1 The three existing buildings have recently (and somewhat inappropriately) become known as ‘The Three Graces’. An international competition for a ‘Fourth Grace’ to be built on land adjoining the Pier Head was won recently by Will Alsop.

2 Jarvis, Adrian, Liverpool’s Central Docks, 1799-1905 (Stroud, 1992), p. 202 Google Scholar.

3 The first George’s landing stage was constructed in 1847 by Sir William Cubitt; the Princes landing stage was added in 1867. The two were connected in 1874, together with a floating roadway, and reconstructed in 1876 after a fire. In 1896 the total length was increased to 2,463 feet. ( Rogers, H., ‘Liverpool Landing Stage extension and Princes Jetty’, Transactions of the Liverpool Engineering Society, 19 (1897-98), p. 159 Google Scholar.)

4 Plans by the Board’s Engineer, George Lyster, and another unsolicited plan by David Walker, based on an idea for commercial development by C. G. Mott, are in the Liverpool Central Library (hereafter LCL), MD148. The Corporation Surveyor, Thomas Shelmerdine had also prepared a scheme for closing the dock and building on it (LCL Council Proceedings 1874-75, PP. 621-25).

5 Mountfield, Stuart, Western Gateway, A History of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Board (Liverpool, 1965), p. 91 Google Scholar.

6 Liverpool Porcupine, 29 August 1896, reported ‘there is a feeling abroad that the Dock Board has made up its mind to pursue a dog-in-the-manger policy in reference to all matters where it could, if so disposed, cooperate with the City Council for the benefit of the ratepayers’ (Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Archive, National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside [hereafter MDHB], Newscuttings G82).

7 LCL 352 MIN/EST 1/1, 25 August 1898, p. 508.

8 LCL 352 MIN/EST 1/1, 10 November 1898, p. 604, and MDHB Legal F84, letter from A. T. Squarey, Board Solicitor, 27 October 1898.

9 LCL 352 MIN/EST 1/2, 18 May 1899, P• ²57/ later confirmed by Heads of Agreement between the Board and the Corporation in 1900 (MDHB Legal F84).

10 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 22 December 1898.

11 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 11 May 1899.

12 MDHB/DO Box 1, Conditions of Competition and Schedule of Accommodation for Proposed Offices, 24 August 1899.

13 Twelve local firms were invited to submit designs: W. Culshaw and Son, Charles E. Deacon, J. Francis Doyle, H. & A. P. Fry, Grayson and Ould, F. & G. Holme, Edmund Kirby, James Rhind, Willink & Thicknesse, Woolfall & Eccles, Henry Hartley, and T. Cook & Son. A request by F. B. Hobbs and Arnold Thornley to be allowed to compete was accepted, and they were subsequently joined by F. G. Briggs and H. V. Wolstenholme. Asked about the possibility of opening the competition up more widely, Waterhouse advised that the best London architects would not be inclined to enter along with the ‘rank and file’ from Liverpool (MDHB Discussions at the Board, 11 May 1899).

14 Culshaw, Kirby, Hartley, Doyle, Fry and Rhind had all withdrawn, although Kirby’s design is in the Kirby archive, LCL 720 KIR 1839.

15 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 7 June 1900.

16 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 14 June 1900.

17 The Builder, 79, 7 July 1900, pp. 6-7, and 14 July 1900, p. 36 and illustrations.

18 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 25 October 1900.

19 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 17 January 1901.

20 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 2 May 1901.

21 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 11 May 1901.

22 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 30 May 1901 (Thomas Ismay had already set a precedent for the study of American architecture by sending Doyle, Norman Shaw’s collaborator on the White Star building to New York).

23 Liverpool Courier, 2 July 1900, p. 6.

24 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 29 August 1901.

25 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 6 March 1902.

26 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 13 March 1902.

27 The Architectural Review, 24, no. 140 (July 1908), pp. 41-52.

28 Leighton, Arthur, ‘Notes on Concrete Construction, George’s Dock’, in Transactions of the Liverpool Society, 23 (1901-02), pp. 204-21Google Scholar.

29 Liverpool Daily Post, 18 July 1907, p. 6.

30 MDHB Discussions at the Board, 17 October 1901.

31 LCL 352 EST/MIN 1/7, 26 July 1904, pp. 386-87.

32 LCL 352 EST/MIN 1/8, 28 March 1905, p. 28.

33 LCL 352 EST/MIN 1/8, 28 March 1905, p. 36.

34 LCL 352 EST/MIN 1/8, 12 June 1906, p. 644.

35 LCL 352 EST/MIN 1/9, 21 August 1906, p. 21-22.

36 LCL 352 EST/MIN 1/9, 21 August 1906, p. 22.

37 LCL 352 EST/MIN 1/9, 13 November 1906, p. 115.

38 LCL 352 EST/MIN 1/9, 22 January 1907, p. 222.

39 Liverpool Journal of Commerce, 30 May 1907, p. 8.

40 Royal Liver Friendly Society (RLFS), Resume of the Proceedings of the AGM, Dublin, May 1907, pp. 38-45.

41 RLFS, Resume of the Proceedings of the AGM, Dublin, May 19007, p. 40. The topic was raised again with equal vehemence at the 1908 AGM, which was attended by both Thomas and Briggs (RLFS, Resume of the Proceedings of the AGM, Great Yarmouth, May 1908, pp. 52-62).

42 Liverpool Post and Mercury, 13 September 1934, p. 6.

43 For a technical description of the building, see The Builder, 98, 9 April 1910, pp. 402-05; The Architects’ and Builders’ Journal, 32, no. 807,20 July 1910, pp. 54 and 72-79; and The Builders’ Journal and Architectural Engineer, 20 May 1908, p. 433. See also The Architectural Review, 30, no. 179 (October 1911), pp. 209-15. The Royal Liver Friendly Society produced two commemorative booklets containing information about the building, one dated 1950 and another 1982, copies in LCL. A copy of the original plans is retained by Liverpool City Council.

44 Cusack, Patricia, ‘Architects and the reinforced concrete specialist in Britain, 1905-1908’, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians of Great Britain, 29 (1986), p. 183 Google Scholar.

45 The General Post Office, King Edward Street, London, 1906-10, by Sir Henry Tanner, for example, the best known ‘ferro-concrete’ building of the time, had the outward appearance of a traditionally constructed stone classical building.

46 ‘Reinforced Concrete in Building Construction’, The Builder, 130, 22 January 1926, pp. 157-58 includes a diagram based on information supplied by Thomas about the construction programme.

47 McKim, Mead and White’s New York Life Insurance Company Building of 1893-99, ^a heavily enriched twelve storey block with a columned entrance portico, massive cornice, and a clock tower bearing a huge sculpture may, for instance, have been familiar to Thomas and his insurance company clients.

48 Cockerell’s Bank of England and Liverpool and London Insurance Company Offices, and Norman Shaw’s White Star Line Building and Parr’s Bank all have granite bases. Another example is Grayson’s, G. E. ‘Granite Buildings’ in Street, Stanley, featured in The British Architect, 18 (1882), pp. 584-85Google Scholar.

49 I am grateful to Joseph Sharpies for drawing my attention to Hawksmoor’s churches of St Anne, Limehouse and St George-in-the-East as possible sources for the towers and domes.

50 Bartels is said to have won the commission to design the liver birds by competition (letter to the author from his great-grandson, Tim Olden, 10 May 2002). Bartels was interned in the Isle of Man during the war, and then repatriated to Germany. At first the birds were gilded. The gilding was done in situ after erection of the birds, and to give protection to the workmen, a scaffold with a windbreak was put in place. Even so, according to George Whewell, one of the craftsmen engaged on the job, twice as much gold leaf was blown away as was applied to the birds ( The Bromsgrove Guild, ed. Watt, Quentin (Warwick, 1909), pp. 33–34 Google Scholar).

51 The diameter of the clock face, at 25 feet, was 2 feet larger than Big Ben, and before the clock was brought to Liverpool from Gents of Leicester where it was made, a celebratory dinner was given for forty guests who sat around the dial in evening dress (RLFS commemorative booklet, 1950).

52 Architects’ and Builders’ Journal, 8, 20 July 1910, p. 80.

53 Royal Liver Friendly Society, centenary booklet, 1950.

54 LCL 352 MIN/EST 1/5, 20 March, 1902, p. 86, and LCL 352 MIN/EST 1/5,17 April 1902, p. 130.

55 LCL 352 MIN/EST 1/5, 8 May 1902, p. 184, and 26 August 1902, pp. 392-94.

56 LCL 352 MIN/EST 1/6, 28 April 1903, pp. 178-84.

57 The Builders’ Journal and Architectural Record, 22 April 1903, pp. 143-45.

58 This action led to an official protest from the RIBA (LCL 352 MIN/EST 1/6, 26 May 1903, pp. 260-61).

59 Liverpool Courier, 5 May 1913, p. 8.

60 LCL Council Proceedings 1903-04, pp. 350-52.

61 Liverpool Daily Post, 8 May 1913, p. 5. A design by Shelmerdine for single storey baths flanked by three storey offices is illustrated in the Proceedings of Council, 1912-13, pp. 927-49. A sum of £70,000 was allocated for the project, see p. 389. This project languished also, and eventually the site was sold to the Tunnel Committee for construction of a ventilation shaft for the Mersey Tunnel.

62 LCL Council Proceedings 1907-08, pp. 376-77.

63 Liverpool Daily Post, 26 February 1912, p. 9. See also LCL Council Proceedings 1912-13, pp. 379-81.

64 Gray, A. Stuart, Edwardian Architecture (London, 1985), pp. 159–60 Google Scholar.

65 The Laconia I and the Franconia I were both sunk in the First World War, and replaced later. Willink and Thicknesse worked on the interiors of the original ships, Mewès and Davis designed the replacements (information from Ann J. Davis Thomas, daughter of Arthur Davis).

66 See for example Pevsner, N., The Buildings of England: South Lancashire (Harmondsworth, 1969), p. 176 Google Scholar.

67 Davis wrote to Sir Arthur Booth, Chairman of Cunard, on 24 March 1916 informing him that he had just accepted a commission in the Intelligence Department, and would be leaving for France the following week. He regretted that he would not be able to help finish off the new building, though the office would be kept going. In another letter dated 19 June 1916, he wrote to Booth from France wishing the company well on their move into the new offices. Booth replied on 26 June, ‘I think the building, both externally and internally is a very great success on which you deserve our heartiest congratulations’ (Cunard archive, University of Liverpool, Sydney Jones Library, D42.C1/114).

68 RIBA Journal, 8, 19 February 1921, p. 210. A feature on the building in The Architectural Review, 41 (May 1917), PP. 86-98 credited the design solely to Willink and Thicknesse. Significantly, in the subsequent issue, an addendum was published, stating that the building had been designed in conjunction with Mewès, and Davis, (The Architectural Review, 41 [June 1917], p. 120)Google Scholar.

69 The drawings are in the possession of Mewès and Davis, Plymouth. There are three drawings: two elevations and one perspective. I am grateful to Mrs Thomas for drawing them to my attention. (At the time of writing the drawings had been mislaid, and it was therefore not possible to obtain a better photograph of Scheme B.)

70 The dated Bedford Lemére negative is in the archive at the NMR. The contract of engagement is held by Gilling Dod Architects, successor practice to Willink and Thicknesse.

71 The New Cunard Building, undated promotional booklet [c. 1917], p. 100.

72 For a description of the building, see The Architectural Review, 41 (May 1917), pp. 86-98, and The New Cunard Building [c. 1917].

73 Davis visited New York in 1905 (information from Mrs Thomas).

74 998 Fifth Avenue was featured in American Architect and Building News, 100,29 November 1911, p. 228, and Architectural Record, 33 (January 1913), pp. 69-73.

75 C. H. Reilly was an ardent advocate of the work of McKim, Mead and White, and in particular the University Club, which he considered to be the equal of the Farnese or Massimi Palazzi. He visited their offices in 1909, used photographs of their work as teaching aids for the students at the Liverpool School of Architecture, and published a book on their work in 1924. Davis was a close friend, and Reilly included a chapter on Davis, in his book Representative British Architects of the Present Day (London, 1931), pp. 67–79 Google Scholar.

76 The New Cunard Building, p. 64.

77 The New York apartment houses by Charles Platt at 131-35 East 66th Street of 1905-07 and 130-34 East 67th Street of 1907 are amongst the earliest adaptations of the Italian Renaissance palazzo to tall urban buildings. Platt skilfully breaks up the height by means of banding, contrasted stone finishes and framing to pairs of windows, all devices used in the design of the Cunard Building.

78 A lecture about the building read by Willink at the RIBA is reported in the RIBA Journal, 8, 19 February 1921, pp. 209-24. The detailing of the building was by J. Watson Cabré, until he enlisted for service in 1916. Harold Dod, a pupil and protege of Reilly, also joined Willink and Thicknesse in 1914 to work on the project.

79 The promotional booklet, The New Cunard Building, romanticized the aesthetic purpose of the building: “The north-west gales in particular are no respecters of the weak, and when the Mersey is flecked with white surges and the wind sweeps in tempestuous gusts, impatient that its violence should be checked by the works of man, the Cunard Building quite justifies its character, for like the ships of the Line, it has a reserve of strength that will enable it to weather, without tremor, the roughest wind that blows’, p. 29.

80 Liverpool Courier, 23 February 1921, p. 3.

81 The false claim that the Corporation imposed a clause on the sale of the land to the Royal Liver Friendly Society requiring that the site be developed in a similar manner to the Dock Offices has often been repeated (for example, Hughes, Quentin, Liverpool, City of Architecture (Liverpool, 1999), p. 134 Google Scholar).

82 The Architectural Review, 41 (May 1917), p. 88.

83 Reilly, C.H., Some Liverpool Streets and Buildings in 1921 (Liverpool, 1921), pp. 13–15 Google Scholar.

84 One of the bound volumes kept by the General Manager of the MDHB is entitled is Liverpool a decaying city? It begins with the report of a debate in Council in October 1904, at which Sir William Forwood described Liverpool as being on the brink of decline, threatened by isolation. Although the proposition was robustly countered by Gladstone and others, present-day analysis shows that economic decline had indeed already taken root (MDHB Newscuttings, 3rd Series, No. 58).

85 Town Planning Review, 1 (July 1910), pp. 87-99.

86 The Lever Prize for 1913 was awarded to H. O. Burroughs for ‘A New Liverpool Waterfront’, illustrated in the Liverpool Daily Post, 3 April 1913, p. 9, and two further schemes by Harold Bradshaw and Bernard Miller appeared in the Liverpool Daily Post, 7 May 1913, p. 9. Bradshaw’s perspective drawing is in the University of Liverpool Art Gallery and Collections.

87 In a lecture to the Liverpool Architectural Society in November 1913, G. H. Grayson described the ‘higgledy-piggledy’ character of the site, where 6,027 trams a day occupied an area intended as a waterfront promenade (Liverpool Courier, 11 November 1913, p. 6).

88 A design by Briggs, Wolstenholme and Thornely, produced in 1907, for improving the Pier Head with riverside colonnades was illustrated in the Liverpool Daily Post, 5 September 1929, p. 10.

89 Liverpool Daily Post, 4 November 1938, p.12.

90 An ambitious scheme by the City Engineer and the City Architect to build a maritime museum, merchant seamen’s memorial, bus terminal and bridges was vetoed by the government in 1950 due to the credit squeeze (Liverpool Echo, 5 December 1950, p. 4). The bus terminal was built in 1963.