Talk:Googie architecture

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)

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).

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)

Can We Get Some Input On Pronunciation?

• How do you pronounce "Googie"? There is no mention of this in the article, and a web search just now yielded nothing. Please add.Bo-Bo Belsinger (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2008 (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

...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)

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)