Does Liverpool really have more Georgian buildings than Bath?

[Colin Wilkinson]

I recently had a discussion with Mike Chitty of the Wavertree Society in which two old chestnuts came up. The first, that Liverpool has more listed buildings than any other city outside of London, simply is not true according to Mike. That honour goes to Bradford – and he has checked it up [...]

More...

[John Doh]

I recently had a discussion with Mike Chitty of the Wavertree Society in which two old chestnuts came up. The first, that Liverpool has more listed buildings than any other city outside of London, simply is not true according to Mike. That honour goes to Bradford – and he has checked it up [...]

More...

Genuine Georgian or are you including Victorian imitations? Or are we talking listed buildings? Again, not necessarily the same thing...

[Colin Wilkinson]

In my blog, I made the point that most of Liverpool's 'Georgian' buildings were Regency/early Victorian unlike Bath where the buildings are true Georgian (before 1820). Georgian is a style of architecture and Liverpool's buildings count on that basis.
The separate point I raised about listed buildings was to draw attention to the danger of making unsubstantiated claims about the city that become part of the mythology used to promote it. I am all in favour of raising Liverpool's image - it has some fantastic architecture - but not if false premises are made that will potentially be embarrassing at a later date.

[Waterways]

They do not even look Georgian and it is clear were not meant to be.

I have seen many modern Georgian houses that look 100% Georgian copying the original patterns. The windows and how they are spaced is important in the design. The design is well proportioned that uis what they are well liked despite just "developer" houses. I have seen screw ups as well.

Mock Tudor looks "mock", being a Tudor mix, usually with planks over brickwork giving the impression is is solid wood. The word Tudor was only used from 1911. There again I have seen authentic looking modern houses that look 100s of years old using an wood timber frame.

[wsteve55]

I suppose it's natural enough, to assume people have checked the relevant info',before they make those sort of statements! The one about the number of Georgian buildings,has been around for a while,and undisputed.....till now! The truth should be told

[pablo42]

Nice one Colin.

[Waterways]

• Georgian architecture? That is the style and that can also be a new building.
• Buildings built in the Georgian era tat are still erect?

I would like any new buildings in or on the edge of the Georgian Quarter built in the same style.
Georgian style buildings have been continually built for over 200 years.

[dazza]

• Georgian architecture? That is the style and that can also be a new building.
• Buildings built in the Georgian era tat are still erect?

I would like any new buildings in or on the edge of the Georgian Quarter built in the same style.
Georgian style buildings have been continually built for over 200 years.

Nice bit of spin WW.

Georgian building's should really be classed by the era in which they were built...certainly no later than 1837, when Victoria came to the throne. Some speculator's suggest no later than 1830, with the death of King George IV - he was also Prince Regent during his father's reign, during the madness of George III. Therefore we have the 'Regency era' running in parallel with the Georgian era, from 1811-1820, and when George III died, the Prince Regent became King George IV reigning 1820 - 1830. His brother, William IV, followed in a short reign from 1830 - 1837, and therefore ending the Georgian era for some.

Georgian era periods often cited:

1714 - 1811 Prince Regent takes over from his mad father King George III
1714 - 1820 On the Death of mad King George III.
1714 - 1830 On the death of King George IV [he was also Prince Regent 1811-1820]
1714 - 1837 On the death of King William IV. This period is less often included...because his name's William, and not George.

1837 Queen Victoria accends the throne. Incidentally Victoria herself [niece of William IV] was the last member of the House of Hanover [1714 - 1901].

The popular vote is that the Georgian era is 1714 - 1830, signifying the end of the four successive king's named 'George'. The period 1830 -1837, under William IV, leaves an uncomfortable gap disliked by historians so much, and have often cited this period as late Georgian...just to fill the space between the Georgian and Victorian eras. All however, belong to the German House of Hanover.



So the claim, Liverpool has more Georgian buildings than Bath [a Georgian town], as much as I'd like to believe it, is more than likely to be false.

I'll wait for the claim, Liverpool has more Georgian-styled buildings than Bath, here we may succeed?

[Waterways]

Nice bit of spin WW.

Georgian building's should really be classed by the era in which they were built...certainly no later than 1837,

I disagree. It is a style. Georgian styles were the first mass produced houses. You could buy the plans off the shelf, that is why they were so numerous and they are all the same style types. By looking at detail you can see when it was made as standard plans changed. Builders merchants catered for the contents like standard sized windows, doors, Welsh slate tiles, etc. They were built in the UK, USA, Canada and other colonies. They have been continually built since pre 1837.

Pre 1837 building still erect in Liverpool, irrespective of style may be more than Bath.

Georgian "styled buildings? Bath.

One thing is clear Liverpool did have more buildings built before 1837 and more Georgian "styled" buildings.

[dazza]

I disagree. It is a style. Georgian styles were the first mass produced houses. You could buy the plans off the shelf, that is why they were so numerous and they are all the same style types. By looking at detail you can see when it was made as standard plans changed. Builders merchants catered for the contents like standard sized windows, doors, Welsh slate tiles, etc. They were built in the UK, USA, Canada and other colonies. They have been continually built since pre 1837.

Pre 1837 building still erect in Liverpool, irrespective of style may be more than Bath.

Georgian "styled buildings? Bath.

One thing is clear Liverpool did have more buildings built before 1837 and more Georgian "styled" buildings.

Well, it can mean 'era', or 'style' [associated with that era]. Just like we can refer to St George's Hall as being a 'classical' building, even though we know it's from the Victorian era [started 1841]. So you're right in that a building can be known by the 'style' of the era it refers to.

'Liverpool has more Georgian buildings than Bath' is a claim [for me] about authenticity, not about style though. If not, then I could equally claim that 'London has more 'classical' buildings than Rome'. Granted, they are in the style of classical Rome, or classical Athens, but no seriously minded person would entertain this claim for a second.

[kevin]

Thanks Colin,
Interesting contributions coming out in the thread. I'd always accepted the Georgian claim without really thinking about it.

[wsteve55]

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!)

[kevin]

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.

[Colin Wilkinson]

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.

[Waterways]

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.