Talk:List of architectural styles

Discussion

Should critical regionalism be included on this page? there is an article on it but it is not connected... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.105.89.38 (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

How about Pueblo Revival Style? Cmyk 01:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmyk (talk • contribs) 01:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

This page needs lots of working. The information is inadequate and sometimes incorrect.

---

(orig posted by KRS on Warofdreams' talk page) Regarding your edits in Architectural style, it is good that you have removed the short descriptive sentences(which I have been wanting to do for some time).

But your categorisation is not accurate, though you have claimed it to be. I think the earlier categorisation was better and more accurate, probably because I ordered it out of the confusion which existed earlier:-)

Some of the mistakes as of now are - 1.You can't classify something as Western tradition, probably under Western architecture 2.Islamic architecture is not under Western tradition. 3. Deconstructivism is not usually classified under Postmodern architecture, it is one of the many directions after modernism. Or you should use post Modern Modern with a gap, in the sense of after.

You have also removed links by changing the names, if you do that you have to use the disambiguation technique so that the links still are valid.

Will be changing it shortly. If you have anything to clarify, let's discuss in Talk Page of article. KRS 15:51, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this is more accurate, though as you point out, it still needs lots of work. Why not Western tradition? Islamic architecture is heavily influenced by the Western tradition, most immediately by Byzantine architecture (of course there are other influences). Deconstructivism is often classified under postmodern architecture, but Post Modern architecture would suit me fine. Which links have been removed? Point them out and I'll happily reinsert them - thought I had them all. Warofdreams 15:58, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There are lots of directions after modernism, Postmodernism being only one of them. Also, after the advent of modernism, also called as international style, the directions can no longer be called Western. Hence the very classification under Western tradition is not correct after this period. For example, Critical Regionalism is a direction which though has universal application, is more followed in countries such as India, Japan, etc.,And Islamic architecture is not influenced heavily by Western tradition at all.

KRS 16:12, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There is already a page on Deconstructivism, removed by edit to Deconstructivist architecture. KRS 16:03, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Arts and Crafts

The Arts and Crafts style has been overlooked here. Perhaps an external link is required?

Done. Bards (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Type of Architecture?

There's a style of architecture whose name I do not know but I'm curious about. The general idea is that something very beautiful and ornate is concealed behind something which is worn and ugly. For example, if you've heard of "The Ruins" restaurant in Seattle, it's a very opulent restaurant concealed inside an old warehouse. The outside is very worn, but inside they build some sort of a substructure to make it appear like its own building inside a building. In the movie Face/Off, as well, the apartment there is much like this style. Does anyone know what this is called/have any information about it?

I believe this is a facet of Postmodern Architecture. "Building-within-a-building" and the combination of multiple unrelated architectural styles - does "polystylistic" sound right? Kibblesnbits 22:08, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question

I live in central Illinois and in any downtown around here there are tall, narrow buildings all next to each other in a block. They were built from like 1865-1920ish. What kind of architectural style could this be? This picture shows some of kind of buildings I'm talking about: http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc34794.php —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soyseñorsnibbles (talk • contribs) 22:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

These might be Chicago School. Bards (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

(opinion) Probably not Chicago School, more like commercial Italianate or commercial Queen Anne. neither of which are discussed on wikipediaCarptrash (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. If you are inclined to, please take a look at the lists in this article and make corrections. My knowledge of US styles is fairly limited. Bards (talk) 10:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Sure, God willing and the creek don't rise. The article's coverage of the commercial versions of the styles is pretty .... nonexistent.

Nordic & Viking architectural styles.

The dragon-headed stave architectural of the 1100's and presumably earlier (which Stave churches are made in) should probably be added in-between Norman & Gothic architecture. Though an article would have to be made. Nagelfar (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed item at the top of article

Have removed following item from the top of the article as it makes no sense the way it is written:

classify architecture in terms of form, techniques, materials, time period, region, etc. It overlaps with, and emerges from the study of the evolution and history of architecture. In architectural history, the study of Gothic architecture, for instance, would include all aspects of the cultural context that went into the design and construction of these structures. Architectural style is a way of classifying architecture that gives emphasis to characteristic features of design, leading to a terminology such as Gothic "style".

Is it meant to be recommendations of how to edit the article, or an intro, or what? Anyway, it makes little sense the way it is written. Please re-enter and edit the text, so it makes more sense. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Bards (talk) 21:15, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Does architecture or style emerge from history?

There is a sentence in the first paragraph: "Most architecture can be classified as a chronology of styles which changes over time.", and another in the second paragraph: "Styles therefore emerge from the history of a society...", which seem to depend on a commitment to a historicist or idealist account of architecture. Although buildings are classified in a chronological order of styles, it doesn't follow that architecture or styles emerge from history.

For example, one may argue that the gothic style didn't emerge from history but from a specific building in Saint-Denis in 1144. We may, of course, include such a discovery in a historical sequence, but it is unclear whether it emerged from that sequence. Futurism refuted rather than emerged from traditional styles (although one might perhaps say it "emerged" from social unrest). Many contemporary buildings evade styles altogether by being "non-referential", arbitrary, or accidental even.

Therefore, I suggest a more neutral description of architecture or style: one that doesn't assume that they emerge from history.

Kopare (talk) 20:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a distinctive "theme park" architectural style?

One might argue that some theme parks, particularly those of the Disney variety, have a distinctive architectural and planning style - it is a combination of styles, really, but there is a distinctive logic underlying those styles, revolving around the functioning of theme parks. Do any reliable sources support such a hypothesis? 68.37.254.48 (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there's a "Disneyland-zukuri" style, as there are five separate parks, in various parts of the world, built in appearance to be somewhat similar to each other. Each park, roughly speaking, has a Victorian style "main street" midway, an Asian/Southeast Asian/Oceanic "Adventureland", a modernist or futuristic "Tomorrowland", a somewhat earlier looking Anglo-American/rustic "Frontierland", and an European-vernacular/Gothic inspired "Fantasyland" (although the parks vary in the details). The retail buildings are often interconnected, so that big-box style stores can take on the appearance of a set of small stores. The corridors are wide, paved walkways; buildings often have enormous gallery areas to accommodate lines of people (each in line with whatever theme belongs to the ride and the area). At the center of each park is a "fairy-tale" castle. One could argue that there is an architectural/planning style connecting all five or so of the parks in question. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 17:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The parks in question are Disneyland, the Magic Kingdom, Disneyland Park (Paris), Tokyo Disneyland, Hong Kong Disneyland, and Shanghai Disneyland Park. The parks may have influenced Beijing Shijingshan Amusement Park, Nara Dreamland, Freedomland U.S.A.,Magic Mountain, and Pleasure Island. 68.37.254.48 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Theme parks are usually just regional revivalist styles. Usually they will dip their toes in multiple styles at a time. Magjozs (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I am staying awake nights because

I don't think that Chicago Style and Commercial Style is the same thing. My insomnia is compounded by the fact that the claim that they are the same is made by a dead link. Marcus Whiffen (WHAT! a red link?) in his American ArchitectureSince 1780: A Guide to the Styles does not have them as being the same. Condit, in his groundbreaking The Chicago School of Architecture suggests that they might be the same thing, but then he goes up to Harry Weese and Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, which we also seem to do even though these are clearly a different style from the earlier stuff. As my wife might say, "We have a relationship so let's talk about it." Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This Chronology Section is Crazy

it seems as though the chronology section wants to categorize based upon eras and regions at the same time. The problem with this is that the European method of tracking eras (prehistoric, classical, medieval, Modern) does not translate very well to regional civilization eras. This is especially true for the Americas where you probably should not split architecture up into classical and medieval categories. THe whole thing seems quite confusing. Magjozs (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

@Magjozs: Yeah, this article gave me a headache just trying to read it. – Treetoes023 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Magjozs: Perhaps the article should be split into sections based on regions and then chronologically list the architecture styles instead of the other way around. – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I tried cleaning it up a bit by redoing the eras and trying to regionalize it a bit, but it still hurts to read haha Magjozs (talk) 18:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Magjozs: I looked back at the page before your changes and it's definitely better now than it was before your changes, but I think the page should probably be redone. Sorting by time period and then regions is just flawed no matter how it's done, I can try to to reorganize it by region first and time period second sometime this week if you want. – Treetoes023 (talk) 20:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Hey man, You do you. I won't complain. Magjozs (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Just a belated comment to encourage this idea; reorganizing by regions first would certainly help. We might have some sections that are more era-based, such as "Modern", but for historical styles a regional organization is much easier to handle. R Prazeres (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)