Talk:Australian architectural styles

Name of article and tagging

Please Note: This Article is currently under construction, any inconvinience or lack of information will be solved as soon as possible

I moved this notice from the article - wikipedia articles are often under construction but theres no need for such a notice on the article itself -- Astrokey44|talk 09:56, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't this be better at either Architecture of Australia or Residential architecture of Australia? Ambi 10:20, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. Its suprising that we havent had a general article on architecture for Australia -- Astrokey44|talk 10:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is more about the styles of Architecture in Australia. Australian Architecture and even residential australian architecture could be refering to the practice as well as the styles. It is surprising that there is no article for architectural styles in Australia. Nick Carson 10:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely to be mistaken as referring to the practice - that's really quite unencyclopedic. All the other articles on this topic (such as Architecture of the United States) refer to styles, and I see no reason why this shouldn't be the same in Australia. Ambi 12:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with Nick on this one. An article about 'Architecture in Australia' could talk about early architects such as Francis Greenway, the early practice of plans being sent out from the UK, the establishment of the Royal Australian Institute of Architects, the evolution of the profession and establishment of notable firms, university courses that teach architecture, perhaps schools of thought (I'm not familiar with it to that degree) and requirements for accreditation. I don't think that that would necessarily be unencyclopedic.

Congratulations of putting the article together Nick. Excellent work! I'm just as tad worried that the note at the end of List of Architectural Styles in Australia by Year makes it appear to look like original research. I understand the problem of no source coming up with the same list, but I think that a list above a note like that needs to come with some references/sources. Something to consider when you have time perhaps. But once again, top work! -- Adz|talk 12:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Could we at least capitalise the article properly then? Ambi 13:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure. no objections from me. -- Adz|talk 13:27, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

No worries, changes and corrections are what would make the article better than one person could make it as it would be collective information. The note is there because it's disputed and there are many differing opinions on the way in which Australian architectural styles should be categorised. The list has been compiled from a number of different sources and in it's present form is generally accepted as being the prefered model for categorising architectural styles in Australia. Any changes to that list are more than welcomed in the present day styles, as they could be discussed about to no end. I would suggest that Architecture of the United States should change the name of the article as it can be very confusing if you were searching for somthing described by Adz refering to american architecture, you would be confused as to why the Architecture of the United States article actually refers to the styles of architecture of the united states. Somthing that could be greatly improoved upon in this article is the locations of styles in australian cities. I could speculate as to where styles would be located in most of Brisbane and Sydney, but it would be just that, speculation, so the list of where to find the styles in australian cities will remain incomplete until somone can provide adequate information ex: Sydney, Adelaide, Perth, Canberra. For example possibly Adz could compare buildings in suburbs in Canberra with photos in this article and if they find the majority of the buildings/houses in that suburb match, it would be sufficent to say that a particular style can be found in Mt. Stromolo, ACT, that is the type of thing that would make this article extreemly usefull. I will also add some external resources to provide some sources and other usefull information regaurding styles in Australia. Please note that some photos are yet to be added to place a visual reference to each style. -- Nick Carson 12:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• It is terrific to see an effort to tackle this underrepresented subject. However, there are a couple of POV statements in the lead section, for example "It is generally acepted within Architectural and Historical communities that Melbourne, Victoria contains the greatest depth of styles in Australia." Can we please have citations for such assertions?

It is not clear to me why the article is named as it is and then immediately in the first sentence limits its scope to residential styles but then the first illustration is of a non-residential building, a cathedral?!?.

I doubt very much that there is such thing as "a complete list of each architectural style in Australia" that has been agreed upon. A useful authority however is: Apperly, Richard (1989). A pictorial guide to identifying Australian architecture (Paperback, 1994 ed.). Sydney,Australia: HarperCollins. ISBN 0-207-18562-X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help).--A Y Arktos 08:31, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• The article does apear hold mainly to residential architectural styles, however, somthing very important must be considered first. Other types of buildings for example: industrial, commercial, civic, etc. are all designed for specific purpaces, for example a railway staation to fill the site and meet a particular need based on it's location, or a skyscraper designed to maximise it's site by increasing it's height etc. Whereas residential is designed primarily with variation in it's size to suit the need of it's inhabitants, and secondarily to a particular style that fits local overlays and council regulations of the time, as well as the public demand to build in acordance with the popular style at the time. This is why architectural style is somthing that needs to be defined (particularly in australia) by the residental sector, as each and every other sector is purely individual, pushing the boundaries of architecture most of the time, and suiting the needs it must fill. It is unarguable of course that these other sectors can be divided up into elaborate categorization of styles, however, they account for the minority of buildings in total in australia at least, and any annalysis of them wouldn't be clear cut as in residential housing. You can't make clear cut comparisons between one skyscraper and another, however, you can make clear cut comparisons from one house to the house just next door. The exceptions here would be the Gothic Revival and Romanesque Revival periods in which mainly only Churches and Cathedrals bear difinative marks of the revivals in their styles, and thus, can be compared.

I have no citations for the fact that Melbourne is regaurded throughout the world not only Australia as containing prime examples of Early, Mid and Late Victorian architecture, as well as Colonial, Georgian and Gothic Revival, and each style can be traced and seen in Melbourne, as opposed to say Darwin which had to compleatly re-build after Cyclone Tracy. Sydney would be an obvious haven for Colonial and Georgian style buildings surviving and alive today, however due to heavey evelopment in Sydney's central suburbs and CBD, much of it's past has been errased. This can be directly compared to Melbourne which has vast suburbs of entirely origional surviving buildings in it's CBD and surrounding suburbs extending up to 8 to 10km out in a radial pattern. Melbourne's abundance of surviving history is largly due to it's major over-the-top overlays such as herritage, cultural significance, and herritage listed buildings. There are many many suburbs in Melbourne that are themselves entirely herritage listed. Other cities in Australia boast excelent examples of architectural styles in australia, however, none as expansive and with such massive depth of that of Melbourne's. However, the statment: "It is generally acepted within Architectural and Historical communities that Melbourne, Victoria contains the greatest depth of styles in Australia." could certainly be edited out if it causes dispute.

There are no 2 books alike, and there are no 2 people whos views and interpretations are the same, and it must be remembered that books are writen by people. The list compiled in this article is complete, and while it certainly depicts mainly residential styles, it has been compiled and is agreed upon by many professionals lecuring, currently practising various occupations in the building industry and those undertaking both, as well as many texts and historial societies.

The below Possible list of styles taken from Apperley, Irving and Reynolds should deffinatly be used in the same article, as it outlines and elaboratly describes non-residential styles. I will edit the article soon and create new headings: Residential Styles and Non-Resiential Styles and insert the list of styles taken from Apperley, Irving and Reynolds under the non-residential styles heading.

I feel there is no need to confuse anyone by having an entirely seperate article for residential architectural styles in australia, just as it would be equally confusing to have a totally seperate article for commercial architectural styles in australia. I feel it would be best arranged the way I've mentioned above, and anyone seeking further depth into non-residential architectural styles can either explore the rest of the worlds abundance in styles, use an external link, or buy a copy of Apperley, Irving and Reynolds : ).

Of the people wishing to attain information about architectural styles in australia, the majority of them would be seeking residential styles in particular, and in most ways, it is the residential styles that dictate any comparible styles in non-residential architecture. Nick carson 11:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

A possible list of styles taken from Apperley, Irving and Reynolds

These authors break the Australian styles into six periods, and then produce a list within those as follows:

Old Colonial Period 1788 - c. 1840; Victorian Period c. 1840 - c. 1890; Federation period c. 1890 - c. 1915; Inter-War Period c. 1915 - c. 1940; Post-War Period c. 1940 - 1960; Late Twentieth Century Period 1960 -

I'll list the styles they give by separate edit--A Y Arktos 08:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

• Galleries removed since they have been incorporated into the article. I will work on categorising images in Commons under commons:Category:Australian Architecture for use in this article or any associated article.We can then work out a list of missing images to source.--A Y Arktos 02:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

"The term Architectural styles can be used to describe the architectural style of all buildings, but it is primarily used in conjunction with residential buildings, as they account for a greater percentage of buildings overall. Throughout this article a complete list of each architectural style in Australia and summaries on the major styles can be found. It is generally acepted within Architectural and Historical communities that Melbourne, Victoria contains the greatest depth of styles in Australia. Therefore, it serves as the basis for an analysis of Architectural Styles in Australia."

Removed this part from the intro - The article should be about styles of all types of buildings - here in Canberra plenty of non-residential buildings are thought of in terms of their style - Cameron offices is Brutalist, the National Library is classical, edmund barton is international etc. Also is it really accepted that Melbourne has the greatest depth of styles? While this is a perfectly good introduction for an essay, it does not suit Wikipedia's WP:NPOV style - there are likely to be other editors who will add information which is not just about Melbourne. -- Astrokey44|talk 11:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction now contains the assertion "Australian architectural styles are as diverse as the origins of the Australian people and the wide continent they inhabit." I don't think so, for example there was, and is, no indigenous style. Some of the rest of ny qualms perhaps relate to the prportion of representation, but still, Asian styles seem to be a pastiche (do I mean this word?) rather than relating to those ethnic groups' origins. I think we really need to watch the generalisations, cite sources for opinions, and preferaby stick to verifiable information--A Y Arktos 21:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous structures are not an architectural style. The commonly understood scope of Architectural style does not encompass such structures. Even the term Vernacular architecture does not include such structures in scope. Because of their nature, I doubt whether any survive European settlement and the diversity of examples is much less today than was. Like our understanding of indigenous language, most cultural significance, if there was any, associated with these structures is probably lost.--A Y Arktos 21:52, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Perfect introduction, and it far surpasses my first attempt. Nick carson 00:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Primary split: residential/non-residential or by period?

• I think the breakdown can really thought of by period first then perhaps use and that this would be generally held. For example people would look at a church, a railway station or a house and say that is from the Victorian era. Of course it is generally obvious whether the building is residential or otherwise. The source I have referred to above, does take use into account - for example several periods have specific eccleciastrical styes.

I fully concur there should be no one source, but the book I have referenced above is a basic Australian uni textbook for the history of architecture and borrowed heavily from JM Freeland's definitive Architecture in Australia: A History. I have no difficulty with any variation to their classification, nor a merger of some of the finer distinctions they draw. But I do believe in authorities (Wikipedia:Cite sources). My next steps, in between a schedule of domestic and other duties, will be to try and develop some galleries, illustrating the styles, on this talk page. Regards--A Y Arktos 19:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent book on Australian architecture, I added the list you put here to the article in a rough form, which can be expanded hopefully. Im not sure whether the definitions should be by period or by residential/non-residential. While many of the styles such as gothic revival apply to both residential & non-residential it does make some sort of sense putting all the house styles and building styles together. Now that it seems to be accepted that encyclopedic galleries are ok at wikipedia there could be a page of Gallery of Australian architectural styles which has all the thumbnail images with an explanation of which style they are? -- Astrokey44|talk 22:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this residential and non-residential split is deffinatly required, and I don't feel there is any need to create seperate articles as it will most deffinatly further complicate things. However, if the ammount of information grows too big for one article then it can deffinatly be split into 2 seperate articles "Australian architectural styles - Residential" and "Australian architectural styles - Non-Residential", but for now I believe the one article is the best solution. Nick carson 00:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is starting to get very long and unfortunately there is not that much depth in the Residential section which could be fleshed out more if there was more space and less scrolling. I propose that now is the right time to split it into two separate articles.--Biatch 01:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Further reading source?

Currently the Further Reading subsection contains "Ulrike Laule, Rolf Toman, Achim Bednorz - Architecture of the Middle Ages". I haven't read the book but am surprised that a tome on the middle ages has much to say about Austalian architecture. Could inclusion of the reference please be confirmed as relevant, perhaps with some annotation as to why the reader would go to this book. Regards--A Y Arktos 19:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Done

Queries concerning the lead

I'd copy-edit the article, but missing information in the lead makes it hard to start the job. For example:

Australian architectural styles range in scope from colonial architecture erected by the British from 1788 [to what?].

... hence while the British would like to be reminded of their Gothic churches and Tudoresque cottages of a perfect England. [needs comma and further clause]

Can someone oblige? Tony 11:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Too many of us have had a go at it and hence its lack of coherence so far. Feel free to be bold, but I will try to remedy. Some of the ideas should be below, for example, reminders of Britain. It still is in early stages.--A Y Arktos 20:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I dont think the sentence "guiding force in the world of modern architecture" is really appropriate since Australia probably hasnt had that big an impact on world architecture, but I wasnt sure what to replace it with -- Astrokey44|talk 00:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I am unaware of any claims that Australia, or any Australian architect, has to be a "guiding force". I support the recent edit that removed the assertion.--A Y Arktos 07:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Locations of Architectural Styles

I am concerned about the section on "Locations of Architectural Styles" and the immediately following one on mapping styles. The survey is not even the slightest comprehensible or comprehensive. Nor I think can it be developed meaningfully. Certainly the major cities have lots of buildings. Examples of less recent styles however are excellently preserved in rural and regional locales. The section was included in the original iteration of the article but has not gone anywhere and as it stands is misleading. I propose to remove it but wanted to allow discussion or improvement first.--A Y Arktos 07:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph should remain, but the lists such as "Styles in Hobart" etc. should be removed -- Astrokey44|talk 13:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

• The lists of locations are in a sense given in the illustration captions. Any given sub-section on a style could also give where notable examples can be found, whether residential or otherwise. The section "Mapping Architectural Styles" is more commentary and could lead to original research. Hence, I will edit out too.--A Y Arktos 19:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Model Residential Suburbs: Federation Style: ("Garden Suburbs")

• In Sydney:Haberfield (First Garden Suburb in Australia, 1901), Appian Way (1903), Dacey Gardens (Public Housing, only 240 houses built.)
• In Adelaide: Mitcham (1919)
• In ACT: Canberra ("Garden City", 1912)

"The Federation House - Australia's Own Style" by H. Fraser & R. Joyce, Weldon Publishing, 1991.Seasalt 11:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Waterfall

I am confused by the term Waterfall for Art deco is the term Waterfall common terminology in Australia for 1930s style architecture? The house illustrated as "Waterfall" is indeed Art deco - (or more accurately Streamline Moderne) the influence of which was often, among other things, the ocean going liners of the era - decks\terraces, large curved windows and balconies. Lloyd Wrights Falling water was iconic because of its dependence on a series of self-supporting cantilevers which do not appear to be at all evident in the photograph. If Waterfall is the term in Australia (I don't know, I've no reason to believe it is not except for a lack of confirmation on google) then I really don't see how Wright's building can be the influence. Falling water site. Giano | talk 12:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• The term waterfall is a common house type in Australia, it is a sub-type of austerity housing. Usually owner built, or non-architect built. I couldn't find the origin of the term but I cannot believe it is derived from Fallingwater. Limited information about the style can be found on this SA Hertitage document (warning relatively large pdf) which states

  "The ‘austerity’ house featured a modest porch with a flat concrete roof, a hipped main roof, narrow eaves and a small frontage. Steel frame casement windows were common. They often had a rear lean-to but this typical Australian addition disappeared after the austerity era. The ‘Waterfall Austerity’ was a striking variation, usually owner-built of sawn or random stone, cinder block or home-made cement bricks with a rendered finish. Its main features were rounded corners with curved windows, a cast concrete canopy over porches and ‘porthole’ windows. The style was popular in 1945–55 until better materials became available and tastes changed."

  and cites JN Persse, DM Rose, House styles in Adelaide – a pictorial history, The Australian Institute of Valuers, Adelaide, nd, pp. 72, 74, 80.--A Y Arktos 19:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

• • Peter Cuffley's book, Australian Houses of the Forties & Fifities, refers (page 118) to fashionable modern houses of the thirties which were sometimes described as being like ocean liners, with walls, windows and balconies all sweeping around corners. By the 1940s these details were entrenched into suburban designs. He states that the name 'Waterfall' or 'Waterfall Front' style came to be known as such from the use of descending curves in chimneys, fence pillars and other verticla elements. Robin Boyd noted that threewas 'the key to decorative smartness'; three steps usually being used for the waterfall effect and featured parallel lines were often in threes.--A Y Arktos 21:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Indigenous Architecture

Yes, there was indigenous residential architecture.... I mean REAL buildings .... hang in there and I will add the info and cite the references, if you are patient.

--Amandajm 08:10, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

More references are required for this section and I have tagged the section as non-neutral in paticular due to the text "brutal suppression and murder of Tasmania’s people" - I am not trying to deny there were aborigines or conflict, I think it would be better to link to the relevant articles and to rethink the language. --Golden Wattle ^talk 01:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this more neutral, or unhelpful?

"When British settlers came in 1788, they could not relate to the indigenous architectural style or tradition, their eyes seeing only primitive structures. [1] These dwellings had little influence on the ideas and knowledge that the British settlers brought with them when settling Australia . Initially the settlers built in the styles they had left behind."Seasalt 13:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The derivative nature of Australian Architecture

"Australian architectural styles have been basically exotic and derivative. Until recent times building styles were only slightly modified by climate, materials and skills."

I don't like this intro. It's negative. I think that it is true, in that almost ALL architecture of most countries during the period has been derivative. I think that the word "exotic" is misplaced here, because it is not clear to your-average-reader what is meant by this at all. Could it mean minarettes and onion shaped domes? While your-average-gardener might understand, your-average HSC student won't.

Moreover, while derivative in style, Australian domestic architecture has not been so derivative in form.

While it is true that the Brits imported half-timbering and the Dutch brought Dutch-gables and the Greeks brought a love of cast cement columns, Australian Architecture has been of necessity adaptive towards the climate, materials available and skills.

In Sydney, to use a very common example, terrace houses with balconies which provied protection from the summer sun and give somewhere sunny to sit in the winter are the rule. Those without balconies are very rare and date from pre 1840. On the other hand, substantial balconies that can be sat upon (rather than a decorative trim) are rare on English terraces. One could of course say that they are derived from New Orleans, or one could see them as a natural response to the climate. I think that the intro needs to make a decidedly more positive statement. I'll work on it.

--Amandajm 08:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Yet another example of cultural cringe unfortunately. There are some distinctively Australian styles, particularly the residential ones. The true Federation Style was hailed as a "style of our own" in early home magazines. The Filligree styles of terraces are also distinctively Australian (although similar styles sprang up in areas like New Orleans). The "Queenslander" is yet another example of an Australian style. Due to the nature of architecture, however, what isn't derivative. Almost all European architecture was either based on the classical orders of ancient Greece or ancient gothic styles, and you can't get much more derivative than that ! --Biatch 02:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Include SA?

Could an example of South Australian architecture be included in picture? I'm not usually parochial, but we do have some stunning public buildings and churches - in Adelaide as well as many country towns. Each state is distinctive because of the types of local materials that were available to the early settlers. In Adelaide, locally sourced limestone and bluestone made for some very attractive buildings. Plenty examples of hideous modern concrete as well, just for the record. Surely SA architecture is worth at least one picture? JP Psmith 09:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree, the Adelaide area has some stunning buildings and many older than the entire city of Melbourne but until someone can get off their butt and take some pictures of them, they are probably not going to appear here. Perhaps it is worth taking another trip to over there. --Biatch 07:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Styles not classified by Apperley, Irving and Reynolds

Is a great resource for classification, but it is already out of date. As a result, I have added some contemporary styles such as Deconstructivist and Sustainable architecture with a handful of examples. Some other styles which could be added when examples have been sourced (these are probably very rare in Aust) may include Expressionist, Futurist and Retro-Futurist. --Biatch 01:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

• No problems with more up to date classifications. The only caveat I would add is the tendency for bias towards the present in the level of detail, perhaps we are too close to see commonality in styles.--Golden Wattle ^talk 01:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Does "Sustainable" differ from "Late 20th Century Organic"Seasalt 00:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes. At least according to Apperley, Irving and Reynolds. Essentially it is essentially a branch off both the organic and functionalist styles. It differs in a couple of key ways 1) Organic does not necessarily mean low environmental impact, Does not try to integrate with the earth, and; 2) Sustainable is differentiated through use sustainable technologies such as solar power and water recycling which organic does not. 3) The term 'sustainable' is now commonly accepted in architectural circles, whereas 'organic' is now seldom used. --Biatch 00:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I only have the 1989 edition, which finishes with Late Twentieth Century Immigrants' Nostalgic. So Sustainable doesn't necessarily have an Arts and Crafts influence? Sounds like Sustainable could be applied to a number of styles. Seasalt 08:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Federation Period

While Apperly Irving and Reynolds wrote a fine book, they are not necessarily definitive. The Federation period has been defined by some others as 1890 to 1918 - the end of WW1 rather than the beginning, making the Inter War period more genuinely Inter War ( ie not including WWI in the period)

I note the division of WW2 at 1940.

As there is generally no such thing as wartime architecture, (or its not recognised in architecture books) the wars seem to be arbitrarily split by authors according to their own interpretation, or at least, thats the impression I have from my own interest in timber framed Victorian and Federation (Edwardian with distinguishable Australian decorative motifs) buildings. Does anyone else have any information on the variability or definitiveness of these dates? Seasalt 15:05, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

• No problem with an alternative source, but that book is as far as I know the only nearly current authority on classifying architectural styles in Australia. If you want to revise please cite a reliable source as per WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NOR. Given the lead times for building and the timing of adoption of new trends, I presume that may account for the dating split ( Federation period c. 1890 - c. 1915; Inter-War Period c. 1915 - c. 1940; Post-War Period c. 1940 - 1960). I haven't gone back to check their examples but I assume they picked the dates with references actual buildings in distinguishable styles. Is there a particular example that you feel moves the dates significantly, more than that which is justified by the use of circa? ---Golden Wattle ^talk 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, nothing moves the dates significantly. Just saying the building styles did not change on New Year's Eve of any year, but were adopted over a time. Some Federation style buildings were built in the early Inter War period, out of a preference for the older style perhaps. The start of one can overlap with the predecessor for awhile. First instance would be hard to date or cite for many of these classifications. Just as valid: Federation period c. 1890 - World War I; Inter-War Period c. World War I - World War II; Post-War Period c. World War II - 1960. The dates given are a tidy academic convenience that are as close to the mark as anyone's likely to get. Apperly Irving and Reynolds seem to go for the nearest 10, as in 1950,1960, 1970, but needed the nearest 5 for wwI. In "The Federation House" by H. Fraser & R. Joyce, they cite the beginning of Federation architecture as the 1888 terracotta sculpture of a lyre bird by Lucien Henry, built into a wall of a Queen Anne (?) building for the Centennial. It is the use of Australian motifs that distinguish a Federation structure from an Edwardian one. They also cite the end of Federation architecture as 1918. (first published 1986) compared to Apperly Irving and Reynolds (first published 1989) In "Getting the Details Right", published by Flannel Flower Press for the NSW Department of Planning,(1989) the Federation period is described as "1890s~1920s". Other books on particular styles (like Federation) have small variants, but I haven't come across another complete classification attempt.

How can .c dates for architectural periods can be described as "authoritative"?

It is merely worth noting that authorities do vary. The c for circa may be considered adequate, but many miss its meaning.

I note "Californian Bungalow" (Federation Bungalow to Apperly Irving and Reynolds) is not in the Federation styles, but examples of that style can be more readily found than for Queen Anne... it was very popular, and continued as Inter War Bungalow.

Great to see a section on Australian Architecture anyway.Seasalt 15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Just looked through the main page again. Looks good.Seasalt 11:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Australian architectural styles. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051223235418/http://www.canterbury.nsw.gov.au:80/library/resource/resthous.htm to http://www.canterbury.nsw.gov.au/library/resource/resthous.htm#styles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)