tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post9179250554405382012..comments2024-03-12T04:14:16.271-05:00Comments on The Rad Trad: Texan RomanesqueThe Rad Tradhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00899289024837953345noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-11357857196594469802014-02-03T23:45:54.555-06:002014-02-03T23:45:54.555-06:00I think straight crossbeams, as per the genuine Ro...I think straight crossbeams, as per the genuine Romanesque style, could have worked well had it occurred to the designers. Gothic looks very bulbous and awkward if not done right, and doing it right, as you said, was expensive 150 years ago and will be even more expensive now with the lack of specialized artisans.The Rad Tradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00899289024837953345noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-88196072279853100212014-02-02T13:31:25.726-06:002014-02-02T13:31:25.726-06:00The roof does not work IMHO. It would look better...The roof does not work IMHO. It would look better without the internal spanning. I suspect the architect was trying to maximise space by not having arcades/pillars between the aisles and the nave. But Romanesque certainly does work in modern building. Gothic simply looks clumsy, one but thinks of so much Victorian Gothick revival. There are certainly exceptions to that generalisation, St. Giles at Cheadle and St. Cyprians, Clarence Gate, London but in both cases they were the product of the cream of architects and very expensive.Rubricariushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05050302650867319277noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3348523519788188753.post-49793618183518441622014-01-30T21:52:07.215-06:002014-01-30T21:52:07.215-06:00This seems to fall into the NLM's category of ...This seems to fall into the NLM's category of "the other modern".Marco da Vinhahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06092410765851812842noreply@blogger.com