My understanding is that some Georgian buildings left quite a lot to be desired.
For example some of the crescents in Bath were apparently built as
facades with other people constructing the building behind.
I remember seeing a documentry where they were explaining some very
odd materials found in a building in Bath - very shoddy workmanship.
Victorian construction depended on the type of property, cottages for
workmen were built with no real foundations and single skin dividing
walls.
They tended to use wooden 'wall plates' in most domestic buildings,
these are horizontal beams of wood set into the brickwork, presumably
to keep things level. Those 'wall plates' make a great motorway for
dry and wet rot.
They used mortar rather than cement, it is much softer and allows a
degree of settling without cracking bricks. Modern buildings use
harder cement, so settling can result in vertical cracks.
Even at the comparatively low end of the market, the Victorians went
in for some astonishingly ornate internal plaster mouldings.
At the middle/upper end of the market, the Victorians went in for very
high ceilings - about 11 ft high. Doorways tended to be higher and
wider than one would normally expect in modern buildings.
Middle/upper end Victorian buildings tended to have cellars, which are
unusual nowadays.
Roofing tended to be slate, but they did not know about Slater's Felt.
I live in a house built (sold) in 1890 by a developer who built a line
of largish family houses. The house next door was built (first sold)
in 1895 which is quite an interval. I've a suspicion that construction
was slower then. Nowadays buildings are put up as fast as possible.
The internal walls are double skinned brick, unlikely in a modern house.
I've noticed (and been shown) evidence that one or two houses built by
a single developer would be distinctly smarter (more elaborate) than
the rest, which suggests that they were built for the developer or
members of his family.
Nowadays developers buy building guarantee insurance and want to stay
as far away from their work as possible.
At the upper end, the Victorians were expected to have live-in
servants, so the kitchens tended not to be as spacious or pleasant as
modern buildings.
Nowadays the kitchen is a major selling point for new build houses.
One developer told me that putting a £25,000 granite kitchen in a
£350,000 property is a 'no brainer'.
The Victorians were quite cute in the choice of brick, it is not
unusual to see a house with red brick on the front and weather
resistant London yellow brick on the North side. I've been told that
was regarded as 'classy' construction.
I've been told that Victorian workmens cottages were built to last 50
years (generally they were built to be rented out) so it is a tribute
to their construction that they are still standing at least 60 years
after their 'sell by date'.
I don't know that much about Georgian construction, but this page
explains the architecture :-
http://www.britainexpress.com/architecture/georgian.htm
My understanding is that Palladio got hold of Greek designs from
Constantinople, the Romans used the same source - and Greek slaves.
Incidentally Venice was built on loot from the Fourth Crusade in about
1200, but Constantinople staggered on until 1453 - an unbroken line of
Greek culture going back to 600 BC
http://www.viking.no/e/turkey/e-bysant.htm
Palladio was born in 1508
- to us it would be like finding stuff in a book published in 1926
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Palladio
At a pinch, I would describe Georgian as a rip off of Greek design,
and Victorian as a development with proper construction and a bit less
grace. |
