Talk:Romanesque Revival architecture

I moved this here to talk about it,


after cutting it out from the sentence about where the style was popular in the USA. I am wondering what courthouse in the USA were built in the Romanesque style? And at this point those dessigned in the Richardsonian Romanesque don't count. There are lots of them but that really is a different style. Really. I thnk that the picture on the top left is going to go for the same reason. The doorway shown if Richardsonian, not. . . whatever the article is about. Carptrash (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "courthouses and"


 * As promised, here is the picture. Carptrash (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is another picture better suited (opinion) to somewhere else. Carptrash (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Identified on Flickr as the Lambert Tree House, Chicago. - Kzirkel (talk) 18:17, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me
that the whole section about the old Toronto courthouse does not belong here. It belongs, if anywhere, in the Richardsonian Romanesque article. I am inclined to just remove it, but will give notice here first. Speak now or hold your peace (piece?). Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I am calling all of these
Richardsonian Romanesque

Anything done in heavy rusticated stone with totally regular repeating arches is almost always Richardsonian or even the Commercial Style. If you can look at a building and see the frame articulated, it is not Romanesque Revival Carptrash (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Toronto City Hall
I just cut this out of the article:
 * A prime example of the Romanesque Revival Style is the Old City Hall built in Toronto from 1889 to 18 September 1899, designed by Edward James Lennox. Its exterior walls built with intricate detail such as the caricatures of politicians are carved above the columns at the entrance and even the doorknobs have the city’s old coat of arms on them. A very noticeable feature is the clock tower standing 103.6 meters high, one of the most prominent parts of this tower is how there are four gargoyles placed on the four corners of the tower. The gargoyles originally were made from limestone but they were replaced by bronze sculptures after a part of the stone gargoyle broke off and fell into the attic below in 1938. The simple yet elaborate arches over the entrances, the corner pavilions and the intricate designs on the walls and entrances are all examples of some of the different elements of the Romanesque Revival Style that are commonly used. Another indication of the Romanesque Revival Style is the usage of the square shape in the design and the how it almost seems caste-like especially just with the fact of how extremely large and tall everything is, giving it a grand-like feeling. The use of the different sandstones along with the change of colors between red and brown create an interesting contrast and gives the entire building a very ‘rugged’ look.

McHugh says of this building, "The basic form of the building resembles Richardson's" while Dendy & Kilbourn state, ""Inspired by the work of of Boston arcitect Henry Hobson Richardson.." Carptrash (talk) 14:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please remove architecture from the title
The article should be titled simply "Romanesque Revival". Then the term can be used to refer to buildings, churches, institutions, etc. in this style more conveniently. Thanks. Parveson (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)


 * What sort of Romanesque Revival that is not architectural is there? Romanesque Revival redirects here, if that's what you're worried about. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

I added Wayne State University
Our campus building "Old Main" was built in 1898 in the Romanesque Revival Style. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.217.62.210 (talk) 13:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Alexander Brown House
In this edit, a non-logged-in editor added a link to Alexander Brown House in Syracuse, New York. I amended that edit in the following edit, making a "see also" link to the house's article. It turns out I created the article back in 2007, and it is my photograph in the article. It is indeed a fine example of Romanesque Revival style, and there should be representation in the article about U.S. domestic architecture. However not necessarily this link, here. I would not object if someone else judged it should not be linked. I would welcome the non-logged-in editor contacting me, either by email (see link from my Talk page) or by creating a Wikipedia account and contacting me at my Talk page. --Doncram (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Puck Building
Copulating aside, this looks like fairly typical commercial Romanesque Revival. To (opinion) me Carptrash (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * If it’s anything at all, and that is open to debate. It is Renaissance revival. “Aspiring warehouse” would probable be a more accurate definition, but sadly nobody has coined that term yet. Giano    (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The neoclassical/Baroque entrance rather counts against this. I agree it is more "Renaissance revival" - Venetian Renaissance architecture habitually used round-topped windows. But of course in America everything with the door in the centre and equal numbers of windows on each side is "Greek Revival". Johnbod (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you Johnbod, with images of the best buildings from all over the world to draw on, I strongly feel only the best examples should be used for pages defining a style. People become confused if we use evolving or poor examples of a style.  Giano    (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Why is it that Europeans seem to feel that they can by some sort of proxy become experts about all things American? The AIA Guide to New York City calls the Puck Building a “monolith red brick Romanesque Revival.”  Surely this is good enough? Carptrash (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Perhaps because Americans cannot re-write history, no matter how convenient that may be. For some inexplicable reason and unfortunately for American architecture neither the Romans, the Normans or even Lorenzo the Magnificent chose to spend their vacations in the USA.  Giano    (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Or perhaps because some Europeans can not accept the American Institute of Architects to be a reliable reference for American architecture? Carptrash (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It’s OK, no need to remove your original insult “sticks and stones.....” I’m sorry, but no matter how much you stamp your foot, that building is not Romanesque in any form. Just compare it with every other given example on the page. In answer to you question, perhaps we “Eurotrash” feel we may comment because most of these styles originated in Europe and are exclusively derived from original European styles. I think you’ll find we are more that happy for North American’s to edit European pages - when they have the knowledge. Giano    (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * So this is the well mannered European's way of saying, "No, I won't accept the American Institute of Architects to be a reliable source for American architecture." So who would you say was a good source to use when discussing American architecture? Well, besides you. Carptrash (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I’m sure the AIA is a fine august body, but in this case it is mistaken. I suggest you ask it to re-evaluate its opinion. In the meantime, I suggest you read Romanesque architecture, Renaissance architecture and Renaissance Revival architecture. That building had no Romanesque features beyond round topped windows which are being used in a Renaissance fashion and rhythm rather than an irregular Romanesque style. As for the entrance, in no way can that even generously be said to have any Romanesque motifs. Giano    (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * We are not arguing with the AIA, but the individual author who pursuaded them to put his book out with their name on it. Plenty of American critics and historians have railed against the Amwerican tendency to over-inflate and mis-describe revival styles, though with little success. What does the AIA have to say about Queen Anne style? That is so well-established that one has to accept the term, but it is very inconvenient, especially here on WP, to have terms meaning totally different things in different parts of the world, and where one can one should strive to hold the pass - here against the belief that everything with round-topped windows is "Romanesque Revival". Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Speaking of which, I am not even sure if the fine picture of the beautiful Smithsonian building is the best to open an article on this subject. I mean, wouldn't a picture of the west facade of Speyer Cathedral be the better? The largest surviving Romanesque church building, preceded by a huge Romanesque Revival facade - it's a kind of quintessence of both styles--Edelseider (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2020 (UTC).


 * I think Edelseider, you are straying into dangerous territory, USA v Eurotrash! When I was writing Buggers' Baroque last year, I had to buy a copy of Osbert Lancaster’s book, Pillar to Post, which satirises many 19th & early 20th century architectural styles. I highly recommend it to anyone who takes architectural categories too seriously. Were I writing such a book, I think I would describe the Smithsonian as ”Lunatic Asylum Gothic.” However, I won’t and neither am I brave enough to suggest removing an American building from the lead. Giano    (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Home of the brave, land of the foolish. I just did what I pondered to do. :) --Edelseider (talk) 18:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I did consider saying: “Be bold”, but wasn’t bold enough. Giano    (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2020 (UTC)