Jump to content

Talk:Googie architecture/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

old comments

Is this by any chance named after the architecture of the Guggenheim museum? —Rlquall 19:36, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No! Giano 11:31, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Then why is the Guggenheim in the photo section - surely this must be an error/vandalism?--Yickbob (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Clearly an error since Frank Lloyd Wright isn't known as a Googie architect and I couldn't find any references to Guggenheim being a Googie, so I removed it. Billgordon1099 (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Pardon Me-

Pardon me, but what do Lava Lamps have to do with the Googie Movement in Architecture? Michael 23:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

What's your selection for googie in the arts of design? Maybe we can procure a photo. --Wetman 02:33, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Dulles?

Would Dulles Airport be considered of this style? Jkatzen 08:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Eero Saarinen's terminal building at Dulles is considered modern. Most architects would probably bristle at any suggestion of Googie influence in that terribly serious and greatly admired (by architects) building, but to my eye (as to yours, apparently) there is indeed a somewhat Googie-ish quality in those sweeping lines and all that glass. Still, the terminal building is realy a bit too austere and grandiose for true Googie, which tends to be confined to much more modest projects of a more personal scale- which is probably one reason why Googie is more popular with the general public than serious modernism is. Whyaduck 14:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I agree with dulles, but I think jfk has enough populuxe influence to be worth mentioning, so I added a pic of Saarinen's TWA Flight Center. 72.0.189.206 (talk) 00:21, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
what is "populuxe influence"? who is doing the influencing? there are two main reasons that this distinction between "modern" and "Googie" is so hard to make: 1. because there is a turn within modern architecture towards curved lines and surrealist influence, starting in the 1930s and best known because of Le Corbusier's Notre Dame du Haut Church in Ronchamp, France. this is parallel to "Googie" but not the same as it. 2. because these phenomena are not really comparable- we're talking about prestige architecture made by signature designers (high art, if you will) vs. anonymous, repetitive commercial design. These things are made for very different reasons with different motivations. It's like comparing a taco truck to Rick Bayless. Let's try to sort this out. Thoughts?Fixifex (talk) 20:11, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Origin of the word "Populuxe"

It should probably be noted that the word "Populuxe", which redirects to the "Googie" page originates from the title of the book by Thomas Hine on the rise of post-WWII consumerism.

http://thomashine.com/work5.htm

http://www.wordspy.com/words/populuxe.asp

It's really quite a dull book, but it's thesis and conclusions were influential at the time and from there the word entered the popular lexicon. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.26.235.204 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC).

I have placed citation needed and attribution needed tags to the term populuxe, because I don't think it has the same implication as "Googie" and the book by Hine isn't cited or discussed here. WE could improve this by having someone who has the book introduce a quote about the term populuxe. maybe it needs its own section. but also, if Googie is different from mainstream modern architecture, but populuxe is a category that overlaps with it, we should try to explain that.Fixifex (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Atomium

Is the atomium in brussells, an example of googie architecture?--Richy 22:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

James S. McDonnell Planetarium

The St. Louis Science Center's James S. McDonnell Planetarium

Hi, am I correct in thinking that the James S. McDonnell Planetarium falls under this design specification? Here's a photo, if there is some consensus that it does indeed qualify, I'd like to add this photo to the gallery. --Agent-88 06:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The roof of the McDonnell Planetarium sure looks like the roof of the Seattle Space Needle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.76.32.217 (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Goog — capital i — e

Why bother having the typo — GoogIe — redirect here? Nobody accidentally puts a capital letter near the end of a word. It's a leet sort of styling which is intended to look like "Google". Why not have that page redirect to Google? Binksternet (talk) 08:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Single source=undo weight?

In July, the article was tagged as relying too heavily on a single source, Hess, who also coined the term Googie. In my admittedly meagre research to date, Doo Wop seems to be a widely used term, perhaps more than Hess' neologism Googie? If so, we might wish to consider renaming. Also, the importance of East Coast doo-wop, especially in Wildwood's historic district remains overlooked, IMO, perhaps because Hess was focused on the West Coast. Shawn in Montreal (talk)

Christchurch casino image

What style is this? Not Googie.

The modern casino image has been repeatedly deleted. I believe its design has nothing whatsoever to do with Googie--it looks to me like Steampunk or Scientific Romance or Neo-Victorian in its Jules Verne stylistic features. Definitely not jet age or space age. Binksternet (talk) 22:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

This image has been "repeatedly" deleted three times - twice by Binksternet (14:35, 31 December 2008 and 18:34, 31 December 2008) and once by an anon IP (72.0.189.206, last edit 16:25, 30 December 2008). Binksternet's most recent deletion was his response to my following posting on his user talk page18:22, 31 December 2008 (his response below was posted on HIS talk page, not mine). Binksternet's relevant edits to the article were 14:40, 31 December 2008 and 16:19, 31 December 2008 My posting on his talk page (18:27, 31 December 2008) and his response on that page is as follows:
== Googie ==
Please contact me or open a discussion on the Googie talk page before reverting my latest edits. You are welcome to convince me by rational argument why the illustration is not relevant to a discussion of the modern use of googie. (If it isn't Googie than what is it?) Thank you, and best wishes, Leonard G. (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)""
I believe my talk page entry placed there at Talk:Googie architecture 3.5 hours before your note here answers your concerns. Binksternet (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I consider his posting on his talk page, rather than on mine or alternatively to send to me a notice of his posting on this talk page to not be in the spirit of cooperative editing of WP.
I note also, that he deleted the image without noticing that I had also added supporting text, which remains in the article (and now has no supporting image) as follows (from the article state at the time of this writing).

Googie/Doo Wop architecture today

While the architectural community never appreciated or accepted Googie, considering it too flashy and vernacular for academic praise,[reference deleted] new buildings are still constructed in the style today, and can be found in structures such as the casino illustrated, where the object of the architecture is to stand out from other buildings and to attract the eye, although the style remains rare in its use in newly-constructed buildings.
Regarding the image, a close examination of the "flying saucer" crown reveals a jet aircraft - so how could this be "victorian steampunk?? Furthermore, the three visible spherical devices appear to me to be sputnik - like "satelites" or otherwise "atomic age" devices in their design intent. I will be restoring the image (and supporting text if that is subsequently deleted) at some time in the near future, unless dissuaded by third parties contributors to this discussion. Should I restore this image upon consideration of such discussion, any subsequent deletion by Binksternet will result in a plea for arbitration. Best wishes to all, Leonard G. (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Let me answer each of your points in order.
      • My most recent deletion was a response to the image showing up again in the article, not as a response to any message sent to me.
      • My response to your note on my Talk page was placed there on my Talk page because I assumed that, once you had added a note, you were subsequently watching it on your watchlist. No ill intentions or lack of cooperative spirit. And anyway, why would you have posted a link to the Googie talk page without having come here to see this entry of mine waiting for your response? There was never any need to go to my talk page in order to engage me in discussion.
      • Yes, I deleted the image without noticing the supporting text you had placed in the article. Mea culpa, my oversight! Had I seen that, I would have taken it out as well. It's 100% original research and not worthy of inclusion per Wikipedia policy defined here: WP:No original research.
      • Finally, about the architectural style of the casino... You are certain that it's Googie; I'm certain it's not. Neither of us has found an expert verifiable source which backs us up. The proof of finding an expert source saying that it is indeed Googie is on you, or the image comes out. Me, I think Googie should have more of a clean, swept line that is less cluttered with detail and more noticeable from a moving car. The Christchurch casino's design is topped with an inverted roulette wheel that has a jet aircraft and dice painted on it, the whole surrounded by spikes as if on the spiked collar of a dog or a punk musician. Fairly punk-ey to my eye. Let me point out that modern elements which are juxtaposed with Victorian sensibilities is the essence of steampunk.
Thanks for your discussion of the matter. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I took out the text which refers to the removed photo. Feel free to return that text after you find an expert source supporting the stance. Binksternet (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The right questions: does it have the pseudo-aerodynamic sweep of a lava lamp or a boomerang? Is it seamless? Is is Flash Gordon World-of-Tomorrow pop? No. Regardless of any possible social failings in the process of deleting it, the visual instinct was correct. Why? illustrations in encyclopedia articles are meant to be exemplary, helping define the subject in ways that are worth a thousand words, you might say. The Christchurch structure, whether Steampunk or not, doesn't illuminate Googie, as this discussion demonstrates. --Wetman (talk) 17:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Ok, then, the arguments have convinced me - it is not googie, however I think it is not steampunk (there is nothing retro/pseudo victorian about it). Nor is it retro-futuristic, since there is no reference to a past imagined future. Most of this kerfuffle could have been avoided by better communication, mine included - Leonard G. (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
It has the Mechano-kit look of individual parts assembled with bolts that reminded me of the gigantic contraption in the remake of Wild Wild West (1999). Not a Jetsons-in-the-Fontainbleau Hotel lobby googie look... --Wetman (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
The pale blue bit at the apex of the glazed area looks like Po-mo to me- like a 1980s album cover. Ning-ning (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
the upper spiked element gives it an astoundingly anachronistic feel, that was why I objected at first. To me, I want to use words like "neo-barbarian" or "fortified-moderne" or something... 72.0.187.239 (talk) 00:24, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Not to reignite this old discussion, but it's pretty clear that the Christchurch facade is an attempt at a Raygun Gothic-esque neo-art deco-- as evidenced by the doors, the flattened murals above them, and the sort of multi-tiered blind-dormer. It's a weak homage to 1920s-era Metropolis-style deco rather than the 50s rocket-ship sensibilities of "Googie". --HidariMigi (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

PPS- is populuxe "dead" or still evolving?

here's some "modern googie" but does that count or is it already too old to have a modern branch?

on another level, we might use this image regardless, because it is some cheeky frickin architecture...

mars attacks (Shanghai skyscraper)

...72.0.187.239 (talk) 03:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

SS Canberra

is populuxe due

to the lines of the main mast and smokestack, with a noticeable aerodynamic curve that is the same for all three.

the "side-roof" of the bridge which also has a highly-stylized curvature

the decks immediately under the bridge, and especially the perfect semicircle of the front deck with the tall narrow windows- is very futuristic

not that colors can be populuxe or googie really, but certainly the colors were non-traditional upon launch. and the time period is perfect.

I guess not everyone appreciates this but so many curves on an ocean liner was somewhat cutting edge at the time. The smokestacks alone I feel are justification for it being googie... there are few if any stacks with such a look to them before the launch of the Canberra. etc etc

72.0.187.239 (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

These are all marvelous reasons why the ship's design should be considered googie. Unfortunately, you haven't brought forward an expert or popular reference which identifies it as such. The image of the ship doesn't belong here without that kind of verifiable support. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
well I'd buy that if even half of the other pics had cites... but they don't... I am the same IP who added the pic of the worlds fair, LAX building, JFK terminal etc and none of those have been challenged or removed anyways. I am a big fan of this style and I hope we can continue to find its themes in existence. So I added a pic of something with clear influences from the right time period. Basically I think there are two ways to see this. One, WP cite rules specify that cites are needed only for material "likely to to be challenged" so first we need to develop a factual challenge to the inclusion of the pic before we can discuss it needing a cite. A factually challenge like why it is not populuxe, or something. The other way to approach this is the view that all the pics of this page absent a specific reference, need to be removed. This is a good page and I like the pics, so I hope we don't do that. But really please develop a criticism of the ship as a representation of the style, before saying it just needs a ref. Conceivably you could just leave it at the very very bottom of the pic gallery and the entire page (god forbid). I am going to re-add it until this is resolved. 72.0.187.239 (talk) 20:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think the other pictures should have cites also. The policy dealing with original research is WP:OR. I'm not sure some of those other pictures should be considered Googie either. A lot has been written about the JFK terminal, and the descriptions used by the sources should be relied upon. There is no indication anywhere that I'm aware of that the cruise ship is considered Googie architecture except anecdotally. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Other images are other, and should be dealt with each on its own merits. The image of SS Canberra has no source calling it googie and I am removing it because of that fact and because I think the image as captured by the photographer fails to prove the assertion. Binksternet (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
sounds like someone has a case of the "I thinks" lol. None of your pics have sources and I find it interesting that you guys are willing to argue for the removal of all pics pending cites, just to win your point against me. funny. you should really do some more research and figure out which users have been putting in effort to improve the page lately, and I think you will find they are adding pics and text and not removing it. Canberra fits every def. of populuxe expect your personal opinion.. time frame, curves, angles, etc... which is a lot more than half those other pics have. Your welcome to keep fighting this until you RFC me; the people who actually have architecture experience are going to laugh that out of the room. I'll ask the question a different way- if Canberra doesn't go in populuxe where does it go lol? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.187.239 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
"The new ship was to be of a radical new design"... "was to have a host of cutting edge features in both her looks and her inventory. Her propulsion machinery was to be placed aft, leaving the best part of the ship for passenger accommodation. Her funnels, therefore, would also be placed aft - but side-by-side instead of fore-and-aft. This design had been pioneered in the Shaw Saville Liner Southern Cross (also built by Harland & Wolff), but was nevertheless unusual"... "This would give her sleeker lines and leave more deck space for passengers. Also, a great deal of welded aluminium was used in the building of her superstructure. Around 1000 tonnes were used, enabling a saving of about 1500 tonnes of total weight. The use of aluminium to this extent enabled the ship's designers to accommodate an extra 200 cabins."
hmm where else have I heard things like "sleek lines", "cutting edge (in 1957)," and "extensive use of aluminum" ??? 72.0.187.239 (talk) 04:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC) edit: link is [[1]]

<== You ask "if Canberra doesn't go in populuxe where does it go lol?" but that's not the question we are here to answer. The question is: what is good for this article? What isn't good are images that don't have an expert or popular critical connection to googie. Show me the reference and we can discuss how best to put the ship into the article. Otherwise, the image is unsatisfying and not reminiscent of googie. Binksternet (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

says you and if you pay close attention to that X-20 discussion you "somehow" waded into... you will find that apparently OR doesn't count for images according to user:BillCJ who is the resident genius on these transport articles. So you two go figure out how to make your theories compatible and leave me out of it.
Either you keep the canberra pic and those CGI pics, or you ditch them all (notice on x-20 I am not advocating deletion, just reduction from a 3:3 cgi/real pic split... to 1:3 cgi/real pic ratio which I think is more realistic). So let me know when OR starts applying only to some pages and i'll stop adding that lovely curvaceous and cutting-edge ship which any web search will show, was the talk of a generation of sailors. again launched in the late fifties dude... 72.0.187.239 (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
There's no 'somehow' about it: I critically assessed your contribution here and decided that I would go check your edit history to see if you were engaged in similar disputes elsewhere. Upon finding one in which I held an opinion, I decided to take part in the discussion and in the improvement of the article. My responses to you regarding that article are on its talk page; I won't be discussing it here.
For our googie photos, I agree with ChildofMidnight that the other pictures here should have cites, but I hold that they would not need them unless challenged. Your Canberra photo has been challenged (by me) and I insist on a reference that calls it googie or populuxe. Without that, it's out. Binksternet (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
================

I dont know the right way to edit the article. In the first section there is a mention of the earliest or first McDonalds. There could be a link from those words to this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_McDonald's#United_States

Thanks all. I keep forgetting my login. penguinv maybe

================================

Sydney Opera House

Granted the Opera House already has a designated architectural designation, I cant help but see a bit of Googie influence in this very important UN heritage landmark. I will leave it to the experts to decide if needs to be mentioned in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 03:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Selection of examples

Just copying note from above:

Clearly an error since Frank Lloyd Wright isn't known as a Googie architect and I couldn't find any references to Guggenheim being a Googie, so I removed it. Billgordon1099 (talk) 15:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Now a more general question - how do we decide what is googie and what isn't? The general Wikipedia way would be to have a reference for each, where a reliable source specifically states that this building is Googie architecture (or Populuxe or Doo-Wop). That might be a bit too tough for this article, since it is about a very popular (or should I say populist?) style that informally came up from non-academic, vernacular traditions. I might even say "low class" except that folks might take that as a put down. In any case, it may be hard to identify each specific example in a reliable source, but ... We SHOULD NOT be including formal (more academic) styled architecture, from big name architects, unless it or they have been specifically identified as Googie. A little informality can go a long way to improving the article and even reflects the popular style, but completely WP:Original Research about more formal buildings should be off-limits, and actually misrepresents the style. I may start removing specific examples soon, after asking for cites in the text. Smallbones (talk) 16:06, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to go all deletionist, but "la Maison de la Radio" seems like a pretty dubious example; sources call it modern. Billgordon1099 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC).

Original Vintage McDonalds Restaurants

maybe add this photo to the image section of this article.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/vintageroadside/2128311024/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gizziiusa (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's fully copyrighted. If you know the photog ask him or her to license it as CC-by-3.0 or another Wikipedia compatible license. On the other hand - does it really belong in THIS article? We're gonna need references with so many folks saying this belongs to Googie, and this, and this. How do we really know. Well find some references! Smallbones (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Alan Hess has a full chapter entitled "McDonald's" in his "Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture" book. It has a picture of, if not this restaurant, one nearly identical to it. Pburka (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Space Needle

The first photo in this article is the Space Needle in Seattle. This doesn't look Googie to me, and there's no reference supporting its inclusion. As the article states, Googie is "low architecture": gas stations and motels. The Space Needle, on the other hand, is monumental. It's a poor example to have at the top of the article. I intend to remove it unless someone objects and provides evidence to support its inclusion. Pburka (talk) 20:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Oral Roberts University?

Prayer Tower

I think most if not all of the architecture on the Oral Roberts University campus qualifies as Googie...I'm not an architectural expert though. It is another example to include. Take a look at the picture of the Prayer Tower...Googie, or not-so-Googie? Chris van Hasselt (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree that it looks Googie or Space-Age, but unless we have a WP:Reliable source saying that it's Googie, including it would be WP:Original research. Also remember that this article isn't a catalog of Googie architecture. Perhaps (reliably sourced) information about the architecture of Oral Roberts University would be more suitable in the university's article? Pburka (talk) 23:20, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep in mind that at the time of Googie, no one thought of it as being an entity or genre unto itself. It was probably just considered merely typical modern vernacular architecture. The buildings that we look back to and call "googie" are done so strictly in retrospect. So, one may ask "Does it look googie?" And I would say that if it looks "googie" (and is from that time), then go ahead and call it "googie." In my mind the Tower of Power is googie. Garagepunk66 (talk) 21:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
In principle (and outside of Wikipedia) I agree, but it's not a high enough threshold for encyclopedic inclusion. There has to be a reliable source for it. Ibadibam (talk) 21:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Would it be good to emphasize more within the article that Googie is, more-or-less, the commercial, "roadside" subset of "space-age", as opposed to a synonym for "space-age"?--jnkyrdsprkl (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Yes, we should find a source referring to the architecture at Oral Roberts University as being googie. Garagepunk66 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Artwork?

Before ever seeing a "googie" example in the real world, I had long noticed the illustraton (cartoon) style in old magazine ads and appliance manuals. For lack of a better term, I called it "jetsonesque", usually adding "you know...those lopsided starbursts and rhombus-shaped signboards?"

Does "googie" apply to an art/design movement as well? Aside from the "Influences" section, this article focuses ENTIRELY on architecture. Moreover, it gives the impression the art/design term would be "Retro-futuristic", but the linked article focuses mainly on steampunk and doesn't even MENTION googie!

Seems to me googie is more a whole school of art than just an architecture style. Unless there's a distinct term for it. 66.105.218.27 (talk) 11:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It's about architecture, not other types of art. Binksternet (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Not talking about "other types", I'm talking about THIS one. If "googie" is not the term, how does one refer to the style involving lopsided starbursts, rhomboid infoboxes, and artists palettes floating in midair?
And what's with that "Retro-futuristic" reference? It does not include googie! 66.105.218.5 (talk) 20:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
In general, such art could be called space age or jet age. Binksternet (talk) 03:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I'd buy that, but that seems to be a much wider category. In fact, this entire ARTICLE is a mess, arbitrarily swapping googie with futuristic, retro-futuristic, postmodern, space age and a bunch of other related terms. It doesn't matter whether it's art or architecture, someone really needs to tighten up the definition(s) involved.
Is there even a consensus on the examples in the gallery? From the various discussions above, it seems that half of those would be space age or retro-futuristic but not googie per se. 66.105.218.23 (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Can We Get Some Input On Pronunciation?

The NPR story gives it with the "hard G": /ˈgugi/ goo-gee, not /ˈgudʒi/ goo-jee or /ˈguʒi/ goo-zhee. Can we consider this a reliable source for pronunciation? Ibadibam (talk) 19:54, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
This 1 minute and 3m16s into this vintage clip on California Coffee shops pronounces it like Google's 'g', or "goo-ghee". https://vimeo.com/52178411 97.93.99.184 (talk) 12:55, 1 December 2017 (UTC)EdwoodCA

Is it Googie?

Hi there, I'm looking at some of the pictures in the gallery at the bottom of the Googie page.

The piano store in La Jolla, California doesn't cry out 'Googie' to me.

Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard apple (talk • contribs) 31 March 2013

If you check out the building on Google Maps you'll see that the roofline definitely has a curve to it that places it pretty firmly in Mid-Century modern, but I'll agree that it lacks the populuxe elements so common in many other Googie buildings. Whether it's actually Googie or not is probably up for debate, but in either case I'd say that the photograph that's being used doesn't really do a good job illustrating the architectural style and should probably be removed from the gallery. Ibadibam (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
I was in La Jolla over the weekend and was told that this structure originally housed an ice cream parlor called Lazy Susan's. I haven't been able to find anything online about it, but I'd have to imagine that its original signage and paint job probably were a little more representative of the style. Will keep poking around the dark corners of the internet for a photo of some kind. Ibadibam (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

There's another picture in the gallery, of the 360 at Founders Plaza, Oklahoma City. It doesn't really say "googie" to me. Thoughts? Magnolia677 (talk) 12:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

One of the guiding principles of Wikipedia is WP:verifiability. If a reliable source says it's Googie, then it is. If not, then you would be applying your own interpretation and engaging in WP:original research. Pburka (talk) 13:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Good point. When the Founders Tower applied for NRHP status, its application didn't mention "googie". Melvena Heisch, deputy historic preservation officer with the Oklahoma Historical Society stated "'Googie' is not mentioned in the National Register documentation...and the term "would not be the one we would apply to the United Founders Tower'...'Populuxe' it is". Also, "The tower is a much larger, more formal construction used for business offices rather than the smaller, roadside attraction-type buildings that we think of as 'Googie.'"[2] I haven't been able to locate a reliable source, such as an architectural analysis, which describes this building as "googie." Most of the descriptions calling this building "googie" are from local reporters who seemed to have copied it from the wiki article. There was an excellent article about googie architecture in the Smithsonian [3], where again and again the defining words are "roadside" and " coffee shops, gas stations, car washes." I don't believe the huge Founders Tower--or even the TWA Flight Center--are honest examples of "Googie". Thank you for your discussion. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
Interestingly, the current Founders Tower website seems to be trying to pass the building as Deco. Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if most NRHP applications don't use the term "Googie", even where it's appropriate. Just as Art-Deco is more formally identified as "Moderne" or in some cases "Streamline Moderne", I'd think a Googie building would more often be identified by other terms in official documentation, since Googie isn't widely recognized as an architectural school and doesn't look as good on paper or fit into the government's categories as well as "Modern" or "Other" (which I believe is how the Las Vegas sign is classified - NRHP site is down at the moment so can't confirm this). Ibadibam (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose this would be the closest thing to a "standards body" definition of the term? Junkyardsparkle (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Doo Wop"?

I'm just curious if this was ever a term used outside of a specific region. I don't know much about the subject, but I'm not familiar with it being used on the west coast.Junkyardsparkle (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, i found this, here:"Wildwood New Jersey is famous for its historic district which features the Googie style. The term "Doo-wop" was invented by New Jersey's Mid-Atlantic Center for the Arts during the early 1990s to describe the unique, space-age architectural style."
If nobody disputes this origin of the term, perhaps it's mention in the article can be adjusted to reflect that it's recent and regional. Junkyardsparkle (talk) 00:48, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
Consider it disputed until verified using a reliable source. Cite Gemini Studio for now and follow the ref with {{Better source}} to mark it for improvement. Chances are, that's the best we'll ever be able to do for this one. Ibadibam (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
In that case, I'll leave it as is until somebody else thinks it's worth changing; I'm mostly just motivated by my own curiosity, as I wasn't familiar with that usage of "doo wop", having only a limited, west coast perspective on the subject. :) Junkyardsparkle (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Kona Lanes

Should the roadside sign be in the gallery? —ATinySliver | talk to me 22:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The gallery is not intended to be an exhaustive archive of googie photographs. This article would benefit far more from some dedicated editing with reliable sources than from the continued expansion of the gallery section. See WP:Gallery for our policies on galleries. Pburka (talk) 23:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
My Wiki friends, I'd be the first to agree that some of the pictures in the gallary (except the ones I put there of course) aren't really googie and should be removed. But let's not forget that this thing we speak of, this googie, isn't just another architectural genre; googie is sumptuous and silly and beautiful. It's the car and the atom and the future. And most important, to see googie is to understand googie–and to love googie. I'm not ashamed to say that I've set out on more than a few road trips just to track down the elusive googie! And I know I'm not alone. If for not other reason than the preservation of America's greatest architectural gift, let's fill this darn gallery for all to see and enjoy! Magnolia677 (talk) 03:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Nah, Pburka is absolutely right, we do need more dedicated editing with reliable sources; we all need to be more bold and just make edits rather than going to talk pages and asking silly questions. —ATinySliver | talk to me 04:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC) Wait for it... xDDDDD
Ok ok. Today I added the Commons category "googie architecture" to all the pictures on the page (2 pics weren't Commons photos so couldn't be added). And there's already a link to the googie commons category at the bottom of the article, so even if pics are deleted from the Googie article they're still pretty easy to find. Can I suggest we start by deleting the picture of the burned out Johnie's Broiler? Magnolia677 (talk) 16:58, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, I suggest we move the "borderline" googie pics to commons:Category:Googie architecture, and move the truly googie pictures (in my opinion) from the Commons into the gallery in googie architecture.

Borderline - move to Commons:

Very googie, move from Commons to gallery on googie architecture:

Magnolia677 (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Nuts. I should be less subtle with my biting sarcastic wit... xDDD —ATinySliver | talk to me 23:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
On what basis are the images being determined to be "borderline" or "very Googie"? The Hope International University certainly looks Googie. And I don't see articles or sources establishing the "very Googie" buildings as being labelled Googie in relible independent sources. I don't think these changes should be made yet. I'm not clear on what the determinations are being based on. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Verifyable sources are indeed a cornerstone of Wikipedia. Interestingly, I did a Google search for "Theme Building" (at LAX) and "googie" and couldn't find one good source (ie. an architectural text) which referred to this iconic building as "googie". And not one source listed on the Theme Building's wiki article calls it googie. Yet, I did the same google search for the "Elm Road Drive-In" (one of the pics on our wiki article) and found a few sources (not all reputable), but ALL calling it googie. Eg. [4] As for the Town Motel in Birmingham, I didn't even bother looking for a reference, but for goodness sake, just look at it?? We may need to use editorial consensus--another cornerstone of Wikipedia--to determine what pics should stay on article. I've made a chart to help us...

Googie architectural characteristic Points (1-5)
motel, coffee house or gas station
upswept roof
curvaceous, geometric shape
bold use of glass, steel and neon
space-age design elements symbolic of motion (boomerangs, flying saucers, atoms and parabolas)
free-form designs such as "soft" parallelograms and an artist's palette motif
TOTAL

Magnolia677 (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I support removing the Theme Building. I don't think it's appropriate to include based on the lack of sourcing or authoritative determination that it is Googie. Are there sources classifying the Anaheim Convention Center as Googie Architecture? THis also seems a stretch. And finally, there are also some dubious assertions in the influences section. What source suggests Googie influenced the Jetsons or other cultural developments? Candleabracadabra (talk) 04:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I looked into it a bit and these buildings are noted along with Googie in several sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a bit wordy, but I've added clarification text to the Kona Lanes image. There was a remodel in the 1970s; for the full Googie (no free images), go here. xD —ATinySliver|ATalkPage 20:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Photos needed

As this page seems to be fairly active.. would anyone be willing to do some photo work? It would be great to have photos of the Chips (coffee shop), Ships Coffee Shop, Wich Stand, Corky's (in Sherman Oaks, recently renovated and reopened), the Ritts Furniture building on Santa Monica Boulevard east of La Cienega Boulevard (recently renovated and now the Hollywood Stock Exchange headquarters) and the Pann's building and interior. Thanks to any volunteers. Candleabracadabra (talk) 16:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Some of those places are other things now, but I'll at least try to get pics of Corky's at some point, if nobody else does first. Might want to consider adding photo request templates to the talk pages of the newly created articles. Junkyardsparkle (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
From its website I think Hof's Hut in Torrance may be Googie. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I took a photo of the Dot Coffee Shop in Houston, TX, which is one of the last remaining Googie structures here, and added it to this article, but Magnolia677 removed it a few hours later, saying "doesn't look very googie to [him]." I re-added it, along with a reference from the Houston Chronicle newspaper that provides support that it is indeed Googie, but I hope your effort to improve articles on Googie subjects with more images won't be undermined by the capricious judgement of people like Magnolia. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Magnolia677 that the building isn't a particularly strong example of the style. The sign has some traces of Googie in terms of color and whimsical mood, but lacks the space-age feel that is so essential to the Googie character. One moderator on the Houston Architecture forum seems to say as much. I suspect the Houston Chronicle columnist is using "Googie" as a catchall for the general '50s-'60s commercial aesthetic. Dot shows Googie influences, but I'm not so sure it should be held up to illustrate the style. I've moved it down to the gallery for the time being, but would welcome further discussion as to whether it belongs in the article. Ibadibam (talk) 19:33, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
No offense Ibadibam, but it really isn't your place to decide whether or not Dot is a particularly strong example, nor is it Magnolia's. Using your judgement to decide whether or not the structure is a strong representative is original research. That's not how things are done here. I provided a legitimate secondary source, the main newspaper of a major city,that states that it is Googie, so it meets the standard of verifiability. You are trying to counter that with the opinion of a moderator on an Internet discussion board, yet Wikipedia guidelines specifically state that such user-generated sources are not valid. There seems to be a lot of pov pushing in this article, people trying to assert their subjective judgement on what Googie is so they can exclude what they want from the article. Magnolia has been very aggressive in trying to exclude the contributions of others, even to the pont of violating Assume Good Faith by accusing me of "spamming" the article in one of his edit summaries, and if that kind of incivility continues, I'm taking him to a noticeboard, but it's a bit ridiculous that he is trying to exclude the verified opinion of Haskell, the man who coined the term Googie from the article. It's a pattern of behavior that is very pointy.Mmyers1976 (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Mmyers1976, you not once, but twice, plagiarized a magazine article nearly word-for-word and added it to this article. I left a polite message on your talk page about this, and instead of hiding in shame you want to lash out at other editors and make threats. I view the addition of copyrighted material as "spam". Maybe you have another word for it. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Magnolia, I was not the originator of the text in question (as you well know but don't acknowledge here), so I did not plagiarize it, and moreover since your edit summary when you first removed it was "One opinion about Googie should not dominate this article", your inadequate edit summary gave me no way to know there was a potential copyright violation problem, and frankly, your claim now that your edit was about WP:copyvio strikes me as HIGHLY disingenuous. Your assertion that I should have been "hiding in shame" is yet more incivility. And yes, there is word for adding copyrighted information, it is covered under WP:COPYVIO, an entirely different guideline than WP:SPAM. "Spam" is the addition of advertising, not copyrighted text. Perhaps if you didn't bandy about words without understanding their meanings, and if you wrote adequate edit summaries that actually call out the breach of guidelines you now claim to be concerned with, this unpleasantness could have been avoided. I have now paraphrased the problematic text, like I would have done in the first place if your edit summary had been adequate to indicate it was the problem. And I don't make threats, I give people the chance to cease their uncivil behavior before I take them to ANI, but my patience with you is wearing thin. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Mmyers, I apologize that Magnolia has been so uncivil with you and I hope it doesn't continue to cloud this discussion. With respect to the Dot, the purpose of this article is not to document every Googie project ever built, but to describe the style and leave the reader with a strong understanding of it. To that end, the only images that really belong in the article are of exemplars that very clearly show what Googie looks like. If you skim some of the previous discussion sections on this page you'll see there has already been some effort to cull weak examples. I'm using the Houston Architecture discussion not as a source (I certainly don't propose including it in the article), but rather to show that there's a diversity of opinions on the Dot's style, and sadly it's never been covered significantly enough to establish a consensus of reliable sources on that question. I'd further point out that, although it was published in a major newspaper, a single offhand reference by a local-interest columnist isn't really much more reliable than a comment by an architecture enthusiast when it comes to establishing the architectural significance of a particular project. Lisa Gray doesn't devote any ink to making the case for the Dot as an important Googie piece, just calling it a "time-warp joy" and leaving it at that. A previous column of hers on midcentury architecture in Houston doesn't mention the Dot at all. I'm still not seeing the case for why this project should be considered a notable enough example to include in this article. The Dot seems to have passing importance for Houston architecture, but is a footnote where the broader subject of Googie is concerned. Ibadibam (talk) 20:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Googie_architecture/Archive_1&oldid=1045630293"