Talk:Biltmore Estate/Archives/2015

Legal restrictions on images?

This phrase is contained with in the article:-

"The present-day caretakers of Biltmore Estate stipulate that "any reproduction of Biltmore House's exterior image is strictly limited to personal use only" [1], so for a modern photograph, visit their site."

Does Wikipedia consider this legally enforceable, that one can't publish a private photograph of an inanimate object - especially a building which encourages visits by the public? I have many photos taken at Biltmore last year, and am happy to upload them for the article from Europe outside the juristiction of such a third world dictatorial ruling 213.122.137.173 18:38, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

IANAL but I would think that this would be unenforceable IF the pictures were taken from public property. If they are taken while on the private property of the estate, I think that the claim might be enforceable. I have not been to Asheville for a long time, but if I remember you cannot see the house from the road. Anyone in the area have access to a small plane or chopper for some areal? A 23:46, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that their stipulations can be enforced by law. Any lawyers out there?

IANAL either, but I can back up A's statement that there seems no way to take a picture from public property; one definitely can't see the house from the road. (I've been there 6 or 7 times and used to be a passholder.) I've now raised the question over on the image's Talk page on Commons, so we'll see what happens

The unsigned message "In regard to photographs" was originally posted lower down the page, under an unrelated subheading. I moved it up here in August 2007. Lawikitejana 19:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

In regard to photographs, I think it would be best to contact Biltmore Estate for permission. Their press people are very friendly and helpful; I'm sure they'd be more than happy to provide you with any images you'd like.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.21.231.210 (talk • contribs) 11 December 2006

I agree with this suggestion. The images that I found on government websites all were copyrighted by The Biltmore Company, so we need to make sure no one uploads those under the misapprehension that they're government-owned and thus public domain. The description on the Commons talk page for the current image states "I, the copyright holder," but there was no mention of TBC, so I think it's likely an individual who didn't understand that the "personal use" provision likely rules out individuals' having any copyright to waive on their personal-use pics.Lawikitejana 19:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Question.

What was so wrong with the paragraphs Popular Culture & Trivia ? Gridge 22:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Upon reading the article and finding that part of National Treasure was filmed there, I immediately looked for the location so the next time I could visit it I could make note. However, after trawling the internet for the location, I couldn't find it. However, I did find that the bar at the Millenium Biltmore Hotel was used in NT 2. Perhaps this is the case? Or am I totally missing something? Cosmosmariner2 (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Tone

These sentences could use some rewriting:

"Family members and friends invited from all over the United States and beyond came to experience the opulent estate with the splendor of Olmsted's sweet-smelling gardens, rich foods at the 64-seat banquet table and the stunning beauty of Vanderbilt's mountainous grounds."

"Future plans include the restoration of the Louis XV Suite (four guest bedrooms returned to their original splendor; Spring 2009), Oak Sitting Room and Second Floor Living Hall (2012)."

Also, can we figure out whether or not the building is in There Will Be Blood, and remove the stray comment? Chubbles (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues addressed. ++Arx Fortis (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Style

The page currently begins "Biltmore House is a French Renaissance architecture revival Châteauesque-style mansion" OK we get the message, it's French inspired, but what is it? - it can't be all those styles. Chateauesque is itself a revival style so does not need "revival" as an adjective, but this house surpasses and goes beyond chateauesque in its pretensions; it would be safe to describe it as a 19th century Neo-French Renaissance chateau  Giacomo  22:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I would call it neo-Renaissance and/or Beaux-Arts. Seven Letters 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't have my style books here, but the Biltmore is usually considered THE primier American example of Chateauesque. Which is a hybred between the Gothic and Renaissance. There is nothing (opinion) Beaux-Arts about it other than that's where the architect went to school. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

But that's what Beaux-Arts IS. I lived in a Richard Morris Hunt house and this is what we and others (architectural scholars included, like Richard Guy Wilson) called the architecture because there isn't anything else you can really call it. These houses were born of that school! Seven Letters 18:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It sounds to me as if this is a "by definition" sort of thing. That is, because Hunt went to the Ecole des Beaux-Arts all his designs are Beaux-Arts." HH Richardson went there too, so are all his designs Beaux-Arts? Hunt did do a bunch of work that falls into the Beaux Arts style but Marcus Whiffen in his discussion of the "Chateaueque" style has that style's first important American example being Hunt's William K Vanderbilt mansion on 5th Avenue and its "culmination" being Biltmore. However if we wish to use Richard Guy Wilson as a reference point he says, " Hunt used. . ... a chateauesque idiom for Biltmore in North Carolina."
What we are calling "Beaux-Arts" here is a style often called "Beaux-Arts Classicism" and does not refer to any design based on the Ecole des Beaux- Arts principles. Carptrash (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

David Chase in his essay, "Superb Privacies: the later domestic commissions of Richard Morris Hunt," states "Biltmore was Hunt's most spectacular and convincing exercise in the style of François I" Whiffen says of the Chateauesque style that it was "often called the Francis I style." I think I will stop this line of researce until I hear back from you. Carptrash (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Size of house

Biltmore.com states 4 acres of floor space which is just over 16km2 (16 square kilometers) and the current wiki page states 12.5km2. Both of these seem ambitious. Looking at google maps, a rectangle surrounding the main building appears to be (very) roughly 100m x 40m - and at best only two thirds is building; which equates to around 1.3km2 per floor level. Unless this is a ten story building I think someone needs to visit with a long tape measure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esscoss (talk • contribs) 17:39, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You've got it all wrong. Four acres is just over 160,000 square feet. An acre was one furlong (660 ft) long and one chain (66 ft) wide, originally. Any area of 43,560 sq ft, no matter the shape, is exactly one acre. According to the tax assessor, Biltmore is about 135,000 sq ft so it has just over three acres of floor space. Seven Letters 18:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, when I wrote this I had a mental block and was confusing one square kilometer with 1000 square meters. At least I instinctively knew not to change the actual entry. Thanks. Esscoss 17:59, 17 October 2010

"Instincts. They are what keep us alive. Carptrash (talk) 19:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

For the tax records, go to here (the county Biltmore is in), click "Accept" then "Parcels" and "Parcel ID". Enter 9637-94-4030-00000. Click the result that comes up and then click "Buildings". Scroll down to building 22... This is the mansion "Biltmore". Square footage is listed at ~135 000. Seven Letters 20:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, now I see it. This still needs to be made into a reference in the article, because the accepted size is around 175,000 square feet. This comes from the Biltmore people, so its considered first person, but it is going unchallenged except for here. It is possible that the county may not measure part of the property such as the basement, while the Biltmore people do. The problem is finding an independent source for the 175,000 number, but they are either Biltmore or likely recipients of that number. --Beirne (talk) 23:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The thing is though that we do not count basements as square footage. I don't think that the county would get it wrong as they would not "cheat" themselves out of tax revenue by letting 40,000 square feet (nearly an acre) go unaccounted for. What the Biltmore people likely did is measured the ground floor or footprint (which, for a large building is usually the largest) and multiplied it by the number of floors, although the top floors are certainly smaller (no upper level of Biltmore overhangs a lower level). There is no need for us to perpetuate Biltmore's boastful error. It still is the largest private residence in the United States. It's just not as large as they claim. I will try to find a stable link to the tax record. Seven Letters 00:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that you are leaving out the basements and the attached stable. As it is attached to the house, it should be included in a calculation of the square footage. However, the county classifies the stable separately because of tax reasons - it's a commercial facility containing restaurants and shops and is listed as Comm. Bldg. No. 9. I have added that square footage and the basements to the total to get a number just over what the Biltmore Company claims. No sense creating controversy where none exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.39.81 (talk) 17:32, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The stables can't be accessed from within the house so it is in all actuality a separate structure (and also legally so). It would be like having a separate garage and connecting it to your house with a covered walkway open on the sides. Doesn't make your house bigger. Seven Letters 20:39, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Access" does not make for a workable definition. If a garage is "connect[ed]" by a walkway, as in your hypothetical, it is not a "separate" garage—it is part of the "dwelling." Here, the stables are connected physically to the main house, so it is not wrong to include them in the calculation. It certainly does not constitute a "boastful error." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.47.243 (talk) 05:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The county tax authorities consider the stables to be a separate building. Were said "walkway" to be wholly enclosed then perhaps it could be added and considered part of the gross area. Seven Letters 14:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The distinction by the tax authorities correlates with the present-day use of the stables for shops and restaurants. And enclosing the walkway is not dispositive, either. Under an insurance policy, the "dwelling" includes attached structures. And under the North Carolina building code, it is not an "accessory building" unless it is detached.

What it appears that you are advocating is a "living area" calculation, but even the NC Real Estate Commission permits garages (and even carports, decks, and storage sheds) to be included in MLS and other advertising. (See description at bottom of page 9.) It would only be improper to refer to the entire square footage as "living area," but the article does not claim the square footage as "living area." The context of the article clearly is referring to the overall size of the house.

However, as with any definition of "largest," there are multiple calculations that could be used and are equally valid. (See, e.g., List_of_largest_buildings_in_the_world (categorizing "largest buildings" by "largest usable space," "largest footprint" (volume) and "largest floor space" (area)). So to resolve this issue, I added the phrase "total floor space" and added a "living area" statistic from the tax records. This gives readers more information, rather than having to choose between two equally valid descriptions of the house. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.49.241 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Request

Could someone include in the article what they pay in taxes on the place? Yearly property tax and whatever other tax they might have to pay to maintain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.161 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Property tax is $0 per the tax records for PIN 9637-94-4030-00000 available from [2]. -- ke4roh (talk) 13:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

With the caveat in red type in the tax record: "If this parcel transfers ownership, additional taxes may be due." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.49.241 (talk) 06:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference conflict

The unreferenced articles George Washington Vanderbilt III and George Washington Vanderbilt II have some conflicting references if you go look. These reference show "III" being applied to the one who died in 1914 not the one born in 1914. If any there any experts on the subject with solid references your help would be greatly appreciated in referencing these two articles Jeepday (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

• Curiosity served: Biltmore opens servants' quarters at The San Diego Union-Tribune December 25, 2005
• John Singer Sargent's George Washington Vanderbilt at jssgallery.org
• Antiques of the Biltmore Estate at go-star.com

I notice that George Washington Vanderbilt and George Washington Vanderbilt II both link to the same person. The first should refer to the son of Cornelius Vanderbilt the second to the son of William Henry Vanderbilt.RichardBond (talk) 02:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)