Re: Re: ‘Dutch Billys’
6. The twin axial roof profiles required a serious beam running front to back, beams were never used in the Georgianification of other Billy types, but beams were a standard part of the Dutch Billy roof construction.
7. There wasn’t the same need to rebuild the roofs of twin-Billys to make them conform to Georgian taste, because the lower profiles of the roofs could be hidden effectively with simple hips to the front (32 Thomas St.), or a higher parapet, (25 James St.)
8. One of the possible rationals for the popularity of twin Billys may have been that they actually required fewer heavy beams (one) than single gabled roof construction (minimum two).
Ok so the next logical question is: what’s in the roof of No. 32? Does it have the front-to-back beam under the central valley, and/or other early roof structure? Or is it evidently a later Georgian construction?
On an architectural level, twin gables on a two-bay building wouldn’t have produced much of an effect, would it? …. sorry, just have difficulty bringing myself to envisage this building with twin gables.
Just to illustrate my suggestion.
Turning a high single-span roof into two lower parallel spans with hipped fronts like this would, for example, allow you create a perfectly proportioned circa 1800 classical facade – as at No. 32 – without the conspicuous high parapet that gives away many early buildings altered in the Georgian period.
It’s just an idea. But, hey, the thread would be boring without different views …