<p>Hi, I'm just wondering what the architectural style that most of Rice's buildings are built in is called. I'm wondering how to describe it to someone who's an expert on (or at least a fan of) architecture without using pictures. Thanks!</p>
<p>I've heard it described as "neo-Byzantine" in a book called "The Campus Guide: Rice University", but I have no idea if that's correct. </p>
<p>By the way, there's a really nice YouTube video that shows a lot of Rice's architectural elements here:
YouTube</a> - Rice Homecoming 2006</p>
<p>From Rice</a> University - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</p>
<p>The campus itself is organized into a number of quadrangles, and features buildings designed in an eclectic Mediterranean style by Ralph Adams Cram of the Boston architectural firm of Cram, Goodhue & Ferguson.</p>
<p>Byzantine-Romanesque is the technical term, I believe. Or at last that's what it says in the tour guide handbook, and that's what Dr. Boles (the Rice historian) calls it.</p>
<p>The architect basically made his own style, so these names describe his influences.</p>
<p>Yeah, an archi major here once told me she took a whole course on architecture of Rice. It's kind of it's own style, with most of the academic building combining Spanish, French, and Italian architecture. Although, Lovett College is apparently Russian Brutalist style :)</p>
<p>Not Soviet--just brutalist. Honestly, Fondren is more Soviet than Lovett.</p>
<p>There's actually an architectural guide to Rice that calls Lovett, Sid Rich, and Hermann Brown a manifestation of "the failure of modern architecture on Rice's campus".</p>
<p>Sid Rich, an architectural failure?? Sure, it's shaped like a phallus, but it's ingenius the way they split the upper and lower levels (horrible for handicapped folk, though).</p>
<p>Sid's not very pretty. That's the idea of modernist architecture. It's incredibly practical, if not pretty. Lovett actually has a really functional layout, even though it looks how it does. Hence the failing of modern architecture. It was where people started deciding that ugliness was good-looking.</p>
<p>Ditto that -- Lovett and Sid's layouts are actually really cool and interesting, but they are unfathomably unattractive from the outside.</p>
<p>Sid is okay.. Lovett - mega royal failure. Its ugly, the elevator doesnt go to every floor and the rooms suck</p>
<p>I settle with Wiess being the best....</p>
<p>Yeah, but is Wiess able to withstand a 200-foot tower crane falling on it, or a Category-4 hurricane rolling through Houston? I think not.</p>
<p>When the Memorial Hermann Medical Plaza was being constructed across the street from Lovett, the contractors came over to assess the potential damage if the tower crane were to fall. They decided that more damage would be done to the crane than to the building, and the supervisor said that Lovett was the sturdiest building he had ever seen.</p>
<p>And during the threat of Hurricane Rita, Lovett students were allowed to stay in their rooms instead of being forced into the commons.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, Wiess is sinking into the ground because its foundation is bad. (Not actually sure about this, but I remember hearing it somewhere).</p>
<p>haha.. that was Old Wiess... now we have the newest building on campus (along with Martel) and the rooms are nice and huge </p>
<p>And they have individual thermostats...</p>
<p>Lovett can withstand Sid Rich falling on it... its impossible to break</p>