Talk:Union Station (Walpole, Massachusetts)

Richardson?
Damned if I see that as dripping Richardsonianism; a little in the massing, but that is almost inevitable given the use and climate. The detailing looks, if anything, like an unexuberant form of Eastlake. (“Stripped Eastlake”, now there’s an oxymoron...) What’s the sourcing for HHR? Qwirkle (talk) 12:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not by HHR, merely with Richardsonian Romanesque influences. That's cited to the NRHP form in the text. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While Union Station would not be classified as Richardsonian Romanesque in its ornamental detailing, the building reflects the massing and expression ofinterior plan seen in Richardsonian stations ofthe same period: the horizontal emphasis ofthe roofline, broad, sheltering, flared eaves supported on wood brackets, and simple pedestrian flow through the building that allowed for sheltering of patrons from their arrival to departure. inter alia, yep. The problem is that other stations had the same features, and no connection with Richardson whasoever. I think the claim in the article is too strong for the source, and for reality. Qwirkle (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your reading. Richardson is mentioned nine times in the form, including One of very few passenger stations extant in Massachusetts that reflects this late 19th-century Richardsonian sensibility rendered in wood rather than masonry construction and Both stations, built after the New Haven Railroad began leasing the line in 1898, display rectilinear massing and a hipped roof, but lack the low-slung Richardsonian lines of Walpole's Union Station, both of which clearly contrast the Richardsonian Romanesque influence on Walpole with other similar stations. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note the word “extant” there. Are you familiar with the CN’s smaller stations of roughly this era? This would fit in among them quite unremarkably. Qwirkle (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * More importantly, note that the source only uses “romanesque” once, to point out that the building ain’t. Qwirkle (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)