The Filson Historical Society Digital Projects

Attempts at Exclusion

In both the United States and Great Britain, writers sought to explain and define Tudor Revival to the general public. These authors included architects, designers, academics, cultural commentators, and other arbiters of style. By promoting Tudor Revival, they also emphasized their own importance as critics and tastemakers, particularly to upper- and middle-class consumers.

For many of these writers, Tudor Revival’s link to “Anglo-Saxon” heritage was among its most important and defining characteristics. They explicitly connected the style to genetics, language, and skin color. Tudor Revival, in their opinion, belonged to those with white, West European backgrounds. It is no coincidence that these writings coincided with increased immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe—including large Jewish populations—as well as a massive migration of African Americans into Northern cities. Architecture became a demonstration not only of wealth and taste, but of breeding and heritage, perpetuating systemic racism and a culture of racial privilege.

MssAR_R318_Roll3_s5.jpg

Elevation drawings for Barnes Residence on Casselberry Road, Louisville, Kentucky, 1933.

Source: Mss. AR R318 Roll 3, Herbert E. Redman Architectural Drawings, 1926-1968, The Filson Historical Society, Louisville, Kentucky.

Restrictions

In 1924, Louisville developers began selling home plots along Sulgrave and Casselberry Roads. In order to build in this new section of the Bonnycastle neighborhood, houses were required to be in an "English" style, i.e., Tudor Revival.

Plots also came with another restriction: minimum home values. Along Sulgrave, for example, construction costs had to be at least $12,000. This linkage helped perpetuate the idea that only the wealthy could (or should) have access to Tudor Revival homes.

When completed, nearly a quarter of the Strathmoor Village subdivision had been built in a Tudor Revival style. The homes were bought under the covenants or “restrictions” of the development, including Restriction J: “This property shall never be sold, rented, or leased to, or occupied by any person, or persons, of African descent.” This restriction was hardly unique to Strathmoor Village. Most Louisville subdivisions, with or without Tudor architecture, had the same stipulation. Still, the restriction reinforced a system with a clear message for Black people: Louisville’s new homes, including increasingly popular Tudor Revival homes, were for whites only.