Does Liverpool really have more Georgian buildings than Bath?

[GNASHER]

It's been said a few times on TV programs that Liverpool has the most G1 buildings outside of that there London.
Bradford count three stones in their list of G1 buildings.

[Colin Wilkinson]

That's the problem Gnasher - TV programmes rarely check facts like that - they broadcast what people tell them. I was watching a programme on Liverpool - Passport to Liverpool - in which one woman interviewed stated that ships threw slaves overboard to collect insurance money. Where does that come from?

[dazza]

That's the problem Gnasher - TV programmes rarely check facts like that - they broadcast what people tell them. I was watching a programme on Liverpool - Passport to Liverpool - in which one woman interviewed stated that ships threw slaves overboard to collect insurance money. Where does that come from?

Sadly, this claim is correct Colin. The slave ship Zong. Wiki here. A little off topic, but an interesting insight to the events of the day, which must have been discussed inside the same Georgian houses we're reviewing today.

The Zong was owned by William Gregson [Gregson's well] and George Case [Cases Street], well-known merchants in the City of Liverpool. Both were former Mayors of that City.

The Zong sailed out of Liverpool for the west coast of Africa. And then loaded with her cargo sailed from Africa on 6 September 1781 with 442 slaves aboard. She was grossly overloaded and did not have sufficient provisions for such a large number.

During the voyage, Captain Collingwood ordered 133 slaves to be thrown overboard. Insurers, at the time, were paying £30 a head, to cover the loss at sea.

Addressing the Jury in summing up, Lord Mansfield, the Lord Chief Justice, said

'The matter left to the jury was whether it was necessary that the slaves were thrown into the sea, for they had no doubt that the case of slaves was the same as if horses had been thrown overboard.'

[Quentin_Sharples]

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).

Thank you, Colin.
I've found the same thing in the library.
They are notified of all updates, but you have to ask for a specific building to get details.
Is it too much to hope that somebody would be able to type in the basic details onto a spreadsheet?
Each building would only need one line.

[dazza]

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.

Thanks fortinian, you raise an interesting point. Similarly, a row of 20 georgian houses commissioned in 1835, but completed in 1840 - are we to say that only the first half are Georgian, and the rest are Victorian [or Neo-Georgian?] There's definitely some wiggle room here. Anyone, any thoughts on this?

[Colin Wilkinson]

The row of houses would all be classified as Georgian because they were all built in the Georgian style that was prevalent at the time. Building period tend to shift by a few years - a bit like today where builders like Redrow/Wimpey etc use the same template until demands change. Neo-Georgian relates to the twentieth century revival - in which the basic elements of Georgian architecture were recycled in a new style.

[Kev]

Thanks for this hugely interesting thread

[Waterways]

The row of houses would all be classified as Georgian because they were all built in the Georgian style that was prevalent at the time. Building period tend to shift by a few years - a bit like today where builders like Redrow/Wimpey etc use the same template until demands change. Neo-Georgian relates to the twentieth century revival - in which the basic elements of Georgian architecture were recycled in a new style.

I disagree with a lot of what have been written here. A Georgian house can be a new new house, as long as it conforms to the Georgian style type. The style has bee continuously been built for well over 200 years. A "mock" Georgian" has elements of the style however does not conform.

[Quentin_Sharples]

This thread seems to be going round in circles.
Everybody agrees that there are Georgian buildings and Georgian style buildings.
Dredging things out of the back of my mind I think I remember that people like Pevsner said that Georgian buildings were still "real" (my word) in the 1840s, even though Victoria was Queen.

"Victorian" buildings tended to be more decorated than "Georgian".

[dazza]

I disagree with a lot of what have been written here. A Georgian house can be a new new house, as long as it conforms to the Georgian style type. The style has bee continuously been built for well over 200 years. A "mock" Georgian" has elements of the style however does not conform.

'Georgian' when referred to buildings: I think there's two different consensus of opinion are emerging. A style, as defined by the Georgian era, and buildings actually built in that era.

Taking WW's point: if we could build an exact facsimile of a 'Georgian' townhouse today, is it right to call it 'Georgian', or would 'Neo-Georgian' be more accurate, and representative? Calling it 'Georgian' without qualification is misleading. Instead we should always provide some provenance for later buildings, such as: yes, it's a Georgian building, but recently built. Or it's a modern interpretation of a Georgian townhouse. Even it's a Georgian townhouse built in 1860, if you must? If it has some 'features' and 'details' of the era, then it's Neo-Georgian. The more recent the building, the less congruent it's likely to be with the original.

Authentic, original atefacts command great respect in society. What is culturally more valuable: a Ming dynasty vase, or a perfect and unchipped copy of a it?

"Liverpool has more Georgian buildings than Bath" is a careless boast about the superior number of 'original' listed Georgian building housing stock in the city. - It is not a statement about style.

[Ged]

To me Georgian was built or commenced in the Georgian age/reign.

Neo Georgian or built in the Georgian style is more accurate and befitting of anything later if it is an accurate replica.

A part accurate replica should be labelled just that.

Gambier Terrace was definitely built in two eras given the roofline and design.

[gregs dad]

All I would say is just enjoy them for what they are

[Waterways]

Some buildings built in the Georgian era were not in the accepted Georgian style.

Georgian clearly relates to the style. When you say a Georgian house people then have a picture in their minds of what it looks like.

In the Georgian era many richer people did not like the style as it was like having a Wimpey house at the time.

Looking an No.10 Downing St right now. An uninspiring building. My cousin fitted in the fireplaces, or renovated them.

[dazza]

Some buildings built in the Georgian era were not in the accepted Georgian style.

Georgian clearly relates to the style. When you say a Georgian house people then have a picture in their minds of what it looks like.

In the Georgian era many richer people did not like the style as it was like having a Wimpey house at the time.

Thanks WW, I was thinking the same myself. Factory buildings built within the Georgian era for example. They are Georgian buildings nevertheless, but not in the 'Georgian style' as we understand it, which points more to domestic terraced housing.

Looking an No.10 Downing St right now. An uninspiring building. My cousin fitted in the fireplaces, or renovated them.

Good story - they'll be warming the knee's of the new PM tonight.

[Waterways]

Many of the fireplaces at No. 10 were boarded up. They were removed renovated and put back. He said a local Cockney guy was a perfectionist who did them all.

The building without doubt is Georgian but dates to the 1600s. Yet in the 1950s they were contemplating demolition. The place was subsiding. It cost a lot to underpin the building and renovate.

Many of the Georgian and Victorian period in London had parapets giving a flat front hiding the roofline. This was not a big thing in Liverpool; very common in London. London had local London Yellow brick, made mainly in Bedfordshire, which looks good when new but soot blackened them. Liverpool was mainly red brick.

Georgian houses were also detached. They were built to the Georgian models.

The normal house layouts of the time were turned sideways and put together to make the Georgian terrace. Many terraced house had the staircase in the middle of the house running east-west not north-south as the Victorians later did.