Talk:Tudorbethan architecture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Architecture Portal
This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Johannes Itten.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Distracting blank spaces

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)

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

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)

  • 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)

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)

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)

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

[edit] Page move/merge

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)

I must say I haven't come across the expression "Tudorbethan". Is it an American usage? Deb 21:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)
"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)
Shouldn't "Tudor style" be a disambiguation page in this case? Deb 22:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
Actually, there are one or two genuine Tudor properties near me. It puts things in perspective. Deb 08:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC).
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)
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)
Does anyone actualy like Tudorbethan? Giano | talk 10:02, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
  • 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)
I agree with you here, if there is anything Ican do, let me know. Dieter Simon 23:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
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)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

[edit] Victorian Tudor style or Mock Tudor

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)

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)
  • 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)
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)
  • 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)
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)
This chap Richard Thompson must be really something. Dieter Simon 21:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
  • 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)
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)

[edit] Merge from Mock Tudor

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)

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)

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)

  • 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)
    • 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)

[edit] 21st-century Tudorbethan

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)

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)


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)
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)
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)

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)

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)


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)
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)

[edit] Moved from 21st century tudorbethan

"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"[2][3] 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)
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)
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)
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)

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)

[edit] Tudorbethan name invoked

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

[edit] Medieval cottages

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)