Talk:Second Empire architecture in Europe

Architecture Top‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Home Living Low‑importance

	Housing portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Home Living, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of home-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Home LivingWikipedia:WikiProject Home LivingTemplate:WikiProject Home Livinghome articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Please provide some images of examples of this style.

You cite Opera Garnier as the canonical example of Second Empire style... yet when you go to the Opera Garnier page, it describes itself as being designed in the Neo-Baroque style... I don't think that both can be correct.

Added an image and removed image request template. --ScottyBoy900Q 16:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Largest?

Wondering if anyone could help me verify this piece of info:

Prior to the construction of The Pentagon in the 1940s, the Second Empire–styled Ohio State Asylum for the Insane in Columbus, Ohio was documented as the largest building under one roof in America, proving the style's adaptability.

I can only find articles here and there (not wholly reputible sources, either) that claim it was the largest building. There is no mention of footprint size (foundation) or total square feet. However, the exact same claim is made for Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, which does have verifiable square-foot information on the building. I know every building wants its claim to fame, but I find it bizarre that these two Kirkbride buildings would both have the same claim attached to them. Any help would be appreciated. Rkitko 11:21, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revival of what?

This phrase puzzles me "Second Empire was succeeded by the Queen Anne Style era, and its sub-styles, which enjoyed great popularity until the rise of the “Revival Era” in American architecture just before the end of the 19th century." what exactly is the "Revical Era" is it the Gothic Revival, which contrary to the claim in the lead never fell out of fashion in certain areas of design, or is it something else compltely. Giano | talk 09:25, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that this refers to the Classical Revival phase that was kicked off by the Columbian Expo in 1893. The Gothic Revival - used mostly for educational purposes did not really get going until the early 20th Century. There were a couple of Gothic revivals, but the one that never went out of style is/was the use of Gothic for churches. At least this is my opinion as to what this is about. Feel free to improve the article so that it makes better sense to you, and hopefully everyone. Carptrash 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here, is one of transatlantic differences. We on the European side regard the Gothic revival as having started in the late 18th century and continuing until at least 1914, and you are saying on the American side that is not the case. I don't feel confident enough to edit this page, as I think it also probable (from reading the page so far) that the American version of "Second Empire" is not exactly comparable to what is understood here in Europe. To my mind the Opera Garnier is not "Second Empire" at all but a Neo-Renaissance building with Baroque influences - where are the particular "Second Empire" features? being built during the time of the second French empire is not a good enough reason - However, far greater experts than me have differing opinions on this, so I don't think I'll become involved in "Second Empire (Wikipedia style)" - it's far too much of an architectural minefield. Giano | talk 18:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although American architectural historians [wikipedia style] are a opinionated lot I would not characterize any of the discussions that I have been involved in by using any war [i.e. minefield] terminology. You do raise an interesting point about the role of the Atlantic in these articles and it might be best to turn this article into a "Second Empire style in America" one and let the Europeans do what they will with their buildings. In America the term Second Empire is pretty widely used and understood. I think the name was chosen because Americans [opinion] have frequently felt like Europe's country cousins, at least in the architecture world. Thus the term Second Empire, with its nod toward some French precursors was easily employed. This style, even when used for residences, was considered to be flashy, expensive and "European" witnessed by the fact that the style pretty much gets absorbed by the slightly less pretentious Italianate style. Hmmm, I wonder how wikipedia is dealing with that one? Carptrash 15:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm! Well having just clicked and read Italianate one can only say "Oh dear!" Italianate is in fact a form on Neo-renaissance. The information on the Italianate page, to put it politely, is not something I would agree with 100%. Giano | talk 22:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you might be more inclined to agree with it [perhaps up to 87% ?] if the article were just about American Italianate. I just discovered the article while writing to you [see UP] so have only glanced over it, but as a description of the Italianate style as it is the the United States, it's okay. In the US [in my opinion] Neo-renaissance revival would be much more formal designs. Italianate dwellings were usually built as vernacular constructions, designed and built by local builders without an architect, much like the Greek Revival had been a generation earlier. So perhaps I'll go to these articles and toss in a prominent "As used in the United States" right at the beginning. Carptrash 00:25, 30 April 2006 (UTC) and now let's see what Greek Revival gets us into. eeek[reply]

Images

While excellent, the images don't really belong in the main body of the article. Because they're all in the en.wiki imagespace, an easy link can't be created to all of them. I would encourage whoever is working on this page to move all of the public domain or GFDL photos to Wikimedia Commons (reupload them) so that other wiki projects can use them. Categorize them and then remove these photos from the page in favor of a link to the Commons category or page with the photos. --Rkitko 21:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By images, I mean the image gallery section. The other in-text images are necessary. The ones under the section "Images" are extraneous. --Rkitko 21:18, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hardly think this is clearly the primary meaning of the term "Second Empire". I propose moving this page to "Second Empire (architecture)" or something like that and turning "Second Empire" into a disambiguation. If anything, I would regard the Second French Empire as the primary meaning. PatGallacher (talk) 01:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

Second Empire and Napoleon III style are two articles for the same thing. Even French Wikipedia notes that at fr:Style Second Empire. Strongly suggest we merge the Napoleon III stub into this with a redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the Britannica says is:**An important variation of the Second Empire style was the Napoleon III style, which characterizes buildings constructed during the massive rebuilding of Paris administered by Baron Georges-Eugène Haussmann between 1853 and 1870. In the scale of their conception, these buildings seem designed more on an urban than on an individual architectural plan; thus, the extension to the Louvre (mentioned earlier), the excellent Paris Opera House (Charles Garnier, 1861–74), the railway stations, Tribunal de Commerce, and other such public buildings, by their isolation, greater size, and richer ornamentation, dominate the miles of apartment-house facades with ground-floor shops that line the many streets cutting through the city. The facades of the public buildings have in common a high elevation with mansard roofs; only the most important buildings have pavilions. The designs show a crispness of line and a subdued diversity and richness of decorative detail that sets them apart from Second Empire style elsewhere, as does their tendency to maintain a general urban homogeneity, especially throughout central Paris.

As to whether or not I'm crazy about the Montréal city hall, see these Google results. Clearly the term is used, even if synonymously with "Second Empire". Srnec (talk) 04:06, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Even if synonymously with "Second Empire"" is indeed the point: if it is used interchangeably, then there should not be a separate article. That said, the Britannica quote offered above would seem to make a case for a distinct Napoleon III entry. Problem is, I don't see that passage in the sole External link offered in the Napoleon III stub. While I do assume good faith, I would like to be able to see one or two reliable sources, for myself, that make the case that Napoleon III is sufficiently distinct so as not to simply be included as another name for the same thing, as is the case in French Wikipedia.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is used interchangeably some places, I admit. That's why I didn't put the Montréal information back in the article. But it is not used interchangeably, for instance, in the Britannica. I have posted the text above. The distinction is clear; to the author of the Britannica entry, it is not "another name for the same thing". That is one reliable source, and better than the French Wiki. Srnec (talk) 02:52, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the full Britannica -- is it by subscription? Anyway, I take your word for it. But let's see if other editors have anything to add. Thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:56, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, online by subscription (which I have through a university). The paragraph I quoted is all the relevant information. I don't know why the external link won't work. More than happy to let other chime in, though. Srnec (talk) 02:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I had added the "stub" tag not as a criticism, but as a way to invite others to add to the Napoleon III article. You might want to replace it, but it's up to you. And if a separate Napoleon III article is retained, based on such RS as the Britannica entry, you may wish to try adding Napoleon III to the Revivals architecture template. cheers, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just think that stub tags are generally worthless, since I doubt they accomplish what they are intended to. If you put it back, I wouldn't remove it a second time. Srnec (talk)

BTW, if you're interested in the Beaux-Arts style, as well, I invite you to weigh in at Talk:Beaux-Arts_architecture#No_Neo-Baroque_in_lead.3F. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the two articles must be merged. I have read in a lot of books that the two styles are the same. The Second Empire style thow can be described as a Victorian style in America so I think that American Second Empire should be included in Victorian Architecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgi m 93 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move

I do not believe that this is clearly the primary meaning of the term "Second Empire", I suggest that this term should be a disambiguation and this page moved. PatGallacher (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New section divisions

As part of my recent edits, I have reorganized this article a bit. Instead of a single block of text followed by lists of examples, there is now a division between Second Empire in France and the United States. Of course since this article was writen almost entirely about Second Empire in the United States, the French section currently has no text. As I get the chance, I plan to add to France and better organize the United States section. I could see additional expansion of the style in Canada and Australia as well as Great Britain which isn't even covered yet. Since I am not much of an authority on Second Empire outside of the United States, I would appreciate if anyone wanted to help me in this effort. --A.Fox 03:25, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British Examples

I did some hunting around, and dug up some Second Empire buildings in London. It was a little more difficult because — at least in London — there seem to be very few high-profile public buildings in the Second Empire style. There is also very little written about the subject. I found most of the examples by browsing Wikimedia Commons and Flickr.

Still I was unsure how to classify some buildings. For instance, what about File:Southwark vestry hall.jpg (1865)? It has a mansard roof, and the second floor center windows are somewhat Second Empire in character, but the mansard lacks dormer windows and the abundance of banding, engaged pilaster capitals, and thick arches over the first floor windows are all unusual for Second Empire. Maybe this one is more Romanesque Revival?

Also, how do we classify buildings that are generally Second Empire in style but were built several decades after the Second Empire ended in France. For instance, the Waldorf Hotel and Her Majesty's Theatre were completed in 1897 and 1908 respectively. I can't speak for the United Kingdom, but Second Empire buildings fell out of style in the U.S. in the 1870 and were rare by the 1880. Some elements of the style were revived in the early 1900s, but are usually classified as Beaux-Arts rather than Second Empire. --A.Fox 14:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

95 Chancery Lane is listed as Second Empire, but visually, it looks to me more like Georgian architecture, because of the three rows of columns of different orders forming the façade. Are we sure it's actually Second Empire, and not some sort of Georgian Revival? Note that I never studied architecture formally, and so please take me with an enormous grain of salt.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jloisel (talk • contribs)

As noted in an earlier discussion, the British and American ideas if what Second Empire architecture consists of is somewhat different. I (an American) would not call 95 Chancery Lane 2nd Empire, but then neither would i designate the Great North Western Hotel as such and in fact, its article calls it the Renaissance Revival style. However not wishing to upset our cousins across the pond, I am leaving those examples alone.Carptrash (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

95 Chancery Lane is neo-Baroque, I would almost go as far as to call in neo-Sicilian Baroque if there is such a style. I will remove it from the list. National Bank Belgravia is most definitely Second Empire. Carptrash is quite correct, Great North Western Hotel is neo-Renaissance. Giano (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe

that it is time to arrange at least the images in some sort of order. I propose an Americas, Asia (?), Australia, Europe sort of thing, with each section subdivided into countries. It's the sort of switching around that I usually make a huge mess out of when I attempt it, but think I'll do it anywhay, barring a HUGE "NO" from someone here. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

a couple of points

I am inclined to remove the Brussels Stock Exchange from the article. However this could be just American prejudice, so I thought I'd ask first. To me we need good examples of the style rather than wild hybrids that could confuse the uninitiated. Also is anyone here bothered by the lack of inline citations that the tags warns us about? I believe that most of those were added by me years ago (2006?) when I was editing here and I am more inclined to remove the tags than mess with citations. Your thoughts? Carptrash (talk) 14:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this page for years, but have a feeling I've edited it in the past. I would have thought that the Brussels Stock Exchange was right up there with the best examples of Second Empire Architecture; whereas, one or two of the American examples are what I believe Americans call 'chateauesque' and I call Franglifried. Not that it really matters, all these 19th century styles are largely a matter of personal opinion and taste. Giano 18:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is this building supposed to be? If that's a Second Empire court house, I think I would plead guilty just to avoid having to enter its horrible portals. Giano 18:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to talk. The pointy roofs on the CCCH are a bit odd, but if you picture a flat roof on them, similar to what is found elsewhere on the building, you have a pretty standard American Second Empire pile. Kelsey & Dyal (The Courthouses of Texas) refer to it as a "Second Empire masterpiece." (p.58). This is part of the confusion as to exactly what the 2nd Empire style is. In my European (French mostly) books it is not mentioned at all. My reference from Brazil calls the style, "Napoleon III." So I am wondering if the name Second Empire architecture is only used in the US & Canada? Help me Giano! Oh yes, my advice is that you stay out of courthouses in Texas regardless of the style. Carptrash (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the term seems to be used in both Europe and USA; however, it's used for different styles. In Europe the style has to have a touch of Baroque about it (see Opera Garnier). In the USA: "the bulky forms derive from the new works of the Second Empire in Paris, but with an important difference - they are more loyal to their 17th-century prototypes than are such buildings in France itself." (World Architecture by C Trewin, p311) This presents another problem for you, when in the USA is a building Second Empire and when is it Neo-Renaissance (see Hôtel de Ville, Paris)? You have a problem. Coming to the Texan court house, that is not good architecture; it is horrible, p, and has arrive via Russia. It would be better if they demolished it. Giano 16:38, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Euro insights - I'll not evict tht Brussels thing yet. I looked at all the Americans and they are all more or less appropriate for the style in the US. The Baltimore town hall's (?) classical dome is almost a deal breaker and I am considering removing it because I do not want anyone thinking that domes ala St. Peter's are typical. The Texas county courthouse (one of about 220 in the state)stays until such time as it is demolished - a event that you will be invited to. Carptrash (talk) 16:56, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston, Vigo and Baltimore halls are all good examples of Second Empire - they are supposed to have a touch of the Baroque about them. Giano 17:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified the lead (with references). It seems one of the USA's most prolific architects doesn't have a page Arthur B Mullett; perhaps you know something about him? Giano 07:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems he does, Alfred B. Mullett. Interesting, he's in most of my European books as Arthur - I wonder why. 07:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Examples of Second Empire

The Great North Western Hotel, while not solely a second empire building, certainly displays many of the qualities of second empire. Even a cursory search through the internet will confirm this. Alfred Waterhouse, known for Neo-Gothic, Renaissance revival and Romanesque revival styles, in fact did not limit himself to a single architectural style - the styles of the examples should be based on the buildings, not those who built them. Since the Great North Western Hotel does in fact bill itself as Second Empire (among others), even on the Wiki page, I think it is a fitting example and should stay. The removal has been disputed pending further discussion. Garchy (talk) 21:18, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this building was removed because of who the architect was. What we want here are nice clear, unambiguous examples of a style, not (opinion) examples that are "not solely" of that style. Carptrash (talk) 21:24, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was not basing this on on the architect - in fact the architect is not known for Second Empire, that was my point (another user tried to remove it under the pretense that Whitehouse is not a Second Empire architect...) There are numerous buildings on this page that are not "clear, unambiguous examples of a style". I understand the need for there to be a line, but on a page with nearly 100 examples of architecture one cannot simply choose one over another. This hotel is billed as being second empire, it is an example of second empire, and while it does incorporate other architectural themes I don't believe a case has been made for this to be removed from the page. Garchy (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Garchy: Also going to that article (Great North Western Hotel) and just adding in that it is in the Second Empire is . . ...... not good fungi shui. Please add a reference that shows that this is not just your opinion. I'd rather not clutter up that article with "citation needed" tags, hopefully that conversation will suffice and you will get a reliable reference or remove your comment. Carptrash (talk) 21:30, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to look further into this - the article was already billed "Second Empire" - I simply added clarification of that into the text (you DID look into the page history before assuming...right?) I'm not challenging every removal made from this page, as it does require cleanup. But I do find this (Talk:Second_Empire_architecture#a_couple_of_points) troubling that decisions on what should be challenged/removed are being made based on interpretations - I'm simply saying this is an example of second empire, it was billed (prior to me expanding) as second empire, and since it has been challenged a discussion should take place before it is removed. Garchy (talk) 21:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I did do was look at all (both?) the sources given at the hotel article and neither one mentions Second Empire. Until a good reference shows up I don't care who added it, that is enough for me to argue for removing it. I do apologize if I accused you (which is what I was doing) of doctoring the article when that was not your doing, but it still requires a reference. Carptrash (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and it does appear in the history, which I had looked at, but you made me doubt what I saw, that you added, "The Baroque details are in the Second Empire style, common for this time period." to the Hotel article. Is that not correct? What am I missing? Carptrash (talk) 21:44, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were referring to the info box. Okay, I changed that to French Renaissance, which is what it had been until someone changed it a few years ago. Now it conforms to the references. As it should.Carptrash (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making that change, I had not noticed that. My entry was based on what I see architecturally on the building as well as what the infobox had said. Thanks for clearing that up. If we are going to remove entries that are not strictly Second Empire than we should discriminate more thoroughly and remove all but the best 5-10 examples worldwide. Thoughts? Garchy (talk) 22:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be someone who likes a lot of examples, so removing ones, or being a part of removing them is not where I typically am. I think it is fine having a lot of examples to look at because every example shows something new or different. However (opinion) examples that are mixes of several different styles, and Victorian Era eclectic architecture has a lot of these, are best left unused unless the mixture is what we are pointing out. So I'd rather see more good examples added than removed. I will try and find more non-American examples just to spread it around. I suspect that a style more or less named after a Frenchman was never that popular in Britain. Carptrash (talk) 22:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As said sections above, the GNW Hotel is French Renaissance, It is a listed British Building, and Listed for preservation as an example of the French Renaissance [1] There are absolutely no Baroque influences or even remote hints in its architecture. Giano (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since this thread is bordering on opinion based editing I'm beginning to remove all non-referenced Second Empire additions to this page. This should not be based on visual appearance alone (find citations), and unless it is apparent we should remove ALL entries that do not match, not only ones you believe do not fit the example. Garchy (talk) 15:25, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Parsing has begun, and there are many examples of French Renaissance/gothic/beaux-arts that are listed that need to be removed. Lists that still need removals or refs added are United States and Canada, which I haven't had a chance to parse yet. Jump in if you can, let's maintain consistency throughout the entire article. Garchy (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because styles of architecture did not come into and leave fashion on a single day, there are very few buildings which are in a single style, but evolved from one to another. However, it's fine to have only pure examples - the problem is though that Second Empire is not a pure style, like say Palladianism - so I see problems ahead. However, the GNW Hotel is definitely not 2ndE, and while you are removing things, can we loose that horrible American building, that looks like Russian Ecclesiastical architecture with some odd topped towers? Giano (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which American building are you asking about? I'm for removing any building that is not a befitting example, I have not had time yet to tackle the American/Canadian lists but feel free to start parsing if you get a chance. I was having issues with differentiating a building that is mainly Second Empire vs. French Renaissance Revival but I tried to remove those that appeared to be mainly another style with only minor second empire influences - other editors thoughts are of course welcome. Garchy (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This horrible thing I suppose could just scrape in as 2E, but I'd rather it didn't - it looks as though it was designed by a Russian orthodox priest after a night on the Eucharistic wine. Spotting the differences between Renaissance and 2E should not be too challenging. However, what is going to be impossible is Beaux arts architecture and 2E. I'm not even 100% sure myself without looking up the architects pedigree and some precise motifs and even then it would be open to challenge. Giano (talk) 17:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look at all those listed, and they all scrape in as 2E or Beaux arts. The only one I would question would be the Brussels Stock Exchange,which is so Baroque that I would call it neo-Baroque rather than 2E, but that's only my opinion. Giano (talk) 17:26, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on the Texas courthouse - other than the mansard roof (and even then I see what you're saying about the Russian look) this definitely doesn't fit 2E. Brussels Stock Exchange looks more like the Sagrada Família than it does anything 2E! Garchy (talk) 17:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with a hybrid architectural style. Too many "experts" have been allowed to define it. Most of those American mansions (not even really mansions) are in fact another form of vague hybrid architecture chateauesque. To my mind, anything 2E has to match with the buildings of Haussmann's renovation of Paris, at the time known as Napoleon III style. Interestingly, that page begins with it's a "19th-century style of Renaissance Revival architecture in France." I would question that and point out that it was not a French Renaissance revival, but an earlier Renaissance revival - think of St Peters Basilica etc. Giano (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See here is where we are probably running into problems as to what 2E is. The Courthouses of Texas" calls This horrible thing "a Second Empire masterpiece, so if we are just going by references, we might be stuck with it, unless of course we just remove it. But besides the rather odd mansard roofs, it also has dormers in the roof, a tower, tall windows with arched top, protected by a hood molding, paired columns, and an advancing, receding (my terms - I think there are better ones) facade, some wrought iron on the roof, all good solid American indicators of the 2E style. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously thinking the problem we have here is insurmountable. It's rather like Queen Anne architecture which can mean different things in in the USA and the UK. We also have the problem of biased sources: "The Courthouses of Texas" are hardly going to announce "We have just spent a billion dollars restoring an architectural monstrosity which ought to be demolished as an assault to the eye." Of course in a country almost devoid of truly historic architectural masterpieces (plenty of modern ones) they are going to be keen to hail a masterpiece. As I see it, at the moment, we have Beaux-Arts architecture, Neo-Renaissance architecture, and chateauesque all claiming to be 2E - and they can't all be. In my opinion: 2E has to be a building in the spirit of Georges-Eugène Haussmann and no one else. However, just to confuse you all further, please read this page. If you're not totally confused, then you ought to be! For some rational serious sense, I would suggest that my old friend Wetman join this conversation. Giano (talk) 19:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

HA! I was just going to propose, as a joke, that after we are finished here we go over to Queen Anne architecture and play there for a bit. Please do notify Wetman, I have not been in a good discussion with him in years and he always has a level head. Perhaps we are going to have to split the article up, you can have all the real masterpieces and I'll get the boorish American stuff. I do also get Canada, I don't care if it is in the Commonwealth, the "A Guide to Canadian Architectural Styles" definitely includes what might be called vernacular or domestic examples, more or the lowbrow, across-the-Atlantic junk. Carptrash (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure all the buildings on your side of the pond aren't "boorish"; after all, you do have the Trump Tower - I'm sure there's no boorish connection there. Giano (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trump and everything about him falls into an entirely different Empire, one that I hope I shall never see. In the meantime I am thinking of some sort of King Solomon approach to this article. I find myself being very curious as to where the term "Second Empire" is first used in English as related to architecture. Looking through my somewhat limited books on English architecture I don't seem to be able to find it at all. Your thoughts? Carptrash (talk) 22:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Joining late) I agree the Texas courthouse example looks horrible, but it also seems like an authentic American application to a government-type building. The article's section on 2E in the United States needs some work, some sources that would properly characterize the United States applications as a lesser (meaning that judgmentally) and probably simplified, probably often unaesthetic in that they are applying a formula without appreciation of necessary proportionality or something. How do you put into words what is wrong with that Texas courthouse? It would be great to get some European architectural critic's haughty view of 2E in America, and contrast that with some American architectural person speaking up positively for it, that it genuinely expresses something different than what it represents in Europe, etc. blah blah etc.

But what did the Americans mean to express, when they used 2E architecture? I can't imagine it is to express solidarity with the Bonapartiste regime of Napoleon III; I doubt that Napoleon III was popular in America or whether he is even known at all, to many architects employing the style. In contrast to Greek Revival architecture in the United States, which was about several things:

Adopting something/anything other than English Regency or other English-associated styles
Like Jefferson, expressing admiration for ancient Greece and democracy
Expressing solidarity with contemporary Greek independence movement

Also the United States section really needs some explicit discussion of the American/Canadian version of 2E applied in domestic architecture. From the list of U.S. examples given, Reitz Home Museum is a good example of 2E in my view, which is the U.S. domestic version, which is not described/discussed/shown in the text for the U.S. section. I have a pretty good book somewhere that I should pull out. :) --do nor am 20:59, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: Thanks for joining in late, this promises to be an interesting endeavor. I think what you need to look for in terms of what the Americans were up to falls more in to the realm of fashion than anything else. But I shall be working on the US section more when I am over my flu, which just makes me irritable and not so rational. It is (opinion) all going to come down to sources. I am going to be chatting with Richard Guy Wilson later this week, might try and squeeze some thoughts out off him. Carptrash (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Definitive description and examples of Second Empire

Further to debate above: here is the official description of 2E from what I still think is the definitive architectural Bible 'Copplestone, Trewin (1963). World Architecture. Hamlyn; (Page 310):-

"....this period of equilibrium (French Renaissance Revival: eg Hôtel de Ville, Paris) did not long outlast the 1840s..picturesqueness was revamped and popularised in a new guise by the Ecologists and the High Vicorians, and the classic Romantic tradition was, at the moment of its demise, reincarnated in that eclectic idiom subsequently known as the Second Empire style whether in France or abroad. To a degree this fashion grows out of the 16th century Renaissance used in the extensions of the Hotel de Ville and the 17th century modes that were employed for the sake of consistency in the continuation and completion (1853) of the Louvre. The style gained a certain spontaneity by the lavishness of which it made use of the mansard roof silhouette and bulbous square based domes, and by the pneumatic inflated scale of the masses. The most ornate monument in this vein is the Garnier Opera."

Besides the Palais Garnier, Trewin gives as prime examples of the style:

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir George Gilbert Scott).
The Burgtheater, Vienna (Gottfied Semper).
Former State War and Navy Building, Washington (Arthur B Mullet).

I think this does rather mean we have to look for baroque elements rather than the chateauesqe. Giano (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly in Texas

About this:

Provincial architecture at its worst. The building is too tall for its footprint. The segmented windows should be on the first floor not the ground. The ground floor windows should be smaller - the same size as those on the second floor. The oculus windows in the portal towers should be smaller and set within a cartouche, and the spires/domes on top of the towers have lost all sense of architectural rhythm and look ridiculous. What are all these towers for anyway - it's supposed to be elegant Baroque revival, not William the Conqueror building a secure holiday home. Yellow brick should never be employed for Second Empire and the coloured brick banding is a vulgar, cheap architectural trick more reminiscent of Legoland than Second Empire. Such examples should not be included in a page on the 2E style. As for the central clock tower, let's just not go there. --Giano

Yes about "what are all those towers for anyway". The forest of towers seems contrary to the characteristic solid massing in French Renaissance styles including in 2E. McAlesters comment about the efficiency of the mansard roof: "...particularly adapted to town houses, for it provided an upper floor behind the steep roof line, and thus made the structure appear less massive than most other styles with comparable interior space." Here, the cluster of towers will provide terribly little useful space. There is little/no proper mansard roofed regular space above the lower floors, it is all towers instead. --do ncr am 19:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it mixes straight "rooflines" (of the corner towers) vs. convex rooflines (of the taller towers). Maybe convex rooflines are in fact always ugly in regular rooflines as well as in towers; McAlesters say they are very unusual, and from my browsing other photos the convex or straight rooflines look good while convex always look bad. --do nor am 19:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless this is an example of 2E in America, called a "Second Empire masterpiece" in The Courthouses of Texas. Our task at wikipedia is not to impose our views on any subject on the article but to go with what the references tell us. But these discussion real should be taking place here. Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada. This article is about the style in Europe, which we are all aware, does NOT include piles such as this one. Carptrash (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overhaul begins

So it begins! Thanks Giano for the start. Did we keep the lists in a sandbox somewhere (to work off of when adding back in) or should I set one up? Garchy (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think set one up. Most of them are not good examples and I'm not convinced that the stereotype Hammer house of horror design is 2E anyway. I think we need a prime example from each significant country - one each to start off with. The Eisenhower building is as good as it gets for the USA. Giano (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But be emotionally prepared for when the vernacular residential examples from the USA begin to appear because they are an important subset, or whatever, of the style over here. Carptrash (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I guess I'd like to see a source for picking the Burgtheater as being 2E. Carptrash (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to do so, but if you read section above you will see the ref. Giano (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I actually had my copy out (picture 939) and don't believe that it, the book, is going to be that useful once we get into the low-brow American and Canadian residential examples. Carptrash (talk) 18:12, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No it won't be, but do we need the low-brow examples? Would it not be better to stick to easily identifiable examples, rather then examples by mediocre architects working in a provincial, often vernacular style. There has to come a point when an example is so bad it ceases to be an example. Take that Texas courthouse; true, it had a few 2E motifs, but the architect had lost his sense of scale and perspective. The Chiaroscuro wasn't working at all, and even the building materials were plain wrong. I think we have to be ruthless here or the page isn't going to inform at all - merely confuse. Giano (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In case it's needed I've retained a copy of the original list here. Edit as needed! Cheers, Garchy (talk) 20:29, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So this guy pulls into a gas station that has a sign "CHEAPEST GAS IN TOWN" and fills up and pays. He looks at the bill and goes to the manager and says,"This is not the cheapest gas in town, that station across the intersection is a dime (shilling) a gallon (liter) less." and the operator answers, "Hey, it's just the name of the station." So it is with 2E architecture in the colonies. It has nothing, or very little to do with what's over there. It's just a name that is applied to various buildings which are pretty easily identified once you accept the fact that they are 2E by definition. I think the solution that can keep us all happy here, 'cause who wants to edit wikipedia and be unhappy about it, is to have a spin off article "2E in the US and Canada" and maybe the ANZAC folks, not sure about them, that can better reflect both reality and the references than what is likely to occur here. Carptrash (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Carptrash. I think having a seperate page for North America is a very good idea. The style clearly takes a very different form over there, although I still think a lot of the buildings labelled as 2E are in fact Neo-Gothic, Neo-French Renaissance and that awful loose, misleading term "chateauesque." Howver, it's not just North American architects who designed some pretty poor examples - I have just found a book referring to this London building as a good example. Giano (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Giano: Every now and then we need to remind ourselves that just because we don't like something it does not mean that whatever it is is bad. However your Lambeth Town Hall would not pass muster as 2E in the US. Or Canada either, so we agree on somethings. I also looked at the history her and we both have been editing this article for over 10 years so it is important to me that we both feel good about it. You might want to import some of the US stuff back, maybe the War Department and the Philly City Hall just so that there is not a large hole Carptrash (talk) 15:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash:, I can usually find something nice to say about most buildings, so if I don't like something, then yes, it is bad......very bad. And that courthouse building is truly bad, and so is Lambeth Town Hall - there are so many good examples, I don't see the point of exhibiting bad ones and confusing people - the point of Wikipedia is to inform rather than to confuse. I don't think we do really disagree about what should be included anyway; however, splitting the page is an excellent move because the style itself seemed to split when it crossed the Atlantic, as our old friend the oddly named Trewin Copplestone said; "in the USA the style stayed closer to its Renaissance roots." But as it undeniably started in Europe where it showed little if any evidence of the French Renaissance roots (which materialised in the USA), I'm not sure I even agree with that statement as the European Renaissance roots (even in France) are clearly Italian Renaissance rather than French. I suspect, if my old fried Wetman were to participate in this conversation, he would tell us to stop trying to label buildings and that in Europe we only have neo-Baroque and in the USA you have Second Empire, which was so named because some long forgotten worthy thought, for residential properties, it sounded rather grander and more concise than "Looks-a-bit-like-a-French-chateau." Giano (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is pretty difficult for me to consider not labeling buildings when the article is about a particular style, which really (another word for "in my opinion) just another word for 'label." I suspect (yet another euphemism for "opinion") that at the time, in the US and Canada the style was called "French", or something similar and to me, I have yet to find a good source to back me up, the style was popular here because at the time the US was busy building her own Empire, albeit, the First One, and the style appealed to the vanity of the builders, or at least those who commissioned them. There is also a lot of mixing of the 2E and the Italianate architecture with many overlapping details. In my understanding of European styles there really was no Greek Revival architecture residences, yet in the US and Canada one can find thousands of examples. The Gothic Revival architecture, I believe, is the same. I think that you would be hard pressed to discover Greek or Gothic cottages in Europe, though I trust you will correct me if I am in error. It's the same with 2E and the style can not really be discussed in its entirety if these example, bad though they may be, are not included. Carptrash (talk) 18:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We are disagreeing, I'm afraid (nicely I hope), but bad examples serve no use whatsoever other than to confuse. I could build a tree house for my children and claim it was Palladian, but that wouldn't mean it should be included in the article here. Since you asked me to correct you: there were Greek Revival houses, but as this photo shows, the style did not happily adapt to domestic architecture, which probably explains why it didn't catch on. Incidentally, that house's best claim to fame is not it's architecture, but a poem by John Betjeman: "And even in the summer, On a bright East-Anglian day; When round your Doric portico; Your children's children play; There's a something in the stillness; And our waiting eyes are drawn; From the butler and the footman; Bringing tea out on the lawn,; From the little silver spirit lamp; That burns so blue and still, To the half-seen mausoleum...." The original builder is better known for his mausoleum than his house! Giano (talk) 18:38, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"which probably explains why it (Greek Revival as residential architecture) didn't catch on." Here (again) you are taking the European experience and making it universal, which I am not willing to agree is appropriate. I am looking at my copy of Talbot Hamlin's (hmmm, shouldn't be a red link?) Greek Revival Architecture in America: Being an account of important trends in American architecture and American life prior to the war between the States (1944) and, without counting pages yet, a large chunk of it is about residential architecture. Think Gone With the Wind. You've come up with one (failed) example of British GR residence, as a student I was involved in the research for a thematic National Register nomination, "Rural Greek Revival architecture in Washtenaw County" (not sure it was ever submitted) and there were dozens of extant example all over 100 years old at the time, just in one largely rural county in Michigan. It was successful. As was the use of 2E as a residential form. These are NOT bad examples of some pure ideal, as they might be considered in Europe, in North American they are the form. Ugly as they might be to some eyes, they are the style over here. Carptrash (talk) 18:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say Greek Revival didn't catch on the USA, I said it did not really catch on in Europe as a domestic style. However, this article is about 2E not Greek revival, and it is undeniable that in a domestic capacity the style is vastly different in the USA to Europe. Giano (talk) 20:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the

Second Empire architecture page should not just be a redirect to Europe but should rather leave the patron with the choice to going either to Second Empire architecture in Europe or Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada - which perhaps should be Second Empire architecture in North America. Sooner or later the ANZAC forces will arrive and I suspect that they will go along with NA, but I am happy just waiting on that. Carptrash (talk) 15:20, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Second Empire architecture should be an overview of the history of the architecture, at a minimum a page stub. If we are creating two pages for the geographical differences there should still be "main" page with an overview, even if brief. Garchy (talk) 15:48, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Garchy: Yes, I have started a very simple page there that, hopefully, we can all agree on. check it out and expand it - be bold. Carptrash (talk) 15:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

section moved to Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada. Carptrash (talk) 19:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

McAlesters about American 2E houses

A Field Guide to American Houses, by Virginia & Lee McAlester, Alfred A. Knopf, 1990 (but with copyright 1984, perhaps for a hardback edition?) introduces Second Empire as one of a group of Renaissance Classical styles "based upon buildings built during the revival of interest in Ancient Classical models which bagan in Italy in the early 15th century and gradually worked its way" to France (mid 16th century) and to England (early 17th century). "In America.... The French Renaissance tradition inspired the Second Empire (1855-85) and the Beaux Arts (1885-1930) styles as well as some subtypes of the French Eclectic (1915-45) style. A steeply pitched hipped roof, or dual-pitched mansard roof, is a characteristic feature of many of these French Renaissance-inspired houses." (p 6 & 8) Page 9 has simple sketches.

"Victorian Houses: Second Empire", is a chapter from page 240 to 253. Page 243 has detailed sketches of 5 roof shapes (between "curbs" [called "molded cornices on page 240] at bottom and top). Very common: Very straight, straight with flare, concave. Very unusual: convex, S-curves (two types). 5 typical dormers & window surrounds. 6 typical cornices. Typical elaborations (in a sketch of a full house, from top to bottom: cupola, round window or dormer, cresting along roof line, patterned roof, projecting central pavilion, bracketed window, paired windows (sometimes triple), quoins, belt course, hooded window, one-story porch, one- or two-story bay windows, paired entry doors sometimes with glass in top half.

Pages 241-42:

Identifying Features: Mansard (dual-pitched hipped) roof with dormer windows on steep lower slope; molded cornices normally bound the lower roof slope both above and below; decorative brackets usually present beneath eaves.

Principal Subtypes [sketches for these appear on page 240]:
Simple Mansard Roof (about 20%) ...

Centered Wing or Gable (about 20%) ...

Assymetrical (about 20%)...

Towered (about 30%)...

Town House...

Variants and Details: The style is characterized principally by its distinctive roof: five principal mansard silhouettes occur. Decorative patterns of color or texture are common in the roofing materials, as is iron cresting above the upper cornice. If a tower is present, it may have a roof silhouette different from that of the main house; the convex and ogee (S-curve) shapes, in particular, are more common on towers than on houses. Dormers and dormer windows appear in a great variety of styles. Beneath the distinctive roof line, Second Empire houses have details that are similar to those of the closely related Italianate style. Many show Italianate brackets at the cornice line; note, however, that Second Empire houses normally have less eave overhang than do Italianate examples. Window, door, and porch details are similar to those used in the Italianate style (see the drawings of those details in the Italianate chapter). Unelaborated windows, usually arched above, are also common on Second Empire but are rare in Italianate examples.

Occurrence: Second Empire was a dominant style for American houses constructed between 1860 and 1880, although the first examples were built in the 1850s and late examples were not uncommon in the 1880s. The style was most popular in the northeastern and midwestern states. It is less common on the Pacific Coast and relatively rare in the southern states, although scattered examples survive in all regions settled before 1880.

Comments: The contemporaneous Italianate and Gothic Revival styles were part of a Picturesque movement which looked to the romantic past for inspiration. In contrast, the Second Empire style was considered very modern, for it imitated the latest French building fashions. The distinctive roof was named for the 17th-century French architect Francois Mansart. Its use was extensively revived in France during the reign of Napoleon III (1852-70), France's Second Empire, from which the style takes its name. Exhibitions in Paris in 1855 [ Exposition Universelle (1855) ] and 1867 [ International Exposition (1867) ] helped to popularize the style in England, from whence it spread to the United States. The boxy roof line was considered particularly functional because it permitted a full upper story of usable attic space. For this reason the style became popular for the remodeling of earlier buildings as well as for new construction. The Second Empire style was used for many public buildings in America during the Grant administration (1869-77) and has been facetiously called the General Grant style. It rapidly passed from fashion following the panic of 1873 and the subsequent economic depression."

Pages 243-53 are photos of specific houses, grouped by the 5 subtypes, with comments. E.g. in the Towered section, with 8 photos: "5. Auburn, Maine; ca. 1880. Jordan House; Charles A. Jordan, architect-builder. Note the arcaded front porch, also seen in figure 8."

About the McAlester material: Yes it is about fashion. I note the U.S. version was contemporaneous with the style in France. Which tends to make meprefer for there to be one article, unless/until necessary for size reasons; splitting was premature perhaps. It may be that splitting out U.S. domestic architecture rather than all U.S. may make sense. --do nor am 18:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: This whole section should be moved over to Second Empire architecture in the United States and Canada, this article is just about the style in Europe and the McAlesters are strictly American. PS My version is a 1986 paperback, copyright, 1984. Carptrash (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Doncram: I'm going to agree with you - I don't think there is enough material to warrant THREE separate articles on this topic. What is preventing there from being ONE Second Empire article that covers, in subsections, the differences between North America and Europe? Splitting the pages tends to make things more convoluted than it needs to be for Wikipedia - the information contained in all three pages can easily be moved into one article. Garchy (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of splits and re-merging

There was a discussion going here which has been split, with at least one discussion section here being moved to another Talk page.

Although I expressed some sympathy for the idea of differentiating between a high-type style in France vs. a low-type style in American domestic architecture, IF THERE WOULD BE SUPPORT IN SOURCES, I don't happen to agree that splitting "Second Empire architecture" makes sense yet, or at all, and not to "Europe" vs. "United States and Canada". Indeed, what about 2E in Australia: Category:Second Empire architecture in Australia.

It may in fact make sense at some point to split out Second Empire in houses, which exists in the U.S. (does it exist in Europe, I am not sure). But the major American governmental buildings (not including one regional bad example in a remote county in a remote U.S. state) so far appear to me to be fine "high" style architecture. And I believe they were contemporaneous with the use of the style in France and England, and it doesn't make sense to split.

It is also unfortunate to lose the continuity and quorum of discussion. I gather that Giano would not participate in discussion about U.S. or Australian or elsewhere, for example, while they were commenting about the Texas example when that was here.

Further, it is fun to talk a bit rudely and frankly at a Talk page, but some of what went on was uninformed and simply incorrect speculation, i.e. that American 2E was a corruption/transformation of "French" or "Chateauesque", which is just not so. As covered in the McAlester quoted material that has been removed from this talk page, it was explicitly Second Empire, following from the 1855 and 1867 Paris exhibitions, in the same time frame as the Second Empire in France.

Should I put merger tags on three articles now? This is a mess. --do nor am 20:17, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you are serious about trying to reconcile the differences here it is no problem returning your previous comments, which just got moved. Also, if you look at the history as presented on this talk page you'll note that Giano and I started this discussion ten years ago, in 2006 I believe, so this is nothing new. It appeared to me that the best i was going to do here was squeeze in some "poor country cousin" stuff, which would be kept totally separate from the "real" 2E style least some contamination occur, and I was not going to settle for that, I'd rather cut the baby in half. I looked over the Austrailian examples a while ago and decided that most, if not all of them, MIGHT fall into the "high style" category, but was going to allow Giano to make that call. If he wanted them, fine, if not, well they are colonials and as such are welcome with the rest of us. If you want to broker a deal, okay, don't tag them because who knows what that would drag in, we can, as my wife says, have a relationship because we can talk about it Carptrash (talk) 20:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Carptrash, I did not say that all American examples were bad or a corruption of the style. I said that one or two of the given USA examples were poor and should not be included. Similarly, several European examples have been removed for not being good examples. The style differs greatly within the USA and hugely from the style in Europe; if the pages are to be reunited, then that needs to be explained. For instance, the Eisenhower Building fits more or less perfectly with the European interpretation of the style, but isn't recognizable as belonging to the same style as most of the towered residential buildings. I for one, would love to know why that is. Giano (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I was never that thrilled about the separate but equal approach to the subject that, in all fairness to you folks,, I initiated. If you want to understand how the War Building in Washington and some towered 2E residence in, say, Ypsilanti, Michigan, could possibly be in the same style you will need to accept the definition of the style as used in the US. It was almost painful for me to have you say "such and such in not a good example" when you were, so it appeared to me, not really clear as to what the style consisted of over here. I am very curious as to who first used the term 2E to describe an architectural style, so if you have any insight into that plea toss it out. Carptrash (talk) 18:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Giano, and thank you, Carptrash, and thank you User:Garchy (in the McAlesters discussion section)! Okay, good, do let's conclude that there exist some bad examples of the style which should not be used as examples for illustration in this/these article(s). And are we okay on, I hope, developing a unified article for a while, presumably in this now-misnamed Second Empire architecture in Europe article? To be organized by European style (applied in all countries, perhaps with subsections on France, England, U.S., Australia) vs. a section on domestic architecture in North America at least, which seems to be different. This article is the original one with long edit history and followed by 55 watchers (while there are less than 30 following the new U.S. and Canada one, and surprising to me, there are 55 watchers of the new Second Empire architecture one, as I thought the watchers would continue on the moved article only).
I've developed the Christina Kuhl House article which Giano linked to, by my adding its NRHP nomination document. It looks unusual to me as an example of the towered residential type, being built of brick (actually it is a brick veneer on a wood frame) and having two towers like a castle...indeed it is "known locally as 'the castle,'", while most 2E do not look like castles. It is unspoiled and "one of the finest and most expensive" houses in its town, but no one is saying it is a great or even particularly good example of Second Empire style in the U.S. I could be wrong but I think one tower is usual in towered applications. I think it doesn't look like ones pictured in the McAlesters' book.
But, point taken that the U.S. domestic architecture, in all of its subtypes, appear quite different than the "European interpretation of the style" (as Giano puts it). And the European interpretation does indeed seem to apply to many U.S. buildings of the larger and/or governmental types. (BTW, is there a difference between English vs. French applications? The McAlesters say the English brought it home from the 1855 and 1867 Paris expositions; did they not change it at all?) Note also, as User:Carptrash edited in the current Second Empire architecture article: "In the United States, where one of the leading architects working in the style was Alfred B. Mullett, buildings in the style were often closer to their 17th-century roots than examples of the style found in Europe (Copplestone, p. 311)." So the original, European style was continued on both sides of the Atlantic (and seemingly also across the Pacific, in Australia).
Speculation: the big buildings (more than 3 stories) in the U.S. and Europe, like the quite large 6-story Eisenhower Building and the smaller but still big 5-story Mitchell Building, might be built differently, structurally, and involve a completely separate set of technologies and architects and builders, vs. what's used in house construction. The big buildings may be built of two-foot-thick heavy load-bearing masonry walls plus heavy timbering, or is it too early for there to be use of steel beams and reinforced concrete? (I was just encountering this difference discussed in coverage of construction of the 5-story non-2E Elks Building (Stockton, California), near San Francisco, built just after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. By 1906, there were both types, and the steel-frame ones survived the quake better.)
- The Eisenhower building is in fact a heavy building of stone construction and with interiors that is all iron work, (not Timber framing) per its NRHP inventory/nomination form (which I just got and added to the article. There is a floor plan showing interior courtyards and narrow building spaces, and it looks to me like the building could be vertical structural stone walls (perhaps with iron to hold floors that have no long spans, perhaps with no wooden beams at all). (As Carptrash has noted below, Mullett used iron.) --do ncr am 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While the houses are balloon frame, of simple technology pretty much as had been used for a while in U.S. houses. The application of 2E to houses might have just sprung up as an imitative fashion by addition/change of a few superficial elements, which local builders could adopt easily. Note the McAlester book emphasizes a heavy overlap of design with the preceding Italianate architecture style for houses, in windows, window dressings, and decorative brackets, and much more. This might be checked by reviewing sources covering the earliest-built 2E houses in Category:Second Empire architecture in the United States, almost all of which are NRHP-listed. Occasionally an NRHP nomination document is written by an informed architectural historian who writes from a broad perspective, I'll look for that.
BTW, a) there are non-2E houses currently in Category:Second Empire architecture in the United States, and b) there are many U.S. 2E houses not in the category. I could try to improve the categorization both ways, for (a) by going through the category and its state-specific subcategories and looking at their pictures, and for (b) by getting a new list of 2E examples from the NRIS database.
--do ncr am 18:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for tossing down the gauntlet of peace, which I will pick up, though bending over is not as easy as it used to be. Unfortunately, I have to prepare fro my Wednesday afternoon gig (today we are doing an all Dylan event to honor his Nobel Prize) so will not be able to work on this much today. However I did a quick look on my A.B.Mullett book and found that he did use cast iron structurally in his Army, Navy Building. Regarding the Two Towers (sounds more like a hobbit issue than an architectural one), remember this is American, where if one two is good, two is even better. In the words of Douglas McArthur, "I shall return." Thanks again don cram for your good work. Carptrash (talk) 19:21, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for that. LOL re: "Gauntlet of peace"!?!?!. :) Hmm, I wish I were in SoCal now where my favorite local group did an all-Dylan concert/jam every year for 15-20 years I think. They must be having a big celebration. --do ncr am 19:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone - Just wanted to check in to see if we have a plan for restructure. I haven't had a chance to work on this in the last few weeks (hence why it's been silent on my end) so I figured I would reignite the discussion :) Garchy (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]