Italianate Homes, Romantic and Picturesque

Italianate Homes, Romantic and Picturesque Of all the homes built in the United States during the Victorian era, the romantic Italianate style became the most popular for a short period of time. With their nearly-flat roofs, wide eaves, and massive brackets, these homes suggested the romantic villas of Renaissance Italy. The Italianate style is also known as Tuscan, Lombard, or bracketed. Italianate and the Picturesque Movement The historical roots of Italianate styles are in Italian Renaissance architecture. Some of the first Italian villas were designed by Renaissance architect Andrea Palladio in the 16th century. Palladio reinvented Classical architecture, melding the designs of a Roman temple into residential architecture. By the 19th century, English-speaking architects were reinventing Roman designs yet again, capturing the flavor of what they imagined to be the Italian villa look. The Italianate style began in England with the picturesque movement. For centuries English homes tended to be formal and classical in style. Neoclassical architecture was orderly and proportioned.  With the picturesque movement, however, the landscape gained importance. Architecture not only became integral to its surroundings, but also became a vehicle for experiencing the natural world and surrounding gardens. The pattern books of British-born landscape architect Calvert Vaux (1824-1895) and the American Andrew Jackson Downing (1815-1852) brought this concept to an American audience. Especially popular was A. J. Downings 1842 book Rural Cottages and Cottage-Villas and their Gardens and Grounds Adapted to North America. American architects and builders such as  Henry Austin (1804-1891) and Alexander Jackson Davis (1803-1892) began to design fanciful recreations of Italian Renaissance villas. Architects copied and reinterpreted the style for buildings in the United States, making Italianate architecture in the U.S. uniquely American in style. One of the finest examples of late Victorian Italianate architecture is owned by the National Park Service. The John Muir National Historic Site in Martinez, California lays claim to the 17-room John Muir Mansion, built in 1882, and inherited by the famous American naturalist. Queen Victoria ruled England for a long, long time - from 1837 until her death in 1901 - so Victorian architecture is more a time frame than a specific style. During the Victorian era, emerging styles captured a large audience by the widely-published house pattern books packed with building plans and home building advice. Prominent designers and illustrators published many plans for Italianate and Gothic Revival style homes. By the late 1860s, the fashion had swept through North America. Why Builders Loved the Italianate Style Italianate architecture knew no class boundaries. The high square towers made the style a natural choice for upscale homes of the newly rich. However the brackets and other architecture details, made affordable by new methods for machine production, were easily applied to simple cottages. Historians say that Italianate became the favored style for two reasons: (1) Italianate homes could be constructed with many different building materials, and the style could be adapted to modest budgets; and (2) new technologies of the Victorian era made it possible to quickly and affordably produce cast-iron and press-metal decorations. Many 19th century commercial buildings, including urban rooming houses, were constructed with this practical yet elegant design. Italianate remained the preferred house style in the U.S. until the 1870s, when the Civil War curbed the progress of construction. Italianate was also a common style for modest structures like barns and for larger public buildings such as town halls, libraries, and train stations. You will find Italianate buildings in nearly every part of the United States except for the deep South. There are fewer Italianate buildings in the southern states because the style reached its peak during the Civil War, a time when the south was economically devastated. Italianate was an early form of Victorian architecture. After the 1870s, architectural fashion turned toward late Victorian styles such as Queen Anne. Italianate Features Italianate homes can be wood-sided or brick, with commercial and public properties often being masonry. The most common Italianate styles will often have many of these characteristics: a low-pitched or flat roof; a balanced, symmetrical rectangular shape; a tall appearance, with two, three, or four stories; wide, overhanging eaves with large brackets and cornices; a square cupola; a porch topped with balustraded balconies; tall, narrow, paired windows, often arched with hood moldings projecting above the windows; a side bay window, often two stories tall; heavily molded double doors; Roman or segmented arches above windows and doors; and rusticated quoins on masonry buildings. Italianate house styles in America can seem like a mix of characteristics from different eras, and sometimes they are. The Italian-inspired Renaissance Revival homes are more palatial but still often confused with the Victorian Italianate style. The French-inspired Second Empire, like houses in the Italianate style, often feature a high, square tower. Beaux Arts buildings are grand and elaborate, often embracing Italianate ideas along with Classical. Even Neo-Mediterranean builders of the 20th century re-visited Italianate themes. Victorian architecture encompasses a variety of popular styles, but ask yourself how picturesque each is. Examples of Italianate Houses Italiante houses can be found across the United States. often tucked away in unexpected places. The Lewis House built in 1871, is on a side road outside Ballston Spa, New York. Not named for the original owner, the Lewis family converted historic home near Saratoga Springs into a Bed Breakfast business. Italianate Lewis House, 1871, Ballston Spa, New York. Jackie Craven In Bloomington, Illinois you can visit Clover Lawn, built in 1872. Also known as the David Davis Mansion, the architecture combines Italianate and Second Empire stylings. David Davis Mansion, 1872, Illinois. Teemu08 via Wikimedia Commons, own work, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-SA 3.0) cropped The Andrew Low House in Savannah, Georgia was built in 1849. This historic house by New York architect John Norris has been described as Italianate, most notably because of its urban garden landscaping. To get the full sense of Italiante details, especially the roof, the observer must step back both physically and in time. Andrew Low House, 1849, Savannah, Georgia. Carol M. Highsmith/Getty Images (cropped) Sources Italianate Architecture and History, Old-House Journal, August 10, 2011, https://www.oldhouseonline.com/articles/all-about-italianates [accessed August 28, 2017]Italianate Villa/Italianate Style 1840 - 1885, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/architecture/styles/italianate.html  [accessed August 28, 2017]A Field Guide to American Houses by Virginia and Lee McAlester, Knopf, 1984, 2013American Shelter: An Illustrated Encyclopedia of the American Home by Lester Walker, Overlook, 1998American House Styles: A Concise Guide by John Milnes Baker, AIA, Norton, 2002Photo Credits: Clover Lawn, Teemu08 via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0) cropped; Andrew Low House, Carol M. Highsmith/Getty Images (cropped); Lewis House, Jackie CravenCOPYRIGHT: The articles you see on the pages of this website are copyrighted. You may link to them or print them for your own use, but do not copy them into a blog, web page, or print publication without permission.

Can Jurors Ask Questions During Trials

Can Jurors Ask Questions During Trials The trend of jurors asking questions while a trial is going on is becoming more popular in courtrooms across the country. There are some states that now require it by law, including Arizona, Colorado, and Indiana. Many times highly technical testimony may alienate the average juror to the point where they stop paying attention and begin faking that they understand what is being said. Because of this, lawyers have become more reluctant to take cases where they risk verdicts that are derived from uninformed and bored jurors who do not understand the applicable laws. Case studies of trials that have been reviewed have shown that when jurors could ask questions during the trial, there were fewer incidents of verdicts that lacked a sound understanding of the evidence that was presented.​ CEATS Inc. v. Continental Airlines Experimentation has been done to gauge the effectiveness of permitting jurors to ask questions during trial. An example was in the CEATS Inc. v. Continental Airlines trial. Chief Judge Leonard Davis asked jurors to write down questions that they had after each witness testified. Out of earshot of the jury, the lawyers and judge then reviewed each question, which did not identify which jury member asked it. The judge, with attorney input, selected the questions to ask and informed the jurors that the selected questions were decided by him, not the lawyers, to avoid a juror getting insulted or holding a grudge because their question was not selected. The attorneys could then expound on the questions, but were specifically asked not to include the jurors questions during their closing arguments. One of the major concerns of allowing jurors to ask questions was the amount of time it would take to review, select, and answer the questions. According to Alison K. Bennett, MS, in the article Eastern District of Texas Experiments with Jurors Questions During Trial, Judge Davis said that the additional time added about 15 minutes to the testimony of each witness. He also said that the jurors appeared more engaged and invested in the proceedings and that the questions asked showed a level of sophistication and understanding from the jury that was encouraging. The Pros of Allowing Jurors to Ask Questions Most jurors want to render a fair verdict based on their understanding of the testimony. If jurors are unable to obtain all the information that they need to make that decision, they may become frustrated with the process and ignore the evidence and testimony that they could not decipher. By becoming active participants in the courtroom, jurors get a more in-depth understanding of courtroom procedures, are less likely to misunderstand the facts of a case and develop a clearer perspective on which laws apply or do not apply to the case. Jurors questions can also help lawyers get a feel for what they are thinking and can influence how lawyers continue to present their cases. It is also a good tool to reference when preparing for future cases. The Cons of Allowing Jurors to Ask Questions The risks of allowing a jury to ask questions can mostly be controlled by how the procedure is handled, although there are still other problems that may arise. They include: A juror who wants to display their superior understanding of the case or one that talks too much could become taxing and annoying to other jurors as well as add unnecessary time to the trial proceedings. It also puts lawyers and judges at risk if they display signs of fatigue or annoyance with trying to control someone with these characteristics. The fallout could result in the juror feeling alienated and resentful which could have a harmful effect on jury deliberations.A question could be asked that jurors feel essential, but in reality, has little legal significance to the outcome of the trial. Such a question could end up carrying too much weight when jurors begin their deliberations.There is also a risk that the questions not asked by a jury could imply that they do not understand the evidence being presented or realize the significance of the evidence presented. Alternatively, it may mean that they do not have additional questions because they completely understand what has been presented. This could put lawyers at a disadvantage. If the jury does not understand the evidence enough to ask questions, a lawyer may change their strategy and spend more time with testimony that helps explain the evidence. However, if the jury does have a full understanding of the evidence, additional time spent on the same information could be viewed as repetitive and boring and the lawyer risks being audibly muted by jurors. The risk of a witness answering a jurors question that has been rendered inadmissible.Jurors may take the position of being an adversary of a witness rather than being interested in all of the facts of the case.Jurors may rate the importance of testimony if a judge does not elect to ask a witness a jurors question. They may feel it is not important testimony because it was not worthy of additional time spent to review it.A question may be allowed by a judge by mistake and become the reason the verdict is later appealed.Lawyers fear losing control over their case and trial strategy, especially if a question is asked by a juror that lawyers have purposely avoided mentioning during a trial. There is a concern that jurors with questions may decide on their verdict too early. Procedure Determines Success of Jury Questions Most of the problems that could develop from jurors asking questions can be controlled by a strong judge, through careful review of the questions and through using a proactive process through which jurors can submit questions. If the judge is reading the questions, and not the jurors, a garrulous juror can then be controlled. Questions that do not have significant importance to the overall outcome of the trial can be skipped. Questions that appear to appear bias or are argumentative can be reworded or discarded. However, it does give the judge an opportunity to review the importance to jurors of remaining impartial until the trial is over. Cases Studies of Jurors Asking Questions Professor Nancy Marder, director of IIT Chicago-Kents Jury Center and author of the book The Jury Process, researched the effectiveness of juror questions and determined that the justice is fully served when a jury is informed and understands all the mechanisms that go into their role as juror, including testimony given, evidence shown and how laws should or should not be applied. She goes on to emphasize that judges and lawyers can benefit by taking a more jury-centric approach to court proceedings, which means considering questions that jurors may have through the jurors perspective rather through their own. By doing so will improve the performance of the jury as a whole. It can also enable a jury to remain present and focused on what is going on, rather than have them obsess on an unanswered question. Unanswered questions could promote a feeling of apathy towards the remainder of the trial if they fear that they have failed to understand important testimony. Understanding the Dynamics of a Jury In Marders article, Answering Jurors Questions: Next Steps in Illinois, she looks at the pros and cons of several examples of what can happen when jurors are permitted or legally bound to ask questions, and one major point that she mentions is in regards to the dynamics that occur among a jury. She discusses how within groups of jurors there is a tendency for those who failed to understand testimony to look to other jurors who they deem as being better informed. That person ultimately becomes an authority figure in the room. Often their opinions carry more weight and will have more influence over what the jurors decide. When jurors questions are answered, it helps create an environment of equality and each juror can participate and contribute to the deliberations rather than being dictated to by those who appear to have all the answers. If a debate does arise, all jurors can inject their knowledge into the discussion without feeling uninformed. By doing this, jurors are more likely to vote independently, rather than to be overly influenced by a single juror. According to Marders research, the positive results of jurors moving out of passive roles of observers to active roles which allow them to ask questions has far outweighed the more negative concerns of lawyers and judges.​​​