Talk:Richardsonian Romanesque

Just to toss in a vote on Confidence, yes, it IS "Richardsonian Romanesque." All the way. Carptrash 21:37, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is it just me
or are there enough RR influence on the building in the gallery from Brooklyn to include it? I think it should go- or better, be replaced by a better RR example. Carptrash 00:10, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Central High School, Springfield Missouri
I believe that this school is also an example of Richardsonian Romanesque, but it was constructed so long ago, not sure who the architect was. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_High_School_(Springfield,_Missouri)#/media/File:CentralHighPostcard.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.106.90 (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Seattle


I'm not expert on this, but I'm pretty sure Pioneer Square, Seattle, Washington has one of the largest collections of surviving Richardsonian Romanesque buildings. There are about 50 extant buildings in that neighborhood that the city categorizes as "Queen Anne - Richardsonian Romanesque"; most retain their original exteriors; some of those exteriors are beautifully preserved. Anyway, I leave it to someone more knowledgable than I on how this compares to other cities, but I would think it merits a mention in the article and inclusion of at least an image or two (many of which can be found in Commons:Category:Pioneer Square, Seattle, Washington and its subcategories). - Jmabel | Talk 06:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I just fliped through the pictures and yes, there is some nice RR stuff there. However it's tough for me to write about buildings that I haven't actually seen.  I do have a couple of books on Seattle architecture which is almost the same as a trip (yeah right).  The final issue is time.  In any case, thanks for pointing it out.  Carptrash (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 06:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is some concrete way I can help, let me know. That Dep't of Neighborhoods site I linked for the count of buildings has extensive information about each building, probably as much as you'll find in a book. Unfortunately, they seem to have a systematic error of leaving "South" off of the avenue names south of Yesler; also, they are more focused on pre-1950 history and precise condition today than anything else in the last half-century. Still, very useful. - Jmabel | Talk 18:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I've now placed numerous images of Seattle buildings in Commons:Category:Richardsonian Romanesque. The category is rather short on images from other cities; someone may want to start tagging ones they know about. - Jmabel | Talk 07:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well done. I am a bit tempted to cull several of them out.  This one, Image:Washington Court Bldg 02.jpg for example is - in my opinion, more "Commercial Queen Anne" than RR.  My feeling is that the images should be text-book examples rather than marginal ones.  However having pulled abunch of my pictures off wikipedia becasue of various disputes I am reluctent to do much with yours, which as a whole are great and make Seattle the RR Capitol of the Universe.  Good work.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Commons' approach would be more to place an image in multiple categories if both are somewhat appropriate (but if you think any are just plain not RR, then do please remove the tag). I don't think anyone has gone through doing a category for "Commercial Queen Anne". I agree that that particular one is marginal, but there are all of those stone-arch windows and what I believe is a rather RR cornice. But I'm not at all expert on this. Actually, one that is even more marginal is Commons:Image:Seattle - Drexel Hotel Building.jpg (a building with a very interesting history, BTW, you might want to follow up the link). If you want to remove the category from some of these, feel free.
 * Also BTW, another thing that can be done is to also create a "Commons page" (which would be a member of the corresponding "Commons category"), which can gather together best examples and allow a place for commentary. See, for example, Commons:Category:Occidental Mall and Commons:Occidental Mall.
 * I don't know about RR Capitol of the Universe, but Pioneer Square had a big fire in 1889, was rebuilt largely in RR style, and was (the original) Skid Road when these things were out of fashion, so there was no big push to tear them down and build something modern. So, while it doesn't have a lot of particularly flamboyant RR, and some buildings have lost early ornamentation, it has a higher concentration than any other place I know.
 * I've probably now photographed at least 75% of the relevant buildings in Seattle, most of which are in the one neighborhood. I still have to go sometime to get a few on the Seattle Pacific University campus. - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Gallerypalooza
There's 24 images on an article containing less than two whole paragraphs. Does anyone else think it's overkill? A Commons link is available if readers want to see a gallery. Unless someone reasonably objects, I'll be removing some of the images.  APK  is ready for the tourists to leave  16:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I sort of like the gallery - but then again I love photos in general.--Marcbela (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Not just because I posted the first ever photo here (opinion), but also because I actually believe that a picture IS worth a thousand words, that this is the sort of article that lots of shots are good in. I suppose that they could be canvassed as to what they are actually adding to the understanding of what Richardson Romanesque architecture looks like, but unlike many in modern architecture, I feel that More is more.  Carptrash (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I love photos as well, but 24 on such a small article? I think it would improve the overall quality if we only keep the most high-quality and useful images. I've noticed several stub/start-class articles containing large galleries that seem to be an attempt at making the page look "fuller". If someone wants to team up and improve/expand the article, I'd be more than willing to help. But as I mentioned before, the Commons link gives access to a gallery. Keeping only a few high-quality images that demonstrate important aspects of RR would be necessary if GA is a future goal.  APK  is ready for the tourists to leave  18:51, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay. As a gesture of good will, I removed one of the pictures, my own, so that I don't upset anyone, but we need (opinion) a picture of a RR residence to replace it.  However that's for another day.  I shall also try to pitch in a bit of text so thqt perhaps pictures can be used to illustrate what ever point gets made.  Now you (eeek's rules)  get to remove one. Carptrash (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice. Now I can replace your photo with mine. I kid, I kid. It's headed for another article(s). (side note: I'm not 100% sure the homes in my photo are RR; maybe a mixture of Queen Anne and RR? Anyone have a guess? It's rather confusing at times to identify architectural styles in Dupont Circle and Sheridan-Kalorama.) I looked at each photo and have an opinion on which ones could be removed. I choose door image number 21.  APK  is ready for the tourists to leave  01:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * In the case of architecture, a picture is definately worth 1000 words! You could have an article a mile long about the values of this arch versus that arch, but a few well-taken photos are much more valuable as information in my view.--Marcbela (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (sigh) I'll say it again: 1) It's more than "a few" photos that are currently displayed in the article. 2) I'm not suggesting the removal of all photos. 3) The Commons link provides an image gallery. 4) I love architectural photography as well. I take uber amounts of photos related to that very subject. What I'm trying to explain is that we shouldn't add images to a gallery just because we can. Good & Featured articles don't contain a lopsided amount of photos (unless they were promoted before stricter GA & FA criteria was added). All I'm suggesting is that we improve the overall look, even if that means changing the layout certain editors prefer. The photo I removed last night had a prominently displayed time stamp. That kind of unedited image doesn't belong on articles.  APK  is ready for the tourists to leave  18:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * QUALITY over quantity, indeed!--Marcbela (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

(obvious solution) Instead of yours truly worrying about the gallery, I'll work on expanding the article over the next few weeks (I'm bad at concentrating on one article. Damn you, AADD). I'll incorporate certain images within the main text and have someone transfer the remaining photos to Commons. Sound groovy?  APK  is ready for the tourists to leave  20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I just removed a citation needed
from here:
 * Romanesque Revival architecture named after architect Henry Hobson Richardson, whose masterpiece is Trinity Church, Boston . (1872–77)

iI is (opinion) like insisting that, In 1492 Columbus sailed the the ocean blue, needs to be cited. This is Am Arch Hist 101 material. It does not need to be footnoted. Carptrash (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it does require citation. As an Australian High School student, I studied the Marshall Field Warehouse as a a prime example of Richardson's architecture. I did not hear of Trinity Church until much much later. Given that a number of Richardson's commissions were large and significant, his "masterpiece" might be open to debate. Amandajm (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Buffalo Insane Asylum Image
Wouldn't it be good to have the first example of this style? I thought I had put the image in there at one point, but saw the discussion about trimming pictures down. If a free image is needed, I can get one no problem. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Sydney
has several very fine examples of Richardson Romanesque, most notable the Queen Victoria Building and the much smaller Australian Mutual Providence Society Building. It might be interesting to consider these in the study that you mention. Amandajm (talk) 00:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed this material

 * " most importantly the Old City Hall in Toronto. Being almost mirrored replica of itself, the symmetry between the east and west facades evokes a strong sense of even proportion and steadiness, something necessary in representing a municipal building. Following that of the earlier based Romanesque style of Europe, the Hall contains a central courtyard and stands as four rectangular buildings arranged in a square form, giving a feeling of fortitude and security. The buildings were ended by square towers topped with conical roofs, whilst the detail work followed that of a face (caricatures/lions/beasts) surrounded by leaves, and entablature.''

Do we really want this much detail on one building here? I say "No." This is fine in the article about E.J. Lennox or Old City Hall (Toronto) but is not useful here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I would submit as a rather fine and coehernet example of "Ricahrdsonai Romanesque", Spooner Hall on the University fo AKnsas campus, in Lawrence, KS.

(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Spooner_Hall.JPG)

Ramillies (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Image placement discussion
I reverted to BMK's version because it looks better, but I think Filetime's concept of spreading the images out is a good one. Can't you guys compromise? Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2021 (UTC)