of Architecture, James Stevens Curl 1999, Oxford University Press ISBN 0-19210006-8 762pp.) My point now is that, yes, there is a section each for Tudorbethan and Tudor Revival, and that both styles are in fact described. However, is it fair to let Tudor Revival stand as a fully integrated article, when it is in fact a conglomerate of various styles (which had been my contention from the very beginning of this discussion when I said it being a "woolly" concept or words to that effect). On reflection, would it not be more advisable to let an article "Tudor Revival" exist merely as a disambiguation page, linking to newly-created articles of the various styles described (if they aren't aleady in existence). If the Oxford University Press can get involved, surely, that should be of substance sufficiently to be notable even for us Wikipedians. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, certainly, this Oxford cite seems clear and persuasive. It also seems to back up Gianco's claims in the CfD about Tudor Revival and Arts and Crafts. It would seem to me, based on this cite, that we could in fact have two articles, one on Tudorbethan and the other on the Tudor Revival style(s). If so, we might also want to bring back the Tudorbethan category and have it and Tudor Revival as siblings of Category:Tudor architecture. Anyway, that's just a few ideas, off the top of my head. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for a reasonably authoritative source. My feeling is that "Tudor revival" is a good and neutral term for the 19th and early 20th century examples shown here, a parallel to the various Gothic revival styles and so on. Where supported by sources, Free Tudor or other names can fall reasonably well under this general heading. There's also the more recent phenomenon of Tudor style applied to popular speculative housing developments, as described by The revival of mock-Tudor homes - Times Online using the terms mock Tudor and Tudorbethan. This page uses "mock Tudor" to describe some 1930s houses. That could fit comfortably as a sub-section of this article, as at present, under the general Tudor revival article name. This Newcastle University research gives interesting thoughts on the variations, but I'm doubtful about it as a source. . . dave souza, talk 19:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • some research
First off, "tudor revival" is, on the net, by far the more common term, returning 83,000 hits (excluding us, of course); by contrast, "tudorbethan" returns 19,000 hits. Doing a google books search to encompass both terms returns six hits, most of which unfortunately I can't get inside of.
What I am finding is a complete lack of consistency, other than that the NRHP listings invariably use "Tudor revival" (or rarely, "neo-Tudor"). Some articles and books use them interchangeably. The pattern of deprecation, however, continues: those who are mocking of the buildings in question invariably use "Tudorbethan", and there are several cases I've found that specifically use it to refer to suburban tract houses or mini-mansions with delusions of grandeur. "Tudor revival", on the other hand, does not seem to have that connotation.
Therefore, two points:
  • My guess is that most uses of the term are going to appear in articles on listed properties. As far as the (American) NHRP is concerned, those articles will use the term that actually appears in the listing, which evidence thus far suggest will be "Tudor revival". Those buildings, as a rule, being noteworthy by definition, are not going to be tract houses.
  • Based on GHits I'm still inclined to make "Tudor revival" the primary article title, but I'm less confident about distinguishing the terms on some basis or another. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussions relating to Tudorbethan and Tudor Revival styles[edit]

I have been away for several weeks and so have not been able to take part in the discussion. As for the change back to Tudor Revival, well, you had to do what you felt was right.

I should like to make two points, however, the first one involving my integrity as a long-standing contributor to this article: you bet, Shawn in Montreal, I did change the name back to Tudorbethan architecture in good faith as, apart from the general template (that the change to Tudor Revival had been suggested) there was absolutely no indication that an actual discussion was taking place elsewhere (in the discussion pages of the Cfd). I simply did not know it was in Cfd. This could have been literally anybody moving the article to a new name as far as I was concerned. It is all very well for editors who normally patrol Cfd to know what is going on but for those who actually concentrate on the article itself it is not obvious.

I therefore recommend in the strongest possible terms that in future a notice be included in the discussion page of any article in order to acquaint all editors with the fact that the actual discussion itself is taking place somewhere else.

My second point is, it seems obvious that the term “Tudor Revival” is really referring to the North American development of the building style. It is quite true what you are saying, Mangoe and others, about there being more sources out there discussing Tudor Revival than there are for “Tudorbethan”. However, looking through the first seven sequences of “Tudor Revival” in the search engine I am using (Yahoo! UK & Ireland) a near hundred percent refer to either North American sources or non-North American sources discussing Tudor Revival in North America. On the other hand, the “Tudorbethan” search consists mainly of UK or non-North American websites, or sites mirroring the Wikipedia article for Tudorbethan.

I therefore think it advisable to create a separate Wikipedia article called something like “Tudorbethan style, other than North American” or similar to that effect. The way the articles read now it appears quite North American-centred.Dieter Simon (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Deiter, as I stated on your talk page, I still feel it's your responsibility, now that the community has made itself heard, to restore the mentions to Tudor Revival in the article text that you chose to remove. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the contrary, Shawn, when I changed the article back to Tudorbethan I did not change anything in the article, since it was the Cydebot action on 5/9/2010 moving the article to "Tudor Revival" which left everything exactly as it was within the article itself, thus leaving all the references to "Tudobethan" obviously out of place. Moving an article to another name will move the history to the new name, as far as I know. It would be asking to much of the system to automatically change the contents of the article. That would have to be done separately but was not in this case. If you look at the article immediately after the Cydebot move you will see that he/she left all the occurences of the term "Tudorbethan" as they were, compounding the problem of the thus-incurred irrelevance of the term Tudorbethan which in this way "dangled". I am afraid the onus is on whoever changed the article to Tudor Revival to change the contents of the article also in line with the name. I think I am right. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite right. My apologies, Dieter. All right, I went through the article and made Tudor Revival the dominant term, consistent with the consensus above. No doubt others will wish to tweak or even contest certain usages -- I have no interest or expertise to lend to any such discussion. I'll leave it to Deiter, or others. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mock Tudor or Tudorbethan[edit]

As a native English speaker I have always used the term Mock Tudor and had never heard of Tudorbethan until reading the article. A quick wisdom of the masses (google search) returned "mock tudor" 421,000 results and Tudorbethan 29,000 results. Should not the article more reflect the common usage ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unibond (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

The article uses mostly English spelling (centre, cosier, criticised, fibre, idealised, minimise, panelling, personalised, recognisable, satirised, specialised, speciality, splendours, storeys, utilised) but there are a few American spellings here and there (favor, neighborhoods, neighboring, remodeled). I suggest we standardise on the former, which I will attend to if others are in agreement. Tim riley talk 08:19, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously! The "strong connection" bit in WP:ENGVAR clearly applies here, & no doubt the article was originally in BrEn. I wish people would respect WP:CITEVAR too, & not mix styles by using sfn. Johnbod (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t know if I’m still one of the main editors here, but if anything I’ve added still remains, it will be my own brand of European English, which tends to favour English spelling. I wonder if I added the picture of Dalmeny (it is somewhere I’m connected with), but even so, what was I thinking? There are far, far better examples. Giano (talk) 16:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, that was me in fact. By all means add add one of your other houses, Giano, but I wanted to get a Tudor palace style example in. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Now done. Tim riley talk 17:47, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks, Tim. Sorry, Johnbod, the sfn’ing will likely be mine. I really struggle with any other style these days. KJP1 (talk) 17:52, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gents all, while I'm here: as Osbert Lancaster's vicar on Wikipedia I have run up a little article on Stockbroker's Tudor. I think it is right as a stand-alone article – with, of course, a link to this one – but if others think differently I will not throw my toys out of the perambulator. Tim riley talk 18:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is marvellous, I am so pleased to see that here. I wrote Curzon Street Baroque ages ago (but it got a bit bogged down because I realised belatedly, it really was a style - well almost). Hopefully, By-Pass Variegated is coming next. Architecture needs to be fun for people to appreciate it. Giano (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tim - it looks great. I shall see what my books have to add. Hope you are keeping well. I can almost envisage a trip to the Big Smoke in the not too distant. KJP1 (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources[edit]

I noticed the recent activity here and at Stockbroker Tudor and thought I'd share some citations to relevant source material, especially if establishing By-Pass Variegated's notability might be an issue. By-Pass Variegated get some in-depth attention in the following:

Peter Hall, Cities of Tomorrow: An Intellectual History of Urban Planning and Design since 1880, 4th ed. (Chichester: Wiley Blackwell, 2014), pp. 49-89.

Chapter entitled: "The City of By-Pass Variegated: The Mass Transit Suburb: London, Paris, Berlin, New York, 1900-1940" (chap. 3)

More generally, some recent historical studies of neo-Tudor suburban architecture include:

Several of these explicitly discuss By-Pass Variegated (Maudlin 2009, Mowl 1999, Porter 1995 at pp. 321-322, Ryan 2011 and 2015, and Stamp 2010). I have access to the journals and own copies of Jackson's and Ravetz's books; I may be able to access some of the others of they are available online. Hope this might be helpful. Cheers, —Noswall59 (talk) 08:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC).[reply]

Peter F Robinson creating Tudor style homes in 1820s[edit]

Peter Frederick Robinson -- note that this architect was creating house designs in the Tudor style in circa 1820s-1830s. This was not the Tudor period, so technically Robinson's designs could be Tudor Revivals. Out-of-print-books (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. Do you have a source? We could then put something in. KJP1 (talk) 05:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tudor_Revival_architecture&oldid=1205677982"