410 



THE CIVIL ENGINEER AND ARCHITECT'S JOURNAL. 



[December, 



ARCHITECTURE OF LIVERPOOL. 



Sir — When I first saw the remarks of your correspondent "Eder"in 

 a Liverpool paper, I felt strongly disposed to make a few observations 

 in reply to some of tlieni, which seemed to me strangely at variance 

 with his professions of careful and long continued architectural study. 

 This inclination was confirmed when I found they had obtained a place 

 in your journal, and would thus fall under the "notice of so many in- 

 terested in the matters they refer to. In putting this design in prac- 

 tice, I shall borrow his introductory paragraph, in so far as it relates 

 to partiality and prejudice, both which feelings so inimical to all fair 

 discussion, I can most candidly disavow. 



The Custom House is the first building noticed by Eder — its size 

 perhaps entitles it to such priority. He applies the terms " imposing 

 and magnificent," to this structure. Now any very large mass of 

 building may be allowed to be imjmiiig, if of an adequate height, but 

 magnificence implies soraethine more than mere mass of material and 

 extension of surface: it includes, I conceive, a symmetrical arrange- 

 ment of parts, fine proportions, and a degree and character of orna- 

 ment suited to the importance and purpose of the building. In these 

 three points I hold the Liverpool Custom House to be most lamentably 

 deficient. First, as to armngttmni or composition. The building is 

 on a plan much like the letter H, the cupola occupying the centre of 

 the cross jrart of the letter, and a portico on one side of tlie cross, and 

 on each of the upright parts. The consequences of this arrangement 

 are destructive of all fine perspective eftijct, for when viewed on its 

 north front, the cupola serves only to destroy the effect (such as it is) 

 of the portico on that side, and seen from the east and west fronts that 

 feature seems hardly to be part of the pile, so completelv is its con- 

 nection with those fronts hidden by the projection of the vvings. This 

 cupola (in his opinion, in which every body I imagine must agree with 

 your correspondent), in fact never terminates the perspective from 

 any point of view, nor combines with any of the intersections of the 

 ■wings and central portion of the mass. With regard to the position 

 of the porticoes, that to the north is buried between the wings, and 

 can never be seen in profile, and its projection is so slight that were it 

 not that the only light it ever receives from the sun falls very much 

 aslant, and consequently gives a great prolongation of shadow, it would 

 have no more relief than a row of attached columns with a pediment 

 over them. The above remarks as to want of projection, apply with 

 greater foi-ce to the other two porticoes, which however can be seen 

 in profile, or obliquely, though for reasons I shall point out when I 

 come to speak of the proportions of the parts, their eftect is completely 

 destroyed. The site of this building was well adapted to a cruciform 

 plan, and had such an arrangement been adopted, the porticoes, how- 

 ever deficient in projection and depth, would at least have formed 

 suitable terminations to the several portions of the cross ; and the 

 cupola, however foreign to this, so called, Grecian design, would have 

 risen naturally, as I may say, at the intersection, and have terminated 

 the converging perspective of the body and transepts with good results 

 as regards its own effect and importance, and without interfering with 

 the porticoes in those respects. Such a disposition of the plan would 

 also have insured a better distribution of light, and greatly have bene- 

 fitted the interior arrangements, which as your correspondent justly 

 observes, are sadly wanting in this point. As regards the proportions 

 of the several fronts, and the features which compose them, it seems 

 to me that very little consideration, or consideration to very little pnr- 

 posejias been bestowed on them, more especially as respects those 

 very important parls of the composition, the porticoes. Their pro- 

 jection (for they are all alike) is so slight as to appear nothing in com- 

 parison with their frontal extent, and to take away all idea of shelter 

 or shade. I do not know whether Candidus will include expression as 

 one of the banished or obsolete architectural terms, but tliis quality 

 (for I for one believe in its existence) appears to me to be utterly 

 wanting in three of the fronts. As I wish to advance nothing without 

 endeavouring to give a reason, I shall explain myself as well as I can. 

 I am of opinion, then, that there are two general proportions in which 

 a portico may be combined with a front, of which it does not occupy 

 the whole extent, without loosing its own efi'ect, or interfering in- 

 juriously with that of the front of which it forms so material a feature. 

 These proportions seem to me to be firstly, such as shall give to the 

 portico the greater part of the fafade, and make the remainder on 

 either side appear as mere adjuncts or accessories thereto ; or secondly, 

 such as shall make the portico a subordinate feature in the design, 

 leaving an extended surface on either hand. In the first case the im- 

 pression on the mind will be (such at least is the eti'ect with myself,) 

 that the front being of a proscribed extent both as to length and height, 

 and a portico a requisite part of the edifice, that portion had been 

 kept within the extreme dimensions of the site for the purpose of pre- 



serving to it a fitting proportion as to elevation: and in the second, that 

 the portico being as before supposed a necessary and ornamental fea- 

 ture in the pioposed arrangement, had been so proportioned to the 

 whole extent of front as not to destroy its unity and continuiti' of ap- 

 pearance. The expression of the first named portico, I conceive, will 

 be found that of dignity and grandeur combined with use, and that of 

 the second more allied to comfort and convenience judiciously united 

 with a due regard to ornamental eftect. Of the first mentioned pro- 

 portion I consider the portico of the Fitzwilliam Museum at Cambridge, 

 a good example. As a specimen of the second I may quote that of 

 the India House, inharmonious as that front may be in some of its de- 

 tails. In spite of what I have said above, I still greatly prefer the 

 truly Grecian application of the portico, where it includes the whole 

 front of the building, and continues without interruption or break, save 

 its own angle, the order or entablature, as the case may be, of the 

 lateral portion. But to apply these remarks to the building under 

 consideration. 



Fis. \. 



The east and west porticoes of the Liverpool Custom House occupy, 

 to my eye, exactly the unhappy medium between the proportions I 

 have attempted to describe ; and instead of leaving the mind at rest 

 to contemplate and enjoy their air of simple dignity, or of inviting 

 and hospitable shelter, together with the varied effects of light and 

 shade of which these beautiful architectural features are capable when 

 happily conceived and applied, they distract the eye, both mental 

 and physical, by a puzzling uncertainty as to the meaning of the archi- 

 tect, and by their bareness and lack of depth give no idea but that of 

 useless show, and of an exposed, comfortless, and contracted entrance 

 passage. With regard to the north or principal front, the portico has 

 an advantage over those of the east and west fronts — having in rear a 

 slight projection of its own width from the main building ; this gives 

 an appearance of greater projection from the general line, but is of no 

 avail as regards the shallow and ineffective aspect arising from defi- 

 ciency of depth. The proportion which this portico bears to the whole 

 space between the wings is nearly the same as the two already described 

 bear to their respective fronts, and it appears to me to labour under 

 the same uncertainty as to whether it be a principal or accessory in 

 the general design. The wings themselves are perhaps not too far in 

 advance as respects their own proportion as wings, but they unques- 

 tionably do stand out to such a degree, as to drown completely the 

 portico and its adjoining projection. The fronts of the wings which 

 consist of openings of three intercolumniations divided by two columns 

 in antis, and a flank of about two intercolumns pierced with windows, 

 on each side, are certainly the most eft'ective and least objectionable 

 parts of the front under notice, but I am inclined to think that a greater 

 height of blocking either over the whole front, or at least over the 

 central jiortion, would tend to improve their aspect. I come now to 

 speak of the rear or south elevation which Eder describes as "in- 

 famously miserable," — terms which well apply to the whole of the 

 wings on that side, but not, I maintain, to the main front which com- 

 prises, in my opinion, the only really redeeming feature in the whole 

 building. 



All pretension to Grecian character appears here to have been aban- 

 doned. The cornice of the columnar order is, to be sure, continued, 

 but without the frieze and architrave, and being of good projection, 

 with a massive ilentil member in the bed-rtiould, it harmonizes well 

 with the general character of this portion of the building, \VTiich is 

 most decidedly Italian. Though I think the central projection of this 

 front is, like those in the others, faulty in its indecision of proportion 

 to the vvhole, still, in itself, I consider it in all respects much the best 

 part of the structure. It consists of a plain well-proportioned ele- 

 vation, divided into three parts by two slight breaks. The middle 

 portion of the three is pierced below by three open segmental arches 

 leading through the building to the opposite front ; and above these, 

 three semicircular-headed windows of good proportions, and pleasing 

 though simple character. The lateral divisions have above each, one 

 window corresponding with those of the centre; and below, a window 

 recessed in an arch similar to those forming the three openings above 



