Talk:Ranch-style house

It is not uniquely American

"is a uniquely American domestic architectural style" ? Untrue; we have millions of these things in Australia. Have a look around any 1970s/1980s city suburb e.g. Mitchelton, Brisbane.

Certainly you do, that's not the point however, the style was invented in the US in the early 20th century, which is what the statement means. By the late 1940's and early 50's it was the most common style of home built in the US, and was of course copied in other nations. However, I added a line to indicate that the style is also found in other nations as it was copied widely. -McHeath —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcheath (talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

To me, "uniquely American" does not mean a "style [that] was invented in the US" - it implies that this style is present *only* in America and can be seen in no other country - hence the uniqueness. Adding a line after this that states it is also present in other nations seems contradictory. Instead of using the term "unique", I think a better term would be something like "a style originating in America" or similar 81.174.196.107 (talk) 03:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

criticism of ranch style

I have left up the existing criticism of ranch style homes, though this might seem like not being NPOV. Honestly though, this is a very common criticism and seems relevent. --W.marsh 09:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Should this be merged with Ranch (house)?KXL 19:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, although I think Ranch (house) should be merged here. People don't typically say "I live in a ranch", they say "I live in ranch-style house". At least that's what I think. --W.marsh 20:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• I went ahead and merged (well, redirected, the other article was much shorter and didn't look to have anything new) --W.marsh 01:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Last summer, June 2006, I added quite a bit to the article, but was unsatisfied with it. Today I basically rewrote the entire thing. Added example pictures as well. -McHeath, March 21, 2007

Do we really need this many images of ranch houses?

Sorry I should have placed my comments in here, the talk page of "ranch style house" rather than where I have in one of the images.
I hope nobody minds my saying this, but do we actually need this many images of Ranch houses? Surely only those with distinctive features need be included, I think this seems to be overkill to a certain extent. Dieter Simon 00:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Answer: A large number of pictures of the Ranch Style House gives a good impression of what exactly the style looks like. It's easy to read the characteristics of the style and be unclear on exactly what it looks like, and indeed the defining characteristics of California Bungalow houses and Prairie School houses in their Wikipedia articles sound a lot like a Ranch House. There also seems to be some confusion as to what a Ranch House looks like as this sample web site shows:

[1]

Their sample house is most clearly not a Ranch House, it is a neo-eclectic with strong colonial influence. Search the web for Ranch House plans and you will find many sites selling plans for houses that are neo-eclectics being called Ranch. Thus the need for a good sample of pictures of what a Ranch Style house really is. -Mcheath, June 18, 2007

Removed this image today that had been placed in the article:

1955 Ranch style house in Southington CT

It is not a ranch style house at all but is a Cape Cod. This is why the image section is important so that people can see clearly what a ranch style house looks like. -Mcheath, Dec 6,2010

Capitalization

Is the word "ranch" properly capitalized when referring to an architectural style? Robert K S (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

East coast/West coast?

I grew up in the west and never heard the term Ranch applied to a house. It was always Rambler. Moved to Missouri and heard "Ranch" for the first time. Moved to Jersey and it was "Rancher." Whether passage of time or passage of geography, all three terms probably belong in the intro. TheEditrix2 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Curious to know about the term 'Atomic' Ranch, which seems to be in wide spread use, but not mentioned. Due to the 'Atomic' era in which they were built? Because many were made from concrete block, which linked them to the fallout shelters that were popular at the time? I have a book called 'Atomic Ranch' which doesn't seem to bother explaining the term either. I'm a new owner of one, and would love to know. KenE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.94.103.250 (talk) 13:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re mealy-mouthed approach to obvious vandalism, 22 January

Someone is far to kind in their approach to this. "Possible vandalism"? "False positive"? This is obvious vandalism by an anonymous editor, no doubt about it. Just revert it and say so, do it every time they do it. They'll soon pack it in. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The edit was done by an unattended bot... so occasionally it does make mistakes. Hence the wording. --W.marsh 00:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes I know it's a bot, but the bot should be changed somewhat, there is no harm in being a bit more positive about this, you know. I have seen this many times in relation to bots, we seem to be so fearful of calling a spade a spade. People who vandalise can be as rude and sometimes obscene as they like but we lean over backwards when we undo the damage. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Further Questions on Criticism of Ranch Style" Section

I fully agree that the criticisms documented in the criticism section merit discussion, but I wonder about some of the phrasing and presentation of counter-arguments. More passive phrases like "can be seen" are contradicted by emphatic words like "clear," and, though necessarily and rightfully included, the counter-arguments are given too much room, so that they seem biased. This could be fixed by concatenating, otherwise shortening, and re-focusing the purpose of sentences towards presentation, rather than argument. Possible edits are below.

Cultural criticisms

The ranch house phenomenon was very much centered in the blue collar lower income and white collar middle income socioeconomic groups. Almost from the very start of the ranch house era the style was criticized by the established architectural elite. Thus a cultural divide can be seen in the criticisms of the ranch house, the “masses” embracing the design for decades and most of the established architectural community deriding it. The early ranch house tracts were mocked for their treeless nature, and “soulless” was a common adjective to describe such housing, along with the term “ranchburger”. Such criticisms have been somewhat mitigated in recent years with the re-integration of trees into design, and the ranch house's general lack of decay after its decline in popularity in contrast to other styles whose popularity has since waned (see Hess).

[I removed the second reference to the cultural divide, since that had already been established and didn't add any new information. The repetition is what lends itself to bias, because it clearly shows where the author's beliefs fall. I also shortened and re-phrased the counter-arguments to similarly convey less bias].

Environmental criticisms

Since the 1970s green movements began, the ranch house has often attracted criticism for being wasteful of resources. The ranch house's large lots have been attacked as being wasteful to water in order to maintain their turf, and for creating "suburban sprawl." The long and rambling nature of the homes for a single family is seen as a waste of building materials and as increasing the energy required to heat or cool the house. The suburban nature of the homes, with their encouragement of car culture by having attached garages, is criticized as destroying community and encouraging alienation and isolation. Counter-critics argue that underlying such concerns are deeper issues regarding cities and the modern dependence on automobiles, as well as in broader questions regarding the sustainability and viability of decentralized living. Thus, counter-critics locate criticisms of the ranch house in broader societal problems.

[The last argument about the morality of choice is certainly interesting for the purposes of discussion, but seems better suited for the classroom than an encyclopedia entry. In other words, it touches on some huge philosophical, political and social issues regarding the freedom of human choice as explored by philosophers, anthropologists, neuroscientists, sociologists and activists from Gandhi to Kierkegaard to Emma Goldman, and thus should be explored in depth and not in passing (the only way an entry on this topic can discuss it).] —Preceding unsigned comment added by SkittlesPig (talk • contribs) 19:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Have moved this new section to where it should be, at the end of the talk page, where the most recent items should go. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I've removed these sections. The discussion may be relevant and true but I don't think it's appropriate to present this information without any citations or references at all. Since wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia and not a forum for synthesis of information, the arguments and perspectives should all have links to authoritative sources that are advancing the perspectives mentioned. Without those references, readers don't know if the article represents the opinions of authorities or the opinions of editors of this page.Jopo sf (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

File:NEWRANCHSIGN.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:NEWRANCHSIGN.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Possible WWII US Army influences

   During WWII, the US Army had several design series for temporary barracks.  At the start of the war, the Army had 300,000 soldiers, and rapidly expanded in size such that at one point the total of all armed forces was 12 million. As the build-up progressed, the barracks were increasingly simplified, and lessons learnt from observation of earlier barracks incorporated into the later models.  Most troops were eventually placed in single-story barracks mounted on concrete slabs.  Concrete saved on the use of wood in building elevated platforms.  Also, concrete slabs permitted indoor toilets as opposed to separate outhouses. In northern states some slabs had clay tiles embedded in them to carry heated air from gas furnaces. Single-story construction permitted the use of a lower grade of lumber, which otherwise could not be used in a double story barracks.  Wind pressure increases with height in buildings.  Thus, tall timber buildings need better grades of lumber.  Trained carpenters were hard to find, so unskilled workers each would learn but one task in one day, then add their input in building encampments that might support up to 30,000 soldiers.  Such semi-skilled workers could work on single-story roofs with fewer serious accidents. Prominent architects helped design the barracks and used new materials, such as windows made in factories, continuous horizontal window belts, gypsum wall board, several other wallboards, and new types of paints.  Workers and contractors experienced in this system used it, after the war ended, to build large numbers of single-story houses in large developments after the war. They were called Ranch Houses because the term was already in use, though most real ranch houses were built differently, using vertical siding hung from purlins mounted to four-by-four studs in the corners and on either side of windows and doors--a form of barn construction.  ----Dictionary, Medina County, Ohio.