Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48

Thread: Does Liverpool really have more Georgian buildings than Bath?

  1. #16
    Senior Member John Doh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fortinian View Post
    Re: St Georges Hall is Neo-Classical, simply because the time it was built is significantly after the 'Classical' period. Similarly the Anglican Cathedral is 'Neo-Gothic'. Historians have a nasty habit of pidgeon holeing things into distinct periods, this completely ignores the natural progression of history and the fluidic evolution of taste, style and design.

    I am a great believer in doing away with Liverpools tendancy to have its 'history based upon history' but I can see no real error in the claim that we do have more Georgian buildings than Bath other than in simple numbers.
    Maybe that should really read 'neo-Georgian' if you want to include all those houses built in the posh end of Halewood ten years ago...

  2. #17
    Senior Member wsteve55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Crosby
    Posts
    2,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kevin View Post
    Thanks Colin,
    Interesting contributions coming out in the thread. I'd always accepted the Georgian claim without really thinking about it.
    Probably because you were too busy carrying that load of firewood(sorry,or getting her to do it!)

  3. #18
    Senior Member wsteve55's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Crosby
    Posts
    2,199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Doh View Post
    Maybe that should really read 'neo-Georgian' if you want to include all those houses built in the posh end of Halewood ten years ago...
    Ha,Ha,

  4. #19
    Senior Member fortinian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Liverpool
    Posts
    384
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Doh View Post
    Maybe that should really read 'neo-Georgian' if you want to include all those houses built in the posh end of Halewood ten years ago...
    I don't know the houses you are on about but if they were built ten years ago then they would probably be classed as 'modern Neo-Georgian' but the original Neo-Georgian style was that in the late 1900s and early 20th century. Edward Lutyens (him of cathedral fame) was an advocate of Neo-Georgian style.



    A good example of Neo-Georgian is the Liverpool Guild of Students building: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&...36.67,,0,-8.92

    The point I was making is that Georgian arcitectual style conventions continued into the first ten years of Victorias reign, there was no firm cut off point when a building became 'Victorian' just cos she was on the throne.

  5. #20
    Senior Member kevin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Midlands
    Age
    72
    Posts
    879
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wsteve55 View Post
    Probably because you were too busy carrying that load of firewood(sorry,or getting her to do it!)
    Division of labour - I was carrying the cigarette.

  6. #21
    Senior Member Colin Wilkinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I've just had an interesting post from Martin Greaney who states that, according to local authority websites, Bradford has 5700 listed buildings and Liverpool has 2500.
    Something is dreadfully wrong with Liverpool's official PR if they keep peddling fallacious facts. Does anyone ever check what is being put out? OK - if it was a close run thing you might say there are grounds for error - but to be out by 3200 strikes me as being quite a serious misrepresentation.
    Instead of churning out such clearly dodgy 'facts' about Liverpool's heritage - there needs to be a rethink about how the city is branded. It has brilliant architecture - so there is no need to be lazy and just repeat the same clearly unsafe mythology.

  7. #22
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Wilkinson View Post
    I've just had an interesting post from Martin Greaney who states that, according to local authority websites, Bradford has 5700 listed buildings and Liverpool has 2500.
    Something is dreadfully wrong with Liverpool's official PR if they keep peddling fallacious facts. Does anyone ever check what is being put out? OK - if it was a close run thing you might say there are grounds for error - but to be out by 3200 strikes me as being quite a serious misrepresentation.
    Instead of churning out such clearly dodgy 'facts' about Liverpool's heritage - there needs to be a rethink about how the city is branded. It has brilliant architecture - so there is no need to be lazy and just repeat the same clearly unsafe mythology.
    Does Liverpool have listed blocks with the individual buildings not counted? Liverpool can muster far more listed buildings than Bradford. Maybe the city doesn't try enough. The council do not like a lot of these buildings as it constrains them when they develop.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  8. #23
    Senior Member GNASHER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Barking up the wrong tree
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Grade 1 listed buildings - Bradford Metro Brough 12.Bradford City has 7.
    Liverpool has 26 grade 1 and 85 grade 2*.
    Liverpool has the most grade 1 listed buildings outside of that there London.

  9. #24
    Quentin_Sharples
    Guest Quentin_Sharples's Avatar

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Wilkinson View Post
    I've just had an interesting post from Martin Greaney who states that, according to local authority websites, Bradford has 5700 listed buildings and Liverpool has 2500.
    Something is dreadfully wrong with Liverpool's official PR if they keep peddling fallacious facts. Does anyone ever check what is being put out? OK - if it was a close run thing you might say there are grounds for error - but to be out by 3200 strikes me as being quite a serious misrepresentation.
    Instead of churning out such clearly dodgy 'facts' about Liverpool's heritage - there needs to be a rethink about how the city is branded. It has brilliant architecture - so there is no need to be lazy and just repeat the same clearly unsafe mythology.
    To misquote a certain 'lady': "Bradford would say that - wouldn't they?"

    How were the numbers arrived at?
    I've found it impossible to get an up-to-date list of Liverpool's Listed buildings.

    How often do we hear that English Heritage won't list yet another well-loved Liverpool building, and let listed ones become de-listed so they can be demolished?

    "Does EH like Liverpool?" could be the name for a thread on Yo!

  10. #25
    Senior Member Colin Wilkinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I am sure all authorities have to adopt the same procedures regarding listing. Take a look at Bristol which has 4500 listed buildings of which a staggering 100 are Grade 1 listed and 500 are Grade 11* listed.
    This raises an additional point - Liverpool's PR machine has always stated that the city has more Grade 1 listed buildings than any other city outside of London. Again - clearly not true.
    These are figures from local authority websites where they have listed totals (some like Manchester just supply a list of individual buildings without a total - which looks considerable but would need totalling up from the list). Liverpool Council's states the city has 'over 2500' listed buildings. Their words - not mine.
    We must not promote the city on lazy, unsubstantiated or plainly incorrect facts. I am amazed out proposal for World Heritage status did not pick up on such errors - it might have had an adverse result.

  11. #26
    Senior Member Colin Wilkinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Sorry Quentin - I have met quite a few people from English Heritage and I can assure you they love the city. Why would they publish the magnificent series of books on different aspects of the city's heritage if they hated the place. They have actually photographed many aspects of the place over the last 20+ years - including great surveys of warehouses and other threatened buildings.

  12. #27
    Senior Member Waterways's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,924
    Blog Entries
    22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Colin Wilkinson View Post
    I am sure all authorities have to adopt the same procedures regarding listing. Take a look at Bristol which has 4500 listed buildings of which a staggering 100 are Grade 1 listed and 500 are Grade 11* listed.
    Bristol does not to me look like a place with an abundance of buildings of Grade 1 quality. Maybe they apply and get it while Liverpool does not.

    We must not promote the city on lazy, unsubstantiated or plainly incorrect facts. I am amazed out proposal for World Heritage status did not pick up on such errors - it might have had an adverse result.
    All Bath is a World Heritage Site, which is not that big,but big enough. Liverpool has its old docks and large parts of the centre in the WHS and buffer zone. Far more than any other city.
    The new Amsterdam at Liverpool?
    Save Liverpool Docks and Waterways - Click

    Deprived of its unique dockland waters Liverpool
    becomes a Venice without canals, just another city, no
    longer of special interest to anyone, least of all the
    tourist. Would we visit a modernised Venice of filled in
    canals to view its modern museum describing
    how it once was?


    Giving Liverpool a full Metro - CLICK
    Rapid-transit rail: Everton, Liverpool & Arena - CLICK

    Save Royal Iris - Sign Petition

  13. #28
    Senior Member Colin Wilkinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I like Bristol - which is a much older city than Liverpool - although I much prefer Liverpool. My point is purely on the presentation of facts that are clearly very suspect. Gnasher brings up the one about Grade 1 listed buildings to add to the ones about Georgian buildings and most listed buildings. We really must get the correct information and stop perpetuating mythologies about Liverpool. If they are all incorrect, it makes us all look a bit foolish.

  14. #29
    Quentin_Sharples
    Guest Quentin_Sharples's Avatar

    Default

    Colin.
    Where do we get up-to-date information?

    I didn't say EH "hated" us.
    I'd rather you didn't put words in my mouth.

  15. #30
    Senior Member Colin Wilkinson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    490
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Sorry Quentin, my word not yours - but I don't think there is any conspiracy from English Heritage. They are committed professionals who love architecture (at least the ones I have met are).
    The problem with finding out stats is that English Heritage only allow you to search for specific buildings - and do not appear to have a league table of individual cities/towns etc. Each local authority must keep a register and some give overall numbers (such as Bradford, Bristol and Liverpool) while others just list individual buildings (Manchester has an A-Z of streets with listed buildings). This makes it all a bit difficult - but even a superficial check seems to undermine Liverpool on both the mosted listed buildings and most Grade 1 claims. As for most Georgian buildings - that is down to an individual count (count me out of that one).

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Georgian Buildings
    By Kev in forum Kev's Liverpool History and Pictures
    Replies: 62
    Last Post: 05-09-2011, 07:28 AM
  2. Georgian Liverpool
    By Kev in forum Liverpool Streets and Areas
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-16-2009, 02:38 AM
  3. Liverpools Georgian Buildings
    By Kev in forum Liverpool Firsts, Facts and Achievements
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 06:15 AM
  4. Georgian Destruction
    By Kev in forum Buildings and Structures
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-15-2008, 09:07 PM
  5. Which UK Cities Have More Georgian Buildings Than Liverpool
    By Sarah in forum Liverpool City Center Architecture
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 04-03-2008, 05:17 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •