One of the highlights of the local holiday season is Stan Hywet’s annual Deck The Halls celebration, which is one of Ohio’s largest and most spectacular holiday traditions. The celebration runs from December 14-23 and December 26-30.

A million lights ensure that the holiday season always remains merry and bright.

The former Seiberling estate is illuminated inside and out with over ONE MILLION lights and this year, the historic Manor House is decorated and inspired by the theme of  Postcards from the Past. DAZZLE is a fantastic outdoor light show choreographed to three new songs this year and Gingerbread Land, the popular play garden has also been “dressed up” for the holiday season as well.

As always, the Great Hall is decked out in its holiday finest.

This year, the celebration is bigger and better than ever, and includes:

•Nightly tree lighting at 5:30pm. After Christmas, look for the Gingerbread Man.

•Live music in the Music Room, courtesy of area choirs and musicians.

•Self-guided tours of the Manor House included in ticket purchase.

•Freshly baked gingerbread cookies, savory warm pretzels, cocoa, hot cider, beer and wine for purchase in the Courtyard.

•Enjoy all of the above treats at the cozy warming fire in the Courtyard.

•Visit with Santa and Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer in the Corral in the Courtyard.

•Take a family photo at two featured photo spots—perfect for that family holiday picture.

•Marvel at our new animated Gingerbread Bakeshop Window in the Courtyard.

•The tropical Corbin Conservatory is beautifully decorated for Christmas with a 20ft poinsettia tree.

•Shop for unique holiday gifts in Molly’s Shop.

•Enjoy light fare or a sweet treat in Molly’s Café after your tour.

For more information, go to: www.stanhywet.org

When I think of an English Pub, many things come to mind, but as often as not, it’s usually something like the Carlton Tavern Pub, in York. This Victorian-era pub, with its lively Tudor-revival exterior, sits amongst mature trees in a very attractive area.

The Carlton Tavern in York is under threat. Clearly a pub well worth saving.

Unfortunately, the pub has never been designated as a heritage asset, which is why it was recently slated for demolition as part of a luxury residential care-home scheme. Without reasonable consideration of options that would enable the building to be kept, the City of York Council had approved the structure’s demolition at their Planning Committee meeting in October, with a tie vote of 6-6 swung by the Committee Leader.

Fortunately, close scrutiny of the decision-making on the part of the Victorian Society as well as local residents has resulted in the Council going for an unprecedented re-vote on this issue. To facilitate the pub’s preservation, a purchase proposal has been put forward to refurbish the pub and provide holiday accommodation for race goers and visitors to York, as well as a community pub, restaurant and deli.

With a re-vote set for the 13th of December, the slightest of opportunities now exist to ensure that Councillors fully grasp the historic and economic significance of the Carlton Tavern. If you live nearby and have a voice, it is your opportunity to be heard!

Link: Save The Pub! 38 Degrees Campaign

Just came across this story from Houzz about a new exhibition in New York City that opens today, the 18th, and runs through January 31st at 218 W. 57th. Having visited Highclere Castle--where the Downton Abbey series was filmed--the exhibition fills in some of the show-oriented details that aren't evident when visiting the historic house. Click on the photo below for the complete story.

Downton Abbey: The Exhibition
When: Nov. 18 through Jan. 31, 2018
Where: 218 W. 57th St., New York City
Cost: Starts at $30

Similar treatment. Totally different plan.

I recently came across this Toronto Star story about two couples in Canada who were involved in a lawsuit regarding the appearance of their houses. Apparently the owners of a 1935-era Tudor Revival home—which they had spent a lot of money to renovate in 2006—had many of its features “copied” by owners of a newly-built neighboring house nearby. The owners of the older home sued the couple who built the new house for $1.5 million in damages, including $20,000 in copyright damages and $1 million in punitive damages.
The owners of the existing home claimed that the neighbors copied a number of features from their home, including similar gray stonework, the same shade of blue on the windows, similar treatments in the gables and other unique design cues that made their house “one of the most well-known and admired houses in the neighborhood” - according to the lawsuit.

LEFT: Couldn't spring for a proper chimney pot, eh?

Of course, I am aware that house designs and plans can be copyrighted, although it is seldom an issue for the courts; it’s not easy to prove infringement, since even the average builder would not normally think to copy a plan in such careful and exact detail to leave no doubt as to its origin.

In this case, the plans of the houses are totally different—only some of the architectural details were copied, and I don’t think using a particular stone type or paint color constitutes a violation of copyright. If you look at some of the side-by-side photos in the article, you’ll see some clear similarities, but you’ll also see clear differences as well.

Both couples claimed to have been inspired by Tudor architecture, and that is clear, though the results vary in their quality. A stepped stone or brick chimney is a common Tudor feature—you can’t copyright it.  Arched doorways and stone construction are not uncommon either. The owners of the older home claim that the copycat house “devalued” their own, but I don’t buy it.

Shape is all these two have in common.

When we built our house, I was the first in the neighborhood to use “scalloped” shingle-style siding over a prominent portion of our house. Shortly thereafter, another house built around the corner included that feature over its center gable, as did another home several doors down the street that was remodeled a few years ago. Did they copy what we did? I don’t know—but even if they did, I would take it as a compliment. I think that would have been a more mature and appropriate response here.

As for the builders of the new house, I really can’t imagine why anyone with a brain would slavishly copy features of a nearby house like paint color, adding weatherboarding to a gable, etc. without looking at other options. If you’re a Tudor-lover, there are too many sources of inspiration out there to have to resort to something so craven. Seems like a lack of imagination. Or just laziness.

Through its Grand Houses and Gardens Tour Program, set to run from September 15-23, 2017, Scotland’s National Trust has developed a deluxe travel package that will offer visitors a chance to explore a number of historic properties, including C.R. Mackintosh’s Hill House, Fyvie Castle, Falkland Palace & Garden, Craigievar Castle and many others.

Charles Rennie Mackintosh's best known house - Hill House

The trip package is the first of its kind offered by National Trust for Scotland Foundation, USA (NTSUSA), which helps raise funds for the charity in the United States. Among the many trip highlights, art historian Dr. Evelyn Silber will lead a tour of Glasgow, taking in Charles Rennie Mackintosh's buildings, including the Glasgow School of Art as well as Hill House in Helensburgh, currently the subject of a fundraising appeal.

In the northeast, highlights will include Pitmidden Garden, the Robert Adam-designed Haddo House, pink-turreted Fyvie Castle, and Drum Castle, which now houses a contemporary art gallery.

Craigievar Castle was home to the Forbes family for over 350 years.

"We are so pleased to offer an exceptional tour to Scotland designed with an American audience in mind, said Kirstin Bridier, executive director of NTSUSA. "This trip combines visits to iconic sites like Edinburgh Castle with behind-the-scenes access at National Trust for Scotland treasures including Haddo House and The Hill House. We can't wait to share the extraordinary beauty and history of Scotland with individuals from the US."

You can find out more HERE.

A Tudor Revival interior that embraces its unique details and original woodwork. Courtesy Stonewood, LLC

I was heartened to see a story on Houzz the other day regarding the continued popularity of the Tudor Revival style in American homes, including an outline of its basic visual elements. Architect Steven Randal does a fine job of distilling the style's most essential design cues, and best of all, the story includes some excellent photographic examples of contemporary Tudor Revival interiors. The collection of images included with the article fully dispels the notion that these rooms are dark and dusty museum set-pieces.

Another room that blends with contemporary style. Courtesy Margot Hartford Photography

The story was refreshing for another reason (one which I have noted more than once) regarding the “typical” rooms one sees when visiting Houzz. More and more, it seems that almost every room featured on the website is bathed in white; white woodwork, white cabinets, white floors, white furniture…all combined with a very trendy, “hip” design aesthetic that looks like it was inspired by any one of a hundred DIY-design-craft -blogs. I’ve found this to become fairly tiresome, and it’s only remedied by entering a more specific site search for rooms offering more traditional styles, more color, or more of anything not defined by “trendy.”

As I noted, the photos accompanying this story are helpful, in that they offer a clean and contemporary look that embraces each home’s Tudor details instead of painting them out (in white) or de-emphasizing them. This is not always an easy problem to solve, as we will eventually be looking to update the interiors of our own house, and need all the inspiration we can find.

You can reference the full article HERE.

Even I am subject to letting my feeling be known when it comes to politics and current events in the news. As are many, I am deeply troubled by the course things have taken since the election of Mr. Trump to our land’s highest office—and I have made mention of it at least once in my TLG Tweets. But I think…only once.

Which is precisely the reason I maintain multiple accounts; most of my gripes and tirades are on my personal account, which is where I focus on other interests like book publishing, advertising, marketing and urban development in the town where I live. Political and personal tweets, as they are, seem to fit in much better there; I don’t feel right subjecting my TLG audience and followers to my political views, even though I expect that, for the most part, their views may be largely sympathetic to my own.

This is especially the case since many of my followers and readers are in the UK. I’m sure many of them are already aware of the issues here in the US, and they have their own to deal with—namely Brexit. In the same way as Trump, that issue has “infested” many of the UK accounts I follow. This is really not surprising, since the subjects are inexorably linked.

The resulting situation has artists, designers, researchers, craftsman, historians, hobbyists and others—people who normally refrain from “dabbling” in daily politics—tweeting up a storm on current political events and policy. For some, it is only a mention here and there. For others, these issues now dominate their daily tweets rather than their usual subjects of interest, and it has now come to the point where they seem unable to focus on anything else.

Being patient, I would not think to block or mute anyone over such a matter; I follow people with some consideration, and I suspect things will return to normal soon enough (or at least closer to normal, after their initial outrage fades).


The biggest problem has become my daily Paper.li newspaper, The ArchRevivalist Daily. Again, I have always tried to select my news “sources” with a great deal of care—accounts that tweet useful and relevant information regarding heritage issues, traditional architecture & design, preservation, etc.—so the newspaper will offer breadth and usefulness.

Lately, however, I have seen a number of ARD issues where the featured story and image is something to do with politics—namely Trump. This is really not what I intended at all, and these stories detract from the primary subject of the newspaper. I recall one issue in particular where one of my usually-relevant sources had perhaps four or five “Trump” tweets or re-tweeted stories posted in one day’s edition. I suppose an improved algorithm on Paper.li’s part could alleviate this to some degree; I'm too busy to do daily content edits and instead rely on their AI to select which stories to “feature.”

As a result, I have been forced to (at least temporarily) take the approach of removing some Twitter accounts from my newspaper source list, at least until they return to tweeting relevant information. I still follow them, of course—I only removed them from the newspaper source list until that times comes again.

I imagine this issue will pass soon enough, but it does pose a significant question to many of us. How much is too much? No one would suggest that we refrain from observing, commenting and even expressing our outrage when it comes to politics and current events. But we must remember there is a time and place to do so, and that getting overwhelmed by such matters can take us off course, muddy our focus, and in the end--make us less happy.

Long before I built my own house in 1992, I always enjoyed buying home improvement, interior design and related types of magazines. I believe it started with the old Metropolitan Home in the very early 80’s and copies of Architectural Digest (many of which I still have) a few years later. Once we decided to build a new home—of English design—I started buying UK magazines like House & Garden, British Homes & Gardens, Country Living, Period Homes, Homes & Antiques, Country Homes & Interiors, Period Living, and of course, Country Life.

I still have dozens of them stacked quietly in the basement; much to my wife’s chagrin, I seldom throw good magazines away, especially when I paid six to eight dollars apiece for them 15 or 20 years ago. I always thought they would be valuable for reference or inspiration, and after taking some time to relax with a glass of ale and look through a dozen or more copies a few days ago, I take comfort in the fact that I was right to do this.


We all know the print magazine business has suffered greatly over the last 15 years, with the advent of so many home-related websites and other online resources. Most magazines provide at least some content online, and other sites like Houzz—along with innumerable design blogs provide enough content to keep a lot of people happy. But it’s not a perfect world.

While I enjoy visiting Houzz regularly, it is so highly focused on contemporary trends that it’s becoming harder for a traditionalist like myself to find much of value. Primary among these concerns is the total dominance of WHITE (or almost-white) interiors across 80 to 90 percent of the posted images, even on their UK website. Similar websites, like HGTV and even This Old House feature a lot of trendy design looks that don’t always fit my traditional tastes.

But I’ve come to realize that it goes beyond content; for whatever reason, the presentation of online material just doesn’t seem to satisfy me the same way it did in a print magazine. I find the intrusion of unrelated, out-of-context ads bothersome. Stories are broken up into small, distracting, disjointed pieces; photos while plentiful, are often smaller. Online, I feel like I’m having content handed out to me piecemeal, rather than flipping to—and then lingering—on a printed page with a coherent story that I can follow at leisure.

Recently, as I perused a stack of my old magazines, I began to realize what I had missed. Interiors were comfortable, personal, and featured a wide spectrum of colors as well as a lot of natural or stained woodwork—rather than the white painted mouldings and casework that continue to dominate today’s designs. Best of all, I noticed that none of the interiors I was looking at looked old or dated; they seemed natural and inviting—timeless, really—and I was surprised that one could take so many useful design cues from magazines that were 15 to 20 years old. (The one exception, I must admit, was the occasional fetish for flowered cotton chintz that seemed to prevail back in the day; but then, no age is perfect, I suppose.)

Furthermore, in print, each issue stood on its own as something memorable and distinct. Online, web pages may change images from month-to-month, but individual stories and features are simply archived or added to an ever-expanding list of “posts”—which may be searchable and easier to access, but often providing less “meat” than their print counterparts.

Advertising has a role to play in this story as well, but I will cover this is a separate post. It is easy to see the linking and direct response advantage provided by the Internet; yet something is lost. Well-done, well thought-out print advertising can add an element of interest to print magazines—at their best, they have even served as valuable reader content. Unfortunately, developing a top-notch print ad with compelling copy is almost a lost art; today’s ads are all about image, pretty pictures and a website URL. The best days were when ads were not seen as a distraction—when readers enjoyed reviewing the assorted ads and found the advertisers’ individual stories almost as interesting as the editorial content.

Again, this is all just an individual observation—I plan to keep on visiting websites, and maybe returning to my basement magazine stacks a little more often as well.

I may even start to buy magazines again. As soon as I find more space to store them.

Long before I built my own house in 1992, I always enjoyed buying home improvement, interior design and related types of magazines. I believe it started with the old Metropolitan Home in the very early 80’s and copies of Architectural Digest (many of which I still have) a few years later. Once we decided to build a new home—of English design—I started buying UK magazines like House & Garden, British Homes & Gardens, Country Living, Period Homes, Homes & Antiques, Country Homes & Interiors, Period Living, and of course, Country Life.

I still have dozens of them stacked quietly in the basement; much to my wife’s chagrin, I seldom throw good magazines away, especially when I paid six to eight dollars apiece for them 15 or 20 years ago. I always thought they would be valuable for reference or inspiration, and after taking some time to relax with a glass of ale and look through a dozen or more copies a few days ago, I take comfort in the fact that I was right to do this.

We all know the print magazine business has suffered greatly over the last 15 years, with the advent of so many home-related websites and other online resources. Most magazines provide at least some content online, and other sites like Houzz—along with innumerable design blogs provide enough content to keep a lot of people happy. But it’s not a perfect world.

While I enjoy visiting Houzz regularly, it is so highly focused on contemporary trends that it’s becoming harder for a traditionalist like myself to find much of value. Primary among these concerns is the total dominance of WHITE (or almost-white) interiors across 80 to 90 percent of the posted images, even on their UK website. Similar websites, like HGTV and even This Old House feature a lot of trendy design looks that don’t always fit my traditional tastes.

But I’ve come to realize that it goes beyond content; for whatever reason, the presentation of online material just doesn’t seem to satisfy me the same way it did in a print magazine. I find the intrusion of unrelated, out-of-context ads bothersome. Stories are broken up into small, distracting, disjointed pieces; photos while plentiful, are often smaller. Online, I feel like I’m having content handed out to me piecemeal, rather than flipping to—and then lingering—on a printed page with a coherent story that I can follow at leisure.

Recently, as I perused a stack of my old magazines, I began to realize what I had missed. Interiors were comfortable, personal, and featured a wide spectrum of colors as well as a lot of natural or stained woodwork—rather than the white painted mouldings and casework that continue to dominate today’s designs. Best of all, I noticed that none of the interiors I was looking at looked old or dated; they seemed natural and inviting—timeless, really—and I was surprised that one could take so many useful design cues from magazines that were 15 to 20 years old. (The one exception, I must admit, was the occasional fetish for flowered cotton chintz that seemed to prevail back in the day; but then, no age is perfect, I suppose.)

Furthermore, in print, each issue stood on its own as something memorable and distinct. Online, web pages may change images from month-to-month, but individual stories and features are simply archived or added to an ever-expanding list of “posts”—which may be searchable and easier to access, but often providing less “meat” than their print counterparts.

Advertising has a role to play in this story as well, but I will cover this is a separate post. It is easy to see the linking and direct response advantage provided by the Internet; yet something is lost. Well-done, well thought-out print advertising can add an element of interest to print magazines—at their best, they have even served as valuable reader content. Unfortunately, developing a top-notch print ad with compelling copy is almost a lost art; today’s ads are all about image, pretty pictures and a website URL. The best days were when ads were not seen as a distraction—when readers enjoyed reviewing the assorted ads and found the advertisers’ individual stories almost as interesting as the editorial content.

Again, this is all just an individual observation—I plan to keep on visiting websites, and maybe returning to my basement magazine stacks a little more often as well.

I may even start to buy magazines again. As soon as I find more space to store them.

The historic Natirar Mansion, built in 1912 for Walter and Kate Macy-Ladd, had served as a private estate for many years, as well as a convalescent home.
In 1983, the Peapack, NJ estate was purchased by King Hassan II of Morocco for his children, and subsequently sold back to Somerset County in 2003. The county has recently leased the site to a local developer, who is renovating the mansion to serve as the centerpiece of a high-end recreational and residential development.

Visually, the 40-room Tudor-revival mansion pays homage to grand Tudor palaces like Henry VIII’s Hampton Court, though in a much smaller scale. Nonetheless, it features a great deal of authentic detail, including intricate ironwork, leaded glass and authentic wood and stone carving.

Designed by noted Boston architect Guy Lowell, the house is now undergoing an in-depth restoration which includes repairs of the slate and copper roof, repointing of brickwork, and renewal of the oak paneling, carved stonework, molded plaster ceilings and period light fixtures.

When completed, the house will become the highlight of a property that will ultimately include private residential villas, a boutique hotel and spa in conjunction with the existing pool, tennis courts and fitness and wellness center, surrounded by 400 acres of riding, walking and biking trails.

Natirar already boasts one of New Jersey’s most acclaimed restaurants, Ninety Acres. Built in the estate’s restored carriage house, this exceptional facility includes a cooking school, a private club and a 12-acre farm.

The historic Natirar Mansion, built in 1912 for Walter and Kate Macy-Ladd, had served as a private estate for many years, as well as a convalescent home.
In 1983, the Peapack, NJ estate was purchased by King Hassan II of Morocco for his children, and subsequently sold back to Somerset County in 2003. The county has recently leased the site to a local developer, who is renovating the mansion to serve as the centerpiece of a high-end recreational and residential development.

Visually, the 40-room Tudor-revival mansion pays homage to grand Tudor palaces like Henry VIII’s Hampton Court, though in a much smaller scale. Nonetheless, it features a great deal of authentic detail, including intricate ironwork, leaded glass and authentic wood and stone carving.
Designed by noted Boston architect Guy Lowell, the house is now undergoing an in-depth restoration which includes repairs of the slate and copper roof, repointing of brickwork, and renewal of the oak paneling, carved stonework, molded plaster ceilings and period light fixtures.

When completed, the house will become the highlight of a property that will ultimately include private residential villas, a boutique hotel and spa in conjunction with the existing pool, tennis courts and fitness and wellness center, surrounded by 400 acres of riding, walking and biking trails.

Natirar already boasts one of New Jersey’s most acclaimed restaurants, Ninety Acres. Built in the estate’s restored carriage house, this exceptional facility includes a cooking school, a private club and a 12-acre farm.

The cards are full color - 54 included

If you are a retailer, a gift shop at a Heritage house (your house may be in the deck!) or other museum shop and desire to purchase in quantity, please contact us and we will help you obtain stock at a lower price. Simply email us at thelonggallery@gmail.com.

Here is a list of the houses included in the deck:

BLUE SET

1 HARDWICK
2 HADDON
3 WINGFIELD  
4 MONTACUTE
5 ASHTON
6 CLEVEDON  
7 BARRINGTON

RED SET

8 CHASTELTON HOUSE
9 NORTH ASTON HALL
10 ASTHALL MANOR
11 MAPLEDURHAM HOUSE
12 BURFORD PRIORY
13 CARSWELL MANOR
14 GARSINGTON MANOR

GREEN SET

15 ASCOTT HOUSE
16 HARTWELL HOUSE
17 DORNEY COURT
18 CHENIES
19 CHEQUERS
20 DORTON    
21 GAYHURST

PURPLE SET

22 SWARLAND OLD HALL    
23 APETHORPE HALL
24 BARNWELL
25 BURTON CONSTABLE
26 BURTON AGNES
27 FOUNTAINS   
28 HOWSHAM        

AQUA SET

29 COMPTON WYNYATES
30 CASTLE ASHBY
31 CHARLECOTE PARK
32 PACKWOOD HOUSE
33 ST JOHNS HOUSE
34 COOMBE ABBEY
35 BURGHLEY HOUSE

ORANGE SET

36 WOLLATON HALL
37 LONGLEAT HOUSE
38 CHARLTON PARK
39 LITTLECOTE HOUSE
40 CORESHAM COURT
41 BOLEHYDE MANOR
42 CHARLWOOD HOUSE

MAROON SET

43 BOOTHBY PAGNELL 
44 ATHELHAMPTON HOUSE
45 THE VYNE
46 LITTLE MORETON HALL 
47 DODDINGTON HALL
48 GREAT BIDLAKE
49 AUDLEY END   

BLACK (ROYAL) SET
50 HAMPTON COURT   
51 RICHMOND PALACE   
52 TOWER OF LONDON   

53 Card List & Intro Text
54 Rules

ST. PAULS SUNDAY SCHOOL & PARISH HOUSE - BUILT 1880'S.

Back in 1986, I was sitting in the kitchen of Elsie Snyder, a local preservationist, along with a few other people, wondering what we could do to avoid the demolition of an old historic apartment building near Akron’s Grace Park. Those gatherings, and that initial effort—which ultimately proved to be unsuccessful—led to the founding of a local group called Progress Through Preservation, (now known as the Preservation Alliance of Greater Akron) which still operates today. I bring this up for two reasons. One – more of our local historic structures are seriously threatened with demolition. And Two – I am wondering if anyone in Akron will make a concerted effort to stop it.

The buildings in question are two of Akron’s most historic, and have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places for many years. They include the former St. Paul’s Episcopal Church and adjacent Sunday School Building and Parish House, located at East Market and Forge Streets. These remarkable gothic structures are among the few remaining links to 19th Century Akron, and the Sunday School is one of the better preserved examples of the historic “Akron Plan” that was developed by Lewis Miller and utilized in hundreds of church buildings across the nation up until WWI. They are attractive, generally well-preserved structures, dating from the 1880’s – 1890’s.
I believe the plan is to raze them to help create some sort of “grand entrance” to the University of Akron from East Market Street; I suppose to complement a similar plan they have for a southern entrance off East Exchange Street. Needless to say, the plan—and the building’s demolition—is unnecessary and short-sighted, and wholly representative of the school’s new administration, which has alienated itself from the greater community through a number of recent missteps such as this.


I may resolve to join yet, but I may wait to see what, if anything, the group will do to help stop the demolition of these historic buildings. The fact is, there is so little left of Akron from the pre-Rubber Boom era that we should be making a special effort to preserve buildings like these. Aside from a few church buildings, the only other structures left from this era are the Robinson Mansion at Buchtel Avenue (currently for sale) and an old funeral home. This stretch of East Market used to be lined with large mansions, much like Cleveland’s old Euclid Avenue—another victim of “progress.”



ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL - ORIGINAL SANCTUARY

I don’t know if this is true in many other places—somehow, I suspect it is—but it seems that some preservation organizations that were active, militant and vocal about preservation during the years when they were established have devolved into “historic architecture social clubs”. These groups plan neighborhood tours, handout preservation awards and maybe talk about appreciating old houses, but no longer take an active role in promoting, planning and fighting for historic preservation.

Years ago, the founders of these organizations would criticize historic groups who only looked at preservation through the concept of “historic house/building museums” – an approach based on taking a few of the very best old buildings, and preserving them in a glass case for future generations to enjoy. Thirty years ago, “real” preservationists knew that approach alone was not sufficient; they knew that preservation also meant saving neighborhoods, promoting adaptive re-use, promoting education, demanding government support, and weaving preservation into the fabric of our cities.

Just this last summer, the local preservation group I’ve mentioned held a Fir Hill neighborhood tour right where these buildings are currently under threat. I wonder what they were looking at. On that street alone, two of the large houses, an 1870’s era Alumni Center and a large 1890’s era mansion (most recently a fraternity house) had been demolished over the last couple of years, leaving just a handful of buildings on the street. If this pattern continues, there won’t be much to see there in coming years.

Distant tours of Detroit—which have also been on the group’s itinerary—will only have value if lessons learned in those cities are brought back to Akron and put into action. Preservation isn’t about talking to ourselves, or touring old houses with “enthusiasts” – it’s about preserving and protecting an environment, and reconnecting with our heritage.

I’ve written my “Letter to The Editor” regarding the possible demolition of these historic structures—and I would happily protest any effort toward their removal. The question is, will anyone join me?

ST. PAULS SUNDAY SCHOOL & PARISH HOUSE - BUILT 1880'S.

Back in 1986, I was sitting in the kitchen of Elsie Snyder, a local preservationist, along with a few other people, wondering what we could do to avoid the demolition of an old historic apartment building near Akron’s Grace Park. Those gatherings, and that initial effort—which ultimately proved to be unsuccessful—led to the founding of a local group called Progress Through Preservation, (now known as the Preservation Alliance of Greater Akron) which still operates today. I bring this up for two reasons. One – more of our local historic structures are seriously threatened with demolition. And Two – I am wondering if anyone in Akron will make a concerted effort to stop it.

The buildings in question are two of Akron’s most historic, and have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places for many years. They include the former St. Paul’s Episcopal Church and adjacent Sunday School Building and Parish House, located at East Market and Forge Streets. These remarkable gothic structures are among the few remaining links to 19th Century Akron, and the Sunday School is one of the better preserved examples of the historic “Akron Plan” that was developed by Lewis Miller and utilized in hundreds of church buildings across the nation up until WWI. They are attractive, generally well-preserved structures, dating from the 1880’s – 1890’s.

I believe the plan is to raze them to help create some sort of “grand entrance” to the University of Akron from East Market Street; I suppose to complement a similar plan they have for a southern entrance off East Exchange Street. Needless to say, the plan—and the building’s demolition—is unnecessary and short-sighted, and wholly representative of the school’s new administration, which has alienated itself from the greater community through a number of recent missteps such as this.


I may resolve to join yet, but I may wait to see what, if anything, the group will do to help stop the demolition of these historic buildings. The fact is, there is so little left of Akron from the pre-Rubber Boom era that we should be making a special effort to preserve buildings like these. Aside from a few church buildings, the only other structures left from this era are the Robinson Mansion at Buchtel Avenue (currently for sale) and an old funeral home. This stretch of East Market used to be lined with large mansions, much like Cleveland’s old Euclid Avenue—another victim of “progress.”



ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL - ORIGINAL SANCTUARY

I don’t know if this is true in many other places—somehow, I suspect it is—but it seems that some preservation organizations that were active, militant and vocal about preservation during the years when they were established have devolved into “historic architecture social clubs”. These groups plan neighborhood tours, handout preservation awards and maybe talk about appreciating old houses, but no longer take an active role in promoting, planning and fighting for historic preservation.

Years ago, the founders of these organizations would criticize historic groups who only looked at preservation through the concept of “historic house/building museums” – an approach based on taking a few of the very best old buildings, and preserving them in a glass case for future generations to enjoy. Thirty years ago, “real” preservationists knew that approach alone was not sufficient; they knew that preservation also meant saving neighborhoods, promoting adaptive re-use, promoting education, demanding government support, and weaving preservation into the fabric of our cities.

Just this last summer, the local preservation group I’ve mentioned held a Fir Hill neighborhood tour right where these buildings are currently under threat. I wonder what they were looking at. On that street alone, two of the large houses, an 1870’s era Alumni Center and a large 1890’s era mansion (most recently a fraternity house) had been demolished over the last couple of years, leaving just a handful of buildings on the street. If this pattern continues, there won’t be much to see there in coming years.

Distant tours of Detroit—which have also been on the group’s itinerary—will only have value if lessons learned in those cities are brought back to Akron and put into action. Preservation isn’t about talking to ourselves, or touring old houses with “enthusiasts” – it’s about preserving and protecting an environment, and reconnecting with our heritage.

I’ve written my “Letter to The Editor” regarding the possible demolition of these historic structures—and I would happily protest any effort toward their removal. The question is, will anyone join me?

Normally, planning authorities don’t look favorably upon building plans when they include significantly remodeling an older structure in order to vastly change its appearance or character. However, if the existing house is unattractive, impractical, or where it does not warrant extensive protection, then allowances can be made.

Such is the example I recently came across on Homebuilding and Renovating—a Tudor Revival remodel in Shropshire that really combines a number of clever tricks and some original thinking to deliver a very convincing and attractive home. Yes, there is some sleight-of-hand going on here; steel beams have been covered in plaster, then grained and finished to look like wood. Stone-like door surrounds are actually made from cast-moulded concrete, and then weathered to look like stone.

Purists may wish for “the real thing” but I cannot argue with the end result. Such is my own experience that the budget of most people—especially where new building projects are concerned—cannot always sustain the use of traditional materials, though they would clearly be our first choice. Creative and available substitutes can often be employed, and this home is a fine example of such an approach.

Looking at the end result, the original, nondescript Georgian home has been flanked with half-timbered Tudor side wings, embellished with a jettied porch over the center section, and topped with a high-pitched timber frame roof. As a self-build project, it is quite impressive; the owners, Mark and Julia Swannell, clearly have an excellent eye—as the proportions and architectural detail are very authentic looking. From a distance (other than the fact that the home’s lines are straight and level) one might briefly mistake it for an original. Well done!

SEE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE.

Here in the States, sports stadiums can be either hit-or-miss, and their styles are all over the map. There are traditional venues, like baseball’s Fenway Park or Wrigley Field, popular newer venues like Baltimore’s Camden Yards, or huge mega-parks, like the Dallas Cowboy’s AT&T Stadium. The design of sports stadiums is a specialist trade, generally dominated by a handful of successful firms.

With this in mind, I was fascinated by the design for Chelsea’s new football (soccer) stadium, developed by Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron, who have unveiled plans for a gargantuan new home for Chelsea FC, “inspired by the design of Westminster Abbey”. As The Guardian points out in a recent article about the design:

“If football is England’s national religion, the sport may soon have its very own majestic cathedral…”

With concept drawing currently on display, the design is said to take its cues from the gothic architecture of the Abbey, in whose diocese the stadium once stood. The new plan was commissioned by the club’s owner, Roman Abramovich, and is expected to cost at least £500m.  The plan will also boost overall crowd capacity from 42,000 to 60,000.

Clearly, based on the concept drawings, the proposed stadium looks nothing like what you might expect, using massive masonry, heavy brick piers and soaring vaults. Parts of it recall London’s Victorian railway viaducts, while other parts do resemble a soaring, buttressed cathedral. The design was also created to blend into the dense, urban location of the stadium, as elevated brick walkway will bring supporters directly into the stands above a world of bars, shops and cafes located in the arches beneath the structure.

From what I can see from the rendering, the concept is a little fantastic, a little outrageous, and utterly brilliant. It is highly difficult to integrate the massing, style and unique design elements of medieval architecture into the modern urban landscape without the result looking like a Disney theme park or something that’s just downright ugly. While I’m sure not everyone will love this design, I see it as highly original, and a very successful effort in using medieval architecture as a modern design inspiration.

Here in the States, sports stadiums can be either hit-or-miss, and their styles are all over the map. There are traditional venues, like baseball’s Fenway Park or Wrigley Field, popular newer venues like Baltimore’s Camden Yards, or huge mega-parks, like the Dallas Cowboy’s AT&T Stadium. The design of sports stadiums is a specialist trade, generally dominated by a handful of successful firms.

With this in mind, I was fascinated by the design for Chelsea’s new football (soccer) stadium, developed by Swiss architects Herzog & de Meuron, who have unveiled plans for a gargantuan new home for Chelsea FC, “inspired by the design of Westminster Abbey”. As The Guardian points out in a recent article about the design:

“If football is England’s national religion, the sport may soon have its very own majestic cathedral…”

With concept drawing currently on display, the design is said to take its cues from the gothic architecture of the Abbey, in whose diocese the stadium once stood. The new plan was commissioned by the club’s owner, Roman Abramovich, and is expected to cost at least £500m.  The plan will also boost overall crowd capacity from 42,000 to 60,000.

Clearly, based on the concept drawings, the proposed stadium looks nothing like what you might expect, using massive masonry, heavy brick piers and soaring vaults. Parts of it recall London’s Victorian railway viaducts, while other parts do resemble a soaring, buttressed cathedral. The design was also created to blend into the dense, urban location of the stadium, as elevated brick walkway will bring supporters directly into the stands above a world of bars, shops and cafes located in the arches beneath the structure.

From what I can see from the rendering, the concept is a little fantastic, a little outrageous, and utterly brilliant. It is highly difficult to integrate the massing, style and unique design elements of medieval architecture into the modern urban landscape without the result looking like a Disney theme park or something that’s just downright ugly. While I’m sure not everyone will love this design, I see it as highly original, and a very successful effort in using medieval architecture as a modern design inspiration.

It’s no surprise that I’m a traditionalist at heart. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be writing about Tudor-Revival houses, medieval art, victorian architecture or preservation issues. That said, I don’t mind a thoughtful update for an older home or a new interpretation of a traditional design. Most of better results come when the old and the new are blended harmoniously together; that doesn’t mean you can’t tell them apart, only that the combination feels natural rather than forced.

That’s why I have a hard time with this Tudor in Rye, NY – where the owner tacked this very contemporary addition onto the back of a modestly-sized Tudor Revival home. I suppose I’ve seen worse; the color and materials do complement the existing house to some extent, but the end result just doesn’t work for me. It’s like you took two totally different house and jammed them together.

What’s more, it seems the owner doesn’t really like traditional or revival styles anyway—the interior, even in the older part of the house—is ultra-contemporary, with no hint of the original house left behind. All white, steel and glass…it looks like the windows were the only element preserved from the existing home.

I suppose they liked the neighborhood. It’s unfortunate that they just didn’t decide to build an all-new contemporary house, rather than compromising the overall appearance of this one. Perhaps the only good thing I can say here is (as you can see in the second photo) that the addition was placed at the rear of the house, and is not so visible from the street.

While I have seen and even paged-through Prince Charles’ 1989 book, A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture many times, I have never purchased a copy. I suppose I should.

The Prince’s views on architecture, and his preference for the traditional over the modern are well-known. Ever since his famous “monstrous carbuncles” speech back in 1984, where he lectured the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and lambasted modern design, the Prince has been steadfast in his support for traditional design, refusing to back down.

That’s why the recent release of the Prince’s correspondence regarding health, housing and heritage matters is no surprise. Six letters written by Charles have been published by the Government and show how the heir to the throne raised issues close to his heart with the heads of various government departments.

It’s the second batch of letters released under a freedom of information request. I’m not quite sure what the request had hoped to uncover, since the letters support what most people already know about Charles’ areas of interest and concern.

One letter, from June 2009, detailed his concerns about "major historic sites, many of which are lying derelict''. He also hit out at "unscrupulous owners" for abandoning certain unnamed sites.

In another, he expresses concern about the lack of affordable rural housing:

''I have seen from my visits around the country the real problems finding an affordable home causes for those on low incomes in the countryside - many of whom are carrying out essential jobs, such as farm workers, teachers, shopkeepers and health workers and on whom the future viability of rural life depends.''

All in all, the letter reveal little if anything new, but they do provide additional detail about Prince Charles’ dedication to housing and heritage issues.

While I have seen and even paged-through Prince Charles’ 1989 book, A Vision of Britain: A Personal View of Architecture many times, I have never purchased a copy. I suppose I should.

The Prince’s views on architecture, and his preference for the traditional over the modern are well-known. Ever since his famous “monstrous carbuncles” speech back in 1984, where he lectured the Royal Institute of British Architects (RIBA) and lambasted modern design, the Prince has been steadfast in his support for traditional design, refusing to back down.

That’s why the recent release of the Prince’s correspondence regarding health, housing and heritage matters is no surprise. Six letters written by Charles have been published by the Government and show how the heir to the throne raised issues close to his heart with the heads of various government departments.

It’s the second batch of letters released under a freedom of information request. I’m not quite sure what the request had hoped to uncover, since the letters support what most people already know about Charles’ areas of interest and concern.

One letter, from June 2009, detailed his concerns about "major historic sites, many of which are lying derelict''. He also hit out at "unscrupulous owners" for abandoning certain unnamed sites.

In another, he expresses concern about the lack of affordable rural housing:

''I have seen from my visits around the country the real problems finding an affordable home causes for those on low incomes in the countryside - many of whom are carrying out essential jobs, such as farm workers, teachers, shopkeepers and health workers and on whom the future viability of rural life depends.''

All in all, the letter reveal little if anything new, but they do provide additional detail about Prince Charles’ dedication to housing and heritage issues.