# 'fake' Greek architecture in America



## Wilmot (Mar 22, 2011)

Hi, I'm currently looking for ancient Greek style buildings in America that go against the actual ancient Greek orders. Anything is appreciated.


----------



## URBANITY REPORTS (Nov 12, 2010)

DC?


----------



## TugaMtl (May 2, 2009)

When you think about most Greek revival architecture of today go against the style of ancient Greece since they are not painted.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

*Toronto*
*Old Toronto Post Office / Old Bank of Canada, built in 1853*









http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8f/10_Toronto_Street.JPG


----------



## Wilmot (Mar 22, 2011)

Thanks for the contribution, would you say this breaks 'Ionic' order by lack of moldings under what seems to be a double stacked frieze?


----------



## TheCanadianEuro (Oct 4, 2009)

Welcome to the forum, Wilmot! Now to google double stacked frieze haha.


----------



## Wilmot (Mar 22, 2011)

TheCanadianEuro said:


> Welcome to the forum, Wilmot! Now to google double stacked frieze haha.


Why thanks. According to what I've been studying, that bank building breaks a certain classical era of architectural order (exactly what I've been looking for.)


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

Excellent example, isaidso. One of the best in Toronto. Greek Revival was never fully intended to be an exact copy of the original Greek structures. Like the Romans, they took "inspiration" from the Greek styles (ie swiped which ever they wanted to use :lol, without being an exact copy. This is what most "Revival" styles were about...they rather lazily stole concepts and use styles haphazardly. The Victorians were very fond of reviving older styles, and hence we had Tudor Revival, Gothic Revival, Italian Renaissance Revival, Romanesque Revival, etc..
In the 1850's in Toronto, dabbling with bits and pieces of "Greek Revival" elements was much in vogue, and we can see subtle influences of it in this 1858 Georgian style townhouse (the only one left of a row). If you look carefully there is a white Greek frieze running across the top. 










In the last half of the 19th century, Greek influence could be seen on most banking buildings in Canada and the USA, especially the grand Head Office branches. There are hundreds of not thousands of examples of that all over the continent. Here is the old Bank of Commerce in Winnipeg (I'm sorry these two are old file pics I have and I don't know who took them. I lost my own photos in a computer crash last year):



















a bank in Toronto:










some buildings in Old Montreal:

Bank of Montreal Head Office branch (architects Architects: McKim, Mead and White)



























So, as you can see, "Greek" style elements were used with varying degrees of authenticity. The height or proportions of the columns were often wrong, and on occasion they would even mix up a column order, but putting fluting on a Doric column, or using Corinthian capitals on a chunky thick Ionic or Doric column shape with no fluting, or other such confusion. Here is another bank from Winnipeg with confused columns, designed by one of the leading architects in New York at the time, McKim, Mead and White (who also did the older and more luxurious national Head Office Bank of Montreal above). 









http://archiseek.com/2010/1913-bank-of-montreal-winnipeg-manitoba/


The Greeks were EXTREMELY careful and VERY precise about fixed proportions of buildings, and followed their rules religiously. Victorian builders were a bit more wild and carefree about proportions, which resulted in a broad variation of faux Greek-style banking temples, with wildly varying degrees of authenticity to the original styles.

Here is a closeup photo I took of the confused column order of that bank, back around 1983:










this was a much better interpretation of a Corinthian column, on an old Bank of Toronto building in Winnipeg, that I also took back in 1983:










some ruins of an old Bank building in Toronto (I believe the Bank of Toronto):










and a pair of squat, badly proportioned pair of Corinthian columns that appear downright stumpy:


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

Just to quibble a bit, but the "rules" that supposed govern the "actual ancient Greek orders" were codified by the Romans, and not the Greeks. No actual ancient Greek treatise on architecture survives, and the "orders" that we recognize today as Greek are Vitruvian attempts at rationalization and ordering. The orders themselves are Greek in origination, but the rules were probably much more fluid than what Vitruvius and the 16th century theorists may have wanted to admit. A careful reading of Pausanias would bear this out, especially in the descriptions of many of the vanished Greek monuments and buildings.

By way of a simple example: the golden ratio is not as prevalent in ancient Greek architecture as the later theorists have claimed. It is one of the many myths that haunt our notions of classical Greek architecture to this day.


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

^^Treatise may not remain, but many of the buildings through archaeology do remain, as well as descriptions, such as those from Pausanias. The orders are universally recognized as Greek, that's indisputable. 

It is true that in the Hellenistic Age there were deviations and more, lets say 'liberty' from the tenets of classical architecture, so much so that the style took on a very elaborate form in many cases, even referred by some today as Hellenistic Baroque. However, classical Greek architecture was much more adherent and strict to its tenets of proportion and the balance and form that came with that. Remember, Pausanias was writing during Roman Greece times in the 2nd century AD, which was after the Helelnistic Age and well after the claasical era. 

Today, we have influences from Greek architecture that can be described as 'academic classical' or 'free classical. The former being more adherent to Greek tenets of architecture, while the later simply takes motifs, decorative elements, usually displayed on the facades and therefore could probably be called more fake than academic classical which looks at the whole composition of the building and its classical design.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

tpe said:


> No actual ancient Greek treatise on architecture survives, .


Because none has survived to this date you feel it did not exist? As has been pointed out, some of the actual bones of their structures still exist. This is how we know their theories of proportion. As Shakespeare would have said: _"The proof of the pudding is in the tasting"_. The Romans went on to give us amazing developments in architecture, city planning and infrastructure, as well as Art, but owed a great deal more to the Greeks than many people are now willing to admit. I daily walk past Victorian and Edwardian apartment blocks that are incredibly similar to original Roman designs (with interior light wells, clerestory lighting, central staircase, running water, sewage disposal, etc...). The list of Roman achievements is long..... but there is no denying that they started by copying Greek Art and Architecture, then took that knowledge and moved forward. They often copied Greek statues identically, then claimed it as their own art. Later, though, they came up with innovations of their own in art, like atmospheric perspective.
Without both the Greeks and the Romans, our cities would look ENTIRELY different today, and likely would be aesthetically impoverished to boot; not to mention have inferior infrastructure.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

What I said is that we should be careful of attributing many classical rules to the ancient Greeks. The Romans made many many innovations -- first and foremost in Greek architecture. So we must be careful not to attribute Roman refinements and innovations in Greek architecture to the ancient Greeks themselves. The Vitruvian rules do not necessarily reflect overall Greek practice and aesthetics during the classic period. They are closer with the Hellenistic aesthetic than they are to classical Greek.

Moreover, many of what we now think of as "classical Greek" actually originated with the late Roman and 16th century European theorists and beyond. 

I gave the example of the Golden Ratio. Many have noted that this proportion can be found in the Parthenon in Athens, but recent studies stemming from the restoration of the Parthenon have shown that this is not so in many instances. This is an example where we might ascribe something as "classical" but may not be a prevailing practice in antiquity.




Taller said:


> Because none has survived to this date you feel it did not exist? As has been pointed out, some of the actual bones of their structures still exist. This is how we know their theories of proportion. As Shakespeare would have said: _"The proof of the pudding is in the tasting"_. The Romans went on to give us amazing developments in architecture, city planning and infrastructure, as well as Art, but owed a great deal more to the Greeks than many people are now willing to admit. I daily walk past Victorian and Edwardian apartment blocks that are incredibly similar to original Roman designs (with interior light wells, clerestory lighting, central staircase, running water, sewage disposal, etc...). The list of Roman achievements is long..... but there is no denying that they started by copying Greek Art and Architecture, then took that knowledge and moved forward. They often copied Greek statues identically, then claimed it as their own art. Later, though, they came up with innovations of their own in art, like atmospheric perspective.
> Without both the Greeks and the Romans, our cities would look ENTIRELY different today, and likely would be aesthetically impoverished to boot; not to mention have inferior infrastructure.


----------



## Huti (Nov 13, 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon_(Nashville)


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

tpe said:


> What I said is that we should be careful of attributing many classical rules to the ancient Greeks. The Romans made many many innovations -- first and foremost in Greek architecture. So we must be careful not to attribute Roman refinements and innovations in Greek architecture to the ancient Greeks themselves. The Vitruvian rules do not necessarily reflect overall Greek practice and aesthetics during the classic period. They are closer with the Hellenistic aesthetic than they are to classical Greek.


 Naturally the Romans adopted Greek architecture and added their own innovations, the arch for one. They were of course influenced by others as well such as the Etruscans. But you contradict yourself, perhaps without realizing it by stating the Romans were closer to the Hellenistic aesthetic than the classical one. The Hellenistic, as the word suggests was a later Greek period also, so yes Greek influences on them were indeed profound. 



tpe said:


> Moreover, many of what we now think of as "classical Greek" actually originated with the late Roman and 16th century European theorists and beyond.


 People such as Palladio, who incidentally takes his name from the Greek Pallas Athena, because at the time he was so profoundly said to be influenced by Graeco-Roman culture, of course came up with their own innovations. However the 'roots' of his designs are tied up in Greek architecture. There's no doubt about that. 



tpe said:


> I gave the example of the Golden Ratio. Many have noted that this proportion can be found in the Parthenon in Athens, but recent studies stemming from the restoration of the Parthenon have shown that this is not so in many instances. This is an example where we might ascribe something as "classical" but may not be a prevailing practice in antiquity.


 The Parthenon is something exceptional by all acoounts. The 'play on the eyes' so the columns looked straight from a distance etc, made for it to be very innovative, deviating from the golden rules of architecture. However this was the case also with other classical style buildings throughout history. Even Palladio who ascribed the importance of symmetry and proportion deviated from these rules if we look closer at his buildings. So, on the one hand he assigns certain strict rules, yet on the other he himself deviates from them. There is a great series, compared by Kevin McCloud from England who travels through Europe and explains the great influences of classical-style architecture in the West today, and he points out what I have written, including Palladio's 'unorthodox' practices and the debt we have to Greek architecture, with Greek clearly described as the source and origin of it all. Kevin McCloud Grand Tour of Europe DVD, highly recommended for all lovers of architecture.
http://www.ovguide.com/tv/kevin_mccloud_s_grand_tour.htm



> *Roman Architecture: Greeks*
> 
> Roman architecture represents a fusion of traditional Greek and Etruscan elements, notably the trabeated orders, with new structural principles based on the development of the arch and of a new building material, concrete. The Romans achieved originality in building very late in their existence; for the whole of the republican period, Roman architecture was a nearly exact copy of that of Greece, aside from the Etruscan contribution of the arch, and its later three-dimensional counterpart, the dome. The only two developments of any significance were the Tuscan and Composite orders; the first being a shortened, simplified variant on the Doric order and the Composite being a tall order with the floral decoration of the Corinthian and the scrolls of the Ionic....
> http://www.lycos.com/info/roman-architecture--greeks.html


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

Here's another interesting article.



> *Roman art and architecture: origins and influences*
> 
> by Lorena Shannon
> 
> ...


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

skymantle said:


> But you contradict yourself, perhaps without realizing it by stating the Romans were closer to the Hellenistic aesthetic than the classical one. The Hellenistic, as the word suggests was a later Greek period also, so yes Greek influences on them were indeed profound.


There is no contradiction. Greek architecture of the *CLASSIC* period is *VERY* different from Greek architecture of the *HELLENISTIC* age.

The Hellenistic age is the period after the conquests of Alexander, when Greek architecture of the classic period was modified by new influences from the newly conquered Asiatic/Oriental (i.e., Persian/Babylonian,/Assyrian, etc.) cultures as well as the art and architecture of Egypt. To say that they are similar is equivalent to saying that not much differentiates neo-classicism from Baroque architecture.

Roman architecture is closer to Hellenistic architecture than it is to the Greek architecture of the classic period. One must distinguish between the two periods if one wishes to be taken seriously.


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

tpe said:


> There is no contradiction. Greek architecture of the *CLASSIC* period is *VERY* different from Greek architecture of the *HELLENISTIC* age.


 Of course it is. They're two different eras, but there was still a great influence from the classical period.



tpe said:


> The Hellenistic age is the period after the conquests of Alexander, when Greek architecture of the classic period was modified by new influences from the newly conquered Asiatic (i.e., Persian/Babylonian,/Assyrian, etc.) cultures as well as the art and architecture of Egypt. To say that they are similar is equivalent to saying that not much differentiates neo-classicism from Baroque architecture.


 They are similar, but of course different. That's not my point anyway. My point is that Hellenistic architecture IS also Greek architecture and hence its influence on Roman architecture. Like I said, the word Hellenistic says it all, which in fact means Greek. Greek = Hellene. We use the term Hellenistic to denote a later period in Greek history, including the style of architecture. Also, Hellenistic architecture is known for spreading Greek tenets of architecture on the conquered lands you mention. 



tpe said:


> Roman architecture is closer to Hellenistic architecture than it is to the Greek architecture of the classic period. One must distinguish between the two periods if one wishes to be taken seriously.


 Both classical era and Hellenistic era Greek architecture influenced the Romans as it's explained by the countless literature out there, including the links i've provided. 

So remember, I was trying to say that you're contradicting yourself by saying that Roman architecture wasn't influenced by Greek architecture, even though you stated that it was influenced by Hellenistic architecture, which in fact is also considered Greek architecture. 

How ever much you want to downplay the influence of Greek architecture and for that matter art, on Rome, you cannot deny the evidence that suggests otherwise. I suggest you come to terms with it.


----------



## tpe (Aug 10, 2005)

skymantle said:


> So remember,* I was trying to say that you're contradicting yourself by saying that Roman architecture wasn't influenced by Greek architecture,* even though you stated that it was influenced by Hellenistic architecture, which in fact is also considered Greek architecture.


??

It seems that you have trouble reading. I quote myself in full:



> What I said is that we should be careful of attributing many classical rules to the ancient Greeks. *The Romans made many many innovations -- first and foremost in Greek architecture. So we must be careful not to attribute Roman refinements and innovations in Greek architecture to the ancient Greeks themselves.* The Vitruvian rules do not necessarily reflect overall Greek practice and aesthetics during the classic period. They are closer with the Hellenistic aesthetic than they are to classical Greek.


Now, can you explain to us here in your own words how this passage implies "that Roman architecture wasn't influenced by Greek architecture"? I think the English is clear enough...

So please read carefully what I have written and do not obscure things by misrepresentations.

As for sources, forget all your secondary sources and go directly to the primary text. We may cite the rather fanciful explanation of the origins of Caryatids in architecture. The Roman clearly misunderstood Greek intentions on this subject. This is but one example when Vitruvius cannot be taken at face value.

_Historias autem plures novisse oportet, quod multa ornamenta saepe in operibus architecti designant, de quibus argumentis rationem, cur fecerint, quaerentibus reddere debent. Quemadmodum si quis statuas marmoreas muliebres stolatas, quae cariatides dicuntur, pro columnis in opere statuerit et insuper mutulos et coronas conlocaverit, percontantibus ita reddet rationem Caria, civitas Peloponnensis, cum Persis hostibus contra Graeciam consensit. Postea Graeci per victoriam gloriose bello liberati communi consilio Cariatibus bellum indixerunt. ltaque oppido capto, viris interfectis, civitate declarata matronas eorum in servitutem abduxerunt, nec sunt passi stolas neque ornatus matronales deponere, uti non una triumpho ducerentur, sed aeterno, servitutis exemplo gravi contumelia pressae poenas pendere viderentur pro civitate. Ideo qui tunc architecti fuerunt aedificiis publicis designaverunt earum imagines oneri ferundo conlocatas, ut etiam posteris nota poena peccati Cariatium memoriae traderetur._

Marble architraves, indeed! Without question a Hellenistic gloss on the true origins of Caryatids in Greek architecture of the classic period.

So do you dare contradict this?


----------



## abraham (Jul 6, 2005)

Philadelphia's Ritz-Carlton springs to mind.


----------



## ngfede (Jan 13, 2011)

Greek theatre
Cordoba city, Argentina










source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/10905/3099529620/









source: http://static.panoramio.com/photos/original/12387512.jpg


----------

