Many members of SSC swear. Deal with it.

Is Gothic as well then? because I've been told off for saying something is gay before, and Gothic stood up for me in the name of common sense.

It's all swings and roundabouts, but your point has no grounds man, and you know that full well.

Calling something gay is a bit different from and I quote:
"Teaching a spastic how to wank" and "Jesus Fucking Christ"
Plus calling something gay isn't necessarily referring to
homosexuals (if thats your point?) it can mean many things.

You're too stupid to even realise my point.

I'm going to just lurk on this thread and have a hearty laugh at you from now on. It's no longer like teaching a spastic to wank, it's now like teaching a flid how to fist themselves.

OH NO, THE THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS!

I'll wager you bring this up as some hateful slur against such people. I'll also wager you read The Sun/The Mail if you do.

And if you really did know that's my style, why are you even bringing it up? you're not at all bothered about me offending somebody at all, this is nothing but a shitty childish method to try and drum up support for your petty "hate campaign" (to warrant a phrase) against me.


LoL get over yourself dgnr8
Climb down from your own arse.
I could give two shrugs about you, I was simply pointing out
that LN1 never called it racist yet you and C123 were trying
to take him to the cleaners saying he did. So of course to
back up that claim I had to point out where your language
fails and also why you get away with it.

grego66, If you said the exact same things are dgnr8 says, I wouldn't treat it any differently, he isn't serious, take it lightly for god's sake.
He put a swear word between the name of a person who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, oh lets lynch him for it!

He didn't direct any negative things towards christianity, at all. So he said the name of a religious figure in vain, something I'm sure everyone does everyday.
Godamnit to hell, that's nothing.
On the net you are a click away from some of the most depraved and sickening content availible anywhere ever, a bit of swearing is nothing. Stick and stones and all that.

Leeds is already as important as Manchester

See LN1 posts like that are part of the reason why you have no credibility.

You're too stupid to even realise my point.

I'm going to just lurk on this thread and have a hearty laugh at you from now on. It's no longer like teaching a spastic to wank, it's now like teaching a flid how to fist themselves.

OH NO, THE THALIDOMIDE VICTIMS!

I'll wager you bring this up as some hateful slur against such people. I'll also wager you read The Sun/The Mail if you do.


Whoa this is like the Bill Grundy interview all over again. LOL

Well okay to quote Bill Grundy:

"Keep going, chief.... Keep going. Go on, you've got another five seconds.
Say something outrageous"

"Go on, again"

You claim to be Roman Catholic but stil say Jesus Fucking Christ. Great way to show it there!
www.uksfavouritecity.com How does that show Leeds is good at. Its just a tourist and basic info site. It was voted UK's favourite city so thats something other people came up with. All the facts from that site are official, or were at the time of publishing. Most are still true, they probably all are actually.

grego66, If you said the exact same things are dgnr8 says, I wouldn't treat it any differently, he isn't serious, take it lightly for god's sake.
He put a swear word between the name of a person who may or may not have existed 2000 years ago, oh lets lynch him for it!

He didn't direct any negative things towards christianity, at all. So he said the name of a religious figure in vain, something I'm sure everyone does everyday.
Godamnit to hell, that's nothing.
On the net you are a click away from some of the most depraved and sickening content availible anywhere ever, a bit of swearing is nothing. Stick and stones and all that.

See LN1 posts like that are part of the reason why you have no credibility.


Yes I know C123 but any newbie to the board might be offended by it.
We know his style newbies don't.

grego.

How's that racist? You clearly haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Because its blasphomous against Christianity. Why would I have said it if I didn't know what I was talking about- hah. Next time think. Might be hard learning a new concept but Im sure you'll get there.

He said it's racist because it's blasphomous about Christianity. Try reading the words next time.

You can keep saying Manchester is more important than Leeds and believe it yourself, but the fact is, is that you're wrong but if you want to be wrong then thats you're problem. You don't have anything to say Manchester is more important- hmm I wonder why.

You claim to be Roman Catholic but stil say Jesus Fucking Christ. Great way to show it there!
www.uksfavouritecity.com How does that show Leeds is good at. Its just a tourist and basic info site. It was voted UK's favourite city so thats something other people came up with. All the facts from that site are official, or were at the time of publishing. Most are still true, they probably all are actually.
LN1... tourist sites always overstate the place they are in (in most cases anyway). I'll admit, my own city does it. The links about Preston in my signature claim all these wild and wonderful things about Preston being a beautiful market city that is growing really fast and is the home of football.
That is an overstatement.

grego.
He said it's racist because it's blasphomous about Christianity. Try reading the words next time.


I did read his words post #227 he said and I quote:

"I don't think we need the racist (thats the nearest
word I can think of) here."

We all know what he meant C123!

OK. Ill take that point. Ill say something though- Manchester is definetley a much more establish core and major city which probably is why it can manage to take these accolades whether its Manchester or Leeds or none. But I bet by 5 years once Leeds has got established, as its a relitavely new core city, it will be recognised as much as Manchester- its all stereotypical really.

You can keep saying Manchester is more important than Leeds and believe it yourself, but the fact is, is that you're wrong but if you want to be wrong then thats you're problem. You don't have anything to say Manchester is more important- hmm I wonder why.

IT IS, LN1.

It's so simple, Leeds just is not as big or important as Manchester, Birmingham or London. You seem to have been brainwashed by these tourist sites, which as Accura says are designed to reel in the tourists and if they need to they will overstate things.

Just use your brain for once, use logic instead of believing every pro-Leeds site you read as if they are the flippin bible.

You can keep saying Manchester is more important than Leeds and believe it yourself, but the fact is, is that you're wrong but if you want to be wrong then thats you're problem. You don't have anything to say Manchester is more important- hmm I wonder why.
Was I imagining things when Manchester hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2002 and Leeds didnt? Was I imagining things when Metrolink Phase 3 got approved for Manchester and Leeds Supertram didnt? Was I dreaming when the Bank of New York bought loads of office space in Manchester and didnt even consider Leeds? Was I hearing things when John Prescott said Manchester was the capital of regeneration? Is it an illusion that Manchester is the thriving capital of the UK's most economically successful region? Is it not true that Manchester has 5 city centre railway stations and Leeds has a mere one? Is it a joke that Manchester has the worlds largest student population? Is it a lie that Manchester has the largest airport outside London in the UK with the country's largest freight terminal?

I could go on.

Heres one...

Is it true that all of Leeds 'statistics' are based on a load of crappy surveys which are completely inaccurate?
The UK's favourate city my arse! :lol:

IT IS, LN1.

It's so simple, Leeds just is not as big or important as Manchester, Birmingham or London. You seem to have been brainwashed by these tourist sites, which as Accura says are designed to reel in the tourists and if they need to they will overstate things.

Just use your brain for once, use logic instead of believing every pro-Leeds site you read as if they are the flippin bible.


Has LN1 is trying to point out here manchester, brum and london are
already established cities, they already have the history and the foundation
of big, important cities.
Leeds on the other hand is only relatively speaking just beginning. I would
say instead of 5 years maybe 20 years Leeds will be seen 'without question'
as in the same league as Brum and have more than a good case to suggest
it's importance as a dominating city over manchester.
Already Leeds City employs more people in the centre than manchester and
Leeds is the only one that is growing in populus.

Actually http://www.corecities.org/ Leeds is a core city along with Birmingham
Bristol
Liverpool
Manchester
Newcastle
Nottingham
Sheffield.
Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Glasgow are of similar importance, followed by Newcastle, Nottingham, Sheffield, Bristol, Edinburgh...etc

Manchester may be more important in 1 aspect, but Leeds more important in another. Leeds for example is one of Europes big internet and telecommunication centres as well as big in maufacturing, finance and legal services, but Manchester might be stronger on something else. Liverpool is stronger in shipping for example.
Leeds is just as important as Manchester and Birmingham but Manchester and Birmingham are more established because they've always been important, but Leeds is a new 'big' city.
Don't ask me what this is in comparison to Manchester because I dunno, but this year was the first year Leeds has outdone York in Tourism- that means Leeds' tourist numbers are massive because we all know what a tourist city York is. York btw, what an overrated city.
I havne't been brainwashed by these sites, but I know for a fact it is a big important city. None of you would be getting any ASDA supermarket, any BT, hardly any insurance companies, banks and some TV if Leeds wasn't there- if I could I'd take Leeds 'out' of the cycle for a day to prove its importance because it is a big city often chosn as the 2nd home for many companies.

Was I imagining things when Manchester hosted the Commonwealth Games in 2002 and Leeds didnt? Was I imagining things when Metrolink Phase 3 got approved for Manchester and Leeds Supertram didnt? Was I dreaming when the Bank of New York bought loads of office space in Manchester and didnt even consider Leeds? Was I hearing things when John Prescott said Manchester was the capital of regeneration? Is it an illusion that Manchester is the thriving capital of the UK's most economically successful region? Is it not true that Manchester has 5 city centre railway stations and Leeds has a mere one? Is it a joke that Manchester has the worlds largest student population? Is it a lie that Manchester has the largest airport outside London in the UK with the country's largest freight terminal?

I could go on.

Heres one...

Is it true that all of Leeds 'statistics' are based on a load of crappy surveys which are completely inaccurate?
The UK's favourate city my arse! :lol:

No all that's true but was I dreaming when manchester lost out on its
Olympic bid and the CG were nothing more than a sympathy vote.
Am I completely bonkers when I think manchester (for now) gets all
the handouts from whithall rather than Leeds in this case the tram
issue. Am I completely insane debating with someone who quotes
John Prescott? enough said. Illusion that Manchester is the
thriving capital of the UK's most economically successful region? a
sad claim considering we are debating city v city!
Leeds has the busiest railway station outside London. The airport and
the train station are down to manchesters history. I have already
acknowledged that but things are changing and the mancs don't like
it.

Maybe the Commonwealth Games and Metrolink were in Manchester because it was so run down and needed a bit of regeneration.
Manchester doesn't have the UK's largest airport outside London- maybe in size but not numbers. T3 isn't really T3, its more like T2.
Manchester might have 5 city centre railway stations, but only 2 are of any decant size. Leeds remember used to have 2 big stations but combined to make 1 big station which now is the busiest outside London.

Has LN1 is trying to point out here manchester, brum and london are
already established cities, they already have the history and the foundation
of big, important cities.
Leeds on the other hand is only relatively speaking just beginning. I would
say instead of 5 years maybe 20 years Leeds will be seen 'without question'
as in the same league as Brum and have more than a good case to suggest
it's importance as a dominating city over manchester.
Already Leeds City employs more people in the centre than manchester and
Leeds is the only one that is growing in populus.
For that to happen Leeds would have to grow at its current rate non stop (which IS NOT going to happen) for the next 20 years and both Manchester and Birmingham would have to stop growth or reduce (also which is not going to happen).
Wait and see.

Maybe the Commonwealth Games and Metrolink were in Manchester because it was so run down and needed a bit of regeneration.
Manchester doesn't have the UK's largest airport outside London- maybe in size but not numbers. T3 isn't really T3, its more like T2.
Manchester might have 5 city centre railway stations, but only 2 are of any decant size. Leeds remember used to have 2 big stations but combined to make 1 big station which now is the busiest outside London.
Birmingham New Street is the busiest station outside London. It has been said several times.

Manchester already had a 'shrink' as did Liverpool and Glasgow, not sure about Birmingham, so I don't see why it can't happen again. When the shrinks were happening Leeds didn't suffer because it wasn't a big city then- well not as big as those cities.

For that to happen Leeds would have to grow at its current rate non stop (which IS NOT going to happen) for the next 20 years and both Manchester and Birmingham would have to stop growth or reduce (also which is not going to happen).
Wait and see.



Leeds already employs more people in its city centre than manchester and
Leeds is still in its crib as far as development.

Maybe the Commonwealth Games and Metrolink were in Manchester because it was so run down and needed a bit of regeneration.

Right, so they won the right to host the Commonwealth Games and only has a Metrolink because it's so run down. Oh my what BRILLIANT logic. You are going green aren't you.


Manchester doesn't have the UK's largest airport outside London- maybe in size but not numbers. T3 isn't really T3, its more like T2.

??????? Well that made no sense.

Birmingham New Street is the busiest station outside London. It has been said several times.

Erm... I don't care how many times it's been said but Leeds is
the busiest train station outside London.

Leeds already employs more people in its city centre than manchester and
Leeds is still in its crib as far as development.
Oh really? With all these faceless apartments going up, your bubble will burst within the next five years unless there is significant economic growth. Otherwise you just wont have the market.
Manchester also has far more development than Leeds and much more of it is non residential.

Leeds already employs more people in its city centre than manchester

With projects like Spinningfields and Greengate, that will change.

I really am astounded at their inability to realise how ridiculous each "point" they make sounds.

Manchester already had a 'shrink' as did Liverpool and Glasgow, not sure about Birmingham, so I don't see why it can't happen again. When the shrinks were happening Leeds didn't suffer because it wasn't a big city then- well not as big as those cities.

The central Manchester political borough seemed to shrink because of estimation errors(Westminster was also badly estimated), but the actual 'city' urban mass of Manchester didn't shrink in terms of population.

The city centre had 1000 residents in 1990, that figure will be 25,000 when all under construction and projects in planning at the moment are completed. Not much of a shrink.

Erm... I don't care how many times it's been said but Leeds is
the busiest train station outside London.

You've just been told once again that Leeds doesn't have the busiest outside of London. There's many facts to prove this, and I'll let you discover them. But once again, Brum New Street is the busiest. Don't take it to heart, DON'T CRY GREGGO :*****(

Erm... I don't care how many times it's been said but Leeds is
the busiest train station outside London.
According to your precious surveys! :bleh:
What did they do, stand in the station for one day counting how many people departed and arrived at Leeds without even considering that the figures could change within a day?

Right, so they won the right to host the Commonwealth Games and only has a Metrolink because it's so run down. Oh my what BRILLIANT logic. You are going green aren't you.


Green? Actually no I'm extremely excited at my cities developments.
God only knows why you guys get all the handouts... ever since the
bomb you've got everything.
I don't wanna sound like sour grapes but the CG's isn't that big you
know. Most people outside the Commonwealth haven't even heard of
them.

You've just been told once again that Leeds doesn't have the busiest outside of London. There's many facts to prove this, and I'll let you discover them. But once again, Brum New Street is the busiest. Don't take it to heart, DON'T CRY GREGGO :*****(


I'm not crying you silly sausage.

In fact earlier in this thread I posted you a link which
states that Leeds is the busiest train station (PDF) but
you didn't reply back!

You need to download acrobat reader my old cocker.

I don't wanna sound like sour grapes but the CG's isn't that big you
know. Most people outside the Commonwealth haven't even heard of
them.
Sour grapes indeed :sleepy:
They're only the worlds second largest athletics event...

Green? Actually no I'm extremely excited at my cities developments.
God only knows why you guys get all the handouts... ever since the
bomb you've got everything.
Metrolink wasnt a handout, believe me. Didnt you see how many protests took place to get it to happen? Shows that the Mancunians actually care about their city's development while the Loiners didnt give supertram a second thought.

Oh really? With all these faceless apartments going up, your bubble will burst within the next five years unless there is significant economic growth. Otherwise you just wont have the market.
Manchester also has far more development than Leeds and much more of it is non residential.
With projects like Spinningfields and Greengate, that will change.

Yes Really.
I just love your descriptive writing AP LOL
'Faceless apartments' LOL
If you wanna win a debate you are going to have to
do better than name calling. Next you will be cussing
like a frustrated student. ROFLMAO

So is that a prediction then AP

Okay we shall see eh?

Sour grapes indeed :sleepy:
They're only the worlds second largest athletics event...


Metrolink wasnt a handout, believe me. Didnt you see how many protests took place to get it to happen? Shows that the Mancunians actually care about their city's development while the Loiners didnt give supertram a second thought.


Maybe but athletics is an extremely unpopular sport relatively
speaking to other sports and still no one has heard of the CG
outside the Comonwealth! So what's your point?

Metrolink was a handout.

Yes Really.
I just love your descriptive writing AP LOL
'Faceless apartments' LOL
If you wanna win a debate you are going to have to
do better than name calling. Next you will be cussing
like a frustrated student. ROFLMAO
Most of the developments going up in Leeds are apartments and they are faceless. Globe Road? West Point? City Island? New York House?
All very bland stuff. CP is excellent but its not going to be built for years.

Maybe but athletics is an extremely unpopular sport relatively
speaking to other sports and still no one has heard of the CG
outside the Comonwealth! So what's your point?

Metrolink was a handout.
Most Europeans (outside the commonwealth) have heard of the CWG because of the BBC and other things. The USA havnt heard of it because of their ignorant media who turn a blind eye to the rest of the world.

That's a total lie Grego and you know you're just going off of other people's uneducated views. The CG is a very recognised event, but it's not recognised in terms of world athletic standings. And to say no one has heard of it outside the CW therefore rendering it pretty much unwatched is bollocks. There's almost a billion "members" of the commonwealth. That's roughly just short of a 6th of the World's population.

Now considering the Olympics peaked at a 3 billion viewing figure this year, it's not unreasonable to assume Manchester's games would've had worldwide figures of around the half billion mark.

And seeing as you're disparaging the games, tell me why internationally recognised cities of Kuala Lumpur and Melbourne have/are hosting the games either side of Manchester? The MCC (probably the third most internationally known sports venue after the Maracana and Wembley) will be the host stadium, upgraded specifically to hold 100,000+ once the games come about.

Say what you will about Manchester, but don't slag something off like the commonwealth games when you clearly know fuck all about them.

And we've not had fuck all handed to us. We got some (some, not all) money for our new stadium and to my mind, everything else has been constructed privately or from European funds, purposely set aside to help European cities to revitalise themselves after something dreadful happens (in our case, the IRA bomb).

I await the piss poor argument now of "Manchester's only getting hand outs because it was bombed".

CP is excellent but its not going to be built for years.

My point entirely I said in 20 years time maybe then Leeds will be
regarded as the dominant city of the North. Now in the public and
medias eye it is manchester and that is down to its history and
currently all these handouts.

Do you really think that for the next 20 years, Manchester would cease to expand and let other regional cities reap the economic rewards?

Most Europeans (outside the commonwealth) have heard of the CWG because of the BBC and other things. The USA havnt heard of it because of their ignorant media who turn a blind eye to the rest of the world.

Rubbish the average Italian hasn't heard of the CG same for the French,
Italians, Spanish, Germans etc. etc. etc.

Most people fromthe USA didn't even know their team had reached the
quarter final of the World Cup so there's no argument there.

My point entirely I said in 20 years time maybe then Leeds will be
regarded as the dominant city of the North.
There is about a 0.0001/10000 chance of that happening considering Liverpool is also more important than Leeds. Plus in 20 years time, anything could happen. Even Preston could be a core city.

That's a total lie Grego and you know you're just going off of other people's uneducated views. The CG is a very recognised event, but it's not recognised in terms of world athletic standings. And to say no one has heard of it outside the CW therefore rendering it pretty much unwatched is bollocks. There's almost a billion "members" of the commonwealth. That's roughly just short of a 6th of the World's population.

Now considering the Olympics peaked at a 3 billion viewing figure this year, it's not unreasonable to assume Manchester's games would've had worldwide figures of around the half billion mark.

And seeing as you're disparaging the games, tell me why internationally recognised cities of Kuala Lumpur and Melbourne have/are hosting the games either side of Manchester? The MCC (probably the third most internationally known sports venue after the Maracana and Wembley) will be the host stadium, upgraded specifically to hold 100,000+ once the games come about.

Say what you will about Manchester, but don't slag something off like the commonwealth games when you clearly know fuck all about them.

Dgnr8 no one has heard of the CG outside the Commonwealth. The majority
of people within the Commonwealth could give two fucks about the CG and an
extremely large portion of the people inside the Commonwealth don't even own
a TV so they can't sit down and watch it.

Same as the Olympics really... :sleepy:

And we've not had fuck all handed to us. We got some (some, not all) money for our new stadium and to my mind, everything else has been constructed privately or from European funds, purposely set aside to help European cities to revitalise themselves after something dreadful happens (in our case, the IRA bomb).

I await the piss poor argument now of "Manchester's only getting hand outs because it was bombed".


There's nowt piss poor about it.
manchester has had millions ploughed into the city because of the bomb.

manchester gets all the handouts compared to cities like Leeds irrelevant
of the bomb.

There is about a 0.0001/10000 chance of that happening considering Liverpool is also more important than Leeds. Plus in 20 years time, anything could happen. Even Preston could be a core city.



Oh jeez not another one LOL

How on earth is liverpool more important than Leeds. Don't be absurd lad.

Do you really think that for the next 20 years, Manchester would cease to expand and let other regional cities reap the economic rewards?

Idiot manchester can't expand! It can grow up that's all and it currently is
in splendid fashion but Leeds is the city of the future when it comes to the
North of England.

Dgnr8 no one has heard of the CG outside the Commonwealth. The majority
of people within the Commonwealth could give two fucks about the CG and an
extremely large portion of the people inside the Commonwealth don't even own
a TV so they can't sit down and watch it.

I'm waiting for the second part of this message where you say the other members of the commonwealth run around tossing spears. That's so fucking ridiculous what you've said it's untrue. And as for your "Americans don't know they got to the quarter finals" thing, that again is another typical cynical Anglo view. It's wrong. Many many Americans know they got to the QF. They may not like football, but if you really are so ignorant to think people don't give a shit that their top athletes are performing on the world stage (world cup or commonwealth games, it goes hand in hand) then you've lost what little credit you previously had.

Right, I'm going to say this once : before piping up more "facts" grego, don't be an arrogant tool and discount everything. I'm really fucking angry at your slights against the CG and America's interest in the World Cup, not because of any animosity between me and you, but because they're very very narrow minded "views" with no base for facts.

You're not just making a fool out of yourself in those respects, but you're being disgustingly ignorant to the other nations who actually do give a shit in these things. Regardless of us hosting it, the CG is a very prestigious event, whether you believe it or not (whatever suits your anti manc argument really), and to say nobody gives a shit when there's kids in Africa and Asia are striving to be known as sports heros by competing in these events is really fucking ignorant.

I'm waiting for the second part of this message where you say the other members of the commonwealth run around tossing spears. That's so fucking ridiculous what you've said it's untrue. And as for your "Americans don't know they got to the quarter finals" thing, that again is another typical cynical Anglo view. It's wrong. Many many Americans know they got to the QF. They may not like football, but if you really are so ignorant to think people don't give a shit that their top athletes are performing on the world stage (world cup or commonwealth games, it goes hand in hand) then you've lost what little credit you previously had.


yeh C123 tried that one a while back:
"you've lost what little credit you previously had"

It didn't work then and it aint gonna work now.

The fact of the matter is that the CG are not recognised, they simply aren't.
Generally speaking they are not known about anywhere outside the Commonwealth.
That is fact. How would people in countries outside the Commonwealth know
about the CG?
I know many people in the US many... all football fans and all have said the
same thing. "Hardly anyone knows about us being in the quarters" that is
because of the media in the States and because footy (soccer) largely speaking
is ignored in the States. No one knows about the CG in the States either. Why
would they know?

If it had been in Leeds it would have been a "world class sporting event". At the end of the day it was so important to the country that they spent millions on those opening and closing ceremonies, whereas the World Indoor Athletics Championships in Birmingham (note the word WORLD) will get far less viewers because it is a much smaller event so it won't have such elaborate ceremonies.

At the end of the day, Leeds could never hope to match the international events that Manchester and Birmingham get (Manchester moreso than Birmingham at the moment). This is because Leeds simply doesn't have the facilities to host them.

grego, if you think the CWG did nothing for Manchester, see for yourself...

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManExchSqCGPan2725XL.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManPiccGdnsCrowdsx42726.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManPiccGdnsCGx42527.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManTHallCGFlags2727V.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManNewCathStPerfrmrs2730.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManKingStCGBanners2803.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManSportctyNthEntr2803.jpg

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/ewm/001ewm/lg/ManExchSqCGCloseNt2804XL.jpg

I'm sure Leeds could use a slice of that :D

They would know the same way we know about the Kings Cup, and how the world knows the FA Cup : by following athletes they admire.

You're wrong about the world cup and America. Really. The Americans didn't just forget they had a team after USA 96. But I suppose you're going to tell me now they didn't know they possess the best women's team in the world now aren't you.

Americans don't know about the CG. That's true. But they're a small percentage of the World. There's a lot more to life than just America.

I bet you're one of these people that thinks the entirety of America is a redneck, religious fuckwad on the premise that Bush is in power.

I bet you're one of these people that thinks the entirety of America is a redneck, religious fuckwad on the premise that Bush is in power.

You mean they aren't? :jk:

Right, I'm going to say this once : before piping up more "facts" grego, don't be an arrogant tool and discount everything. I'm really fucking angry at your slights against the CG and America's interest in the World Cup, not because of any animosity between me and you, but because they're very very narrow minded "views" with no base for facts.

You're not just making a fool out of yourself in those respects, but you're being disgustingly ignorant to the other nations who actually do give a shit in these things. Regardless of us hosting it, the CG is a very prestigious event, whether you believe it or not (whatever suits your anti manc argument really), and to say nobody gives a shit when there's kids in Africa and Asia are striving to be known as sports heros by competing in these events is really fucking ignorant.


Your angry at me? My My spoken from the mouth that
was and I quote:
"teaching spastics how to wank"
d'ya realise what a drop kick you are sounding like now?
Making some almost moral stand on this issue yet you
were totally out of order earlier in the thread and now I am
supposed to regard you with any importance or decency.

Well if you are genuine in this stand let me make it
perfectly clear:
The CG are unimportant everywhere outside the
Commonwealth and the World Cup was largely ignored in
the States. That is fact, I have heard it from the horses
mouth.

They are not slights against the CG or the Yanks I am
simply pointing out fact. It is fact whether you like it or
not.

Of course there is kids in Africa and Asia who are striving
to be sports heroes what's that got to do with what I said?
If by some twisted logic you are saying I have something
against these kids then get off that because I'm not. What
I'm saying is the CG are largely unheard of outside the
Commonwealth!

grego, if you think the CWG did nothing for Manchester, see for yourself...


I'm sure Leeds could use a slice of that :D


I never said it didn't do nothing for manchester. I said no one
knows about the event outside of the Commonwealth.

What's more I seem to remember more people waiting for the
result of the Olympic bid. A lot, lot more in fact.

Why are you the only person who can't understand anything I say?

I'm not addressing fuck all now because you're simply a lost cause, not to mention an intolerable brigadoon of biblical proportions.

OH NO, THE BIBLE WAS MENTIONED, PHONE THE POPE

If it had been in Leeds it would have been a "world class sporting event". At the end of the day it was so important to the country that they spent millions on those opening and closing ceremonies, whereas the World Indoor Athletics Championships in Birmingham (note the word WORLD) will get far less viewers because it is a much smaller event so it won't have such elaborate ceremonies.

At the end of the day, Leeds could never hope to match the international events that Manchester and Birmingham get (Manchester moreso than Birmingham at the moment). This is because Leeds simply doesn't have the facilities to host them.


Yeh EB and if Kirkgate Market was in manchester indoor markets would be the
bees knees when it came to city centre shopping. LOL transparent.

Correct as things stand now Leeds simply doesn't have the facilities. Why?
hmmm maybe because it was manchester who got all the handouts to build
said developments. Who knows.

For the record, I realise "Brigadoon" is a Scottish term and has fuck all to do with Grego. It's just preposterously pleasing to the tongue.

Why are you the only person who can't understand anything I say?

I'm not addressing fuck all now because you're simply a lost cause, not to mention an intolerable brigadoon of biblical proportions.

OH NO, THE BIBLE WAS MENTIONED, PHONE THE POPE


What the fuck as the pope got to do with the bible?
The catholic faith does not have a monopoly on the Christian religion.

I'm....I'm honestly amazed you've chosen that of all things to argue about.

I never said that the Kirkgate Market wasn't good (though I don't know markets by names so I don't know which one it is). What I have said is that overall, when you take all the shopping in Manchester into account (including Arndale, Trafford, Lowry, Triangle and god knows how many shopping streets crammed with stuff) Manchester easily beats Leeds. What you're saying is that "Your 1000 Xs aren't as good as my 100 Ys because Y is twice as good as X". Think about it. Even if Y is twice as good as X you still would need 500 Ys for it to be equal. Leeds has the quality, just nowhere near the range.

As for the Commonwealth Games facilities, G-Mex was an old railway station, the City of Manchester Stadium will eventually be paid for by Man City, MEN Arena is a private sector initiative, and the swimming and velodrome facilities are part funded by the universities. in 2029 less than 10% of the costs wont have been covered by the city.

I'm....I'm honestly amazed you've chosen that of all things to argue about.


No don't be amazed because any self respecting catholic would have a word
with you about justifying the quote:
"Jesus Fucking Christ"
with "Im a catholic"

Just because you are a catholic doesn't give you the right to take the Lords
name in vain on a public chat brd. As I said any self respecting catholic
would Dam you for that.

I never said that the Kirkgate Market wasn't good (though I don't know markets by names so I don't know which one it is). What I have said is that overall, when you take all the shopping in Manchester into account (including Arndale, Trafford, Lowry, Triangle and god knows how many shopping streets crammed with stuff) Manchester easily beats Leeds. What you're saying is that "Your 1000 Xs aren't as good as my 100 Ys because Y is twice as good as X". Think about it. Even if Y is twice as good as X you still would need 500 Ys for it to be equal. Leeds has the quality, just nowhere near the range.

As for the Commonwealth Games facilities, G-Mex was an old railway station, the City of Manchester Stadium will eventually be paid for by Man City, MEN Arena is a private sector initiative, and the swimming and velodrome facilities are part funded by the universities. in 2029 less than 10% of the costs wont have been covered by the city.

Behave EB not this range bullshit again.
Leeds city centre beats manchester city on a lot of levels when it comes to
shopping.
Que ...bring in surrounding areas of manchester city.

and forget algebra.

Where did I use my ties with Catholicism to justify saying "Jesus Fucking Christ"?

What about saying "Oh god, not something or something", would that appease you? Of course not, because Jehovah would be VERY fucked off with me using his name to start a sentence of astoundment.

I'm being sarcastic. Don't be a big girl. OH NO, CALL THE BIG GIRL SOCIETY!!!!

Can't you work out that when I do shit like that in capitals, I'm taking the piss out of how ridiculous you're sounding?

You could fuck the Trafford Centre off all together and Manchester is still better than Leeds for shopping. The only thing I've seen that's different from Manchester is the markets. Big whoop. We may not have one big fancy one in the centre but there's hundreds of daily markets spread throughout Greater Manchester.

Leeds only caters to the street chic. You've admitted this yourself. Manchester really does have shopping for *every* type of person you could wish for, and more of it.

But then so does Birmingham. And London. And Glasgow. You're not special for shopping anymore. The fact you had a Harvey Nicks before anyone except London seems to have gone to your head a bit.

Leeds city centre beats manchester city on a lot of levels when it comes to shopping

Too bad that's all it can even come close to Manchester on.

Where did I use my ties with Catholicism to justify saying "Jesus Fucking Christ"?

What about saying "Oh god, not something or something", would that appease you? Of course not, because Jehovah would be VERY fucked off with me using his name to start a sentence of astoundment.

I'm being sarcastic. Don't be a big girl. OH NO, CALL THE BIG GIRL SOCIETY!!!!

Can't you work out that when I do shit like that in capitals, I'm taking the piss out of how ridiculous you're sounding?


When you were trying to belittle the unfortunate quote:
"Jesus Fucking Christ"

You're attempting to play it down now but you were out of order.
There's a big difference between:
"Oh god, not something or something"
than the latter.

Too bad that's all it can even come close to Manchester on.



Hmmm maybe, maybe not but whichever that's only for now.

Hmmm maybe, maybe not but whichever that's only for now.

Yeah, Leeds is going to keep falling further and further behind. After all, people live, work and play in conurbations, they don't restrict themselves to artificial boundaries. The simple fact is that the Manchester City Region is the fastest growing in the UK economically, meaning it will continue to leave Leeds behind.

No there isn't, if you're arguing about blasphemy then don't change your argument. One is not worse than the other, they're both equally blasphemous. Do you tell a child off for saying "arse" or do you tell the child off for using a low level of vulgarity? Make your fucking mind up.

I could quite easily say "Jesus titty fucking Christ" and it wouldn't be blasphemous. Why? Because it DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY ONE PERSON OR GROUP OTHER THAN BY NAME. I'm NOT attacking anybody, I'm NOT disparaging a religion (and you've got some fucking cheek to question my beliefs) and I'm certainly NOT backing down on my previous stance. I know I'm right, others have agreed but you being a fucking nonce, are blowing things way out of preportion to stave off some of the tidal wave of shit that's been flowing your way.

Tidal wave? Shit, by grego's reckoning I need to send an apology letter to the Prime Minister of Thailand.

You could fuck the Trafford Centre off all together and Manchester is still better than Leeds for shopping. The only thing I've seen that's different from Manchester is the markets. Big whoop. We may not have one big fancy one in the centre but there's hundreds of daily markets spread throughout Greater Manchester.

Leeds only caters to the street chic. You've admitted this yourself. Manchester really does have shopping for *every* type of person you could wish for, and more of it.

But then so does Birmingham. And London. And Glasgow. You're not special for shopping anymore. The fact you had a Harvey Nicks before anyone except London seems to have gone to your head a bit.

Who cares whats in GM we are talking city ve city.

Dgnr8 you completely misunderstood what I said about street chic. I was
referring to manchester when I said it and I was being complimentary
particulary to the shops that cater to the undergound and alternative in
other words the street chic. manchester is probably the best city around
for this I ackowledge that but Leeds is up and coming with places like
Granary Wharf and Corn Exchange.

You can't compare the corn exchange to anything in Manc. The building is wonderful, but the shops are chains man. They're not independent stores. The shops you have in the corn exchange can be found in most UK cities. And you're lying, you were totally agreeing with me about Leeds only catering for trendy street chic people. Don't be such a whiney fag and just admit it.

And again, your knowledge knows no bounds! Manchester's underground scene is good but not on a par with London. To say it's the best in the country is like me saying Leeds has the best shopping in the country because somebody told me once. Uh oh!

Greg, people from Leeds (well, you and Leeds No.1) are the only ones who seem to think a city should be restricted to an artificial boundary. Everyone else considers the "city" to be the conurbation. After all, that's where you live, work and play. You don't restrict yourself to an artificial boundary. Even Gothic came into the conversation a while back to say that yourself and Leeds No.1 were being arses and that both Salford and Trafford are a part of Manchester in the same way as Westminster is in London.

Alright then, bollocks to just GMCR. Manchester it is. There are over 13 full on markets in my locality (and they're the only ones that spring to mind). I live at least 6 miles from any boarder. All are within this fake small city you insist on.

No there isn't, if you're arguing about blasphemy then don't change your argument. One is not worse than the other, they're both equally blasphemous. Do you tell a child off for saying "arse" or do you tell the child off for using a low level of vulgarity? Make your fucking mind up.

I could quite easily say "Jesus titty fucking Christ" and it wouldn't be blasphemous. Why? Because it DOES NOT RELATE TO ANY ONE PERSON OR GROUP OTHER THAN BY NAME. I'm NOT attacking anybody, I'm NOT disparaging a religion (and you've got some fucking cheek to question my beliefs) and I'm certainly NOT backing down on my previous stance. I know I'm right, others have agreed but you being a fucking nonce, are blowing things way out of preportion to stave off some of the tidal wave of shit that's been flowing your way.

Tidal wave? Shit, by grego's reckoning I need to send an apology letter to the Prime Minister of Thailand.

I have to admit I don't even know if this post was directed at me!
Fact is you were out of order I never mentioned blasphemy!!! the
bottome line is you went too far and probably will do again.

There's no shit coming my way I can't handle. Tidal wave? What are
you talking about - serious question.

The only thing I am guilty of is bringing it up again and that's because
you of all people "got angry" at me because I was stating fact about
the CG. The same person who writes low-life stuff like you do has the
balls to get angry at me for putting a few people right about a sporting
event.

If you really don't know what the tidal wave thing was in reference too, I'm going to leave SSC for good, full of content in the knowledge that I'm really not that bad a person.

You can't compare the corn exchange to anything in Manc. The building is wonderful, but the shops are chains man. They're not independent stores. The shops you have in the corn exchange can be found in most UK cities. And you're lying, you were totally agreeing with me about Leeds only catering for trendy street chic people. Don't be such a whiney fag and just admit it.

And again, your knowledge knows no bounds! Manchester's underground scene is good but not on a par with London. To say it's the best in the country is like me saying Leeds has the best shopping in the country because somebody told me once. Uh oh!


No find the thread/post I am not lying you are wrong about
what I meant by street chic. Street Chic means the alternative
people. Go read the series of posts again.

I didn't say manchesters underground scene was the best
I said it's probably the best. I should have said 'in the
North of England' but I thought London would go without
saying Carnaby Street etc. manchester can't compete with
that and we all know it. It goes witout saying.

manchester can't compete with
that and we all know it. It goes witout saying.

Neither can any other UK cities.

If you really don't know what the tidal wave thing was in reference too, I'm going to leave SSC for good, full of content in the knowledge that I'm really not that bad a person.

LoL
No one is saying you are a bad person (I don't think I did)
just that you tend to be a bit colourful in your language and
probably offensive to people who don't know your style.

Instead of apologising for making a couple of posts which would
have got you banned from all the forums I know of you have
simply gone on and wormed your way out of it.

Tidal Wave get real okay! manchester when it comes to shopping
doesn't have anything on Leeds WTF is this tidal wave?

manchester when it comes to shopping
doesn't have anything on Leeds

Yet more bollocks. Had too much to drink this season greg?

Neither can any other UK cities.


Exactly that is why it should go without saying and that's why
I didn't say it. manchester on the other hand particularly in the
80's was probably the best (OUTSIDE LONDON) for alternative
shopping.


Leeds is coming up now though. There are loads of independant
stores in the Corn Exchange, my Auntie owned one and I have
a mate that owns another for starters. Then there's Granary Wharf
and in the 70's not now though the Merrian Centre market could
make a fair claim for underground shopping particularly record shops
(rarities).

Yet more bollocks. Had too much to drink this season greg?


I rarely drink C123
Leeds has it over manchester when it comes to shopping.
Shoppers in manchester have to cross streets busy with cars to
get from A 2 B - enough said.
Shoppers in Leeds don't have this problem. We have an unmatchable
pedestrian area that covers a fucking massive area filled with wonderful
arcades, architecture, shopping centres, shops, stores, convenience, the
ultimate shoppers trip. The ambience is there. I know of nowhere in
manchester where this buzz can be found.

Just the trifling matter of over 25,000 lives being lost over the past 48 hours Grego.

The fact you're oblivious to either the event or the reference is absurd. My 4 year old cousin said a prayer for them yesterday without any coercing. It has nothing to do with anything, I know, I was making light of you. Bollocks to it, I'm going to get stoned now. I suggest you try skunk sometime Grego, it might drag you out of your sheltered life sometime.

I don't need to find the thread Grego because you're posting in it. About 4 pages back. Do keep up, spacky.

I rarely drink C123
Leeds has it over manchester when it comes to shopping.
Shoppers in manchester have to cross streets busy with cars to
get from A 2 B - enough said.

CASE CLOSED, LOCK THE DOORS AND SEAL UP THE WINDOWS BOYS, NO SHOPPING FOR YOU MANCS TODAY!

I rarely drink C123
Leeds has it over manchester when it comes to shopping.
Shoppers in manchester have to cross streets busy with cars to
get from A 2 B - enough said.
Shoppers in Leeds don't have this problem. We have an unmatchable
pedestrian area that covers a fucking massive area filled with wonderful
arcades, architecture, shopping centres, shops, stores, convenience, the
ultimate shoppers trip. The ambience is there. I know of nowhere in
manchester where this buzz can be found.

And Manchester has the small matter of more than twice the number of shops and a much larger selection of goods. A pedestrianised area doesn't make a city centre the best for shopping. Leeds is nice to go to but you can't get everything you would need there. Manchester, on the other hand, has everything. You name something you can buy in Leeds but not Manchester. As for the other way around, lets start with the entire range at Selfridges!

Just the trifling matter of over 25,000 lives being lost over the past 48 hours Grego.

The fact you're oblivious to either the event or the reference is absurd. My 4 year old cousin said a prayer for them yesterday without any coercing. It has nothing to do with anything, I know, I was making light of you. Bollocks to it, I'm going to get stoned now. I suggest you try skunk sometime Grego, it might drag you out of your sheltered life sometime.


I know of the disastour dgnr8 I was saying WTF as it got to do
with the argument?

Now you are still trying to worm out of wht you posted but even
now going to lower depths.

Shame on you dgnr8.

I don't need drugs.

You obviously do grego because you're a total fuckwit without them.

I don't need rugs.

Why not? Already dillusional enough? :)


Very ridiculous statement about the shopping. Manchester has more shops, but Leeds is better for shopping because you have to cross less roads. Bollocks.

And Manchester has the small matter of more than twice the number of shops and a much larger selection of goods. A pedestrianised area doesn't make a city centre the best for shopping. Leeds is nice to go to but you can't get everything you would need there. Manchester, on the other hand, has everything. You name something you can buy in Leeds but not Manchester. As for the other way around, lets start with the entire range at Selfridges!


Forget it *EB* twice the number of shops? Rubbish where you
getting your stats from?
What can you get in manchester that the average shopper can't
get in Leeds?
A pedestrianised area is a good claim. The inner city area of Leeds
is like a massive shopping centre without the roof.
I'm talking atmosphere and convenience, Leeds has this over
manchester.
Yes manchester has a Selfridges but you can't tell me Leeds wont
get a Selfridges soon.
Leeds can get a Selfridges manchester can't re-structure it's physical
layout, that's what's important to the average shopper... convenience,
atmoshere, good architecture, range of shops where people can walk
to and from without fear of getting knocked over or breathing in gas
fumes.


*Edit* Forget it EB not C123

I don't need to find the thread Grego because you're posting in it. About 4 pages back. Do keep up, spacky.

I think you do to back up your claim.
Or you have and realised after re-reading what I wrote that you
in fact are wrong by calling me a liar.


You called me a liar you find the post I have lied in. Simple isn't it?

Why not? Already dillusional enough? :)


Very ridiculous statement about the shopping. Manchester has more shops, but Leeds is better for shopping because you have to cross less roads. Bollocks.


I never said manchester has more shops so what statement
are you talking about.

There's nowt bollocks about it. Leeds has a fantastic area for
shopping. Deal with it, manchester doesn't.

Believe me when I say I'm sorry for misunderstanding then. But my claim is the same, Leeds is shit unless you're the type to go clubbing at Evo and Creation. There's fuck all to cater for any other type of person except for the below par corn exchange.

I may've been wrong about what you said, but my argument still holds. I wasn't on about alternative chic, I was on about general shopping wares. The nightlife and shopping culture is dominated by trendy bop shite that fair enough, is there for the people who want it, but Leeds is horrendously lacking if you're not a wanker.

On that logic of yours grego, despite having many many more shops than Leeds, is London worse as a shopping destination due to roads being everywhere?

Forget it *EB* twice the number of shops? Rubbish where you
getting your stats from?
What can you get in manchester that the average shopper can't
get in Leeds?

I'm going off the fact that a site Leeds No.1 posted stated that there are around 500 shops in Leeds. This is less than in the Trafford Centre and Arndale Centre (by 60 shops), never mind the rest.

As for what you can get here but not in Leeds:
The contents of Selfridges (both of them), the contents of Afflecks Palace, the contents of the Lowry outlet, the contents of the stores in the Triangle... need I continue?

There's nothing like King Street in Leeds either.

On that logic of yours grego, despite having many many more shops than Leeds, is London worse as a shopping destination due to roads being everywhere?


Well unlike manchester London also has large areas that are
pedestrianised. London is superior than either of our two
cities when it comes to everything including shopping IMO.

London is superior than either of our two
cities when it comes to everything including shopping IMO.

It goes without saying, greg.

Its main shopping district doesn't. Oxford Road, Piccadilly, Regent Street, pretty much all of the city centre is overwhelmed by roads.

Would it upset you to learn that the busiest shopping street in the uk after Oxford Road is Market Street in Manchester? Would it upset you further more to learn Market Street is totally pedestrianised? Hmmmmmm?

Heh. :)

I'm going off the fact that a site Leeds No.1 posted stated that there are around 500 shops in Leeds. This is less than in the Trafford Centre and Arndale Centre (by 60 shops), never mind the rest.

As for what you can get here but not in Leeds:
The contents of Selfridges (both of them), the contents of Afflecks Palace, the contents of the Lowry outlet, the contents of the stores in the Triangle... need I continue?


Please do continue. As I have said there's no reason why Leeds wont
get a Selfridges. I am very familiar with the Afflecks Palace and a lot
of the stuff in there is largely commercial now which can be found elsewhere,
stuff like the fetish wear stuff, T.Shirts and the collector and memorobilia
shops... similiar goods can be found everywhere.
The Lowry outlet are regional specific which every town in England can
boast these type of shops.
I am talking in general we can't become too specific. I will give you Selfridges
as things stand now but there's no reason why Leeds can't get one. It's not
that long ago that you didn't have a Harvey Nicks so things change.

It goes without saying, greg.


Aw your taking the piss now :)

Its main shopping district doesn't. Oxford Road, Piccadilly, Regent Street, pretty much all of the city centre is overwhelmed by roads.

Would it upset you to learn that the busiest shopping street in the uk after Oxford Road is Market Street in Manchester? Would it upset you further more to learn Market Street is totally pedestrianised? Hmmmmmm?


Absolutely not. In fact earlier in this thread I pointed out Market Street in
a positive sense but was put down by another manc poster who said something
like it was horrendous or words similiar to that. In other words he wasn't being
complimentary to MS.
I said Market Street is totally pedestrianised and that it has that hustle and
bustle. I like it especially the mad buskers in the undercover bit.

I am very familiar with Market Street and I can't see how this is busier than
Briggate which also is completely pedestrianised. I'd liketo see wher you got
that from.

Would it upset you further more to learn Market Street is totally pedestrianised? Hmmmmmm?

Yes, and so are St. Anne`s Square, King Street and Exchange Square. Greggo needs to go shopping in Manc more often

You're honestly comparing Briggate to Market Street? Heh.

Yes, and so are St. Anne`s Square, King Street and Exchange Square. Greggo needs to go shopping in Manc more often

Yes I know J55 but to get from one to the other you have to wait for the
green man. Shoppers laden with shopping just love that, while breathing in
gas fumes and keeping an eye out for traffic if thay have got kids.
The inner city square mile in Leeds is all pedestrianised this is an unmatchable
plus to the claim of being best for shopping.

Yes, and so are St. Anne`s Square, King Street and Exchange Square. Greggo needs to go shopping in Manc more often


SCORE!!!

Its main shopping district doesn't. Oxford Road, Piccadilly, Regent Street, pretty much all of the city centre is overwhelmed by roads.

Would it upset you to learn that the busiest shopping street in the uk after Oxford Road is Market Street in Manchester? Would it upset you further more to learn Market Street is totally pedestrianised? Hmmmmmm?

You do know that Oxford Street is going to be pedestrianised in the next few years. I hate walking down there
1. One its to long
2. Its to busy you have to smash your way though to get any where.
I hate walking down Market street to, same thing apart from its not miles long.

Also for all you young ones get this travel in london will be free, yes free for all under 18s. I hope they do that every where soonish.

You're honestly comparing Briggate to Market Street? Heh.


Seriously. Briggate is wider and therefore might appear less conjested and
busy but I can't see how Market Street is busier, I really can't see that.
I like Market Street it is the only place in manchester which has all the
attributes I consider good for shopping. It has the atmosphere, the hustle and
bustle the convenience etc. but it is just one street.

Yes I know J55 but to get from one to the other you have to wait for the
green man. Shoppers laden with shopping just love that, while breathing in
gas fumes and keeping an eye out for traffic if thay have got kids.
The inner city square mile in Leeds is all pedestrianised this is an unmatchable
plus to the claim of being best for shopping.

So if they block the road between the Arndale food court and M & S saving the poor pedestrians the 3m of stressful road crossing that should do the trick!

Seriously. Briggate is wider and therefore might appear less conjested and
busy but I can't see how Market Street is busier, I really can't see that.
I like Market Street it is the only place in manchester which has all the
attributes I consider good for shopping. It has the atmosphere, the hustle and
bustle the convenience etc. but it is just one street.

? imo Market street is one of the worst places in Manc for shopping, King St, St Anne's Sq, Exchange Sq, Deansgate and the Northern Quarter all have much nicer atmosphere and less crowds.

So if they block the road between the Arndale food court and M & S saving the poor pedestrians the 3m of stressful road crossing that should do the trick!


Okay but what about the poor sods the other end of Deansgate?. Imagine
if all Deansgate was pedestrianised. Now that would be something special
but it aint.

Okay but what about the poor sods the other end of Deansgate?. Imagine
if all Deansgate was pedestrianised. Now that would be something special
but it aint.

Yes that would be good. They would have to improve public transport a lot before that happened though or it would cause gridlock.

? imo Market street is one of the worst places in Manc for shopping, King St, St Anne's Sq, Exchange Sq, Deansgate and the Northern Quarter all have much nicer atmosphere and less crowds.

Don't agree you'll find the real feel of manchester in Market Street, the real
people, the grit. You've got the Hustle and Bustle and convenience albeit the
range of shops aren't that diverse.
Please don't find this patronising but I am talking from a out of towners
perspective.
I have shopped all over manchester and the manchester feel, ambience comes
out more in that street than anywhere. I also like the other side of Deansgate
from there, that has a quality feel about it with some almost quaint shop fronts
etc. shoppers like this sort of thing,they don'tlike the green man and traffic.

Seriously. Briggate is wider and therefore might appear less conjested and
busy but I can't see how Market Street is busier, I really can't see that.
I like Market Street it is the only place in manchester which has all the
attributes I consider good for shopping. It has the atmosphere, the hustle and
bustle the convenience etc. but it is just one street.

Have you ever walked down Market Street on a Saturday. Its totally mad. I dont know a place which is more busier than it other than Oxford Street. Its also petty wide, I have never heard of Briggate so I don't know how wide it is or how busy.

The class shops are on I think its King Street but you need loads of money, a lot of expensive shops.

Please don't find this patronising but I am talking from a out of towners
perspective.

Don't forget I'm also an out of towner.

Market St is just a busier version of a shopping street you can get in most towns and cities, no real character. If by 'the true Manchester' and 'grit' you mean chavs and general nobheads then you can keep 'em!

Have you ever walked down Market Street on a Saturday. Its totally mad. I dont know a place which is more busier than it other than Oxford Street. Its also petty wide, I have never heard of Briggate so I don't know how wide it is or how busy.

Go to Briggate on a Saturday don't wear your colours though :)
Then you'll see first hand what I'm talking about. Market Street is very
busy but so is Briggate and I would say Briggate is busier.

The class shops are on I think its King Street but you need loads of money, a lot of expensive shops.

I like that area it provides added value to any shopping district even if it is
only good for window shopping in most our cases I suspect.

Don't forget I'm also an out of towner.

Market St is just a busier version of a shopping street you can get in most towns and cities, no real character. If by 'the true Manchester' and 'grit' you mean chavs and general nobheads then you can keep 'em!


I was simply referring to the real people of manchester. The real feel, that's
my impression anyway.
Chavs and general nobheads can be found anywhere.

Go to Briggate on a Saturday don't wear your colours though :)
Then you'll see first hand what I'm talking about. Market Street is very
busy but so is Briggate and I would say Briggate is busier.

I would wear my colours there. I wore them in London and nearly got in a fight twice both on the train on the way back first with some guys from Birmingham and some guy in first class.
The guy in first class was some fat guy he called me scum or something and me and my cousin had a go at him.
The Birmingham lads had Proper stong Birmingham accents they had they were drinking and blocking the way as I wanted to get back to my seat. They got trown off though by the police though. I can't stand Brum accents, no one I know can, I bet they hate them selfs because they have shit accents .

Yeah and Liam Gallagher sounds great? He sounds like a right wanker. We've all got shit accents if you want to talk like David Niven.
And when has wearing a Man Utd shirt meant being brave? From Shetland to Penzance to Galway you could be welcomed.

The usual bollocks of 375 posts by arrogant northerners big upping themselves again - have you noticed how boring it really is?

The usual bollocks of 375 posts by arrogant northerners big upping themselves again - have you noticed how boring it really is?

Yes, thank you.

The usual bollocks of 375 posts by arrogant northerners big upping themselves again - have you noticed how boring it really is?

I know, terrible isn't it?

http://www.startrek-online.net/images/jon/leeds1.JPG

I would wear my colours there. I wore them in London and nearly got in a fight twice both on the train on the way back first with some guys from Birmingham and some guy in first class.
The guy in first class was some fat guy he called me scum or something and me and my cousin had a go at him.
The Birmingham lads had Proper stong Birmingham accents they had they were drinking and blocking the way as I wanted to get back to my seat. They got trown off though by the police though. I can't stand Brum accents, no one I know can, I bet they hate them selfs because they have shit accents .

Just because a couple of Brummies had a go at you there's no need to tar them all with the same brush,all of the Brummies on this forum are great and they never offend anyone to my knowledge.

Ignore him. Seriously.

Regarding posts on previous pages, Leeds does have lots of apartments under construction, proposed or recently built but most are mixed use- BWP is mixed, Criterion, Quarry Hill, Mayfair....etc. Apparently there are about 10,000 people living in the city centre at the moment but there are lots of new non residential things proposed. Harewood Quarter, Trinity Quarter, Quarry Hill and The Civic Quarter are probably the main ones. The Light is a recently completed example.

Briggate is very wide and one of the busiest shopping areas in the City. It's very architectural and can be compared to any city high street. Most major department stores have chosen this. The Headrow also is set to boom- apparently there will be a small facelift to it as well as Boar Lane, partly for the supertram. This was a normal street to begin with but was widened into a dual carriageway type road, but obviously not for high speeds. Its hardly a narrow road. It doesn't have loads of important shops on yet but it will do especially as The Harewood Quarter is underway. Leeds wouldn't have been dubbed Knightsbridge of the North if it was rubbish for shopping. Its more compact than Manchester with the same shops. Its generally within 1square mile or 1.6km2 but much of it is on multiple levels in the shopping centres- there are 11 indoor shopping areas in the city centre not including the smaller arcades but inlcuding VQ.

lololol

at the end of the day, all 3 of your cities cant compete with nottingham

let me break it down for you

birmingham-compared to nottingham it architeturely disgraceful,and doesnt have the buzz nottm has,plus it has horrific guncrime

manc-again you have the shops etc but cosmetically it cant copete with nottinghams ancient history,manc does have far to many scallies,yes i admit you are revemping it,but dont get away from the fact that most of your city looks like derelict site,very deprived city

leeds-well this just offers less than nottingham full stop,plus alot of chavs in city center

i reccomend you lot come and see nottingham for all its glory

partly for the supertram

Are Leeds Getting trams or as Accura says have they been cancelled,I'm confused now.

^ ^ :? What a load of crap!

Regarding posts on previous pages, Leeds does have lots of apartments under construction, proposed or recently built but most are mixed use- BWP is mixed, Criterion, Quarry Hill, Mayfair
Mixed use is a word used all too often by developers to make their development sound more feasible. Mixed use basically means 100 apartments with 2 retail units lol.

lololol

at the end of the day, all 3 of your cities cant compete with nottingham

let me break it down for you

birmingham-compared to nottingham it architeturely disgraceful,and doesnt have the buzz nottm has,plus it has horrific guncrime

manc-again you have the shops etc but cosmetically it cant copete with nottinghams ancient history,manc does have far to many scallies,yes i admit you are revemping it,but dont get away from the fact that most of your city looks like derelict site,very deprived city

leeds-well this just offers less than nottingham full stop,plus alot of chavs in city center

i reccomend you lot come and see nottingham for all its glory

Nottingham has very high guncrime for a relatively small city and the city centre also has a lot of nasty concrete buildings. I have to say that I was very dissappointed with Nottingham.

If you think that most of Manc looks like a derielict site with no cosmetic appeal check out this thread

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=149105

Are Leeds Getting trams or as Accura says have they been cancelled,I'm confused now.
They were cancelled by Alastair Darling along with other tram networks. Only Metrolink and Merseytram survived.

a) Nottingham is a good city, not exactly massive though.
b) Supertram has definetley not been cancelled. A revised plan has been produced and costs have been lowered to near what they should've been. 1/2 of the South Line has been put on hold. www.leeds-supertram.co.uk It looks like it will go ahead eventually but the Southern Line might have to wait a bit longer. I bet it'll be at least 2008 before any tram runs again. Alistair Darling said it couldn't go ahead with the booming costs so it was revised and should go ahead now.

plus it has horrific guncrime

Every city sadly has a problem with gun crime now,I read recently Nottingham is Britains gun crime capital(assasination city or something was the headline) and a coach firm stopped taking people on Stag nights there because it had got that shadey.Or are you using sarcasm?

I read that too. But at least the EU's gun crime is nowhere near as high as the USA's. I don't think its anything massive to worry about, bigger issues need to be dealt with first!

well 100 apartments and 2 retail units is still kinda mixed use. Quarry Hill is definetley full on mixed use as is BWP and The Light. Quarry Hill is all cultural and shops with apartments towering on each side; BWP main tower section is residential but the lower 10 floors are office, and a large concert space or something I think, with retail; The Light is shops, cinema, hotel, café/restaurant, health spa.

But at least the EU's gun crime is nowhere near as high as the USA's

Yet,give it afew years.

I don't think it ever will be as high as the USA unless guns were made legal here.

Yeah and Liam Gallagher sounds great? He sounds like a right wanker. We've all got shit accents if you want to talk like David Niven.
And when has wearing a Man Utd shirt meant being brave? From Shetland to Penzance to Galway you could be welcomed.
Liam Gallagher sounds like the queen compared to you lot.

Who ever said it was brave? I just do it wind up people, I went down to london the day befour the United vs Arsenal match one of reasons I wore it but most of them lot don't care because theres load of United fans that live in London anyway. If I walked though some parts of the country with a United shirt on when theres a big game on the next day people get pissed off and want to have a go & I find it funny.

The only time I don't mind Man U tops being worn in Brum is when they're in the Holte End!! Keep up the good work tonight Fergie!

A pedestrianised area is a good claim. The inner city area of Leeds
is like a massive shopping centre without the roof.
I'm talking atmosphere and convenience, Leeds has this over
manchester.

It really doesn't have it over Manchester though.

You can walk from the top of Lever Street, past Piccadilly Gardens, onto Market Street, cross the very small one way High Street, down the main stretch of Market Street, into the Arndale through the bridge into M&S, out into Exchange Square, go into the Triangle shopping centre, come out and go down New Cathedral Street, past Selfridges and the Shambles, cross the very small one way road St. Mary's gate, right through St. Anns Square, down Police Street and onto King Street, turn left and go all the way up King Street until you get to cross street.

So you've just walked almost a mile through all of the main shopping areas in the city centre, and have crossed a huge total of 3 one lane roads and a tram track!
I very much doubt this is enough to instill the ''fear of getting knocked over or breathing in gas fumes'' in anyone.


Leeds can get a Selfridges manchester can't re-structure it's physical
layout, that's what's important to the average shopper... convenience,
atmoshere, good architecture, range of shops


Leeds can get a Selfridges, not sure about 2 though.

I don't think the average shopper would give a slight toss about good architecture, if you do want that St. Anns Square, Exchange Sq and King Street are all you need. For range of shops Manchester wins.

What the fuck as the pope got to do with the bible?

St.Peter(one of the apostles)was the first Pope,so there's your link.

It really doesn't have it over Manchester though.

You can walk from the top of Lever Street, past Piccadilly Gardens, onto Market Street, cross the very small one way High Street, down the main stretch of Market Street, into the Arndale through the bridge into M&S, out into Exchange Square, go into the Triangle shopping centre, come out and go down New Cathedral Street, past Selfridges and the Shambles, cross the very small one way road St. Mary's gate, right through St. Anns Square, down Police Street and onto King Street, turn left and go all the way up King Street until you get to cross street.

So you've just walked almost a mile through all of the main shopping areas in the city centre, and have crossed a huge total of 3 one lane roads and a tram track!
I very much doubt this is enough to instill the ''fear of getting knocked over or breathing in gas fumes'' in anyone.



Leeds can get a Selfridges, not sure about 2 though.

I don't think the average shopper would give a slight toss about good architecture, if you do want that St. Anns Square, Exchange Sq and King Street are all you need. For range of shops Manchester wins.


C123 you are having a serious laugh here mate.
I have pictured and walked in my head the route you mentioned and yeh
okay, but who out of manchester would know about that route!!! and even in
this route one has to cross roads and what's more it's like a bloody maze or
paper trail and one to follow this would have to cut through the Arndale!!!
This cannot compare to the Leeds inner city square mile which is all
pedestrianised choose which way one walks. East, West, North, South, every
pedestrianised street leads to another pedestrianised street filled with glorious
arcades and every range of store all within convenient walking distance and
never once stopping to wait for the green man.
The route you put forward does not compare mate.

Are both Selfridges in the city centre of manchester? (I have no idea)

Aw come on people love the architecture, it makes for a pleasant atmosphere,
if you can't even concede that then forget it because good architecture is
what it's all about. IMO

Please God no. Not this 'range of shops thing again'. What can you get in
manchester (taking into consideration I have already ackowledged we don't
have a Selfridges yet) that you can't get in Leeds?

St.Peter(one of the apostles)was the first Pope,so there's your link.

Was Paul the first apostle?

I would wear my colours there. I wore them in London and nearly got in a fight twice both on the train on the way back first with some guys from Birmingham and some guy in first class.
The guy in first class was some fat guy he called me scum or something and me and my cousin had a go at him.
The Birmingham lads had Proper stong Birmingham accents they had they were drinking and blocking the way as I wanted to get back to my seat. They got trown off though by the police though. I can't stand Brum accents, no one I know can, I bet they hate them selfs because they have shit accents .



Did you not notice the smiley that I put on after I said don't wear your
colours? It was a joke!!!
I doubt very much that you would get any 'serious' trouble in Leeds if you
wore one of that teams shirts.

Manchester's other Selfridges is in the Trafford Centre I think? I don't know how big it is. The one in Brum IMO is the finest department store I've ever been into, based on interior design etc. I can't stand the traditional stores of London, and Macy's NYC is atrocious really - like a House of Fraser but 10 times bigger!

C123 you are having a serious laugh here mate.
I have pictured and walked in my head the route you mentioned and yeh
okay, but who out of manchester would know about that route!!! and even in
this route one has to cross roads and what's more it's like a y maze or
paper trail and one to follow this would have to cut through the Arndale!!!
This cannot compare to the Leeds inner city square mile which is all
pedestrianised choose which way one walks. East, West, North, South, every
pedestrianised street leads to another pedestrianised street filled with glorious
arcades and every range of store all within convenient walking distance and
never once stopping to wait for the green man.
The route you put forward does not compare mate.

You wouldn't have to go through the Arndale, if you did you would cross one less road though as you could get to Exchnage Square through Ms AND Selfridges, one is in the city centre one is at the Trafford Centre, Manchester.[/quote]


Aw come on people love the architecture, it makes for a pleasant atmosphere,
if you can't even concede that then forget it because good architecture is
what it's all about. IMO

Yeah greg when all the bimbos and single mothers go to buy fake tan, tube tops and ciggarettes they all notice the buildings around them. Of course they don't! They aren't arsed if it's victorian stone or stained 60s concrete that surrounds Superdrug, as long as it's there.
Not many people are like us lot on SSC, were the only people who really take notice of architeture. Us and old NIMBYS.

Was Paul the first apostle?

God Knows. :D

but who out of manchester would know about that route!!!
Me.

At least people outside of Manchester know Street names in Manchester. All I know is that Leeds is in the middle of a roundabout, I envision it to look like this image I drew ysterday.

http://www.startrek-online.net/images/jon/leeds1.JPG

Edit: hmm, I already posted that pic, but oh well... its the same old shit

Just made a slight modification...
http://img59.exs.cx/img59/6822/leds6ht.jpg

God Knows. :D



Very Good LOL :)

Leeds inner ring road curves around the side of the city centre; it isn't a roundabout at all.

Without it, the pedestrianised shopping area simply wouldn't be possible.

It's a glorified roundabout. Nothing more, nothing less.

Then what does that make the M60?

you know, when I think of all those poor, poor shoppers in Leeds that have to traipse, laden with heavy shopping bags accross all those roads, waiting for green men and sucking in all those toxic gas fumes emitted by the heavy traffic on the way to the train station (at one end) or the bus station at the other it brings a tear to my eye.

Not having to cross roads would seem to be the very definition of the perfect shopping experience for greggo yet in Leeds you have to cross as many as anywhere else. Why then does he think its that much better in Leeds?

The M60 is a world class orbital ring road, linking some of the most prosperous suburbs in the country with some of the largest industrial estates and the largest airport outside London.

Hehe, you really know how to polish a turd EB.

:lol: Its just a motorway!

it brings a tear to my eye.


...quickly washed away by a deluge of rain.

(cue rainfall statistics)

Move along, nothing to see..............

yahoo search for


"manchester" 15,100,000 hits
"birmingham" 12,000,000
"liverpool" 8,630,000

and don't laugh....

"leeds" 6,170,000

no, on second thoughts lets have a laugh

It's a dull life for me this Sunday, but I think this nails all arguements firmly down. Manchester is considerably better than you!

The Fly, people will complain about that saying "but it includes Manchesters and Birminghams in other countries too". Try using the results for "Manchester, England" or "Manchester, UK" instead as you'll get the same net result.

:lol:

Google:
"London, UK" = 8,400,000
"Cambridge, UK" = 2,380,000
"Manchester, UK" = 1,930,000
"Birmingham, UK" = 1,350,000
"Oxford, UK" = 1,310,000
"Edinburgh, UK" = 689,000
"Glasgow, UK" = 544,000
"Leeds, UK" = 515,000
"Liverpool, UK" = 423,000

trouble is that you have to look at statistics on internet usage as well, i know the west mids unfortunately is not very net savvy compared to other parts of the country, for instance there aren't many tintanet cafs in Brum than say London cause not so many people will use them?

Move along, nothing to see..............

yahoo search for


"manchester" 15,100,000 hits
"birmingham" 12,000,000
"liverpool" 8,630,000

and don't laugh....

"leeds" 6,170,000

no, on second thoughts lets have a laugh

It's a dull life for me this Sunday, but I think this nails all arguements firmly down. Manchester is considerably better than you!

What does that prove?

Quality of life is considerably more important than internet hits, y'know.

Google:
"London, UK" = 8,400,000
"Cambridge, UK" = 2,380,000
"Manchester, UK" = 1,930,000
"Birmingham, UK" = 1,350,000
"Oxford, UK" = 1,310,000
"Edinburgh, UK" = 689,000
"Glasgow, UK" = 544,000
"Leeds, UK" = 515,000
"Liverpool, UK" = 423,000

hahahahaaaa, just look at what we're fighting over "ner ner, my city has more hits on google than yours!" "oh you bitch" :runaway:

hahahahaaaa, just look at what we're fighting over "ner ner, my city has more hits on google than yours!" "oh you bitch" :runaway:

I was trying to point out that Google hits means nothing as Cambridge would be second city by this measure...

Also from Google

Manchester, Lancashire: 2,170,000
Manchester, Greater Manchester: 4,730,000

Birmingham, Warwickshire: 907,000
Birmingham, West Midlands: 2,600,000

Liverpool, Lancashire: 1,300,000
Liverpool, Merseyside: 996,000

Leeds, Yorkshire: 3,000,000

London, England: 18,800,000
London, United Kingdom: 27,100,000

Seems the provincial cities have been blown out of the water by big "L"

Hopefully this might be a definitive answer to the "size" question. I have drawn up a list of the local authority wards in the City Regions of Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool. If anyone wants to they can add the populations of each of the wards into the spreadsheet from ONS stats, which should give you the population of the City Region. Some of the ward names, like "Central" in Manchester, are ambiguous so I've included their ward codes. Note, in their spreadsheet you will see these codes with two numbers before them. Just ignore the numbers.

http://www.eb.cx/ssc/city-region-wards.csv

If you would like to cross-reference to make sure I haven't excluded or included any I shouldn't have, the source documents are:

http://census.ac.uk/censusdatasystem/chapter5%5Cfrz%5Ccityreg.csv
(I used this to get the City Region CR_ID for each City Region)

http://census.ac.uk/censusdatasystem/chapter5%5Cfrz%5Clocal.csv
(I used this to get the Ward codes for each City Region CR_ID)

http://census.ac.uk/censusdatasystem/chapter9%5Ccarstairs%5Cgb.csv
(I used this to get the Ward name for each Ward code)

Note: These are exactly the same City Regions that John Prescott, Gordon Brown and the leaders of our councils have been touting and are also what Government statisticians use for comparing cities to each other.

Earlybird: you might have noticed that the web site you have got your data from is not a government one, but rather that of an academic project, funded by the esrc funding council and involving several universities. Its url (census.AC.uk) should have been a strong enough clue.

The purpose of his university research project is to take the official figures (available at www.statistics.gov.uk) obtained by the 2001 census and then subject them to analysis. These university researchers have invented their own coding system for wards, etc., and created their own novel system of city regions. Their analysis may be rigorous and their idea of city regions based on sound analysis of commuter movements but it should be noted that these city regions are not official ones and not ones used by the odpm, the rdas, the office for national statistics or indeed anyone else unless they value this particular body of academic research to be of value and they wish to use of the its results and analysis in a non-official capacity. It is possible of course that official bodies may decide to adopt new "official" city regions similar to the ones invented by this academic study, however, they have not. This is why the city regions definitions in this report are different to those decribed in the Northern Way stratergy document for example and cannot be found on any goverment web site.

For example the Manchester "city region" as defined by the university researchers who have contributed to the census.ac.uk web site is inconsistant with not only Greater Manchester county but also the Greater Manchester sub region as defined by the NWRDA and the "Manchester city region" as defined by the Northern Way.

Another group of university researchers could easily take the census data, come up with the own definition of city regions and produce their own results. Those decribed on the census.ac.uk are simply a new attempt to describe the city regions of the UK and no more "official" than the many others that they been attempted in the past from Redcliffe-Maud onwards.

Therefore Manc No. 1 these are not "These are exactly the same City Regions that John Prescott, Gordon Brown and the leaders of our councils have been touting and are also what Government statisticians use for comparing cities to each other". Far from it in fact.

Please try to check simple details before posting nonsense.

Awayo, the City Regions used by this project were developed in the mid 1990s and were adopted by the Government for use in it's statistics. Maybe YOU should stop talking nonsense. When any Government office, including local councils, talk about City Regions, this is what they are talking about, not meaningless county or city boundaries. It was a Government-funded national research project for precisely these purposes! If, however, you would like to contradict my statistics, please at least provide an alternative, otherwise you end up looking like an idiot!

Awayo, the City Regions used by this project were developed in the mid 1990s and were adopted by the Government for use in it's statistics. Maybe YOU should stop talking nonsense. When any Government office, including local councils, talk about City Regions, this is what they are talking about, not meaningless county or city boundaries. It was a Government-funded national research project for precisely these purposes! If, however, you would like to contradict my statistics, please at least provide an alternative, otherwise you end up looking like an idiot!

You havent posted any statistics. You have simply posted a list of the codes for each ward based on the classification system created by the 2001 Census Initiative project.

If an official body talks about a city region, they well not be talking about one defined by the boundaries of a 1974 metro authority, although they might be. For example, the Association of Greater Manchester authorities refers to the area contained within the ten districts in Greater Manchester County as "the city region" and until recently the Merseyside Partnership inward investment body referred to the five boroughs of Merseyside County as the City Region. Now that Halton has joined the Mersey Partnership, the five boroughs puls Halton comprise the "Liverpool City Region" as described they describe it. The NWDA refers to the same six-borough area as "the Merseyside subregion", the local skills council "Greater Merseyside".

City regions are obviously a useful idea and one that coming into vogue at the moment. However, and I don't want to have to write this again, the system of defining city regions that you have discovered on the census.ac.uk research project is simply one attempt at doing so. No, the government has NOT adopted this group of academics' new system and their definitions of what a city region might be are as open to debate and anyone else's.

Please show me a single mention of this academic project and its singular concept of city regions are on any government web site, local or national. It's a piece of university research. Interesting perhaps (although I find its conception of city regions rather eccentric) and possibly a valuable addition to our debate as to what should or not be included in the city regions of manchester, birmingham and so on, but nothing more than that.


The point is that there is no definitive definition of what a city region is. the government does not have one, and different public sector bodies seem to use different ones. However, NO ONE seems to use those used by the researchers of the EPRC/JIST 2001 Census of Population Programme other than the researchers themselves. Oh and you. This might be unfair, as this academic attempt to define city regions may have some value. However, as it is decribed in the text below from the programme web site, it doesn't appear to me to be entirely convincing.

"The final task for the project was identifying a set of City Regions
(as a grouping of the Localities). The preliminary step here was to
distinguish those centres whose characteristics indicated that they
were important foci for wider regions. Sufficiently reliable
information was found for 16 characteristics which were felt to be
indicative of a Locality's status as the centre of a City Region -
these criteria include the local publishing of a daily newspaper and
the possession of an airport. The guide-line for the selection of
City Region centres was that they should possess the majority of the
16 characteristics on which data had been collected. In the event, no
Locality scored 9 out of 16 so there was quite a sharp distinction
between the 43 qualifying centres (scoring 10 or more) and all of the
other Localities (which scored 8 or less)."

This methodology has given birth to such unheard of concepts as Stoke and Coventry "city regions" (the latter of course being grouped with Birmingham in any other official or non-office definition of its city region I've seen).

Well, as I said, interesting academic research but that's all it is.

Awao, I'm compiling the statistics right this very second. This definition of a City Region is used by both NWDA and ODPM. In fact, I emailed ODPM about this and they referred me to the census.ac.uk site. Please research more before speaking in future.

This was one of a dozen research papers produced by different universities as a part of a national competition. This paper won the competition (hence why it is posted on census.ac.uk and not a sub-domain of a uni site). It was adopted into Government at the same time.

As for the text you posted, the 16 characteristics only determine what is the centre of a City Region (for example does it have an airport, etc.). The wards are classified based on criteria such as population density and commuter patterns (obvious as the vast majority of wards do not meet the criteria such as airports).

You've yet to produce a single example of these City Region definitions you've seen. Come on, show us one.

I've just updated the spreadsheet with Manchester's population. I couldn't find ward statistics for any of the High Peak wards plus a couple of other wards which have changed boundaries so I gave these wards 5,000 people each, which is less than half the average population of the wards I managed to find statistics for (I think this is a fair figure for those wards). Based on this, the Manchester City Region has a population of 3,175,896. If anyone can find the High Peak population stats for me I'll update.

And what will this achieve exactly?

These are as close as we are likely to get to US-style metro areas for our cities. That's what it achieves. Hopefully people will accept the definition of a city that we get from this.

A city is a city until one reaches the countryside. That's one way of looking at it. Northwich is closer to Stoke than Manc for pity's sake.

msp, you're talking about the difference between a conurbation and a metro area again... Why stop at the countryside if people in that countryside commute into the city to work and shop?

Awayo, the City Regions used by this project were developed in the mid 1990s and were adopted by the Government for use in it's statistics. Maybe YOU should stop talking nonsense. When any Government office, including local councils, talk about City Regions, this is what they are talking about, not meaningless county or city boundaries.
Sorry EB, but this is complete bollocks (well, apart from the "the City Regions used by this project were developed in the mid 1990s" bit). As Awayo has pointed out, there are a wide variety of definitions of "city-regions" in use in official circles at the moment. These ones are, if anything, conspicuous by their absence.

That said, you are unquestionably right that most ideas and definitions of what s city-region is extend beyond the boundaries of conurbations, which is certainly an advance on the "the Manchester City-Region is Greater Manchester minus Wigan" shite you seem to have been spouting on the Mayoral Referendums thread last night.

BTW - shouldn't this be in the "UK Metros" thread? This is one of the few contributions you've made on these forums that isn't "city-bashing"... :)

bileduct, ODPM referred me to census.ac.uk when I asked them about City Regions which is why I say it's the official interpretation. Yes, maybe it should be in the UK Metros. I actually think these boundaries constitute something useful.

Yes, maybe it should be in the UK Metros. I actually think these boundaries constitute something useful.Me too, though the fact that over a decade later these particular definitions still haven't entered common usage suggests they may perhaps have some shortcomings. The only bit I have a problem with is your suggestion that these are somehow the definitive criteria that everybody (ODPM, local councils, government statistics) is refering to when they talk about city-regions, which clearly isn't the case.

It would be very good if there was a single, official definition of what "city-regions" were, and if the government started to produce statistics for them and (possibly) started organising some functions such as regeneration around them. Unfortunately, at the moment, there isn't.

Well ODPM use it (they referred me to it) and Manchester City Council use it. As far as I know (due to the fact they didn't contradict me in an email) NWDA also use it. The only agency I'm not sure about is GoNW. I assumed that as the others used it, they would too. As for Brum council, the Home Office, etc., I honestly don't have a clue. At the end of the day, though, I've never seen another definition in such a hard form. Have you?

Well ODPM use it (they referred me to it) and Manchester City Council use it. As far as I know (due to the fact they didn't contradict me in an email) NWDA also use it. The only agency I'm not sure about is GoNW. I assumed that as the others used it, they would too. As for Brum council, the Home Office, etc., I honestly don't have a clue. At the end of the day, though, I've never seen another definition in such a hard form. Have you?
Those don't seem to be the city regions that the ODPM use though - you'll struggle to find any mention of the "Bradford City Region" in any of the ODPM's output, for example. (or anywhere else for that matter)

Those aren't the city regions that the ODPM uses for the Northern Way, they weren't the city-regions used in the September 2004 "Business Offices" report the ODPM commisioned, they aren't the city-regions used by the ODPM-sponsored Core Cities project, they aren't the definitions used in the October 2004 "Releasing the national economic potential of provincial city-regions" report.

The ONS don't use any definition of "city regions" - if, as you claim, these are the definitions that the government uses for its statistics, why on earth did you have to add the ward figures up in excel to get something relatively straightforward like the population?

18/11/2004

Corporate Geographic Information - a Priority at Birmingham

Europe’s largest city council adopts a GIS standard


18 November 2004, Aylesbury – Birmingham City Council has appointed ESRI (UK), a provider of enterprise Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as its preferred supplier of GIS products and services under a 4-year framework agreement.

Birmingham CC is the largest City Council in Europe with over 53,000 employees. At present a number of GIS solutions from various suppliers are in use across the council, making it difficult to share information. The agreement with ESRI (UK) will enable the Council to adopt a single standard for GIS, with proposals to establish a corporate GIS service to distribute all spatial information via the intranet. In the longer term, it will also enable core business systems and the Council’s CRM solution, Frontline to be integrated with the GIS.

ESRI (UK) will provide a range of GIS products and services, including spatial databases, desktop and mobile products, internet-based GIS and specialised applications and components to cover the full spectrum of GIS users from the dedicated user through to the user who just wants to browse maps. In addition, ESRI will be providing data and systems migration services, technical and end-user support and training.

Birmingham City Council places great importance on GIS. It is recognised as a key factor in achieving e-Government targets and electronic service delivery as well as playing an essential role in terms of policy development, service delivery, performance management and business transformation.

Mick Marlow from Birmingham City Council’s project group says:
“The importance of GIS can not be overstated. Most of our information has a geographical dimension and GIS is widely recognised as the most effective way to join up disparate pieces of local intelligence to analyse patterns, relationships and trends. A GIS standard will help the Authority to exploit the benefits of corporate GIS and apply it directly to the Council’s service improvement, localisation and devolution priorities.”

Birmingham City Council invited four S-CAT listed leading GIS suppliers to tender for the contract. Following a detailed evaluation process during which each company’s solutions were evaluated on functionality and price, ESRI (UK) were awarded the contract.

Those don't seem to be the city regions that the ODPM use though - you'll struggle to find any mention of the "Bradford City Region" in any of the ODPM's output, for example. (or anywhere else for that matter)

Those aren't the city regions that the ODPM uses for the Northern Way, they weren't the city-regions used in the September 2004 "Business Offices" report the ODPM commisioned, they aren't the city-regions used by the ODPM-sponsored Core Cities project, they aren't the definitions used in the October 2004 "Releasing the national economic potential of provincial city-regions" report.

The ONS don't use any definition of "city regions" - if, as you claim, these are the definitions that the government uses for its statistics, why on earth did you have to add the ward figures up in excel to get something relatively straightforward like the population?

OK then, so what definitions DID they use? I don't see any evidence from you supporting the fact that another definition of a City Region is used. I also don't see any reason that you can honestly claim that these City Regions weren't used for their reports. "Oh no, they didn't mention a Bradford City Region in this report, therefore the whole concept must be wrong!". It doesn't quite work like that!

You are correct, the ONS doesn't use City Regions for compiling it's statistics. This is because whilst people like John Prescott use City Regions to help us compare with foreign metros, the UK Government doesn't officially endorse metro area statistics as a way of measuring. This is why I had to add up. You're trying to tell me that the ONS provide information from one of these mystical alternative City Region definitions that don't seem to be forthcoming?

You don't seem to comprehend that whilst the definition has been accepted, it's still undergoing a lot of analysis. Eventually City Region stats will appear on ONS output, but not until everyone is satisfied. This is simply the last working draft that was available to the public. It's since gone behind closed doors. True, it may have undergone drastic alterations, but this is the last stage we know about. At the end of the day, if a fat man goes in for surgery to lose weight the people who seem him walk in remember him as a fat man. They can't make assumptions about how thin he'll be when he walks back out.

18/11/2004

Corporate Geographic Information - a Priority at Birmingham

Europe’s largest city council adopts a GIS standard


18 November 2004, Aylesbury – Birmingham City Council has appointed ESRI (UK), a provider of enterprise Geographic Information Systems (GIS) as its preferred supplier of GIS products and services under a 4-year framework agreement.

Birmingham CC is the largest City Council in Europe with over 53,000 employees. At present a number of GIS solutions from various suppliers are in use across the council, making it difficult to share information. The agreement with ESRI (UK) will enable the Council to adopt a single standard for GIS, with proposals to establish a corporate GIS service to distribute all spatial information via the intranet. In the longer term, it will also enable core business systems and the Council’s CRM solution, Frontline to be integrated with the GIS.

ESRI (UK) will provide a range of GIS products and services, including spatial databases, desktop and mobile products, internet-based GIS and specialised applications and components to cover the full spectrum of GIS users from the dedicated user through to the user who just wants to browse maps. In addition, ESRI will be providing data and systems migration services, technical and end-user support and training.

Birmingham City Council places great importance on GIS. It is recognised as a key factor in achieving e-Government targets and electronic service delivery as well as playing an essential role in terms of policy development, service delivery, performance management and business transformation.

Mick Marlow from Birmingham City Council’s project group says:
“The importance of GIS can not be overstated. Most of our information has a geographical dimension and GIS is widely recognised as the most effective way to join up disparate pieces of local intelligence to analyse patterns, relationships and trends. A GIS standard will help the Authority to exploit the benefits of corporate GIS and apply it directly to the Council’s service improvement, localisation and devolution priorities.”

Birmingham City Council invited four S-CAT listed leading GIS suppliers to tender for the contract. Following a detailed evaluation process during which each company’s solutions were evaluated on functionality and price, ESRI (UK) were awarded the contract.


GM councils already have these kinds of systems in place. It was one of the things that got Tameside Council it's beacon of excellence thing 5 or so years ago.

More one-upmanship - get us the proof then if indeed Tameside has already installed this system.

msp, Tameside are a beacon council for eGovernment. They are the testbed for all new technologies. It's not any kind of one-upmanship, it's simply what beacon council status is all about! That council is the shining light, an example in that field. I'm sure Brum is a beacon council at some things too! Tameside was also the first council to have all of it's day-to-day business available online.

OK then, so what definitions DID they use? I don't see any evidence from you supporting the fact that another definition of a City Region is used. I also don't see any reason that you can honestly claim that these City Regions weren't used for their reports. "Oh no, they didn't mention a Bradford City Region in this report, therefore the whole concept must be wrong!". It doesn't quite work like that!I can perfectly honestly claim that those city-regions weren't used in those reports, because all of those reports were quite explicit about what they were treating as city-regions. Most obviously, all of them used local authority based definitions rather than the ward/locality ones you claim are ubiquitous.

The "Cities, City Regions and the Changing Geography of Business Offices" report (commisioned by the ODPM, completed 3 months ago and available on the ODPM's website - http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_science/documents/downloadable/odpm_science_032278.pdf, scroll to page 80) uses the following 12 local authority definition of the Manchester City Region - "Trafford, Salford, Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside, Stockport, Macclesfield, High Peak, Rossendale"

The "Core Cities" project, which is sponsored by the ODPM and includes Manchester City Council among its most influential members, uses a slightly different definition that includes 13 local authorities http://www.corecities.com/coreDEV/comedia/com_ap1.html

The ODPM's flagship "Northern Way" initiative boldly states that "The Manchester city-region consists of fifteen local authorities centred on the city of Manchester: Bolton, Bury, Congleton, High Peak, Macclesfield, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Vale Royal, Warrington, Wigan" (http://www.thenorthernway.co.uk/docs/appendices/city_regionalanalysis.doc)

So, as Awayo and I have been saying all along, there is no single official definition of a city-region. The one about which you claim "When any Government office, including local councils, talk about City Regions, this is what they are talking about" in fact seems to be notably absent. Not only that, but none of the definitions that are actually being used even follow the methodology of your supposedly-definitive study, let alone the definitions that the methodology produced.You're trying to tell me that the ONS provide information from one of these mystical alternative City Region definitions that don't seem to be forthcoming?
Er ... no. I think the phrase "The ONS don't use any definition of city regions" is reasonably unambiguous on that one.
You don't seem to comprehend that whilst the definition has been accepted, it's still undergoing a lot of analysis. Eventually City Region stats will appear on ONS output, but not until everyone is satisfied. This is simply the last working draft that was available to the public. It's since gone behind closed doors. True, it may have undergone drastic alterations, but this is the last stage we know about. At the end of the day, if a fat man goes in for surgery to lose weight the people who seem him walk in remember him as a fat man. They can't make assumptions about how thin he'll be when he walks back out.
I both comprehend and entirely accept that the idea of city-regions is work in progress and that at the moment nobody can be sure what will come out the other end (not least because a similar process is going on at European level, and also because there will be no point basing new definitions on 1991 figures when 2001 figures are available).

What I do not accept is your insistance that the definition you favour is the one that the government is using, because it is a simply-observable fact that it isn't. The government is using a lot of definitions, but that doesn't seem to be one of them.

Leeds is shit. End of.

How can it be classed as a top class City if it doesn't even have a Premiership football club representing it?

All the best Cities are home to at least two major football clubs.

bileduct, I've read those reports. Not ONE of them defines what it considers a city region to be. How does this conclusively prove either way that they dont use an altered version of the definition from census.ac.uk? You don't seem to have the brains to work out that the Government can tinker with something behind closed doors once they've accepted it. In fact, it's common practice. For example, they've removed Leeds-Bradford airport from Bradford. They now only class it as being in Leeds, hence Bradford no longer qualifies as a City Region.

Bolton, Bury, Congleton, High Peak, Macclesfield, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford, Vale Royal, Warrington, Wigan

Thanks for that. If you look at the local authorities that are included in this City Region definition you'll find it's exactly the same, bar a few wards here and there that have altered due to boundary changes. This is the basis for the claim that ODPM use this definition (as well as the fact that someone from ODPM told me in an email!). Manchester City Council and NWDA both use it as well, as can be seen if you look at their material. As for other agencies, I never made claims for them so I don't know where you are getting it from.

At the end of the day, though, bileduct, you've been childish and ignored the fact that this discussion has already ben put in the past. Grow up and move on so that we can actually look at the merits of the definition, rather than trying to pick holes in it on technicalities, which simply shows your lack of maturity. This is the only ward-level definition of a City Region that we have, unless you can pull something more accurate than a document that simply lists a handful of local authorities!

At the end of the day, though, bileduct, you've been childish and ignored the fact that this discussion has already ben put in the past. Grow up and move on so that we can actually look at the merits of the definition, rather than trying to pick holes in it on technicalities, which simply shows your lack of maturity. This is the only ward-level definition of a City Region that we have, unless you can pull something more accurate than a document that simply lists a handful of local authorities!
Hehe - excellent. You ask me "OK then, so what definitions DID they use? I don't see any evidence", so I dig around to find the evidence, and this makes me childish. Charming...
Thanks for that. If you look at the local authorities that are included in this City Region definition you'll find it's exactly the same, bar a few wards here and there that have altered due to boundary changes. This is the basis for the claim that ODPM use this definition (as well as the fact that someone from ODPM told me in an email!). Manchester City Council and NWDA both use it as well, as can be seen if you look at their material. As for other agencies, I never made claims for them so I don't know where you are getting it from.
The Manchester definition is similarly sized, if slightly differently constituted, certainly. Many others are radically different though - where is the Preston city-region (including Barrow and Kendal) that your 'definitive' list insists upon?

Anyway, just to clarify - you now feel that the ward-based city-regions you identified, though possibly definitive in their day, have now been superceded, and it is the Northern Way city regions that are the definitive, official ones?

bileduct, I admitted this all along, but we have nothing more than throwaway remarks from ODPM on which to base these City Regions. As I said earlier, ODPM took this research and changed it (i.e. only letting Leeds include their airport and not Bradford), which changed which areas qualified as City Regions. My point is, though, that this is the last time the definition was made public during the competition and it has since been behind closed doors at ODPM. We can only guess at what changes have taken place. Do we use Census 2001 figures for national stats or do we guess at what they should be now? I think you know the answer to this! They have changed the way they define a City Region, but as far as I know they have barely touched the way they determine which wards to include.

As soon as their definitions are released I will be happy to use them. Until then, though, we need something more than a document that lists a group of local authorities in such a general way. Population trends dont stick to local authority boundaries, just like they don't stick to city boundaries! We need a ward-level breakdown like this from ODPM before we can use the latest for stats purposes. Until then, I'm happy to use a slightly outdated one as I know Manchester was the fastest growing anyway. In fact, parts of Cheshire that are in the Manchester City Region were the fastest growing in the entire country!

I wouldn't trust the census for anything. They missed an awful lot of people.

pricemazda, what would you use then? Would you use tea leaves? I'm not aware of any more accurate population statistics and we have to go with the best we have and hope it gets better next time. It's better to have something that's a bit inaccurate than have nothing at all.

Over 50'000 people were missed off Westminster, and over 1 million men nationally. If it was just a little inaccurate then I would agree with you, but it was very very very very inaccurate.

Unfortunately, the government might have to commission research for issues about city areas.

And 25,000 were left off Manc's count in the last census!

bileduct, I admitted this all along, but we have nothing more than throwaway remarks from ODPM on which to base these City Regions. As I said earlier, ODPM took this research and changed it (i.e. only letting Leeds include their airport and not Bradford), which changed which areas qualified as City Regions. My point is, though, that this is the last time the definition was made public during the competition and it has since been behind closed doors at ODPM. We can only guess at what changes have taken place. Do we use Census 2001 figures for national stats or do we guess at what they should be now? I think you know the answer to this! They have changed the way they define a City Region, but as far as I know they have barely touched the way they determine which wards to include.

As soon as their definitions are released I will be happy to use them. Until then, though, we need something more than a document that lists a group of local authorities in such a general way. Population trends dont stick to local authority boundaries, just like they don't stick to city boundaries! We need a ward-level breakdown like this from ODPM before we can use the latest for stats purposes. Until then, I'm happy to use a slightly outdated one as I know Manchester was the fastest growing anyway. In fact, parts of Cheshire that are in the Manchester City Region were the fastest growing in the entire country!OK, fair enough - I thought you were claiming that those ward-based definitions were the ones that were actually being used by the ODPM etc. You are obviously free to use any definition you fancy and these ones are at least academically respectable.

The studies I posted above are quite clear how their city-regions are defined though - the Northern Way definitions broadly conform to a 5% commuting threshold, the other two are based on a consensus model of 4 previous city-region definitions (one of which is the census.ac.uk study that you favour so strongly).

It is very misleading to suggest that the census.ac.uk definitions are UK equivalents to US metropolitan areas, though. There is one very significant difference that makes them completely incomparable. US Metropolitan areas (and European "Functional Urban Regions", and the city-regions used by the ODPM in the Northern Way project), all work on the basis of identifying a core city and then adding all the areas that meet a minimum level of connection to that city based on commuting. The census.ac.uk definition does the opposite - it treats every single ward in the country as being part of the city-region of whatever city it is most connected to, however tiny that connection might be. There is no minimum level of connection required for inclusion.

This means that according to this model Wick, for example, is considered part of the Inverness City-Region, Oban is part of Glasgow's and Pwllhelli is part of Chester's, when there is no way that these could be considered to be part of the city's commuter hinterland. This is why they had to include migration statistics as well as commuting statistics - in many cases there is no commuting whatsoever between the cities and the localities included in that city's city-region (I'm not claiming that this is the case for Manchester's - as you have pointed out, the census.ac.uk and Northern Way city-regions happen to be fairly similar for Manchester).

The Northern Way city-regions are more like US Metros, though they are quite a bit larger as they are based on a 5% commuting threshold, while the US CSAs are based on a 15% threshold.

BTW, for what it's worth, I'd happily put a tenner on local authorities rather than wards being the basis of whatever City-Region definitions are officially adopted in the end. One of the key aims of the entire City-region programme is to get local authorities in city-regions to co-operate, and this would be very difficult if the city-regions ignored local authority boundaries.

bileduct, they'll just do what they did with this! There are a handful of wards that no longer exist that were included under Manchester. Those that were on their own have been amalgamated into LAs that are entirely inside the City Region (i.e. bit by bit the City Region local authorities are swallowing up the loose wards in the Region).

bileduct, they'll just do what they did with this! There are a handful of wards that no longer exist that were included under Manchester. Those that were on their own have been amalgamated into LAs that are entirely inside the City Region (i.e. bit by bit the City Region local authorities are swallowing up the loose wards in the Region).Sorry, I don't follow this. The Northern Way city-regions could not possibly have been based on the census.ac.uk city-regions with a few minor tweaks, because they are fundamentally different. (if that is what you are saying - maybe I've misunderstood)

The fundamental principle of the census.ac.uk definitions are that every ward in the country is part of a city region centred on a city with the importance criteria they specify, the only question is which one they are part of. The fundamental principle of the Northern Way city-regions, by contrast, is that large parts of the north are not part of any city-region, because concentrating investment on the places that are part of the city-regions is a fundmental piece of Northern Way policy. One is an exclusive definition, the other is an exhaustive definition.

As it happens the Northern Way city-region for Manchester is fairly similar to the census.ac.uk one, but for many other city-regions they are completely different.

bileduct, the idea of City Regions is that they replace traditional regions, i.e. you no longer think of a North West or a North East. These regions were always pointless, so the aim is to centre the new regions around cities instead. It'd defeat the whole object of the system if they were to exclude large swathes of the country! You'll find that Northern Way is simply a fine-tuned version of this, i.e. they restrict the wards. Remember, the US has MSA and CMSA metro areas, but both are metro areas under the same definition, they just measure to different levels. Census.ac.uk is the base level (minus a few tweaks). Northern Way is these City Regions with a restriction applied.

bileduct, the idea of City Regions is that they replace traditional regions, i.e. you no longer think of a North West or a North East. These regions were always pointless, so the aim is to centre the new regions around cities instead. It'd defeat the whole object of the system if they were to exclude large swathes of the country! You'll find that Northern Way is simply a fine-tuned version of this, i.e. they restrict the wards. Remember, the US has MSA and CMSA metro areas, but both are metro areas under the same definition, they just measure to different levels. Census.ac.uk is the base level (minus a few tweaks). Northern Way is these City Regions with a restriction applied.The US doesn't use MSAs and CMSAs any more, it uses CBSAs and CSAs, but either way, most of the US is not part of any metropolitan area by any definition.

US Metropolitan areas (and the Northern Way city regions) are based on delineating the areas that meet a minimum level of connectedness to a core city, ie some places are not part of any city-region. The census.ac.uk definitions are based on connecting every area to the city that it is most connected to, even if its connection is almost no connection at all (I would be amazed if there was one single person that commuted daily from Wick to Inverness, for example - its almost an eight hour round trip).

This isn't a question of degree, of one being more and one being less - they are fundamentally different.

I admire the way you are persevering with this Bileduct. Have you ever taught children?

I could be able to be a teacher. I don't have the patience. Especially as corporal punishment is no longer an option.

Now if you could beat sense into the most stubborn brats who refused to learn...

bileduct, the US metro uses a bottom up (i.e. starts with the city and works up). The British metro system is top down (i.e. it starts with the whole nation and works down). The US and British systems are fundamentally different, but there is no difference between the two British systems, save for one has a restriction on commuters applied. Census.ac.uk's definition is the base on which our City Regions are based, but the level to which you measure will change depending on what combination of restrictions you apply (yes, before someone else says it, the census.ac.uk City Regions themselves aren't 100% accurate because they changed certain factors which altered which cities qualified).

Now if you could beat sense into the most stubborn brats who refused to learn...

Precisely the way I feel! Some people don't seem to understand that a system of measurement of cities can start with a country as the base unit rather than the cities themselves!

Does it realy matter what size population a city has? A bigger population doesn't nescercerrily equate to a better city.

For example, Mumbai has a larger population than London, but I don't think many people would argue it's a better city.

bileduct, the US metro uses a bottom up (i.e. starts with the city and works up). The British metro system is top down (i.e. it starts with the whole nation and works down). The US and British systems are fundamentally different, but there is no difference between the two British systems, save for one has a restriction on commuters applied. Census.ac.uk's definition is the base on which our City Regions are based, but the level to which you measure will change depending on what combination of restrictions you apply (yes, before someone else says it, the census.ac.uk City Regions themselves aren't 100% accurate because they changed certain factors which altered which cities qualified).Brilliant top/down/bottom/up analogy I must say. Do you not see that by adopting a 5% cut-off the Northern Way has itself become a bottom-up system though?
I admire the way you are persevering with this Bileduct. Have you ever taught children?
Oh God please no. Both my parents are teachers - I've always promised myself that under no circumstances, no matter how bad life got, I'd never resort to being a teacher. ;)

Does it realy matter what size population a city has? A bigger population doesn't nescercerrily equate to a better city.

For example, Mumbai has a larger population than London, but I don't think many people would argue it's a better city.

Abso bloody lutely.

bileduct, I don't see that, no. At the end of the day, whilst the system for getting to a City Region may be different, the fundamental concept that a City Region is based around a city does not change. Our base is the nation split into regions which are centred around cities. You apply city-related restrictions to these regions in order to cut the layers off until you get to the layer you want (like pulling a cake apart). The US system starts with a city, with self-same city being what the metro is centred around. They then add restrictions onto the surrounding areas, adding layers until they get to the one they want (like making the cake). Either way, the City Region or Metro is based on the self-same city, so it's only appropriate that any restrictions made apply to that city.

bileduct, I don't see that, no. At the end of the day, whilst the system for getting to a City Region may be different, the fundamental concept that a City Region is based around a city does not change. Our base is the nation split into regions which are centred around cities. You apply city-related restrictions to these regions in order to cut the layers off until you get to the layer you want (like pulling a cake apart). The US system starts with a city, with self-same city being what the metro is centred around. They then add restrictions onto the surrounding areas, adding layers until they get to the one they want (like making the cake). Either way, the City Region or Metro is based on the self-same city, so it's only appropriate that any restrictions made apply to that city.
:baaa: :baaa: :deadthrea :gunz: :gunz: :eek: :weirdo: :weirdo: :weirdo: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :sleepy: :clown: :clown: :skull: :crazy2: :crazy2: :crazy2: :booze: :old: :old: :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: :ancient: :no: :no: :lock: :lock: :dizzy: :stupid: :stupid: :stupid: :spam1: :spam1: :spam1: :poke: :poke: :down: :down: :llama: :llama: :hammer: :hammer: :soapbox: :wtf: :mad: :mad2: :evil: :| :| :puke: :toilet:

I think that sums this up better than words possibly could.........

Does it realy matter what size population a city has? A bigger population doesn't nescercerrily equate to a better city.

For example, Mumbai has a larger population than London, but I don't think many people would argue it's a better city.

I actually made precisely this point last week!

Yet still every time I read a post of yours it's something to do with metro areas, or city regions, or trafford.

Let's close this or bash the cities stated!

Manchester what a crap city.

Sorry, I just find EarlyBirds constantly, er, inventive attempts to defend his arguments amusing. It's like poking a spider with a bit of paper in the bath - you prod him in one direction and watch him scurry off in the other.

I'm also the sort of spoddy type that finds this whole "what is a city" thing genuinely interesting, which ought perhaps to be a cause for embarrassment.

Time to shut up, I suppose :yes:

That's more like it. Yes why on earth would it want to be 2nd?

Went to Doncaster once. Walked out of the station and it stank of shite. A mile later, got to the car, it still stank of shite.

So as far as I'm concerned, Doncaster smells of shite.

Unless it was me, of course...

Blackburn is unbelievably crap

Hull is a bit shit as well.

Pontefract is a pile of poo!

I see Newcastle is looking fine on the banner today. Go Geordies!

Newcastle? That's Widnes, lad.

Pontefract is a pile of poo!

Hey don't diss Ponte Carlo!

London what a crap city.

Why don't you move then?

I hate London. Everything about the place.

It's full of smelly cockneys.

double post

Manchester, full of manky mancunians, and derelict warehouses.

But you are only a cockney if you are from the east end, and even then technically only if you are born within the sound of bow bells church.

So you should refer to people from London, as Londoners, not cockneys. You northern arsewipe. j/k

Well if you're being pedantic, only folk born in the City of London are Londoners....

Everyone up here, refers to 'Londoners' as Cockneys.

Filthy southern cunts.

You are a boil on the arse of humanity.

No he doesn't, he boils on a hob like everyone else.

Thanks, I'll be here all week, be sure to try the veal.

Leeds is shit. End of.

How can it be classed as a top class City if it doesn't even have a Premiership football club representing it?

All the best Cities are home to at least two major football clubs.


Yes of course, good point, why didn't I think of that. ROFLMAO

When was the last time a team from liverpool last won the championship?
We may have gone down to the second (championship) but we were the
last team out of the four (if you include tranmere) professional footy clubs
to win the league (premiership).

How's HK by the way?, thanks for the money ROFLMAO

Now it's "End of"

That's all well and good, but you're languishing at the bottom of division 1 mate. That's like how when we were in the relegation zone of the second division yet still claiming we're a big club due to winning the cup winners cup in 69. Sort it out.

That's all well and good, but you're languishing at the bottom of division 1 mate. That's like how when we were in the relegation zone of the second division yet still claiming we're a big club due to winning the cup winners cup in 69. Sort it out.



Yeh granted but it looks like my point was missed.
He was more or less saying that because Leeds City doesn't have a footy
team in the first divison (premiership) then it can't be considered good or
important; he called it "shit" and used this has the reason why.
So in two maybe three seasons when we get back up does that make Leeds
City viable again! His argument is pony.

We're mid table by the way and the majority of Leeds fans would tell you it's
too early to go back up anyway. Best get the backroom stuff sorted out as
you probably know we've had a lot to sort out.
Now Papa Smurf has saved us from admin well the only way is up.

You can tell he's stinging, can't you? ;)

Papa Smurf will run you into millions more debt. Chelsea wasn't exactly a tightly run ship, was it?

I wouldn't take Man City fans seriously - The Baggies have taken 4 points off them this season!

You can tell he's stinging, can't you? ;)

Papa Smurf will run you into millions more debt. Chelsea wasn't exactly a tightly run ship, was it?


Erm...
I dunt think we have millions to lose now and nobody is gunna lend
us anymore.
No Papas done well, saved us from admin which gives us time to steady
the ship. We have to build up again and make a bid for another bout of
top flight footy in two maybe three years.

What this as got to do with Leeds City though is beyond me.

Leeds are doing crap in division 1. And PNE are doing quite well!

Leeds are doing crap in division 1. And PNE are doing quite well!


I did say "two maybe three years" we have a long way to go but the
backroom stuff has only just recently been sorted out....Hopefully!

I think I can safely say Leeds Utd will get promotion before PNE and
Leeds Utd will be the first of the two clubs to win a major honour.

Leeds winning a trophy? Doubtful!

Leeds winning a trophy? Doubtful!


I think I can safely say Leeds Utd will win a major trophy before
manchester city as well. In fact when was the last time city won
owt? Were you alive? :)

:laugh: city fans should'nt throw stones in glass houses :bleh:

:laugh: city fans should'nt throw stones in glass houses :bleh:

Nah!
City fans are more akin to throwing half bricks and bottles :nuts:

For anyone who cares, here are some projections made by ONS in 2003 for the populations of the metropolitan county populations every year to 2028. I've cleaned up the speadsheet, removing the age group and sex breakdowns, as well as adding a total for each metropolitan county and the amount they're projected to change from 2003-2028.

http://www.eb.cx/ssc/metro-county-growth.xls

If you want to see the original to make sure I didn't fiddle the books, you can find it at:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8665.xls

What's a sex breakdown? I've never had one of those. ;)