Quote:
Originally Posted by 10023
Tudor highrise architecture makes no sense. Sullivan would turn in his grave.
So-called “Tudor Revival” residential architecture that doesn’t use correct materials and gets many of the architectural elements wrong is bad enough.
Neo-Gothic at least made some semblance of sense because Gothic buildings soared. The Cathedrals were the skyscrapers of their day. Even then having a bunch of non-load bearing flying buttresses is pretty silly.
|
Tudor and gothic share many similarities, especially when they both are exercised via brick or stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeg1985
This literally made me laugh so hard, my belly hurts. Thank you for that. Conjures quite the visual.
|
It really could work. Don't be so quick to brush it off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pilsenarch
^One of the world's first skyscrapers, the Masonic Temple, at the northeast corner of State and Randolph, could arguably be called 'tudor'... look it up and check out the detail below the hipped roofs...
|
Hmmm, I'm not sure if I'd call that more tudor or gothic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ned.B
10023 are you referring to Tudor revival, the 1920s eclectic style or the revival of Tudor revival that occurred in the 1970s and 80s?
Also, it's not especially tall, but this city already has a Tudor style highrise. Take a look at 23 E Jackson, designed by Alfred Alschuler in 1928 for the Finchley Men's Store.
|
This is an excellent example. Very good call.
The type of example I personally had in my mind is something similar to the Layer Marney Tower in England, just scaled to a very large building. But I maybe like yours better.
https://static1.squarespace.com/stat...dding_0001.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Layer_Marney_Tower