Is a bungalow a house?

[HVS]

This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:

"A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage after
one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by raising the
roof height by 15ins."

Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
storey houses are both "houses"?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-residents-
furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.html


--
Cheers, Harvey
CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Unknown]

HVS wrote:

> This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
>
> "A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage
> after one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by
> raising the roof height by 15ins."
>
> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird
> to exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows
> and two- storey houses are both "houses"?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-resi
> dents-
> furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.html

Hmm... no, I think a house is a house and a bungalow is a bungalow.

I currently live in a 'chalet bungalow'; ie a house with a steeply
raked roof, and two stories. I've never felt happy about the chalet
bunglaow concept; to me a bungalow doesn't have an upstairs.

DC

--

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 12:05:13 PM UTC-5, HVS wrote:

> This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
>
> "A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage after
> one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by raising the
> roof height by 15ins."
>
> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
> storey houses are both "houses"?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-residents-
> furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.html

Paying no attention to the story above, yes, a bungalow is a house, but
what kind of house is designated by the word differs enormously around
the world (and around the US, for that matter).

Though I don't know why you can't have a two-story bungalow. Chicago is
full of such.

[Richard Tobin]

In article <XnsA5C7ADC9...@178.63.61.145>,

HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

>Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
>storey houses are both "houses"?

Yes, a bungalow is a kind of house.

-- Richard

[Richard Tobin]

In article <4ec77e46-bede-4557...@googlegroups.com>,

Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>Paying no attention to the story above, yes, a bungalow is a house, but
>what kind of house is designated by the word differs enormously around
>the world (and around the US, for that matter).
>
>Though I don't know why you can't have a two-story bungalow. Chicago is
>full of such.

As you say, the meaning varies around the world. In Britain, the main
characteristic of a bungalow is that it only has one storey (which is,
of course, fairly unusual for a house in such a densely populated
country).

-- Richard

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

The same is sorta true in most NAmericani: bungalows here often have a "half-story," but not a full one.

[charles]

In article <nbsc6i$1afv$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

Only necessary because people who can't manage stairs want their own
gardens. Otherwise you could have flats - with a lift (elevator, for left
pondians) or two

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

[Whiskers]

OED defines Bungalow as

orig. Anglo-Indian.

Orig., a one-storied house (or temporary building, e.g. a
summer-house), lightly built, usually with a thatched roof. In
modern use, any one-storied house. Also attrib. and Comb.

"bungalow, n.". OED Online. March 2016. Oxford University Press.
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/24772?redirectedFrom=bungalow (accessed
March 10, 2016).

With the caveat

This entry has not yet been fully updated (first published 1888).

I think subsequent usage has evolved thanks to various cultural
developments in the intervening years, so that now there are two sorts
of bungalow. One sort is expensive and solidly built and has only one
storey because the owners can afford to buy enough land; the other sort
were post-WWI squatters' shacks some of which have since gained
legitimacy (and mains power and water too in some cases).

So a bungalow is a house, unless it's a shack, but a house isn't
necessarily a bungalow.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
>
>"A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage after
>one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by raising the
>roof height by 15ins."
>
>Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
>storey houses are both "houses"?
>
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-residents-
>furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.html

Yes they are both houses in MyE. However, the distinction being made is
between a house that is a bungalow and a house that is not a bungalow.

Note, we are talking about a "bungalow" as understood in BrE, not as in
AmE.

--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[David Kleinecke]

Locally (Northern California) "bungalow" is rarely used and when it
does turn up it usually mean "very small house".

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 2:37:46 PM UTC-5, PeterWD wrote:

> Note, we are talking about a "bungalow" as understood in BrE, not as in
> AmE.

Or InE.

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:37:46 AM UTC-8, PeterWD wrote:

And the article may be talking about a "bungalow" as defined in local building codes,
or perhaps for a specific neighborhood or development
(US: "Codes, Covenenants, and Restrictions" -- CCRs)

/dps

[Sam Plusnet]

In article <XnsA5C7ADC9...@178.63.61.145>,
off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk says...

>
> This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
>
> "A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage after
> one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by raising the
> roof height by 15ins."
>
> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
> storey houses are both "houses"?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-residents-
> furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.html

I agree that a bungalow is a house.

Perhaps the author felt that

"...successfully applied to turn his into a two storey house by..."

seemed overlong, and his/her readers would easily grasp the shorter
form.

[Peter Moylan]

In Australia, the vast majority of houses are single-storey. For that
reason we have no use for the word "bungalow", and it is rarely seen here.

We do have a small number of sub-standard (by today's standards)
dwellings called things like "miner's cottages" and "fishermen's
shacks", but we don't call those bungalows either.

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Dingbat]

The original word is [bVNg@lA].

http://www.thebangala.com/
"the Bangala is, in a sense, a private house passing itself off as a hotel..."
- "Five Hotels That Get Five Stars" by Guy Trebay in New York times Dec'2011.

[Mike Barnes]

HVS wrote:
> This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
>
> "A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage after
> one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by raising the
> roof height by 15ins."
>
> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
> storey houses are both "houses"?

Agreed. The idea that he "applied to turn his bungalow into a house" is
ridiculous. I'm sure you won't find that wording, or anything like it,
on the planning application.

--
Mike Barnes
Cheshire, England

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

That pretty much covers my thoughts on the matter. I would have thought
that humanity had more pressing problems to solve.


--
athel

[Katy Jennison]

WIWAL there was, just down the road from us, a group of single-storey
prefabricated houses, "prefabs", which were put up all over England just
after the war and intended to last 10-15 years (some are still going
strong). When we weren't calling them "the prefabs" we called them "the
bungalows".

I completely agree that bungalows are houses. The trouble is that
there's a word, bungalow, for a single-storey house but there isn't a
separate word for a two-storey (or higher) house. So you can see the
writer's problem. The other residents claim, correctly, that if this
particular bungalow has an extra storey added to it then it won't be a
bungalow any longer. So what will it be?

--
Katy Jennison

[Stan Brown]

On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
> storey houses are both "houses"?
>

In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house. I don't have a precise
definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it. AHD4 says
a bungalow may have an attic story. I guess I can accept that, if the
attic is a "crawl space" used for storage, not high enough for an
adult to stand up in.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain

[RH Draney]

On 3/11/2016 3:50 AM, Katy Jennison wrote:
>
> I completely agree that bungalows are houses. The trouble is that
> there's a word, bungalow, for a single-storey house but there isn't a
> separate word for a two-storey (or higher) house. So you can see the
> writer's problem. The other residents claim, correctly, that if this
> particular bungalow has an extra storey added to it then it won't be a
> bungalow any longer. So what will it be?

A bungahigh?...r

[Dingbat]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
> > Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> > exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
> > storey houses are both "houses"?
> >
>
> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.

In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.

> I don't have a precise
> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.

Is a ranch style house different or the same?

[Mike Barnes]

Katy Jennison wrote:
> I completely agree that bungalows are houses. The trouble is that
> there's a word, bungalow, for a single-storey house but there isn't a
> separate word for a two-storey (or higher) house. So you can see the
> writer's problem. The other residents claim, correctly, that if this
> particular bungalow has an extra storey added to it then it won't be a
> bungalow any longer. So what will it be?

It will be a house, just as it is now.

Also, FWIW, it will be an ex-bungalow. [cue Monty Python]

[Richard Tobin]

In article <nbtga0$pff$1...@dont-email.me>,

Peter Moylan <pe...@pmoylan.org.invalid> wrote:

>In Australia, the vast majority of houses are single-storey. For that
>reason we have no use for the word "bungalow", and it is rarely seen here.

When I visited Australia, I went for a walk along the beach. The
people I was staying with enquired how far I had gone by asking "did
you go as far as the two-storey?", which would have indicated a long
walk.

-- Richard

[Jerry Friedman]

On 3/11/16 6:36 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
>>> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>>> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
>>> storey houses are both "houses"?
>>>
>>
>> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
>
> In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.
>
>> I don't have a precise
>> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
>
> Is a ranch style house different or the same?

...

Ranch-style houses have only one story, but they tend not to be very
small. Wikipedia lists typical stylistic features.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch-style_house

--
Jerry Friedman

[Charles Bishop]

In article <XnsA5C7ADC9...@178.63.61.145>,
HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:

> This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
>
> "A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage after
> one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by raising the
> roof height by 15ins."
>
> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
> storey houses are both "houses"?
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-residents-
> furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.html

Is there some technical definition (jargon?) at work here that makes a
bungalow not a house. Here in So Cal, there are many bungalows that are
considered houses, albeit small ones.

Is there any mention of why raising the roof (heh) makes it a house?

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <MPG.314c14f...@news.plus.net>,

How could raising the roof by 15 inches add a second stor(e)y?

>
> seemed overlong, and his/her readers would easily grasp the shorter
> form.

--
charles

[Lewis]

In message <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
>> > Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>> > exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
>> > storey houses are both "houses"?
>> >
>>
>> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.

> In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.

>> I don't have a precise
>> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.

> Is a ranch style house different or the same?

Different. Bungalows often have basements and will have a structural
porch on the front, unlike a ranch.

<http://tours.tourfactory.com/tours/media/scene/big2/00/22/56/41/22564188.jpg>
<http://www.briankgrace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMG_2431.jpg>

>> AHD4 says
>> a bungalow may have an attic story. I guess I can accept that, if the
>> attic is a "crawl space" used for storage, not high enough for an
>> adult to stand up in.

My wife's grandmother's house was purchased by the nextdoor neighbors
about 30 years ago. They converted the attic into a master bedroom
without modifying the roof.


--
Nobody puts one over on Fred C. Dobbs.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <nbsc6i$1afv$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,

One of the main reasons for a two story house is heating (and cooling
it). Even when there was land enough, houses were two stories since it
was cheaper to heat them, and a second story would aid in cooling the
upper story. Also, where houses had to have a basement, or at least a
foundation below the frost line, this meant that there was less work
doing that for a two story house.

Out west in the US, where the climate was less fierce, a ranch house was
possible.

--
charles

[Cheryl]

It would probably increase height of the current attic space enough to
make the space more useable. Those houses...er, bungalows...have steep
roofs so there's some space up there already. Once someone can stand
upright more easily, he has a second storey on his house rather than a
mere attic on a bungalow.

There have been a couple of fights here over the years about plans that
were approved according to then-current limits (2 stories, I think), but
when the buildings went up, clever changes to the roofline meant
neighbours were outraged that the buildings were taller than expected
and the builders insisted innocently that they were within the rules.

--
Cheryl

[Charles Bishop]

In article <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>,

Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
> > > Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> > > exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and
> > > two-
> > > storey houses are both "houses"?
> > >
> >
> > In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
>
> In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.
>
> > I don't have a precise
> > definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
>
> Is a ranch style house different or the same?

A ranch house (in the western US) was more spread out than a house back
east. It had a larger footprint. There were two main reasons for this.
There was no need for a deep foundation as the ground didn't freeze
during winter and the climate meant that a second story wasn't necessary
to conserve heat in the winter.

>
> > AHD4 says
> > a bungalow may have an attic story. I guess I can accept that, if the
> > attic is a "crawl space" used for storage, not high enough for an
> > adult to stand up in.

The "crawl space" I wouldn't consider to be an attic. It's mostly there
for insulation as an air gap between the living space and the outside.

--
charles

[HVS]

On 11 Mar 2016, Katy Jennison wrote

I agree that the writer had a problem; I guess the solution just didn't
work for me.

I'd use "a two-storey house", I suppose.

[HVS]

On 11 Mar 2016, Charles Bishop wrote

I don't think it's a jargon thing -- I've certainly never encountered it
before (and it's a field I've worked in for 40-ish years).

> Is there any mention of why raising the roof (heh) makes it a house?

I can only guess that it's because the writer thinks that a residential
building that's only got one storey is in some way "not a house".

Which is weird....

[Katy Jennison]

Actually, if the roof is being raised by only 15 inches, as in the
report, then methinks they do protest too much, anyway.

--
Katy Jennison

[Jerry Friedman]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:51:20 AM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
> > > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
> > > > Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> > > > exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and
> > > > two-
> > > > storey houses are both "houses"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
> >
> > In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.
> >
> > > I don't have a precise
> > > definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
> >
> > Is a ranch style house different or the same?
>
> A ranch house (in the western US) was more spread out than a house back
> east. It had a larger footprint. There were two main reasons for this.
> There was no need for a deep foundation as the ground didn't freeze
> during winter and the climate meant that a second story wasn't necessary
> to conserve heat in the winter.

...

Your idea of the climate in the western U.S. is very different from
mine. Yours applies west of the Sierra Nevada and in much of Arizona
and some of southern Utah, I think.

--
Jerry Friedman

[John Varela]

It sounds like they are just adding a cupola, and a small one at
that.

--
John Varela

[Tak To]

On 3/11/2016 10:51 AM, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>,
> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
>>>> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>>>> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and
>>>> two-
>>>> storey houses are both "houses"?
>>>>
>>>
>>> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
>>
>> In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.
>>
>>> I don't have a precise
>>> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
>>
>> Is a ranch style house different or the same?
>
> A ranch house (in the western US) was more spread out than a house back
> east. It had a larger footprint. There were two main reasons for this.
> There was no need for a deep foundation as the ground didn't freeze
> during winter and the climate meant that a second story wasn't necessary
> to conserve heat in the winter.

Surely land price/lot size is just important, if not more so?

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 12:21:13 -0330, Cheryl <cper...@med.mun.ca> wrote:

>On 2016-03-11 12:12 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:
>> In article <MPG.314c14f...@news.plus.net>,
>> Sam Plusnet <n...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <XnsA5C7ADC9...@178.63.61.145>,
>>> off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk says...
>>>>
>>>> This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
>>>>
>>>> "A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage after
>>>> one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by raising the
>>>> roof height by 15ins."
>>>>
>>>> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>>>> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and two-
>>>> storey houses are both "houses"?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-residents-
>>>> furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.html
>>>
>>> I agree that a bungalow is a house.
>>>
>>> Perhaps the author felt that
>>>
>>> "...successfully applied to turn his into a two storey house by..."
>>
>> How could raising the roof by 15 inches add a second stor(e)y?
>
>It would probably increase height of the current attic space enough to
>make the space more useable. Those houses...er, bungalows...have steep
>roofs so there's some space up there already. Once someone can stand
>upright more easily, he has a second storey on his house rather than a
>mere attic on a bungalow.
>

It would have a window in the roof something like the one on this
"dormer bungalow":
http://www.peterillingworth.co.uk/p_zoom%5C42243_Property_Use.jpg

I suspect that some of the residents fear that this modification could
be the "thin end of the wedge" and that it will open up the possibility
of much more substantial modifications to homes in the area thereby
destroying its distinctive nature.

>There have been a couple of fights here over the years about plans that
>were approved according to then-current limits (2 stories, I think), but
>when the buildings went up, clever changes to the roofline meant
>neighbours were outraged that the buildings were taller than expected
>and the builders insisted innocently that they were within the rules.

--

Peter Duncanson, UK
(in alt.usage.english)

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:56:39 GMT, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
wrote:

>On 11 Mar 2016, Charles Bishop wrote
>
>> In article <XnsA5C7ADC9...@178.63.61.145>,
>> HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
>>>
>>> "A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in outrage
>>> after one resident successfully applied to turn his into a house by
>>> raising the roof height by 15ins."
>>>
>>> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>>> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and
>>> two- storey houses are both "houses"?
>>>
>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-reside
>>> nts-
>>> furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.html
>>
>> Is there some technical definition (jargon?) at work here that makes a
>> bungalow not a house. Here in So Cal, there are many bungalows that are
>> considered houses, albeit small ones.
>
>I don't think it's a jargon thing -- I've certainly never encountered it
>before (and it's a field I've worked in for 40-ish years).
>
>> Is there any mention of why raising the roof (heh) makes it a house?
>
>I can only guess that it's because the writer thinks that a residential
>building that's only got one storey is in some way "not a house".
>
>Which is weird....

My guess is that the objectors who are using the word "house" do so
because there isn't a single word for what that want to express.

What the man wants to to is to convert his bungalow into a slightly
higher bungalow with a room "in the roof space" with a window.

[snide...@gmail.com]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 11:13:38 AM UTC-8, Tak To wrote:
> On 3/11/2016 10:51 AM, Charles Bishop wrote:

> > Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> >> Is a ranch style house different or the same?
> >
> > A ranch house (in the western US) was more spread out than a house back
> > east. It had a larger footprint. There were two main reasons for this.
> > There was no need for a deep foundation as the ground didn't freeze
> > during winter and the climate meant that a second story wasn't necessary
> > to conserve heat in the winter.
>
> Surely land price/lot size is just important, if not more so?

From the '60s onwards, many SoCal ranch houses were built on lots no bigger than
you'd find for 2-story houses in New England (subject to a field trip
to NE to compare with my own eyes, rather than via photograph).

Clearances and setbacks allow for a sidewalk or grassy path to the backyard
on each side in a typical SoCal arrangement, but side-gardens are rare.

In the current scheme of things, ranch houses are being built 60 or more miles
from LAX and Downtown LA, but 2+ townhouses on narrower lots are being built
in areas closer in. Many of these latter developments are recycling
school properties built in the '60s when hordes of young families
were moving to SoCal, but which have become surplus as the families aged.
Nearby to those, you are likely to find ranch houses being turned into
turreted McMansions.

(One criticism of McMansions that I thought interesting was that
they were unsuitable for recycling into multi-family dwellings
because of the construction methods,
unlike large homes of the 1930s and before.)

/dps

[Peter T. Daniels]

But the "ranch house" was developed in imitation of Wright's "Prairie Style"
houses, which were designed for, well, the Prairie -- long, low lines that
would fit into the landscape as if they'd grown there: "organic architecture."

The first examples were around Chicago and Madison, and heating was a major
concern.

[occam]

Or a bunga-bungalow

[Charles Bishop]

In article <nbv575$ifn$1...@dont-email.me>, Tak To <ta...@alum.mit.eduxx>
wrote:

> On 3/11/2016 10:51 AM, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > In article <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>,
> > Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
> >>>> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
> >>>> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and
> >>>> two-
> >>>> storey houses are both "houses"?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
> >>
> >> In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.
> >>
> >>> I don't have a precise
> >>> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
> >>
> >> Is a ranch style house different or the same?
> >
> > A ranch house (in the western US) was more spread out than a house back
> > east. It had a larger footprint. There were two main reasons for this.
> > There was no need for a deep foundation as the ground didn't freeze
> > during winter and the climate meant that a second story wasn't necessary
> > to conserve heat in the winter.
>
> Surely land price/lot size is just important, if not more so?

Certainly. I was thinking of when and where houses were built without
that particular restriction.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <08422efd-8368-4619...@googlegroups.com>,

Well, yes, and I should have been more specific. Would you include parts
of New Mexico, and Texas? Oklahoma?

I was trying to think if the "ranch house" style of suburban home in a
development was first begun in California, but can't be sure that it's
just my bias from living here.

In general, for the same square footage, you'll find single family homes
of one story in places with temperate climes.

--
cahrles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <slrnne5pr9....@amelia.local>,

There wasn't any reason to, was there? The roof's structural support
wasn't changed by the change to a bedroom. The floor however probably
went from static to live load, which is supposed to be engineered for.
In older homes though, there probably wouldn't be a problem.

Were there already stairs leading to the attic or did they have to add
them?

--
charles

[Tony Cooper]

Florida allows zero lot line houses. The side setbacks are 0 to 10
feet and the rear setback is 10 (1 story unit)to 15 (2 story unit)
feet.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Charles Bishop]

In article <dkg7ri...@mid.individual.net>,

What benefit did changing the roofline do for the house/people? Did it
give more of an attic space from steeper roofs?

charles, expecting a snow load?

[Tak To]

On 3/11/2016 12:10 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:51:20 AM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
>> In article <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
>>>>> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>>>>> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and
>>>>> two-
>>>>> storey houses are both "houses"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
>>>
>>> In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.
>>>
>>>> I don't have a precise
>>>> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
>>>
>>> Is a ranch style house different or the same?
>>
>> A ranch house (in the western US) was more spread out than a house back
>> east. It had a larger footprint. There were two main reasons for this.
>> There was no need for a deep foundation as the ground didn't freeze
>> during winter and the climate meant that a second story wasn't necessary
>> to conserve heat in the winter.

> ....

>
> Your idea of the climate in the western U.S. is very different from
> mine. Yours applies west of the Sierra Nevada and in much of Arizona
> and some of southern Utah, I think.

Depending what the definition of "deep [foundation]" is. But you
are right in general.

See frost depth maps in meters
http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/GeodeticBMs/images/figure13.gif

Or in inches
http://www.decks.com/images/Articles/US-frost-depth-map.jpg

[Cheryl]

More of the attic space is high enough to stand in, and so is useful for
people as well as storage. You don't get as much more space as you would
if you raised the entire roof several feet, because you still can't use
the area near the eaves for much other than storage, but you can use
more of the area under the highest part of the roof. Whether that is
enough to be useful depends on the original layout of the roof and the
attic underneath.

My grandparents lived in what is called locally a storey and a half
house - they are deliberately designed this way, not bungalows renovated
after the fact, but they typically have enough space under the highest
part of the roof for a bedroom or two, and the area nearer the eaves is
used for storage since it's too low to stand upright.

--
Cheryl

[Robin Bignall]

Same in England, but these ranch-style-bungalows are very expensive
because they are not small and have a few acres of land around them. The
traditional bungalow in England is small, semi-detached and often bought
by elderly people.
--
Robin Bignall
Herts, England (BrE)

[Lewis]

In message <ctbishop-F3AAC8...@news.individual.net>

The point was the ceiling in the attic was no a crawl-space height, and
was high enough for the people using the bedroom up there to stand up.

> Were there already stairs leading to the attic or did they have to add
> them?

They added stairs. I've never seen an unconverted attic with permanent
stairs.



--
Train Station: where the train stops. Work Station: ...

[Charles Bishop]

In article <t2h6eb9i39h8mdmip...@4ax.com>,

There is the same thing elsewhere, but I can't remember where. There has
to be a permanent easement along the 0 setback side for access and
repairs. I don't know how well it works out in practice, but I would
assume having a 10 foot side yard is a benefit.

--
cahrles

[Peter Moylan]

On 2016-Mar-12 01:09, Mike Barnes wrote:
> Katy Jennison wrote:
>> I completely agree that bungalows are houses. The trouble is that
>> there's a word, bungalow, for a single-storey house but there isn't a
>> separate word for a two-storey (or higher) house. So you can see the
>> writer's problem. The other residents claim, correctly, that if this
>> particular bungalow has an extra storey added to it then it won't be a
>> bungalow any longer. So what will it be?
>

> It will be a house, just as it is now.
>
> Also, FWIW, it will be an ex-bungalow. [cue Monty Python]

Will the extension be built from pine from the fjords?

--
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia

[Cheryl]

I have. Old houses sometimes have permanent stairs to an attic which has
never been converted, although it's often used for storage.

[Janet]

In article <hq86eb57sfaafpr9t...@4ax.com>,
ma...@peterduncanson.net says...

Last century the bungalow was a very popular style of suburban house
in Scotland, and nowadays many of them have been extended upwards into
the loft; here's a whole street of them.

http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-row-of-houses-street-row-of-british-
suburban-houses-and-bungalows-14808834.html

Janet.

[Cheryl]

On 2016-03-12 6:26 AM, Janet wrote:

>
> Last century the bungalow was a very popular style of suburban house
> in Scotland, and nowadays many of them have been extended upwards into
> the loft; here's a whole street of them.
>
> http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-row-of-houses-street-row-of-british-
> suburban-houses-and-bungalows-14808834.html

They didn't start appearing in Newfoundland until after WW II, and then
they were the North American style, with flatter roofs that don't easily
allow for such modifications - although one family I know that recently
moved into one is thinking about trying anyway. Then, after we joined
Canada, CMHC (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp, mortgage loan insurer)
rules tended to encourage modern-style houses. Traditional houses,
unless the owner was a rich merchant or lawyer copying elaborate house
styles from England, tended to be two story saltbox houses, often
perched on a bit of rock.

Typical bungalow

http://tinyurl.com/h2n9ugc

Saltbox house

http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/arts/newfoundland-folk-architecture.php

[Peter Duncanson [BrE]]

The caption of the image and the text of the url both have:

"row of houses street Row of British suburban houses and bungalows in
scotland".

That uses "houses" for "houses that are not bungalows" just like the
news report we are discussing.

[Stan Brown]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:43:35 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:

>
> On 3/11/16 6:36 AM, Dingbat wrote:
> > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown
> > wrote:
> >> I don't have a precise
> >> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
> >
> > Is a ranch style house different or the same?

> ...
>
> Ranch-style houses have only one story, but they tend not to be very
> small. Wikipedia lists typical stylistic features.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch-style_house

Agreed. The set of bungalows and the set of ranch-style houses are
disjoint sets.

("Ranch house" and "ranch-style house" are different. The main house
on a ranch is the ranch house, regardless of its size or style. It
could be a bungalow, in principle.)

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the
/right/ word is ... the difference between the lightning-bug
and the lightning." --Mark Twain

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Peter Moylan skrev:

>> Also, FWIW, it will be an ex-bungalow. [cue Monty Python]

> Will the extension be built from pine from the fjords?

If it could, pine would.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Stan Brown]

On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:39:27 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
> Different. Bungalows often have basements and will have a structural
> porch on the front, unlike a ranch.

A bungalow need not have any kind of porch, and a ranch house may
(and usually does).

Aside from that, I agree with you.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Cheryl skrev:

>> They added stairs. I've never seen an unconverted attic with
>> permanent stairs.

> I have. Old houses sometimes have permanent stairs to an attic which has
> never been converted, although it's often used for storage.

Is a fold-down ladder permanent? Many houses in Denmark with an
unconverted attic will have a fold-down ladder attached to a
'door' in the ceiling of the scullery.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Unknown]

David Kleinecke wrote:

> On Thursday, March 10, 2016 at 11:37:46 AM UTC-8, PeterWD wrote:

> > On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS <off...@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > This is from a news report in today's Daily Telegraph:
> > >
> > > "A suburban cul-de-sac dubbed 'bungalow land' has erupted in
> > > outrage after one resident successfully applied to turn his into
> > > a house by raising the roof height by 15ins."
> > >
> > > Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as
> > > weird to exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely
> > > bungalows and two- storey houses are both "houses"?
> > >
> > > http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/12189973/Bungalow-land-cul-de-sac-
> > > residents-
> > > furious-after-neighbour-wins-permission-to-make-his-home-a-house.h
> > > tml
> >

> > Yes they are both houses in MyE. However, the distinction being
> > made is between a house that is a bungalow and a house that is not
> > a bungalow.
> >
> > Note, we are talking about a "bungalow" as understood in BrE, not
> > as in AmE.
>
> Locally (Northern California) "bungalow" is rarely used and when it
> does turn up it usually mean "very small house".



This Doors lyric from Roadhouse Blues has always jumped out for me:

Yeah, back at the Roadhouse they got some bungalows
Yeah, back at the Roadhouse they got some bungalows
And that's for the people
Who like to go down slow

I've always assumed that's motel accommodation - something that might
be called 'chalets' in the UK...

DC

--

[Cheryl]

I tend to think of that as a fairly modern innovation, but I may be
wrong. I'm thinking of a staircase, probably narrower and steeper than
the main one. In some big houses, this lead to the servants' rooms, but
in others, it lead to a large attic, which might have a floor, or which
might just have boards laid over the joists for the convenience of
people storing things up there. It might be high enough under the peak
of the roof to be converted to living space, or it might not.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Cheryl skrev:

>> Is a fold-down ladder permanent? Many houses in Denmark with an
>> unconverted attic will have a fold-down ladder attached to a
>> 'door' in the ceiling of the scullery.

> I tend to think of that as a fairly modern innovation, but I may be
> wrong.

I don't know how common it was then, but I remember a friend of
my parents who proudly demonstrated a string with a handle
hanging from the ceiling. When he pulled it, a door would open
and a ladder slide down. That is about 55 years ago.

--
Bertel, Kolt, Denmark

[Janet]

In article <dki7bi...@mid.individual.net>, cper...@mun.ca says...

I remember being shown round a Glasgow tenement apartment, a tour
which started in the kitchen (maids room, butler pantry) to (drawing
room, sitting room, dining room) to multiple bedrooms
(plus sewing room, linen room). Finally the inmate indicated a tiny door
to a steep narrow wooden staircase and said "and up there is the
Billiards room; it came with the flat but we never use it".

The tiny staircase led to a floored and beautifully panelled attic
containing an enormous antique slate-bed billiards table. It must have
weighed several tons and was either, craned in or built in situ, when
the tenement was built. The ultimate mens' den.


Janet.

[Katy Jennison]

On 12/03/2016 11:33, Cheryl wrote:
> On 2016-03-12 7:26 AM, Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
>> Cheryl skrev:
>>
>>>> They added stairs. I've never seen an unconverted attic with
>>>> permanent stairs.
>>
>>> I have. Old houses sometimes have permanent stairs to an attic which has
>>> never been converted, although it's often used for storage.
>>
>> Is a fold-down ladder permanent? Many houses in Denmark with an
>> unconverted attic will have a fold-down ladder attached to a
>> 'door' in the ceiling of the scullery.
>>
> I tend to think of that as a fairly modern innovation, but I may be
> wrong. I'm thinking of a staircase, probably narrower and steeper than
> the main one. In some big houses, this lead to the servants' rooms, but
> in others, it lead to a large attic, which might have a floor, or which
> might just have boards laid over the joists for the convenience of
> people storing things up there. It might be high enough under the peak
> of the roof to be converted to living space, or it might not.
>

The first house my son and family inhabited in their present town in
Illinois had just such a staircase, quite steep and narrow, and behind a
door on the first (AmE second) floor landing. My son converted it into
a bedroom, which mainly entailed putting up plasterboard (AmE drywall)
to make proper walls. It already had two small windows and a floor. At
a guess, the house was a little over 100 years old; it had originally
been a farmhouse.

--
Katy Jennison

[Charles Bishop]

In article <87mdnYnQaNapYH7L...@brightview.co.uk>,

Bungalows can also be attached to the fancy hotels. As I recall the
Beverly Hills Hotel has several bungalows on its grounds. Whether these
would fit the expected definition of bungalow since they're on a fancy
hotel's grounds, I dunno.

Also, in Pasadena, California, there is Bungalow Heaven:

From http://www.bungalowheaven.org comes

Bungalow Heaven is a quiet, leafy, close-knit neighborhood of historic,
early 20th century bungalow homes, many built during the Arts & Crafts
period. The Landmark District, the first of its kind in Pasadena, was
created in 1989 to preserve the historic significance of these
homes. Recently, Bungalow Heaven has been listed in the National
Register of Historic Places and has been designated as one of the ³10
great places in America² by the APA. Enjoy our Web site and learn all
about us and our wonderful community.

<end quote>

I recently drove through and it is an attractive neighborhood. I expect
the prices match.

Google Images also has photos so we can see if they match our image of
what a bungalow looks like.

--
harles

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <1q5t8yzjqsu21$.d...@lundhansen.dk>,

It's permanent, but I wouldn't call it a stairs. Perhaps "pull down
ladder" or "pull down stairs"

I've installed these for people who wanted easier access to the roof
space than the usual hatch in the ceiling of a hallway or bedroom
closet. There are kits that contain all the parts, assembled.

Most people then put some sort of "flooring" over the ceiling joists
(and insulation) to make it easier to put things in the space.

--
charles

[Whiskers]

On 2016-03-11, John Varela <newl...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 16:08:03 UTC, Katy Jennison
> <ka...@spamtrap.kjennison.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/03/2016 15:53, HVS wrote:
>> > On 11 Mar 2016, Katy Jennison wrote
>> >
>> >> On 10/03/2016 18:32, Whiskers wrote:
>> >>> On 2016-03-10, Django Cat <> wrote:
>> >>>> HVS wrote:

[...]

>> >> WIWAL there was, just down the road from us, a group of
>> >> single-storey prefabricated houses, "prefabs", which were put up
>> >> all over England just after the war and intended to last 10-15
>> >> years (some are still going strong). When we weren't calling them
>> >> "the prefabs" we called them "the bungalows".

>> >>
>> >> I completely agree that bungalows are houses. The trouble is that
>> >> there's a word, bungalow, for a single-storey house but there
>> >> isn't a separate word for a two-storey (or higher) house. So you
>> >> can see the writer's problem. The other residents claim,
>> >> correctly, that if this particular bungalow has an extra storey
>> >> added to it then it won't be a bungalow any longer. So what will
>> >> it be?
>> >

>> > I agree that the writer had a problem; I guess the solution just
>> > didn't work for me.
>> >
>> > I'd use "a two-storey house", I suppose.
>> >
>> Actually, if the roof is being raised by only 15 inches, as in the
>> report, then methinks they do protest too much, anyway.
>
> It sounds like they are just adding a cupola, and a small one at that.

I think the intention was to raise the ridge of the main roof and insert
two rooms into the roof-space, probably with dormer windows projecting
from the slopes of the roof. Many bungalows get this sort of conversion,
and estate agents tend to describe them as 'bungalow conversions'.

The neighbours' expressed concerns were about privacy; they didn't want
there to be any windows anywhere overlooking their private gardens.
They were also probably worried that a precedent could be set that would
allow other owners to convert their bungalows too, and with less
restraint; leading perhaps to a change in the sort of person wanting to
live in the street. Change can be threatening.

--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

[Lewis]

In message <1q5t8yzjqsu21$.d...@lundhansen.dk>

Bertel Lund Hansen <gade...@lundhansen.dk> wrote:

> Cheryl skrev:

>>> They added stairs. I've never seen an unconverted attic with
>>> permanent stairs.

>> I have. Old houses sometimes have permanent stairs to an attic which has
>> never been converted, although it's often used for storage.

> Is a fold-down ladder permanent?

No. At least not in the way I meant stairs to an attic.


--
'In the Fyres of Struggle let us bake New Men, who Will Notte heed the
old Lies.'

[Tony Cooper]

I bought an installed a pull-down set of stairs to access the space
above in my garage. I also put down rough flooring in the space.

The danger of moving about in that space is the nails that protrude
from the ceiling. The nails used when the roof was shingled come
through about 1/2". I keep a hard hat up there to wear when I'm
shifting things about. The space is about 4' high at the peak.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 6:27:50 AM UTC-5, nor...@googlegroups.com wrote:

> David Kleinecke wrote:

> > Locally (Northern California) "bungalow" is rarely used and when it
> > does turn up it usually mean "very small house".
>
> This Doors lyric from Roadhouse Blues has always jumped out for me:
>
> Yeah, back at the Roadhouse they got some bungalows
> Yeah, back at the Roadhouse they got some bungalows
> And that's for the people
> Who like to go down slow
>
> I've always assumed that's motel accommodation - something that might
> be called 'chalets' in the UK...

In NYS in the 1960s the older motels had "cabins." The ones with all the guest rooms
attached in a row, facing the parking lot in front and maybe a swimming pool in
back, were built more recently. Either style might comprise 8-10 such guest
accommodations and were family-run.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 2:16:40 AM UTC-8, Cheryl P wrote:
> On 2016-03-12 6:26 AM, Janet wrote:
>
> >
> > Last century the bungalow was a very popular style of suburban house
> > in Scotland, and nowadays many of them have been extended upwards into
> > the loft; here's a whole street of them.
> >
> > http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-row-of-houses-street-row-of-british-
> > suburban-houses-and-bungalows-14808834.html
>
> They didn't start appearing in Newfoundland until after WW II, and then
> they were the North American style, with flatter roofs that don't easily
> allow for such modifications - although one family I know that recently
> moved into one is thinking about trying anyway. Then, after we joined
> Canada, CMHC (Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp, mortgage loan insurer)
> rules tended to encourage modern-style houses. Traditional houses,
> unless the owner was a rich merchant or lawyer copying elaborate house
> styles from England, tended to be two story saltbox houses, often
> perched on a bit of rock.
>
> Typical bungalow
>
> http://tinyurl.com/h2n9ugc
>
> Saltbox house
>
> http://www.heritage.nf.ca/articles/arts/newfoundland-folk-architecture.php

The description of a saltbox "named for its shape, which resembled the boxes used for shipping salt to Newfoundland" should tell you a lot about the underlying expertise of this article.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:33:13 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 10:47:08 AM UTC-5, Charles Bishop wrote:
> > In article <nbsc6i$1afv$2...@macpro.inf.ed.ac.uk>,
> > ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> > > In article <4ec77e46-bede-4557...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > Peter T. Daniels <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > >Paying no attention to the story above, yes, a bungalow is a house, but
> > > >what kind of house is designated by the word differs enormously around
> > > >the world (and around the US, for that matter).
> > > >Though I don't know why you can't have a two-story bungalow. Chicago is
> > > >full of such.
> > > As you say, the meaning varies around the world. In Britain, the main
> > > characteristic of a bungalow is that it only has one storey (which is,
> > > of course, fairly unusual for a house in such a densely populated
> > > country).
> >
> > One of the main reasons for a two story house is heating (and cooling
> > it). Even when there was land enough, houses were two stories since it
> > was cheaper to heat them, and a second story would aid in cooling the
> > upper story. Also, where houses had to have a basement, or at least a
> > foundation below the frost line, this meant that there was less work
> > doing that for a two story house.
> >
> > Out west in the US, where the climate was less fierce, a ranch house was
> > possible.
>
> But the "ranch house" was developed in imitation of Wright's "Prairie Style"
> houses, which were designed for, well, the Prairie -- long, low lines that
> would fit into the landscape as if they'd grown there: "organic architecture."
>
> The first examples were around Chicago and Madison, and heating was a major
> concern.

Absolute, complete, total nonsense. The "ranch style" grew out of actual ranches, from the vernacular architecture of the Californios and the early Anglos. The Alvarado place, from 1824, is obviously similar to thousands of tract developments built in imitation of its kind. Estudillo's place in San Diego could be dropped into hundreds of towns and cities from Monterrey to Ensenada without comment; it, too, was built before Wright was even born.

[Peter T. Daniels]

"Ranch house" clearly means something different to you than to 20th-century-
architecture historians.

[David Kleinecke]

Some such historians consider William Wurster's Gregory Farmhouse
(1928) as the prototype ranch house.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

Not at all. (Unless you are advancing the very general claim that Wright's ideas influence the whole trend toward low structures with strong horizontal lines, and a more open floor plan. Wright, of course had a huge amount of influence on domestic architecture...most of it bad. Wright brought "half-baked" to a new level, creating designs and using techniques that were literally ahead of their time...i.e., unbuildable or unmaintanable with current technology.)

For anyone who us ignorant of the subject, like Mr Daniels, and interested in learning about it, unlike Mr. Daniels, a simple Image search of "prairie style" along with some historical and recent ranches would be enlightening.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

Yupper. Note the extreme resemblance to 19th century California Vernacular. Wurster (and May and Williams &cet) stands to the California Ranch roughly as Royal Wills to the New England colonial.

[David Kleinecke]

Not an accident.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2016-03-12 16:20:44 +0000, ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu said:

> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 2:16:40 AM UTC-8, Cheryl P wrote:
>> On 2016-03-12 6:26 AM, Janet wrote:
>>
>>>

>>> Last century...

What were you called before you were called ANMCCAFF? Your style
doesn't suggest a newbie.


--
athel

[Tak To]

Thanks for your cryptic comment. I decided to look up the etymology
myself and found this
http://www.historichouseblog.com/2009/01/11/why-do-they-call-it-a-salt-box/

I assume the article is correct?

I am a little bit disappointed that the Wiki article does not have the
etymology and traces the style back only to New England and not across
the pond.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Tak To]

On 3/12/2016 5:49 AM, Stan Brown wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2016 07:43:35 -0700, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>
>> On 3/11/16 6:36 AM, Dingbat wrote:
>>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown
>>> wrote:
>>>> I don't have a precise
>>>> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
>>>
>>> Is a ranch style house different or the same?
>> ...
>>
>> Ranch-style houses have only one story, but they tend not to be very
>> small. Wikipedia lists typical stylistic features.
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranch-style_house
>
> Agreed. The set of bungalows and the set of ranch-style houses are
> disjoint sets.
>
> ("Ranch house" and "ranch-style house" are different. The main house
> on a ranch is the ranch house, regardless of its size or style. It
> could be a bungalow, in principle.)

Real estate listing jargon varies from region to region. In some
(many?) parts of the country "ranch", "ranch house" and "ranch-style
house" are all synonymous albeit with varying frequencies of usage.

Times changes too. Yesterday I looked up an online listing site
to refresh my memory of what a bungalow is in New England. I found
that some bungalows nowadays are quite large, and that some are what
would be classified as "Cape Cod" thirty years ago.

[Tak To]

The bungalows at the Beverly Hills Hotel are quite famous.

[Stan Brown]

On Sat, 12 Mar 2016 14:15:08 -0500, Tak To wrote:
> On 3/12/2016 5:49 AM, Stan Brown wrote:

> > [quoted text muted]

> >
> > ("Ranch house" and "ranch-style house" are different. The main house
> > on a ranch is the ranch house, regardless of its size or style. It
> > could be a bungalow, in principle.)
>
> Real estate listing jargon varies from region to region. In some
> (many?) parts of the country "ranch", "ranch house" and "ranch-style
> house" are all synonymous albeit with varying frequencies of usage.
>

Yes, but we're talking about English, not advertisingese. Or at
least, I was.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 12:08:40 PM UTC-5, ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:
> On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 8:48:39 AM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:33:23 AM UTC-5, ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu wrote:
> > > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 1:33:13 PM UTC-8, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> > > > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 10:47:08 AM UTC-5, Charles Bishop wrote:

> > > > > One of the main reasons for a two story house is heating (and cooling
> > > > > it). Even when there was land enough, houses were two stories since it
> > > > > was cheaper to heat them, and a second story would aid in cooling the
> > > > > upper story. Also, where houses had to have a basement, or at least a
> > > > > foundation below the frost line, this meant that there was less work
> > > > > doing that for a two story house.
> > > > > Out west in the US, where the climate was less fierce, a ranch house was
> > > > > possible.
> > > > But the "ranch house" was developed in imitation of Wright's "Prairie Style"
> > > > houses, which were designed for, well, the Prairie -- long, low lines that
> > > > would fit into the landscape as if they'd grown there: "organic architecture."
> > > > The first examples were around Chicago and Madison, and heating was a major
> > > > concern.
> > > Absolute, complete, total nonsense. The "ranch style" grew out of actual ranches, from the vernacular architecture of the Californios and the early Anglos. The Alvarado place, from 1824, is obviously similar to thousands of tract developments built in imitation of its kind. Estudillo's place in San Diego could be dropped into hundreds of towns and cities from Monterrey to Ensenada without comment; it, too, was built before Wright was even born.
> > "Ranch house" clearly means something different to you than to 20th-century-
> > architecture historians.
>
> Not at all. (Unless you are advancing the very general claim that Wright's ideas influence the whole trend toward low structures with strong horizontal lines, and a more open floor plan. Wright, of course had a huge amount of influence on domestic architecture...most of it bad.

What are you, Prince Charies?

> Wright brought "half-baked" to a new level, creating designs and using techniques that were literally ahead of their time...i.e., unbuildable or unmaintanable with current technology.)
>
> For anyone who us ignorant of the subject, like Mr Daniels, and interested in learning about it, unlike Mr. Daniels, a simple Image search of "prairie style" along with some historical and recent ranches would be enlightening.

I was so fascinated by Wright's work when I was 7 years old that my mother
brought home from the library one of his recently published books, and she
took me to visit the Guggenheim Museum the weekend after it opened, in \
September 1959.

In 1970 I think it was, when we drove my grandmother to Uniontown, PA, to
see my cousin in a summer-stock production of *Man of La Mancha*, I arranged
a visit to Fallingwater, which was maybe an hour away. It was surprising to
find that the exterior was not whitish, but painted a pale peach. Olgivanna
was still alive at that time and may have dictated the color. She died
between my two visits to Unity Temple, and at the second one the interior
had been repainted in its original colors, replacing the fairly garish ones
she had demanded.

I have read probably every book on Wright published in English. One of the
first things I did upon moving to Chicago in 1972 was persuade a dorm-mate
to drive us (in his rotary-engine Mazda) to every surviving Wright building
listed in the first edition of Stoller's catalog that was within a reasonable
radius. When I visit other places with Wright works, I try to see them too.

It's fairly pointless, though, to attempt to negotiate the winding dirt lanes
of Usonia, Pleasantville, Westchester Coounty, New York, because most of
the residences are not or are barely visible from the street.

Chicago also provides stellar examples of the work of other Prairie School
masters, such as George Maher and Walter Burley Griffin (who subsequently
designed Canberra).

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 2:15:15 PM UTC-5, Tak To wrote:

> Times changes too. Yesterday I looked up an online listing site
> to refresh my memory of what a bungalow is in New England. I found
> that some bungalows nowadays are quite large, and that some are what
> would be classified as "Cape Cod" thirty years ago.

"Bungalow" was also used ironically for some of the mansions of the Robber
Barons in Newport, Rhode Island, especially those in Shingle Style.

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

No. The word you seek is "cottage."

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:55:57 AM UTC-8, Tak To wrote:

Well, it vectors the "borning room" nonsense, but as to the main subject, pretty much. Domestic saltboxes often had sloping lids, and looked like a small lean-to.

> I am a little bit disappointed that the Wiki article does not have the
> etymology and traces the style back only to New England and not across
> the pond.

It may not actually go across the pond. That is, the idea that the New England saltbox was consciously borrowed from Old England is debatable.

AN "further citeless pronouncements available on request" Mc

[ANMC...@alum.wpi.edu]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 10:16:43 AM UTC-8, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:

> On 2016-03-12 16:20:44 +0000, ANMC said:
>
> > On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 2:16:40 AM UTC-8, Cheryl P wrote:
> >> On 2016-03-12 6:26 AM, Janet wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Last century...
>
> What were you called before you were called ANMCCAFF? Your style
> doesn't suggest a newbie.

I believe you'll find some correspondence here, as "Mac" between me and some of the AFUnians.

AN "Although 'Muc' might better suit" Mc

PS: does Lee Rudolph get by here anymore? I just ran across a small piece that mis-identified the "High Line" as the "Sixth Avenue El."

[Peter T. Daniels]

What's "AFU," and who is "Lee Rudolph"?

It's too bad the High Line got done just when it did: it could have been
a ready-made Eleventh Avenue El to serve the newly developed Far West Side,
but that development came later -- stimulated in part by the amenity provided
by the High Line.

[Tony Cooper]

If you are lucky, and some linguistic-related program is offered in
Florida, you should visit Florida Southern College in Lakeland, FL.

It is the home of the "world's largest single-site collection of Frank
Lloyd Wright architecture".

http://www.franklloydwrightatfsc.com/FSC-FLW%20Doc%20-%20Photo%20Galleries.htm

Thanks for reminding me. I'll have schedule a trip over there with my
camera. The last time I was there it was during a school break and
the building were closed.

[Charles Bishop]

In article <slrnne6rla....@amelia.local>,
Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> In message <ctbishop-F3AAC8...@news.individual.net>
> Charles Bishop <ctbi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > In article <slrnne5pr9....@amelia.local>,
> > Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
> >> In message <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>

> >> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> > On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:

> >> >> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
> >> >> > Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows
> >> >> > and
> >> >> > two-
> >> >> > storey houses are both "houses"?
> >> >> >
> >> >>

> >> >> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
> >>
> >> > In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.

> >>
> >> >> I don't have a precise
> >> >> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
> >>
> >> > Is a ranch style house different or the same?
> >>

> >> Different. Bungalows often have basements and will have a structural
> >> porch on the front, unlike a ranch.
> >>
> >> <http://tours.tourfactory.com/tours/media/scene/big2/00/22/56/41/22564188.j
> >> pg>
> >> <http://www.briankgrace.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/IMG_2431.jpg>
> >>
> >> >> AHD4 says
> >> >> a bungalow may have an attic story. I guess I can accept that, if the
> >> >> attic is a "crawl space" used for storage, not high enough for an
> >> >> adult to stand up in.
> >>
> >> My wife's grandmother's house was purchased by the nextdoor neighbors
> >> about 30 years ago. They converted the attic into a master bedroom
> >> without modifying the roof.
>
> > There wasn't any reason to, was there? The roof's structural support
> > wasn't changed by the change to a bedroom. The floor however probably
> > went from static to live load, which is supposed to be engineered for.
> > In older homes though, there probably wouldn't be a problem.
>
> The point was the ceiling in the attic was no a crawl-space height, and
> was high enough for the people using the bedroom up there to stand up.

I misunderstood then. I thought you meant that the roof members would
have to be reinforced rather than having dormers or the like added.
>
> > Were there already stairs leading to the attic or did they have to add
> > them?

>
> They added stairs. I've never seen an unconverted attic with permanent
> stairs.

There were many older houses with a narrow set of stairs that led to the
attic.

--
charles

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:28:25 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:

> If you are lucky, and some linguistic-related program is offered in
> Florida, you should visit Florida Southern College in Lakeland, FL.

Yeah, right. A scholarly event "just outside Tampa."

> It is the home of the "world's largest single-site collection of Frank
> Lloyd Wright architecture".
>
> http://www.franklloydwrightatfsc.com/FSC-FLW%20Doc%20-%20Photo%20Galleries.htm

So they like to claim. What reports there are of it suggest that they
have been less than respectful of their architectural heritage.

> Thanks for reminding me. I'll have schedule a trip over there with my
> camera. The last time I was there it was during a school break and
> the building were closed.

It were?

No loss; the interiors probably bear very little resemblance to
their original state.

Oh, jeez. Look at the photo on their front web page. A grinning football player.

[Jerry Friedman]

On 3/11/16 3:27 PM, Tak To wrote:
> On 3/11/2016 12:10 PM, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:51:20 AM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
>>> In article <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>,

>>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
>>>>>> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird to
>>>>>> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows and
>>>>>> two-
>>>>>> storey houses are both "houses"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
>>>>
>>>> In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a precise
>>>>> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
>>>>
>>>> Is a ranch style house different or the same?
>>>

>>> A ranch house (in the western US) was more spread out than a house back
>>> east. It had a larger footprint. There were two main reasons for this.
>>> There was no need for a deep foundation as the ground didn't freeze
>>> during winter and the climate meant that a second story wasn't necessary
>>> to conserve heat in the winter.
>> ....
>>
>> Your idea of the climate in the western U.S. is very different from
>> mine. Yours applies west of the Sierra Nevada and in much of Arizona
>> and some of southern Utah, I think.
>
> Depending what the definition of "deep [foundation]" is. But you
> are right in general.
>
> See frost depth maps in meters
> http://www.ngs.noaa.gov/PUBS_LIB/GeodeticBMs/images/figure13.gif
>
> Or in inches
> http://www.decks.com/images/Articles/US-frost-depth-map.jpg

The climatic differences are greater than those maps show, because they
ignore the effects of elevation. For example, I don't think Ron Draney
would agree that the depth of freezing in winter is about the same in
Silver City as it is in Phoenix. For comparing western states to each
other, a hardiness-zone map might be better.

https://www.arborday.org/media/zones.cfm

You can see that on the whole, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and New
Mexico are significantly colder in winter than Idaho, Utah, and Arizona,
and much colder than California and most of Texas.

However, the zone map isn't good for comparing the West to the East,
since in the dry climate here the daily highs are farther above the
lows, and I assume that reduces the depth of frost penetration.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Jerry Friedman]

On 3/11/16 3:20 PM, Charles Bishop wrote:
> In article <08422efd-8368-4619...@googlegroups.com>,

> Jerry Friedman <jerry_f...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 8:51:20 AM UTC-7, Charles Bishop wrote:
>>> In article <9de024f4-ccab-45b7...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Dingbat <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Friday, March 11, 2016 at 5:08:11 PM UTC+5:30, Stan Brown wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:05:01 GMT, HVS wrote:
>>>>>> Whilst you can't have a two-storey bungalow, it strikes me as weird
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> exclude bungalows from the category of "houses". Surely bungalows
>>>>>> and
>>>>>> two-
>>>>>> storey houses are both "houses"?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In AmE, a bungalow is a type of house.
>>>>
>>>> In India today, upscale bungalows are marketed as villas.
>>>>
>>>>> I don't have a precise
>>>>> definition for you, but "small" is an essential part of it.
>>>>
>>>> Is a ranch style house different or the same?
>>>
>>> A ranch house (in the western US) was more spread out than a house back
>>> east. It had a larger footprint. There were two main reasons for this.
>>> There was no need for a deep foundation as the ground didn't freeze
>>> during winter and the climate meant that a second story wasn't necessary
>>> to conserve heat in the winter.
>> ...
>>

>> Your idea of the climate in the western U.S. is very different from
>> mine. Yours applies west of the Sierra Nevada and in much of Arizona
>> and some of southern Utah, I think.
>

> Well, yes, and I should have been more specific. Would you include parts
> of New Mexico, and Texas? Oklahoma?

Oh, yes, Texas and Oklahoma are in the western U.S., now that you
mention it.

I actually don't know what depth of freezing would require a foundation.

> I was trying to think if the "ranch house" style of suburban home in a
> development was first begun in California, but can't be sure that it's
> just my bias from living here.
>
> In general, for the same square footage, you'll find single family homes
> of one story in places with temperate climes.

A Google of house listings in Billings, Montana, shows a lot of
one-story are partly one-story buildings.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

This exchange should serve as a warning to all here who think that a
reasonable dialog with PTD is possible.

He expressed an interest in Frank Lloyd Wright structures, and I
provided a link to a place that is widely known and respected as a
location of Frank Lloyd Wright structures. PTD does not reveal the
source of his insider's information that the college is not respectful
of the heritage or that the interiors don't resemble what Wright
designed.

The link is to a photo gallery page of Frank Lloyd Wright structures
on campus. PTD evidently went to some other page put up by the
college intended to attract students. Potential students are not
interested in the campus architecture. They are interested in campus
life.

I don't know where PTD went in his web search, but Florida Southern
does not have a football team. The football program was eliminated in
1932. They do have a soccer team, but PTD eschews otherpondial terms
used by thispondial people, so I doubt if he considers soccer to be
"football".

I could not find a photo of a student in any photograph in the
galleries on that page except for the female students who were part of
construction crew in the late 1930s that built the Annie Pfeiffer
Chapel. Perhaps PTD can't tell the difference between a female in
overalls and a defensive lineman.

[LFS]

We have visited most of Wright's buildings around Chicago and in
Arizona, as well as the Guggenheim. We were thrilled to accidentally
come across the gift shop in San Francisco which I gather is now a
fashion boutique but was a gallery full of African art when we were
there. I should love to see Fallingwater but it's not near any of the
places we normally visit on trips to the US so I have to be content with
pictures, films and a Lego model.

I was very disappointed that when we were at Taliesin West we didn't get
to see the wonderful dragon actually breathing fire.


--
Laura (emulate St George for email)

[Charles Bishop]

In article <nc41a5$dd8$1...@news.albasani.net>,

Well, neither do I now, but there are charts. It also occurs to me that
moisture content would be something to consider, and if the soil drained
well, the depth could be shallower than in a clay soil, say.

>
> > I was trying to think if the "ranch house" style of suburban home in a
> > development was first begun in California, but can't be sure that it's
> > just my bias from living here.
> >
> > In general, for the same square footage, you'll find single family homes
> > of one story in places with temperate climes.
>
> A Google of house listings in Billings, Montana, shows a lot of
> one-story are partly one-story buildings.

Again, my apologies. I was thinking of non-basement ones. Also, now,
with homes on a poured concrete slab, rather than a perimeter foundation
(walls or piers) the fact that the ground freezes may not be as
important. Also wood framing rather than brick is a factor.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <apq9ebh0rft67kh12...@4ax.com>,

If he travels to the west, he can visit the Marin County Civic Center,
located in San Rafael, CA. This was designed by FLW. There are tours. I
like the design, and it's pleasant to walk around in, but I heard that
there were problems with the roof and water leaks, but I have no direct
experience.

--
charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <v20beb1ev4bglgknq...@4ax.com>,

Tony Cooper <tonyco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 Mar 2016 07:16:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, March 12, 2016 at 11:28:25 PM UTC-5, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >
> >> If you are lucky, and some linguistic-related program is offered in
> >> Florida, you should visit Florida Southern College in Lakeland, FL.
> >
> >Yeah, right. A scholarly event "just outside Tampa."
> >
> >> It is the home of the "world's largest single-site collection of Frank
> >> Lloyd Wright architecture".
> >>
> >> http://www.franklloydwrightatfsc.com/FSC-FLW%20Doc%20-%20Photo%20Galleries.
> >> htm
> >
> >So they like to claim. What reports there are of it suggest that they
> >have been less than respectful of their architectural heritage.
> >
> >> Thanks for reminding me. I'll have schedule a trip over there with my
> >> camera. The last time I was there it was during a school break and
> >> the building were closed.
> >
> >It were?
> >
> >No loss; the interiors probably bear very little resemblance to
> >their original state.
> >
> >Oh, jeez. Look at the photo on their front web page. A grinning football
> >player.
>
> This exchange should serve as a warning to all here who think that a
> reasonable dialog with PTD is possible.

I was thinking the same thing. In several of his posts there have been
typos or thinkos (note the benefit of doubt) and as far as I know no one
comments on them as evidence of non-intelligence or incompetence. He
though, will often jump on such as evidence that whoever wrote it
shouldn't be discussing matters with their betters.

>
> He expressed an interest in Frank Lloyd Wright structures, and I
> provided a link to a place that is widely known and respected as a
> location of Frank Lloyd Wright structures. PTD does not reveal the
> source of his insider's information that the college is not respectful
> of the heritage or that the interiors don't resemble what Wright
> designed.

No will he, unless it's int he form of an AQ, such as "Surely your aware
of . . ."

>
> The link is to a photo gallery page of Frank Lloyd Wright structures
> on campus. PTD evidently went to some other page put up by the
> college intended to attract students. Potential students are not
> interested in the campus architecture. They are interested in campus
> life.
>
> I don't know where PTD went in his web search, but Florida Southern
> does not have a football team. The football program was eliminated in
> 1932. They do have a soccer team, but PTD eschews otherpondial terms
> used by thispondial people, so I doubt if he considers soccer to be
> "football".
>
> I could not find a photo of a student in any photograph in the
> galleries on that page except for the female students who were part of
> construction crew in the late 1930s that built the Annie Pfeiffer
> Chapel. Perhaps PTD can't tell the difference between a female in
> overalls and a defensive lineman.

--

charles

[Charles Bishop]

In article <dkj4o6...@mid.individual.net>,

It also looks as if he's had experience with PTD before as well. Or,
recognizes the type.

--
charles