3 ms·

I recently visited Tyntesfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyntesfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyntesfield), a Victorian Gothic Revival house in the so

I recently visited Tyntesfield (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyntesfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyntesfield), a Victorian Gothic Revival house in the south west of the UK. I was actually struck by how ugly it is, I think chiefly for all the reasons that the author of the piece dislikes McMansions - there's a vastness and grandeur to it, certainly, but the complete lack of symmetry and conflicting styles and features was very off-putting to me. If you flick through a few of the pictures on Google Images, you'll perhaps see what I mean about the vast randomness of it - of note in particular is the one conical turret it seems to have for no very good reason!

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
Well, like so many large Victorian piles the occupants didn't necessarily keep to the architectural vision. It was hugely redeveloped by successive generations. Most houses would suffer if you "added an extra floor, two new wings and towers" in a different style and demolished the central clock tower. The woodcut illustration, presumably of the original house, at least has some coherence to it though not to my taste.
close04 8y ago
In the 1860s Gibbs had the house significantly expanded and remodelled; a chapel was added in the 1870s Rebuilding work did not begin in earnest until 1863, when William Gibbs had the property substantially remodelled in a Gothic Revival style. [...] Norton's design enveloped the original house. He added an extra floor, two new wings and towers. [...] As a result, while some walls remained plain, others were adorned with Gothic and naturalistic carvings to fit in with the previous architectural styles In a ~200 year old building you can expect such redevelopment to bring it more up to date with "current" architecture trends. But they tend to add up over centuries and you end up with a mix that might as well be unsightly but documents its history. Things are allowed to look less... fresh as they get old. When you start up and build as a mix it's just unsightly for no good reason. Other than a complete lack of taste (by many standards).

NeedMoreTea 8y ago

Well, like so many large Victorian piles the occupants didn't necessarily keep to the architectural vision. It was hugely redeveloped by successive generations. Most houses would suffer if you "added an extra floor, two new wings and towers" in a different style and demolished the central clock tower. The woodcut illustration, presumably of the original house, at least has some coherence to it though not to my taste.

close04 8y ago

In the 1860s Gibbs had the house significantly expanded and remodelled; a chapel was added in the 1870s Rebuilding work did not begin in earnest until 1863, when William Gibbs had the property substantially remodelled in a Gothic Revival style. [...] Norton's design enveloped the original house. He added an extra floor, two new wings and towers. [...] As a result, while some walls remained plain, others were adorned with Gothic and naturalistic carvings to fit in with the previous architectural styles In a ~200 year old building you can expect such redevelopment to bring it more up to date with "current" architecture trends. But they tend to add up over centuries and you end up with a mix that might as well be unsightly but documents its history. Things are allowed to look less... fresh as they get old. When you start up and build as a mix it's just unsightly for no good reason. Other than a complete lack of taste (by many standards).