If there was no wealth generation in Liverpool or Leeds, then there would be no reason to centralise in Manchester. Much of Manchester's recent success has more to do with the quality and environment of a regenerated city centre, but on those terms Liverpool has much more potential than has been realised to date, given the city centre is only something like 30%-40% regenerated.

I'll give you one thing though, no city in the UK can compete with Manchester in terms municipal autofellatio.


What was it the guy from Professional Liverpool said?

Due to the high level of professional services in Manchester it has the gravitational attraction of jupiter to inward investment compared to Liverpool having the gravitational pull of the earth.

Think he was spot on, don't you?

Quite right on both counts. Both Leeds and Liverpool are substantial markets and contain major clusters of linked firms which exert a gravity of their own - Leeds' financial services and legal sectors are cases in point. Talent attracts talent.

Manchester has an edge in some areas, but businesses locate for many different reasons, and you can never say that one place will win ALL the investment. Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Hull and all the places in between will need to closely collaborate to rival London.

Mr Fly, you clearly do not have much of an inkling of how inward investment works, and should probably stick to football-based rants.


Have a read of the Professional Liverpool blokes comments. Talks about the strength of the spine of England due to connectivity and the very well developed critical mass of professional services in Manchester that makes it almost impossible for Liverpool to compete for inward investment.

Not one word of regionalism or faoritism. Just the obvious clear facts that anyone without blinkers can see for themselves.

What was it the guy from Professional Liverpool said?

Due to the high level of professional services in Manchester it has the gravitational attraction of jupiter to inward investment compared to Liverpool having the gravitational pull of the earth.

Think he was spot on, don't you?


It's all very well clinging on to the one comment and repeating it ad nauseum, but bear in mind that whilst there are no doubt some bits of truth in Mark Chadwicks interview, it comes across as the sort of rant an executive who has just been redundant might make. Coincidently, he had just been made redundant as a result of NWDA cutbacks. Only last week LSE head honcho Xavier Rolet called Liverpool the UKs second biggest financial centre, based on funds under management.

Liverpool may be the city with the second largest amount of money managed under investment.

Means bugger all though as it's creating very limited demand in the region and hardly employs vast numbers of people in the city.

Ignore his comments all you like, make up regionalist crap (if he had been sacked from nWDA why not lay into the negative effect it has on Liverpool?) but as Jupiter continues to attract the busines whilst Liverpool doesn't we'lll all know why.

Have a read of the Professional Liverpool blokes comments. Talks about the strength of the spine of England due to connectivity and the very well developed critical mass of professional services in Manchester that makes it almost impossible for Liverpool to compete for inward investment.

Not one word of regionalism or faoritism. Just the obvious clear facts that anyone without blinkers can see for themselves.

Given the proximity of Liverpool and Manchester, that is no surprise. You see the same (probably to a greater extent) in Bradford due to the proximity of Leeds.

However, Liverpool is a large enough conurbation that you WILL get a concentration of professional services to serve its businesses - it is hardly a solely residential area, is it? Added to that the significant recent public investment and profile raising and it can have a fair crack at holding its own. It might not be as competitive as Manchester, but its skill base and cheaper office rents mean it will still attract investment. As will other northern cities and towns.

Big headed mancs!!

Monkey doesn't like things like HS2 because it will help redistribute wealth around the country and make the North more competitive.

Better to spend it all on London instead.Wrong on all counts. In fact I firmly support HS2, especially given that it is now complementary with Crossrail rather than potentially competing with it for funds. The plan is to smoothly transition both employment and government funding from Crossrail to HS2 around 2017, so that one starts just as the other ends. This is very sensible methinks.

However what makes you think it will make the North more competitive? It could just as easily cement London's lead further. And it's not as if the North is currently hamstrung by poor rail links to London in any event. None of the major Northern cities are more than 2 and a bit hours from the capital by rail. That compares very favourably with travel times between the capitals and largest provincial cities of France or Germany, where, even with HSR, intercity travel times are longer.

Yes, let's refocus....

Leeds & Liverpool....cannot compete economically, politically or socially with Manchester.

Fact.

Take any figures you want and we are ahead, in most cases out of sight?

I think that it is geography. Why open an office in Leeds or Liverpool when Manchester is slap bang in the middle and offers easy access. This will never change and with the continued investment in transport in Manchester being off the scale compared with Leeds & Liverpool this process has gravity.

I can see nothing but Manchester dwarfing our neighbours in the years ahead..we seem to be dominating in so many ways?

Geography for me.

Slap bang in the middle of where? Greater Manchester, that's where. It's not even in the middle of it's much beloved North West, being tucked away in the South East corner.

As for the middle of the country forget it. 34 miles from the West coast and 98 from the East.

Another fairy tale from a graduate of the Manchester College of Myths.

Slap bang in the middle of where? Greater Manchester, that's where. It's not even in the middle of it's much beloved North West, being tucked away in the South East corner.

As for the middle of the country forget it. 34 miles from the West coast and 98 from the East.

Another fairy tale from a graduate of the Manchester College of Myths.


If Manchester has ambitions to be as big and powerful as Warrington, who are we to stand in their way?

Liverpool may be the city with the second largest amount of money managed under investment.

Means bugger all though as it's creating very limited demand in the region and hardly employs vast numbers of people in the city.

Ignore his comments all you like, make up regionalist crap (if he had been sacked from nWDA why not lay into the negative effect it has on Liverpool?) but as Jupiter continues to attract the busines whilst Liverpool doesn't we'lll all know why.



Did I ignore his comments?

there are no doubt some bits of truth in Mark Chadwicks interview


As Chief Executive of Professional Liverpool, was his remit not to promote Liverpool's professional services?


Do you believe he was promoting Liverpool's professional services with the Jupiter comment?


Was he not made redundant as a result of the NWDA cutting funding to that particular body?


Professional Liverpool axes chief executive Mark Chadwick

CRISIS-HIT lobby group Professional Liverpool has made its chief executive redundant, after losing 80% of its funding.

The decision to give Mark Chadwick notice was taken at a board meeting late last week.

The organisation, which counts some of the city’s biggest professional firms among its members, was thrown into disarray in July when the Northwest Development Agency (NWDA) withdrew its annual £200,000 grant.

Yes, let's refocus....

Leeds & Liverpool....cannot compete economically, politically or socially with Manchester.

Fact.

Take any figures you want and we are ahead, in most cases out of sight?

I think that it is geography. Why open an office in Leeds or Liverpool when Manchester is slap bang in the middle and offers easy access. This will never change and with the continued investment in transport in Manchester being off the scale compared with Leeds & Liverpool this process has gravity.

I can see nothing but Manchester dwarfing our neighbours in the years ahead..we seem to be dominating in so many ways?

Geography for me.

Some Leeds Facts

- Largest employer outside London for finance & business services-
Hmm as you said, 'why open an office in Leeds or Liverpool when Manchester is in the middle'. So why does Leeds outperform Manchester for employing in the finance and business services? When presumably most of these services are in offices.

-In 2008 there were 24,190 active businesses, second only to Birmingham
- Again why are there more active businesses in Leeds than Manchester? Makes no sense really been in the middle and all ;).

- Over the last 10 years Leeds has created the second highest number of employee jobs - a net increase of 52,000 jobs
- I'm surprised Leeds has created any jobs, I mean with the Likes of Manchester around sucking in all the wealth?

- Leeds had the 2nd lowest rate of worklessness in 2009
Well no surprise really, everyone is desperate to build offices in Manchester, so much so that they have an extreme over-supply. One of the highest in the country. I think the people in Manchester don't understand the idea behind 'supply and demand'. You are only supposed to build when there is demand.

- Leeds is the 2nd largest provider of education for young people in England-
I suppose learn in Leeds work in Manchester.

The list goes on....

How many different arguments can you predicate on the same interview?



You ignore these most basic simple facts then act surprised when people like the guy at Professional Liverpool compared the gravitational pull of Liverpool to earth whilst Manchester was Jupiter.

Not once does he mention statism, just explains why Manchester is like Jupiter to Liverpool which is earth when it comes to the gravitational field that drags in new business growth in each area.


In an article on the Liverpool subforum recently someone from Professional Liverpool pointed out those cities along the spine of the country are the ones that flourish today due to their close proximity to each other and larger markets all around them. Says it all really.

Because it was given to you as a regional subsidy. You could never have won those jobs based on your competitive merits. Now that the Tories are in, and a-slashing (as they do best), then you can't expect any more handouts from central government. The gravy train has ended. :)

Conspiracy theory No ****.

That's right Monkey. Greater Manchester has no competitive merits to attract inward and overseas investment. You obviously know something I don't. Please share your 'informed' knowledge with us. You are informed aren't you? Feel free. Enlighten us.

Here we go again. Clutching at straws Monkey. The Tory Government this, the Tory/Lib Dem Government that. It's still on Monkey.(see below) So is the Metrolink expansion, so is Mediacity and so is the leisure proposal in East Manchester, so is...........

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/civ2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v397/jrb041067/civ1.jpg

As for Handouts. Quote: (down there) :lol:

Big headed mancs!!

Actually my bone mass is shrinking. That includes my skull. I'm 42. :cry:

Metrolink... Manchester
Airport........ Manchester
Foreign Sheiks....looks like Manchester
BBC....oh dear us again
Towers...oope Beetham!
SuperCasino.. that was us!


Must be a fluke! Crazy Leeds and Pool are so much better!

Tee hee.

Deal with it...green eyed posters!

peep peep.

Can't wait for City to hoover up the trophies with United

JRB to Monkey

Hello Monkey

£10billion Olympic London `subsidy' ARF!

Where has he gone?

Metrolink... Manchester
Airport........ Manchester
Foreign Sheiks....looks like Manchester
BBC....oh dear us again
Towers...oope Beetham!
SuperCasino.. that was us!


Must be a fluke! Crazy Leeds and Pool are so much better!

Tee hee.

Deal with it...green eyed posters!

peep peep.

Oh well, I proved you wrong that's all that matters.

"Leeds & Liverpool....cannot compete economically, politically or socially with Manchester.

Fact.

Take any figures you want and we are ahead, in most cases out of sight?
"

:lol::lol::lol::stupid:

Metrolink... Manchester
Airport........ Manchester
Foreign Sheiks....looks like Manchester
BBC....oh dear us again
Towers...oope Beetham!
SuperCasino.. that was us!


Must be a fluke! Crazy Leeds and Pool are so much better!

Tee hee.

Deal with it...green eyed posters!

peep peep.



An awe inspiring list, I must say! Do work for Visit Manchester? What a unique offering, surely a match for London or New York! I really must take in the Airport (again), pay a visit to its 'Foreign' Sheiks, spend a bit of my cash in it's Supercasino, gaze up in wonderment at the subtle curves of it's Beetham Towers, ride its unique tram system and visit the legendary BBC.

An awe inspiring list, I must say! Do work for Visit Manchester? What a unique offering, surely a match for London or New York! I really must take in the Airport (again), pay a visit to its 'Foreign' Sheiks, spend a bit of my cash in it's Supercasino, gaze up in wonderment at the subtle curves of it's Beetham Towers, ride its unique tram system and visit the legendary BBC.


:lol:

On an additional note, the tags in this thread are fucking priceless!

:lol:

On an additional note, the tags in this thread are fucking priceless!


I think the tag regarding Langur is a bit out of order (not the one calling him a Manc).

An awe inspiring list, I must say! Do work for Visit Manchester? What a unique offering, surely a match for London or New York! I really must take in the Airport (again), pay a visit to its 'Foreign' Sheiks, spend a bit of my cash in it's Supercasino, gaze up in wonderment at the subtle curves of it's Beetham Towers, ride its unique tram system and visit the legendary BBC.

No we are comparing with you not New York or London.

Why do you act so dumb.

We are lording it over you and yours not theres and them.


New York we aint but then again Liverpool we aren't.

Bigger & Better than though.

Ole Green eyes :)

I think the tag regarding Langur is a bit out of order (not the one calling him a Manc).


Yeah.....that one is somewhat uncalled for.

Has thefly morphed into an even twattier version of Wiggleyleeds but for Manchester?

city bashing thread?

Pot Kettle Black

No we are comparing with you not New York or London.

Why do you act so dumb.

We are lording it over you and yours not theres and them.


New York we aint but then again Liverpool we aren't.

Bigger & Better than though.

Ole Green eyes :)


I'm not acting dumb, I'm mocking you. Civic pride is one thing, but why brag about achievements or facets of your city so trivial that most people wouldn't give them a second thought. It has the David Brent aura of self importance.

I mean, highest attendance of a basketball match in the UK. I bet Grandma Jones is real proud of that one huh? If you wan't to 'lord it over' someone, I'd use something a little more tangible, something that Manchester as a city should be rightly proud of, such as Manchester Town Hall.

city bashing thread?

Pot Kettle Black

Perhaps, just comes across as insecure.

I'm not acting dumb, I'm mocking you. Civic pride is one thing, but why brag about achievements or facets of your city so trivial that most people wouldn't give them a second thought. It has the David Brent aura of self importance.


Yosef, David Brent. On this forum, you & me...I think we both have sufficient reason not to mention that.

This is all very sad whichever way you look at it.

Either my psotings and your responses

or

your postings and my responses

etc
etc


lighten up...it's the bashing section.....if you were not busy waxing your chips you'd see it for yourself...

Albion? Wiggley? I have not yet resulted in parading buff naked in my avator...that is the final straw!?

Yer, the comparison to Wiggley was unfair, that man is a rare specimen.

Yosef, David Brent. On this forum, you & me...I think we both have sufficient reason not to mention that.

This is all very sad whichever way you look at it.

Either my psotings and your responses

or

your postings and my responses

etc
etc


lighten up...it's the bashing section.....if you were not busy waxing your chips you'd see it for yourself...

Albion? Wiggley? I have not yet resulted in parading buff naked in my avator...that is the final straw!?


It [Manchester] has the David Brent aura of self importance. I thought that was a quality bash, but the following is infinitely better :popcorn:

Manchester: The Hyacinth Bucket of provincial cities.


Hyacinth Bucket (which she pronounces "Bouquet"), born into a working-class family but married into the (barely) upper-middle-class, is the epitome of a snob, perpetually but hopelessly trying to climb the social ladder and forever trying to impress her neighbours and friends. Hyacinth does her best to give the impression that she is of high social standing, while proving at all times that she is of working-class origins and desperate to escape them.

Hyacinth looks down on others, believing she is incomparably superior to those around her, and is particularly ashamed of her rather slovenly relatives - her sisters Daisy and Rose, and especially her brother-in-law Onslow. Hyacinth's obsession with appearing socially advantaged and/or enhancing her social status clearly is intended to compensate for her own insecurities and the fact that she comes from a family she considers common.

Hyacinth is obsessively houseproud, always polishing and perfecting her home and warning visitors to remove their shoes and not to brush up against the walls. She pretends that items such as statues, cups, and sofas are particularly expensive, so as to show off to the neighbours, a pretense that causes problems with her nervous neighbor, Elizabeth, who is constantly fearful of breaking the china. In an attempt to make everyone who calls her think she employs servants, she answers the phone with "The Bouquet Residence, the lady of the house speaking!"

Sorry Mancs but you do come across as northern Londoners sometimes - you ain't the best at everything outside London so simmer down.

You're all fucking morons. Including you yoshef, you've embarrassed yourself in here.

lol ^^ i smell defeat.

See what I mean?

lol ^^ i smell defeat.

Nelson Mandella's chiropodist says that quite often.

You're all fucking morons. Including you yoshef, you've embarrassed yourself in here.

morons are easier to sleep with

I give up. :ohno:

Manchester - the urban bit, is practically as big as Leeds and Liverpool added together :lol:.

Start comparing like for like and your 'impressive' stats about business employment start to fall apart.

I feel you need to clarify by what you mean by 'manchester - the urban bit is'.

Oh second thoughts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Primary_Urban_Areas_in_England_by_population

The area which most normal people who are not trying to twist things to make a point recognise as a city, that being the urban bit around a city centre, totally ignoring local authority boundaries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Primary_Urban_Areas_in_England_by_population

The area which most normal people who are not trying to twist things to make a point recognise as a city, that being the urban bit around a city centre, totally ignoring local authority boundaries.


A silly metric, Wirral is functionally part of Liverpool. Why does it have to be contiguous to be considered a city?


AA Route planner

Tameside -> Manchester
17 min

Oldham -> Manchester
18 min

Stockport -> Manchester
19 min

Bury -> Manchester
22min



compared with....


Birkenhead -> Liverpool
5 min

Wallasey -> Liverpool
10 min

Widnes -> Liverpool
20 min

Ellesmere port -> Liverpool
22 minutes

But I have included Wirral in Liverpool :lol:

It's still only as big as Manchester if you add Leeds to it :lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Primary_Urban_Areas_in_England_by_population

Manchester = 1,741,961

Liverpool - 830,112 +
Wirral - 331,232 +
Leeds - 596,027 =

1,757,371



Why does it have to be contiguous to be considered a city?


Because most people consider a city to be of an urban nature and the countryside to be of rural nature do they not?

Do YOU consider places around the edge of the urban lump that surrounds Manchester, such as Macclesfield, Rochdale, Bolton to be in Manchester? No, because they are seperate places, themselves surrounded by countryside.

Because most people consider a city to be of an urban nature and the countryside to be of rural nature do they not?

A continguous area is a contiguous urban area, not necessarily a city. In some cases it might describe an entire city, but in others it might not. The fact that Wirral and Liverpool are treated as seperate entities in the first places suggests that the metric being used is unsuitable. You could not apply that same metric to Venice for example. In the UK not only do we have waterspaces that interfere with these measures, but also Green Belt. Just like the waterspaces, green belt divides up metropolitan areas of cities, but does not present an insurmountable barrier.

Quite often Loiners will claim their city includes Bradfords suburbs, and Mancunians will berate them for it. Yet Mancunians will do the same thing, claiming another towns suburbs to be part of Manchester, using a slightly different method, claiming that because its contiguous its the same place. Yet, in terms of driving time Bradfords suburbs might be much closer, and Leeds is quite clearly the largest city in that area. Which is correct, and which isn't? Are people in Bradfords suburbs more likely to drive to Leeds than someone in Boltons suburbs is to Manchester? Who knows.

Cities are hard things to measure, they evolve differently, most function similarly but not exactly, and whatever metric you use someone is always going to dispute the outcome.


Just as a small example, in terms of driving, look how far away some of these places are to Manchester city centre, and compare them to some towns outside Merseyside.

(times from AA Route planner)


Bury -> Manchester
22min

Bolton -> Manchester
27 min

Rochdale -> Manchester
28 min

Wigan -> Manchester
37 min


------------

Ellesmere port -> Liverpool
22 minutes

Runcorn -> Liverpool
23 minutes

Warrington -> Liverpool
24 min

Wigan -> Liverpool
27 min

Queensferry (Deeside, North wales!!!!! ) -> Liverpool
29 min

Chester -> Liverpool
31 min

Barnet to London 41mins.

Your point being?

Bigger cities, e.g. Manchester, have suburbs that go further into the distance that take longer to progress through than smaller cities like Leeds and Liverpool.

Even when you take into account the water divide between Wirral and Liverpool and add the two places together you still need to add Leeds to make the same population as you get in Manchester.

Ignore the simple facts all you like, but when you visit a place you consider yourself to have left the city as and when you get to the countryside, when you come across the next urban lump you've entered the next town. May be a satellite town of the close by city, but to any normal person experiencing that journey from urbanness, through open countryside and back into another lump of urbanness you feel like you've entered a different town/city.

Dislike it all you like, but just as you may want to start adding satellite towns to Leeds and Liverpool's populations, if you are going to compare like with like it's time to start adding the same satellite towns to Manchester's population - and there are a hell of a lot of them surrounding the urban lump.

Do YOU consider places around the edge of the urban lump that surrounds Manchester, such as Macclesfield, Rochdale, Bolton to be in Manchester? No, because they are seperate places, themselves surrounded by countryside.

I'd consider them as being in metropolitan area, but not the city proper, just like Oldham or St Helens.

Which is what the PUA does.

It considers (the town) of Oldham and St Helens not to be in the city but outside of it.

Tell me, what meaningful way do you have of comparing a city with another city?


Also, what is this obsession with everywhere being in a city? There are plenty of places between Leeds and Bradford that fall into one or other local authority but are clearly not part of any city but rather either very small towns or viallges.

If Manchester was really as big as Leeds and Liverpool put together, relatively speaking, why is its city centre so small?

If this were the case, as a proportion of this big sprawling city, its tiny, an absolute tiddler.

It is bigger than either Leeds or Liverpool city centres, only has to be 1.4 times wider than somewhere else to have twice the area.

Have a look at the amount of grade 1 office space in the city centre, have a look at the amount of residential population in the city centre, have a look at the amount of retail in the city centre - despite having the Trafford Centre just four miles away.

On each and every one of these counts Manchester far outstrips the other cities, in some cases (office space) by a country mile.

Simple really, the city centre is much bigger than either other city and the stats will show that.


EDIT - for Manchester to have a city centre 1.5 times the size of Liverpool (same proportion of PUA population), the radius of the city centre needs to be 1.2 times the size of the Liverpool city centre. I think most people would say it's at least that much bigger.

anyway, what method are you using to compare the cities that does NOT show Manchester to be the same size as Liverpool and Leeds combined?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Primary_Urban_Areas_in_England_by_population

Manchester = 1,741,961

Liverpool - 830,112 +
Wirral - 331,232 +
Leeds - 596,027 =

1,757,371





Because most people consider a city to be of an urban nature and the countryside to be of rural nature do they not?

Do YOU consider places around the edge of the urban lump that surrounds Manchester, such as Macclesfield, Rochdale, Bolton to be in Manchester? No, because they are seperate places, themselves surrounded by countryside.

To prove you wrong i measured The urban area of Manchester, And the urban area of Leeds. which was larger? :|


http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae219/everlast1/SnapShot609.png

http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae219/everlast1/SnapShot610.png

Tell me, what meaningful way do you have of comparing a city with another city?



Why not do me the courtesy of reading everything I write?


Cities are hard things to measure, they evolve differently, most function similarly but not exactly, and whatever metric you use someone is always going to dispute the outcome.

I showed you the figures from the ESPON research on functional cities the other day and you instantly dismissed it, because it didn't fit in with your Manchester agenda.

To prove you wrong i measured The urban area of Manchester, And the urban area of Leeds. which was larger? :|


http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae219/everlast1/SnapShot609.png

http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae219/everlast1/SnapShot610.png

Did you fail maths at school?

Not learn the difference between circumference and area?

Try again, could do better.

No did you, i measured around the urban area, in all that area there isn't one brake of countryside same goes for Manchester so hows it a wrong way of measuring it?

Why not do me the courtesy of reading everything I write?



I showed you the figures from the ESPON research on functional cities the other day and you instantly dismissed it, because it didn't fit in with your Manchester agenda.

No, because they do not fit in with mine or anyone else's observations.

Tell me, why is the retail offering in Manchester so much larger than either other city (are you going to claim the Trafford Centre not to be in Manchester now???), tell me why about 2.5times as much office space if constructed in Manchester compared to Liverpool each and every year?

Tell me why the city centre residential population is miles higher in Manchester than in Liverpool.

Just about every one of the moans that comes from the Liverpool subforum on these boards could easily be explained if you were willing to accept what is looking staright at you in the face - Manchester is about 50% larger than Liverpool and about 3 times the size of Leeds.

Ignore this as much as you like, but it really does explain why so much investment goes into Manchester and yet places like Leeds cannot deliver a light rail system - the places are vastly different.

Everlast - I think you miss the point.

We are talking about the lump of urbanness around the city centre.

For some reason you seem to have ignored a huge proportion of that urbanness around Manchester.

For some reason you are now going to explain why having a different council providing your services makes a difference to what makes up a city aren't you (yet not in London oddly).

Everlast - have a look at your map again.

That off shoot to the NW of the city.

Now tell me, how do the people living in that part of the world contribute more to the demands on infrastructure and society of Leeds than the people who live on the west bank of the Irwell in the city centre of Manchester?

Everlast - I think you miss the point.

We are talking about the lump of urbanness around the city centre.

For some reason you seem to have ignored a huge proportion of that urbanness around Manchester.

For some reason you are now going to explain why having a different council providing your services makes a difference to what makes up a city aren't you (yet not in London oddly).

Lets be honest now, stockport, salford, oldham and sale, them places are not manchester, they are there own towns and cities, the only thing they share is there district name called greater Manchester, just because Bradford shares the same district name west yorkshire doesn't mean its apart of Leeds does it?

Tell me then, what makes up a city?

To me it's the urban area around a core that functions as a whole.

The PUA is certainly not a definative way of measuring it but I think it gives very good estimates and is very good at providing relative sizes.

Personally I do consider Old Trafford, Ordsall, Failwsworth, Heaton Chaple, Prestwich and many many more non-'Manchester' places to be in 'Manchester'.

Others don't.

That's fair enough, they are just as right as I am as there is clearly no definition that the whole world will agree on.

What I will say though is the PUA does, in my view give a very representative RELATIVE view of how big a city is and how big it feels.

So yes, to ME Manchester is about three times the size of Leeds which is about half the size of Liverpool.

I think the development of infrastruture actually accurately reflects this as well...

The top ten PUAs in order in England...

London
Birmingham
Manchester
Liverpool
Newcastle
Nottingham
Sheffield
Leeds
Bristol
Leceister

Now, think of major infrastructure that you would expect in a large city, then look at that list, on the whole that list reflects the places that have more large infrastructure that you would expect in a large city, be it...

Motorway (ring roads)
Airports
Mass transit systems
Conference facilities
Arenas
Sporting facilities
Media output

on the whole, those at the top of that list are much better represented than those as you go down. Think of practically any infrastructure that you would consider to make up a large city and you will get similar results.

Anyway, not saying I am right, I certainly aren't, no one is right as it's an objective question, but, as far as I am concerned, through my observations, the PUA quite accurately reflects the REALTIVE size of the cities in question.

So anyway, if you want to consider Leeds to be the second largest English city after Birmingham then far enough, your choice, I disagree and you've never convience me otherwise as I have seen with my own eyes the differences of the cities in question.

Anyway, time to go to pub to watch footy, enjoy the afteroon chumpos.

It is bigger than either Leeds or Liverpool city centres, only has to be 1.4 times wider than somewhere else to have twice the area.

Have a look at the amount of grade 1 office space in the city centre, have a look at the amount of residential population in the city centre, have a look at the amount of retail in the city centre - despite having the Trafford Centre just four miles away.

On each and every one of these counts Manchester far outstrips the other cities, in some cases (office space) by a country mile.

Simple really, the city centre is much bigger than either other city and the stats will show that.


No, people visiting Manchester, Liverpool and to a lesser extent Leeds don't use stats, they use their eyes. Most people see them as similarly sized cities. I seriously believe some of you lot live in cloud cuckoo land.

Relatively speaking Manchester is a 20% maybe 30% bigger than Liverpool, and its city centre is more advanced in terms of regeneration, by virtue of the fact its started some 10-15 years before anyone seriously had a look at Liverpool City Centre.

Making it out as a city that "dwarfs" Liverpool is absolutely insane. Look at the window of an office block in Liverpool city centre and you can see a port stretching for around 7 miles along the mersey, around 60 miles of quayside, warehouses and offices, and other industrial, and at the south end of the Mersey you've got oil refineries and chemical plants (not even in merseyside!)

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4357095579_50072afeca_b.jpg

Compare that urbanness to Manchester's solid 'urban' blob of mostly other little milltowns suburban shite and tower blocks. Trafford Park is the only part of Manchester that can come close.

No, area wise the radius only needs to be 1.2 times the size of Liverpool to be 50% bigger.

It clearly is, you just chose to ignore it.

Anyway, you go as far as saying it could be 30% bigger, are you saying you can judge something of this scale that acurately?

Why 30% and not 40%? or even 50% that the stats suggest is the difference.

Anyway, 1pm is pub o'clock.

Enjoy dream you dream world small town chumpos. :lol:

No, area wise the radius only needs to be 1.2 times the size of Liverpool to be 50% bigger.

It clearly is, you just chose to ignore it.

Anyway, you go as far as saying it could be 30% bigger, are you saying you can judge something of this scale that acurately?

Why 30% and not 40%? or even 50% that the stats suggest is the difference.

Anyway, 1pm is pub o'clock.

Enjoy dream you dream world small town chumpos. :lol:


Going by your logic, West Yorkshire is classed as apart of Leeds :) making Leeds huge!!!!! :banana: :nuts:

Tell me, why is the retail offering in Manchester so much larger than either other city (are you going to claim the Trafford Centre not to be in Manchester now???),


Manchester started regenerating earlier so has a head start. But do you have to be from Manchester to shop in Manchester? Does nobody from Merseyside use the Trafford centre?

You tell me why Liverpool city centre retail offering dropped from 3rd to 17th, then back up to 5th? Is that a direct measure of the size of a city? No.


tell me why about 2.5times as much office space if constructed in Manchester compared to Liverpool each and every year?

There was more demand in Manchester as it started regenerating earlier.

How mach grade A office space is there in Cairo?



Tell me why the city centre residential population is miles higher in Manchester than in Liverpool.


Because Manchester started regenerating the city centre earlier.



Just about every one of the moans that comes from the Liverpool subforum on these boards could easily be explained if you were willing to accept what is looking staright at you in the face - Manchester is about 50% larger than Liverpool and about 3 times the size of Leeds.


Greater Manchester almost entirely contains Manchester (the city) and its Metropolitan area.

Merseyside contains Liverpool, and two towns in its metropolitan area, St Helens and Southport.


Ignore this as much as you like,



I'm pretty sure I've addressed every one of your points.



but it really does explain why so much investment goes into Manchester and yet places like Leeds cannot deliver a light rail system -

Who knows? eh. Maybe its the bigger than London?


the places are vastly different.

Bingo! Took you a while, but you got there eventually.

Anyway, you go as far as saying it could be 30% bigger, are you saying you can judge something of this scale that acurately?




I said 20%-30%, and I wouldn't consider a 10% tollerance to be particularly accurate, would you?

Tell me, why is the retail offering in Manchester so much larger than either other city, tell me why about 2.5times as much office space if constructed in Manchester compared to Liverpool each and every year?

Tell me why the city centre residential population is miles higher in Manchester than in Liverpool.Because, obviously, Manchester is a more successful city than either Liverpool or Leeds. The question, in my opinion, is why?

Because, obviously, Manchester is a more successful city than either Liverpool or Leeds. The question, in my opinion, is why?

Goverment funding :), but still Leeds does better in quite a couple of places than manchester and so does liverpool.

Bloody hell, is is this still going on? Let Wirlie and TheFly have their idea of Manchester being absolutely gargantuan compared to everywhere else. They're wrong but it doesn't really harm anyone, except reaffirm perceptions of Mancs being incredibly deluded about their own importance but what can you do?

It seems that only 3 cities get bashed on this thread, Liverpool,Manchester and Leeds...occasionally Brum gets bashed by Leedstroll but that's about it. It's great seeing how all the alliances take shape when one city is being bashed, Mancs and Scousers will unite against Leeds but then immediately turn on each other when it's one of their cities being bashed, funny stuff.

For what it's worth Sunderland and Preston are easily the worst, most depressing cities in England.

To prove you wrong i measured The urban area of Manchester, And the urban area of Leeds. which was larger? :|


http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae219/everlast1/SnapShot609.png

http://i973.photobucket.com/albums/ae219/everlast1/SnapShot610.png

I'm pretty sure, if you're measuring things strictly, that Pudsey isn't in Leeds/

For what it's worth Sunderland and Preston are easily the worst, most depressing cities in England.My pick would be Sunderland and Middlesbrough.

pudsey is Leeds, it's in the Leeds border.

East. (still no reply)

So much for a free stadium via the tax payer.

From today's MEN.

Manchester City give council an extra £1m

Manchester City are to pay the council an extra £1m a year after agreeing a new lease deal on their Eastlands stadium.

The Blues signed a 250-year agreement to rent the former Commonwealth Games stadium when they moved there from Maine Road in 2003.

As part of the lease terms, a percentage of the club’s match day income was poured into town hall coffers.

The amount has depended on the size of City’s crowds. For the past three seasons the figure has been around £2m.

Under the new deal, the council will receive a flat rate regardless of attendances.

The M.E.N understands the fee will start at around £3m and rise with inflation.

Further payments will be made if City are successful in European competition - which looks likely given the fortune pumped into the Blues by mega-rich owner Sheikh Mansour.

Council officials remained tight-lipped over whether plans to increase the current 48,000 stadium capacity have been discussed.

A Blues source said City had no plans to buy the stadium outright but had purchased some land around it and were ‘considering potential development as part of a contribution to the regeneration of east Manchester’.

The news comes a day after City announced club record losses of £121m in their annual report – the second largest in Premier League history.

Despite the staggering sum, City said they were on track to hit their targets and put the loss down to a transfer spree that they say will not be repeated.

The council pocketed £12.5m under the terms of the old lease. A spokesman said when it was signed it was agreed to review it after five years.

He added: "Under the terms of the revised agreement a single fixed sum, which will go up in line with inflation, will replace the previous payment, which was based on a complicated formula taking into account attendance money and income from parking and non-match day events.

"This will result in an increase in the revenue generated, which is dedicated to supporting sports facilities and employment opportunities at Eastlands and elsewhere in the city.

"It is also a much more straightforward arrangement for all parties."

Just to clarify a few things. Obviously you were confused.

The stadium was built for the 2002 Commonwealth Games.(and Manchester) Not for Manchester City Football Club.

Rumour has it that if City hadn't agreed to take on the 'white elephant', the games wouldn't have gone ahead. A £120mill stadium reamaining empty after the games would have been a disaster.

City gave up Maine Road and the land around it in return for the stadium. A school, a medical centre and housing are planned for the site. Construction has already started.

City paid £35 million for the construction of the North Stand. Without that a temporary stand would still be there today.

The lease. As above. Work out the figures over 250 years and come back to me.

Free stadium? My arse!

Monkey. London is subsidised by the goodwill, knowledge and labour force of the rest of the united kingdom. And the rest of the world. London is homogenous. It has no identity other than the myriad identities that it adopts whenever it suits itself. It is sterile. It is therefore it is.

For what it's worth Sunderland and Preston are easily the worst, most depressing cities in England.

:sleepy:

personally i'd say preston is one of the least depressing of the small cities in the UK.

aye Preston is alright.

Everlast, obvious point, but for your view of Manchester to be a widely held common belief, which I don't think it is, the people who attended the rugby match at Old Trafford must not have considered themselves to be in Manchester.

The ONLY way you can get to a point whereby Leeds has a higher population than Manchester is by not including places like Old Trafford in Manchester and you refuse to accept that anything other than a local authority can make up a city.

I wonder how common that view is? Not very I'd guess which is why I would suggest the vast majority of people who have been to both places recognise Manchester to be miles ahead in population size compared to Leeds.

Yoshef, if as you say Manchester is 15years ahead on the economic front then given the Manchester region continues to regenerate at a faster rate - look at how much development goes on across the whole regions even today and that gap is just going to grow and grow. Especially given Liverpools significantly higher dependence on state funding for the local economy.

Finally, instead of buying into this crap about Manchester getting a disproportionate amount of state funding have a look at the actual facts - it gets by far and away the LEAST of the core English cities but that does not tie in with the SSC forum anti-Manc crap. You focus on one or two tiny (in the scheme of things) vanity projects that have been delivered over a couple of decades. Vanity projects that you would understand why they are in Manchester once you accept the city is as big as the next two biggest northern cities added together. The GVA of Greater Manchester (not Manchester I know but try finding that figure out!) is about £44bn / year, if you really think such small tiny issues such as the COM stadium have that much of an effect then back to economics lessons for you all.

Forgot to say, the light rail thing was related to the fact that if you do look at the list of PUAs then you do find that as you move down the list you find less and less major infrastructure, mass transit being the obvious one.

London clearly has shed loads as it is a shed load bigger than anywhere else.

Leeds has struggled to develop a light rail system (hence the decision to mention that) whereas larger cities including Nottingham, Sheffield and Manchester - look at the list - have all delivered suh a mass transit system.

Same goes for arenas, only now, between 20 and 10 years after those other bigger cities is Leeds getting an arena. Doesn't mean that Leeds is catching up just as a nation we have got to the point where cities of that size can justify an arena.

Be is anything on that list I posted and you'll find a similar PATTERN, certainly a few examples where that breaks down, but on the whole those cities at the top have far more major infrastructure than those at the bottom.

Some Leeds Facts

- Largest employer outside London for finance & business services-
Hmm as you said, 'why open an office in Leeds or Liverpool when Manchester is in the middle'. So why does Leeds outperform Manchester for employing in the finance and business services? When presumably most of these services are in offices.

-In 2008 there were 24,190 active businesses, second only to Birmingham
- Again why are there more active businesses in Leeds than Manchester? Makes no sense really been in the middle and all ;).

- Over the last 10 years Leeds has created the second highest number of employee jobs - a net increase of 52,000 jobs
- I'm surprised Leeds has created any jobs, I mean with the Likes of Manchester around sucking in all the wealth?

- Leeds had the 2nd lowest rate of worklessness in 2009
Well no surprise really, everyone is desperate to build offices in Manchester, so much so that they have an extreme over-supply. One of the highest in the country. I think the people in Manchester don't understand the idea behind 'supply and demand'. You are only supposed to build when there is demand.

- Leeds is the 2nd largest provider of education for young people in England-
I suppose learn in Leeds work in Manchester.

The list goes on....

That's very good.

However, one could argue that Manchester's media sector, it's knowledge sector, it's sports related sector, it's tourisam and leisure sector, it's retail sector, it's transport sector, etc are much bigger than anything Leeds has offer. The media and knowledge sectors are drivers, and all of those other sectors mentioned have created and are still creating jobs in Manchester. Can the same be said about banking and finance sectors in Leeds?

Not only that, but Manchester's banking, finance, law and business sectors are comparable to those in Leeds. As in, banking, finance, law and business in Leeds doesn't impact on Manchester one bit. It could be claimed that those sectors in Leeds and Manchester impact on Sheffield and Liverpool respectively, but that may not be the case either.

I can say with 99% certainty that Manchester has withstood the on-going recession much better than Leeds has. More jobs have been created in Manchester during this period, and more projects are still on-going, with new ones starting up again. As for job loses, I don't know. However, Leeds has an over reliance on the banking and finance sector, so I would assume that it has seen quite a few job loses over the last few years. Only guessing mind, so I could be wrong.

TBH both cities can live side by side with each other without impacting on each other. There is and will always be a physical barrier that will allow this to happen. The Pennines.

PS. I do concede that Leeds get's much less rain than Manchester. B******'s!

From what I understand much of the Leeds banking sector is in places like Pudsey and Copley, the Macclesfield equivilent to Manchester.

-In 2008 there were 24,190 active businesses, second only to Birmingham
- Again why are there more active businesses in Leeds than Manchester? Makes no sense really been in the middle and all .

So, the largest local authority has the most active businesses and the second largest local authority has the second most.

Tell me, do you think many people who went to Old Trafford last night considered themselves to be in Manchester?

If yes then you have to accept that the figures you have posted are irrelevant spin and you also have to accept that Manchester IS a lot bigger than Leeds, about 3 times the size in my opinion as I see the PUA as being an acurate reflection of relative sizes.

If yo think that the people who went to the football DID think they were in Manchester you need to accept that most people DO consider Manchester to be much bigger than Leeds and you are in the minority.

|No point Wirlie....despite the overwhelming physical evidence and statistical data, they will continue to claim that Manchester is only the county council, when only a grade one dick would look at the cigar shaped map of that authority and conclude it represents the Manchester conurbation.

Does it really matter? Not in my eyes, if they want to delude themselves then fine...meanwhile we get Metrolink expanded (despite giving two fingers to the car tax option!!!), the largest single UK investment outside of the Olympics (or is it!!!!!!???) with ADUG/Man City, the BBC move, M60 orbital completion, the largest office market by miles outside of London, a proper airport, proper sized arena, proper tall tower, two biggest UK football clubs.

Oh, on and on we can list...let's just bask.

Let them eat cake.

I'd love to know from our Leeds chumpos which major infrastructure that you associate with a major city does Leeds clearly have (potentially lots off) that Manchester doesn't have (or has a clearly much less of it?).

One sector out of many, where Leeds has plenty in surrounding villages does not constitute an example of Leeds having more of such an indicator.

|No point Wirlie....despite the overwhelming physical evidence and statistical data, they will continue to claim that Manchester is only the county council, when only a grade one dick would look at the cigar shaped map of that authority and conclude it represents the Manchester conurbation.

Does it really matter? Not in my eyes, if they want to delude themselves then fine...meanwhile we get Metrolink expanded (despite giving two fingers to the car tax option!!!), the largest single UK investment outside of the Olympics (or is it!!!!!!???) with ADUG/Man City, the BBC move, M60 orbital completion, the largest office market by miles outside of London, a proper airport, proper sized arena, proper tall tower, two biggest UK football clubs.

Oh, on and on we can list...let's just bask.

Let them eat cake.

No, only one major football club.
Trafford is not Manchester remember

Yes I know:lol:

No, only one major football club.
Trafford is not Manchester remember

Yes I know:lol:

Doh!

I forgot the `Leeds Ruling' that salamis Manchester up.

Trafford, what a place....shimmering dockside, UK's largest industrial estate, huge out of twn shopping centre, MASSIVE ski-slope, water-taxis, 10 lane motorway section, trams, newspaper printing presses, country parks, millionaire villagers and not forgetting the Arndale Precinct.

My kinda `metropolitan authority' town

I suspect we'll have seen the last of Everlast.

There's no stoppin' the cretins from hoppin'.

I suspect we'll have seen the last of Everlast.


I have a life and a job, and i don't sit at my computer screen all day bragging about things that really don't matter!


Ps: you can think of Manchester has gods gift to the Earth for all i care, and it doesn't mean i after think the same just to please your biased arrogant views.

Yoshef, if as you say Manchester is 15years ahead on the economic front then given the Manchester region continues to regenerate at a faster rate - look at how much development goes on across the whole regions even today and that gap is just going to grow and grow. Especially given Liverpools significantly higher dependence on state funding for the local economy.



I'm not sure if theres a point in there somewhere? What is the Manchester region, and to what are you comparing it to? Are you saying Liverpool should give up? Are you saying the growth rate of both economies will stay the same, for the next 15 years? For ever? Do you have a crystal ball? How do you know that Liverpool's regeneration won't snowball like Manchesters did? Are you guessing? Are you making stuff up? Or is it just because you don't want it to?

Do you disagree that Manchester started regenerating much earlier? Compare some of the major regeneration projects in Liverpool.


Metrolink 1992
Arndale 1996
MEN Arena 1995
Trafford Centre 1998
Lowry 2000
GMEX/MICC/Manchester Central 1986/2001
Picadilly station revamp 2002
IWM North 2002
City of Manchester Stadium 2002
HMR - first to receive funding, 2003 I think, large areas of Manchester & Salford already rebuilt. More to come
Spinningfields 2007?- ongoing
Media City - 2007? - ongoing
Eastlands - 2011? - ongoing

Liverpool

Echo Arena 2008
BT Convention Centre 2008
Liverpool One 2008.
Pier Head 2008
Cruise liner landing stage 2008
Mann Island / Liverpool Museum - 2011
Central Village/Lewis's -started
HMR - ongoing, large areas of boarded up houses across Liverpool, Wallasey, Birkenhead & Bootle, including the main route in from the east.

There are also a list of large projects not yet started or in preliminary stages, including Anfield Plaza, Wirral Waters, Liverpool Waters, New New Brighton, Project Jennifer, Edge Lane etc...

Nearly all the big Liverpool projects have seen the light of day in the last 2 years, in the middle of a recession, yet you've already chosen to write the whole lot off. You're basically stating that Liverpool's regeneration won't snowball and achieve critical mass like Manchester's, even though it's only just begun in earnest.

Who are you trying to convince Kurt, us, or yourself?



Personally, I think you have Wedge Antilles syndrome. I think you dress up like Wedge from Star Wars, drive into Manchester and proclaim in wonderment..

"LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THAT THING!"

http://www.bellaonline.com/gaming/pics/ff/sw_wedge.jpg

:lol:

Where did I say Manchester was wonderful?

If you could link that post I'd be greatful.

It's the same size as Liverpool and Leeds combined yes. But wonderful no.

Everlast, so do you reckon the majority of those who attended the football last night considered the game to have taken place in Manchester?

Simple question.

In reply to your point about later start to regeneration Yoshef, what you mean is Liverpool took longer than all the other English cities to pick up during the boom years.

Even during the last few years during this 'boom' the ONS say the the population of the Merseyside authorities has continued to drop.

Your celebration that Liverpool is no longer a basket case suggests that the place is actually catching other areas. It ain't I am afraid. Whilst Liverpool had finally started to get advantages from the worldwide boom the other cities were as well you know. More so in many other regions cases.

In reply to your point about later start to regeneration Yoshef, what you mean is Liverpool took longer than all the other English cities to pick up during the boom years.


No what I meant is what I said. Liverpool is the last big city in the UK to be regenerated, and using the list of big regeneration projects I posted, it is clear that it has only just started. Would you like me to post the list again? Did you miss it?



Even during the last few years during this 'boom' the ONS say the the population of the Merseyside authorities has continued to drop.


HMR is no doubt responsible for a significant proportion of drop in the population. I'm not 100% certain, but I'd say it would be pretty hard to renovate and rebuild 130,000 houses, whilst residents remain in them.


Your celebration that Liverpool is no longer a basket case suggests that the place is actually catching other areas. It ain't I am afraid. Whilst Liverpool had finally started to get advantages from the worldwide boom the other cities were as well you know. More so in many other regions cases.

Oh ok, I'll put my champagne away shall I? I thought Liverpool had finished, Damn. You're creating a straw man now. The debate was about Manchester gaining investment due it regenerating earlier. Do you STILL dispute this? Do you believe Liverpool in 15 or 20 years time will be exactly as it is today? If you do, why?

With all this twisting and turning, one can only surmise that you believe that a wizard came along and sprinkled magic dust on the Manchester, a quite depressing city centre with no metro system in the 1980s, and thats what attracted all that private investment that you brag about. Now that's just weird, isn't it?

I think that in 20 years time Liverpool may well be like Manchester is today.

Manchester in 20 years though will be nothing like it is today as a further 20years of growth will have occurred.

Again, Manchester is NOT some wonderful magical hugely successfuly city. Never said it is, again you have to pretend I have said something as your whole position is built on sand.

Personally I think manchester will boom even more.

The BBC
Metrolink Adug/Man City

Are projects off the scale compared with other non-London cities.

Media City Phase 1 is 1million sw feet of development on waste land.
Man City is already £500M and they have not even started digging.
Metrolink is worth £1-£2bn with untold benefits in attracting investment.

Happy, happy days.

I agree, I think over the next 15 years there are many reasons to believe that Manchester will have grown much more so than in the previous 15 years.

But Liverpool, or any other city that is to experience long term growth will at some point get to where Manchester is today. It may take 15 years, 20 years or 50 years. God knows but I suspect the forthcoming spending cuts will determine the medium term future of the Liverpool area more so than other less public sector dependent regions.

I think that in 20 years time Liverpool may well be like Manchester is today.

Manchester in 20 years though will be nothing like it is today as a further 20years of growth will have occurred.

Again, Manchester is NOT some wonderful magical hugely successfuly city. Never said it is, again you have to pretend I have said something as your whole position is built on sand.

Why? At the moment, Manchester exhibits the same confidence that no doubt Birmingham displayed in the 60s. I'm sure they expected growth to continue forevermore too. For all you know, in 20 years time Manchester might have stagnated, gone out of fashion. It might be afflicted with the same image problem that some people say has had Birmingham recently; lots of oversized, relatively cheap buildings built during a boomtime that have gone sour. "Noughties architecture, the bane of the modern urban environment" they might say. Even worse, Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters might turn out not to be pie in the sky, and the more modern environment coupled with a more conservatively and tastefully restored city centre might be too much of a draw on all that private enterprise 'swishing' around in Manchester and Leeds

The only fact worth considering is that you do not know what either city is going to be like in 20 years time.

Not sure we are talking of a few buildings here or personal taste.

We are talking huge infrastructure investment
Massive cultural change

And biblical levels of investment from ADUG/Man City.

They are to build an attracton of international significance.

This is not `brum in the sixties` whatever that was!

This is a huge sea-change, a step up to a higher level altogether.

I'd wager Manchester in 20 years is gonna be buzzing.

Not sure we are talking of a few buildings here or personal taste.

We are talking huge infrastructure investment
Massive cultural change

And biblical levels of investment from ADUG/Man City.

They are to build an attracton of international significance.

This is not `brum in the sixties` whatever that was!

This is a huge sea-change, a step up to a higher level altogether.

I'd wager Manchester in 20 years is gonna be buzzing.




Don't you understand the analogy?

If you had told someone in Birmingham 20-30 years ago that Manchester might overtake them one day in terms of prominence, they'd have been curled up on floor in stitches.
"Preposterous, " they might have said.
"We're the second city. Look at all this investment, look at all the shiny new buildings. Look at how big they are. Look at all the infrastructure. It is the archetypal modern city. Manchester will never overtake us, just look at the geography, we're in the middle of the country. We have an unassailable lead, we're just too far ahead. I really can't see an end to this constant stream of investment."

Sounds familiar.

Don't you understand the analogy?

If you had told someone in Birmingham 20-30 years ago that Manchester might overtake them one day in terms of prominence, they'd have been curled up on floor in stitches.
"Preposterous, " they might have said.
"We're the second city. Look at all this investment, look at all the shiny new buildings. Look at how big they are. Look at all the infrastructure. It is the archetypal modern city. Manchester will never overtake us, just look at the geography, we're in the middle of the country. We have an unassailable lead, we're just too far ahead. I really can't see an end to this constant stream of investment."

Sounds familiar.

Hmm, yet Manchester had the CIS and Sunley Tower...erm, both shiny and much taller than brum's poxy Alpha tower.

These are mere buildings not infrastructure like Metrolink or ADUG and certainly not an entire wing of the BBC.
This is unchartered water.

Happy days

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11459081

~120m Obersvation Wheel planned for Manchesters Picadilly Gardens.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11459081

~120m Obersvation Wheel planned for Manchesters Picadilly Gardens.

Don't you understand the analogy?

If you had told someone in Birmingham 20-30 years ago that Manchester might overtake them one day in terms of prominence, they'd have been curled up on floor in stitches.
"Preposterous, " they might have said.
"We're the second city. Look at all this investment, look at all the shiny new buildings. Look at how big they are. Look at all the infrastructure. It is the archetypal modern city. Manchester will never overtake us, just look at the geography, we're in the middle of the country. We have an unassailable lead, we're just too far ahead. I really can't see an end to this constant stream of investment."

Sounds familiar.

I think this is a very valid point, however I also think that circumstances are somewhat different now. Manchester has been a template for regeneration in the recent boom, and many cities have followed a path that is very similar with not much in the way of differentiation. Also, Manchester has invested very heavily in securing its long term future. The investment in infrastructure is a strong factor in this, especially the expansion of the Metrolink. Even after the more recent boom, Birmingham still only has a single metro line. I think it depends on how our perceptions (as a society) on what makes a good city change over the next 20 years or so. For example, take a look at Milton Keynes which is growing at a very fast pace. Perhaps in 20 years, it will be competing with the other core cities.

On your point about Liverpool and Wirral Waters, don't forget that Peel also have their finger in some very large and very valuable pies in Greater Manchester. The current Media City as we know it is just phase one, Peel have long term plans to produce something on the scale of Liverpool/Wirral Waters at SQ. Then there is their continued redevelopment of the area around the Trafford Centre, Port Salford and City Airport Manchester.

The buzz word is 'driver'. Does your City have any drivers? That's the question you need to ask yourselves. If so, then it has a bright and better future. If not, your city will always lag behind, or will forever be playing catch up.

The important thing is that your city has something that defines it. For example Portsmouth has always had it's Naval Base and it's economy has always been structured around that.
The Northern Cities have had to work a lot harder since industrial decline to find a new reason for being.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11459081

~120m Obersvation Wheel planned for Manchesters Picadilly Gardens.

So thats nearly as big as the London eye:nuts:

Not a big fan of wheels though, A obersvation tower would have been better for the Manc skyline , like your spinnaker :)

Then again who knows what will happen at eastlands

Manchester City Council is crap at collecting Council Tax. Compared to the other core cities it comes a very poor last, collecting in the low ninety percent. Is this because it became lazy in collection as it was always bailed out by the previous Government or are there other reasons.

Discuss.

Manchester City Council is crap at collecting Council Tax. Compared to the other core cities it comes a very poor last, collecting in the low ninety percent. Is this because it became lazy in collection as it was always bailed out by the previous Government or are there other reasons.

Discuss.

Probably a function of the appalling boundaries which give it teh city centre and most of the poor districts...Hulme, Wythenshawe, Burnage...down to the airport.

Discuss!

Who cares...if it brings investment bring it on!

On your point about Liverpool and Wirral Waters, don't forget that Peel also have their finger in some very large and very valuable pies in Greater Manchester. The current Media City as we know it is just phase one, Peel have long term plans to produce something on the scale of Liverpool/Wirral Waters at SQ. Then there is their continued redevelopment of the area around the Trafford Centre, Port Salford and City Airport Manchester.


Yes, Media City is a big site, and probably more likely to be developed in the short term than the one in Wirral, but I think you're getting your scale a bit mixed up. The East Float is about the size of the whole of Salford Quays. The phase of Media City that has just been finished is around 35(?) acres, and the entire MediaCity site is 200 acres. The Liverpool Waters site is around 150 acres if I recall, but in contrast to Salford Quays, Central Docks abuts the city centre. If developed properly Liverpool Waters would pull Stanley Dock into the city centre. The Wirral Waters site is pretty ambitious, over 500 acres, but I think they're going to have more trouble getting started on that one, although it is in a good position being next to the motorways and Tunnels.

Yes, Media City is a big site, and probably more likely to be developed in the short term than the one in Wirral, but I think you're getting your scale a bit mixed up. The East Float is about the size of the whole of Salford Quays. The phase of Media City that has just been finished is around 35(?) acres, and the entire MediaCity site is 200 acres. The Liverpool Waters site is around 150 acres if I recall, but in contrast to Salford Quays, Central Docks abuts the city centre. If developed properly Liverpool Waters would pull Stanley Dock into the city centre. The Wirral Waters site is pretty ambitious, over 500 acres, but I think they're going to have more trouble getting started on that one, although it is in a good position being next to the motorways and Tunnels.

What you want is mega or nothing....

allow them to clean the site, lay turf and make it a park...but do not allow low-rise business units on it... prefer an urban lung than sprawl.

If they want to build up then fine.

Media City Phase 1 is 1million sw feet of development on waste land.


Whoa 1 million Square-foot :eek2:


If only Leeds could have a 1 million Square-foot development, if only.......

Introducing, Wellington Place Leeds

2.6 million sq ft of commercial, retail, leisure and residential space

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/865/98276018.jpg

From one angle, completely different buildings from the other angle.

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/7315/bbcc.jpg

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/5579/bbc1.jpg

Office space now up for sale for the next phase of Wellington Place

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/58887WellingtonPlace_pic3.jpg

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/assets/_files/cached/img/310x207/feb_10/businessdesk__1266513880_Greening2.jpg?access=604T778T840

Anyway Manchester has 1 Million Square-foot to get excited about..

Whoa 1 million Square-foot :eek2:


If only Leeds could have a 1 million Square-foot development, if only.......

Introducing, Wellington Place Leeds

2.6 million sq ft of commercial, retail, leisure and residential space



Thats horrible.

Thats horrible.

Thats fine if you don't like it, some of the buildings are a iffy. However the next phase is certainly alot better, made mostly of glass.

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/382/wellingtonplaceleedsfcb.jpg

Half the size of Spinningfields.

Why are those Leeds chumpos not answering whether or not the majority of people who attended the rugby last night thought that they were watching the match in Manchester?

Yoshef, Manchester may go backwards, Liverpool may go backwards. The obvious immediate future looks significantly less worry for the whole Manchester region that the other northern regions with the much lower public sector in the economy and the vastly improving infrastructure.

Using your analogy Yoshef you presumably also agree that in 20 years it's also possible that Preston may well have overtaken Liverpool to be the second largest city in the northwest?

It is. It's also equally reasonable to imagine the North Koreans will have nuked us all to death by then, that the United States will be the world leader in fuel efficient motoring technology or that we'll all be slaves of the Chinese, who fancied pushing back their borders a little.

Using your analogy Yoshef you presumably also agree that in 20 years it's also possible that Preston may well have overtaken Liverpool to be the second largest city in the northwest?


No I do not, where did I mention size? I've typed it out twice, and couldn't make it any clearer, so why don't you just read what I wrote, slowly and carefully. I understand it can be hard taking information in that is not tabulated data, its just normal reading. It's not rocket science, it's easy. Read, concentrate, then reply. Simple.

Yoshef, Manchester may go backwards, Liverpool may go backwards. The obvious immediate future looks significantly less worry for the whole Manchester region that the other northern regions with the much lower public sector in the economy and the vastly improving infrastructure.


I'm sure the 300,000 public sector workers in Greater Manchester share your optimism.

Whoa 1 million Square-foot :eek2:


If only Leeds could have a 1 million Square-foot development, if only.......

Introducing, Wellington Place Leeds

2.6 million sq ft of commercial, retail, leisure and residential space

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/865/98276018.jpg

From one angle, completely different buildings from the other angle.

http://img809.imageshack.us/img809/7315/bbcc.jpg

http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/5579/bbc1.jpg

Office space now up for sale for the next phase of Wellington Place

http://www.skyscrapernews.com/images/pics/58887WellingtonPlace_pic3.jpg

http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/assets/_files/cached/img/310x207/feb_10/businessdesk__1266513880_Greening2.jpg?access=604T778T840

Anyway Manchester has 1 Million Square-foot to get excited about..

Dear God .

Fool.


1m sq feet of wealth generation

2m sq feet of shopping.

Are you Gordon Brown by any chance/

You have no idea about business?

Manchester City Council is crap at collecting Council Tax. Compared to the other core cities it comes a very poor last, collecting in the low ninety percent. Is this because it became lazy in collection as it was always bailed out by the previous Government or are there other reasons.

Discuss.

Discuss. The *free* City of Manchester stadium. (you still haven't) You have a habit of doing this East. When your wrong you move on to something else.

There you go again.

as it was always bailed out by the previous Government or are there other reasons.

What does that mean exactly? Please expand.

10123.

I'm not sure if your aware of this, but Wellington Place won't start without a substantial prelet.(EGI or Property Week) So talk of 2.6 million sq ft is well wide of the mark in the current economic climate.

Gtr Manchester got lucky. Spinningfields was built at the perfect time, slap bang at the beginning and middle of the boom years. Mediacity was built because it had an occupier already signed up.(the BBC)

Wellington Place has to rely on companies already based in Leeds looking for new premises. In this current climate that will be difficult, but not impossible, as leases always expire.

£2bn of infrastructure investment in Metrolink. Bigger than Brum/Glasgow/Newcastle/Leeds/Sheffield/Edinburgh/Liverpool/Bristol/Belfast/Portsmouth combined efforts!

£1bn of investment in the BBC move, new well-paid jobs which will bring amazing publicity and generate even more jobs by the gravity of the development.

£XXX? ADUG/Man City. Likely to be the largest single investment in the UK, outside of London, in 100 years?

Not sure if the rest of country realises that Manchester's renaissance only begins when these projects are completed.

I can see the city just motoring ahead on several fronts. A superb achievement by the councils of GM fighting for the common good.

Metrolink>Olympic Bids>Commenwealth Games>BBC move>Casino>ADUG>Metrolink Phase 2 ..it all follows a now 20 year theme...the pace is accelerating and the projects are getting larger and larger in importance, scale and job creation.

God this is an exciting time for us.

£2bn of infrastructure investment in Metrolink. Bigger than Brum/Glasgow/Newcastle/Leeds/Sheffield/Edinburgh/Liverpool/Bristol/Belfast/Portsmouth combined efforts!


That's not true, Fly.

Wrong on all counts. In fact I firmly support HS2, especially given that it is now complementary with Crossrail rather than potentially competing with it for funds. The plan is to smoothly transition both employment and government funding from Crossrail to HS2 around 2017, so that one starts just as the other ends. This is very sensible methinks.

Well you originally weren't convinced that HS2 would deliver value for money and that those who supported it were simly overgrown boys with a penchant for fast, shiny new trains. I'm glad you've finally seen the light.

However what makes you think it will make the North more competitive? It could just as easily cement London's lead further. And it's not as if the North is currently hamstrung by poor rail links to London in any event. None of the major Northern cities are more than 2 and a bit hours from the capital by rail. That compares very favourably with travel times between the capitals and largest provincial cities of France or Germany, where, even with HSR, intercity travel times are longer.

The evidence is there if you care to look. Philip Hammond has mentioned the benefits in his announcement today about HS2's role in helping to rebalance the British economy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11465786

Mr Hammond said the scheme - estimated to cost £33bn - would "make rail the mode of choice for most inter-city journeys within the UK, and for many beyond" and would change "the economic and social geography of Britain, connecting our great population centres and our international gateways together".

He said it would help "rebalance economies" that the government believed had become too dependent on the public sector - by encouraging business investment in regions which have been considered too far away from London.

"By creating a smaller Britain, where literally journey times from Leeds to London will be about 80 minutes, we change the geography, we change the way people think and we change the opportunities that are available."

One of the other benefits that often goes unnoticed is the massive capacity it will release on existing trunk lines like the WCML and ECML which will of course deliver economic benefits to the regions. As for travel times between provincial cities in Europe well that was one of the arguments you used against HS2 in the first place. So what if the times are comparable, the distances certainly aren't. To not try and improve times between our cities beacuse the times are comparable in Europe is absurd. If we improve times above that of Europe then surely that makes us more competitive as a country no? Still I guess if you are only bothered about one city then such matters would not appear to concern you.

That's not true, Fly.

Must be close Boards? Where is the light rail investment, currently happening, not planned (we can add more that way as well---airport link/Trafford Centre link) elsewhere outside of London..I know Edinburgh is having a line built where else?

Remember infrastructure includes roads, healthcare and educational projects etc. Between Glasgow and Edinburgh alone I can think of about £3.5bn on live transport projects off the top of my head. Not including the imminent £2bn Forth crossing.

Peel have submitted their Liverpool Waters masterplan for planning consent today :)

http://www.liverpoolwaters.co.uk/images/linked/Apr10%202010-08-05%2019;54;42.jpg


http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/7314-peel-submits-plans-for-5.5bn-liverpool-waters.html

Sah-wheat! UK's largest ever single planning application?

Not trying to put a dampner on it, but as impressive as it looks, it won't happen in my lifetime. Peel needs to attract some very serious players/companies to even get 1 of those Skyscrapers up, let alone 4 or 5 of them, and any large office blocks. As for apartments. Forget it.

Planning offices up and down the country are littered with similar schemes from the boom years, which are now gathering dust in cupboards.

Good Luck. :)

Remember infrastructure includes roads, healthcare and educational projects etc. Between Glasgow and Edinburgh alone I can think of about £3.5bn on live transport projects off the top of my head. Not including the imminent £2bn Forth crossing.

Ahh. I was not counting road schemes...merely light rail, which I thought was clear.

I have no idea on road spend in the various cities.

Roads mean diddly squat in my eyes.

Roads and hospitals are not real wealth drivers like light rail, BBC move and ADUG.

They are moving parcels around until the music stops.

The music has stopped nationally.

Ahh. I was not counting road schemes...merely light rail, which I thought was clear.



Not really, you used the term 'infrastructure investment.' Whether you consider other infrastructure investments ( road, rail, education etc ) as worthwhile is another matter.

I'm not too up on Metrolink. The current phase is £2bn is it?

Sah-wheat! UK's largest ever single planning application?

Not sure, this has been downsized quite a bit. I think the Wirral side of the same scheme is a larger site / more envisaged floorspace.

Cheers, bud:)

Not trying to put a dampner on it, but as impressive as it looks, it won't happen in my lifetime. Peel needs to attract some very serious players/companies to even get 1 of those Skyscrapers up, let alone 4 or 5 of them, and any large office blocks. As for apartments. Forget it.

Planning offices up and down the country are littered with similar schemes from the boom years, which are now gathering dust in cupboards.

Good Luck. :)

Hopefully this will help, Jrb.

Liverpool in talks with 35 potential Chinese investors


REGENERATION officials from Merseyside have held talks with 35 serious potential investors they have met at Liverpool’s Shanghai Expo pavilion – and hope millions of pounds of investment could start flowing into the region from next year.

Liverpool chose to have a pavilion at the six-month long event in a bid to attract Chinese investment.

Now, with the Expo due to end later this month, Liverpool Vision chief executive Max Steinberg has confirmed that talks have taken place with 35 investors considering pumping hundreds of millions of pounds into the city region’s economy.

And of those discussions, he said “half a dozen” would come to fruition.

Mr Steinberg said: “We will have had 750,000 visitors by the close of the Expo. That’s very good, but we’re interested more in the business that comes from that.

“We have had 35 serious, meaningful, long-standing business discussions with investors from China about coming back to invest in Liverpool or the city region. They see the pavilion as being very attractive. But the pay-off is how we bring £50m of gross value added (economic benefits) to the economy.

“We want to make sure that people will invest in the city.”

Find this rest here: http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-news/regional-news/2010/10/01/liverpool-in-talks-with-35-potential-chinese-investors-92534-27377435/

Not trying to put a dampner on it, but as impressive as it looks, it won't happen in my lifetime. Peel needs to attract some very serious players/companies to even get 1 of those Skyscrapers up, let alone 4 or 5 of them, and any large office blocks. As for apartments. Forget it.

Planning offices up and down the country are littered with similar schemes from the boom years, which are now gathering dust in cupboards.

Good Luck. :)


They wanted the plans submitted before they went cap in hand back to Shanghai.

They wanted the plans submitted before they went cap in hand back to Shanghai.

Via Manchester airport?

Via Manchester airport?

No, via JLA and Holland with KLM.

No, via JLA and Holland with KLM.

Haha, bet somebody wishes they kept their trap shut!

HSR to Leeds and Manc confirmed today.

Another reason to believe that the long term strength of the northern cities will continue.

Probably a function of the appalling boundaries which give it teh city centre and most of the poor districts...Hulme, Wythenshawe, Burnage...down to the airport.

Discuss!

Who cares...if it brings investment bring it on!

You mean Lesser Manchester, that seems to be the bit that WirlieGirlie and others never talk about.

Why did Leese get dubbed when he collects a smaller percentage of Council Tax than any other city leader? Under-bounding isn't an excuse, other cities have the same issue. It's just a sign of inefficiency/laziness.

Haha, bet somebody wishes they kept their trap shut!

I'm sure investors will appreciate the connecting flight they have to get from Amsterdam. Why not just fly to MAN and save the uneccessary hassle? :cheers:

You mean Lesser Manchester, that seems to be the bit that WirlieGirlie and others never talk about.

Why did Leese get dubbed when he collects a smaller percentage of Council Tax than any other city leader? Under-bounding isn't an excuse, other cities have the same issue. It's just a sign of inefficiency/laziness.

That's right East, the City Council aren't doing anything about it. :nuts:

Manchester's trial Twenty four of the councils in the North West are using bankruptcy as a way of recovering council tax debts.

Manchester City Council is by far and away the most prolific.

It has been running a trial since January 2005.

In two years, it has petitioned more than a 1,000 times and made around 330people insolvent.

In a statement the council said: "All the people who are referred for bankruptcy proceedings have received reminders, summonses and further letters after the liability order was granted.

"The vast majority will have received letters and visits from bailiffs and been referred to court to be committed to prison for non-payment.

"None of these methods have had the desired effect to make them pay what they should".

And I'm sure the Council has tightened up collection procedures. Can't find the MEN article. It's floating about in cyberspace somewhere.

Perhaps you'd like to comment on this atricle? I'm still waiting. Can you explain 'our free stadium'. (according to you)

Report - terms agreed for revised CoMS lease

In a previous posting, I mentioned that an official council document had referred to renegotiation of City's lease for the City of Manchester Stadium. More quickly than anyone supposed, a Manchester Evening News exclusive on Saturday claimed that the deal has now been done. Has it? And if the MEN is right, what's the reasoning behind City dicthing the current revenue-based approach, agreeing to pay an index-linked flat rate set at a higher level than the Council would now receive from sell out crowds?

The Report to the Council's Resources and Governance Overview and Scrutiny Committee suggested that this could take until January 2011 (see page 9). It was a surprise, then, that the Manchester Evening News reported the terms of a new agreement yesterday.

One presumes, then, if it's true, that the negotiating team has reached this deal with the Blues' key personnel but it will still have to be rubberstamped by the Resources and Governance Overview and Scrutiny Committee. However, it's arguably the clearest sign yet that a stadium expansion is on the cards.

City moved to the City of Manchester Stadium in 2003, a year after the arena had hosted the Commonwealth Games. The capacity of the venue was increased by almost 10,000 from that during the Games, with the athletics track being removed, and a new lower tier being added. City paid for the cost of the fit out, which cost around £30 million. The Blues had allowed the Council to take ownership of the old Maine Road ground as part of the deal.

As an aside, it was originally hoped to retain the old place as a sports venue, but in the end, Sale RU the preferred new tenant, opted not to follow their interest through. Stockport County had also looked briefly at the possibility of taking on the venue. The £27 million value ascribed to Maine Road in the deal was also a cause of controversy: this came from the valuation assiged in the club's accounts but reflected the cost of building a sports stadium on the site. As the stadium was to knocked down and the site was in Moss Side, the value of what the Council received was much less.

In addition, City had to pay rent on the cost of the new ground, as yesterday's MEN piece indicated. The figure is usually quoted at 50% of receipts applicable to a crowd of a level over 34,000, though I have seen suggestions that it rises to 60% for crowds over 40,000(I can't currently find evidence of this). This income is used by the Council to support other sports facilities, primarily those on the Sporcity site.

Obviously, the level of rent actually paid fluctuates given that it is dependent on the level of crowds at City of Manchester Stadium. But, as yesterday's MEN piece points out, "The council pocketed £12.5m under the terms of the old lease" over seven seasons. The new arrangement, then, represents a significant increase, index-linked.

Now, I attended a supporters' meeting in London with David Bernstein back in January 2003 - two months before the former Chairman left his post and around six before the stadium move. Bernstein said that City had an option in the lease to buy the freehold, but that the terms were such that it made commercial sense to keep renting for at least 20 years. It appears that this is still the view, and the need for the club to renegotiate the terms of the lease could only arise if the venue were to be extended.

As I've noted, I don't expect an announcement yet. I guess that will follow once we've had Council confirmation of the renegotiated terms. Nevertheless, yesterday's story shows that the three elements of the Sportcity and area overall plan (stadium, visitor attraction and training ground) are continuing to move forward. http://subterraneanhomesickblue.blogspot.com/

I'm sure investors will appreciate the connecting flight they have to get from Amsterdam. Why not just fly to MAN and save the uneccessary hassle? :cheers:


as you can see from this rather stunning render (if i do say so myself), Peel don't need an airport.


http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x167/yoshef/wirralwaters1DSC_08442.jpg

Coe, your a lieing c***!

London and the South-east are monopolising the business benefits of the 2012 Olympics, according to new research.

Research published in the Financial Times this weekend showed that firms in London have scooped £2.7 billion-worth of contracts relating to creating the Olympic venues and infrastructure – more than half the total £5.1 billion spent so far by the Olympic Delivery Authority.

Companies based in the South-east have gained contracts worth £805 million and those in the East have been awarded contracts worth £719 million.

Meanwhile companies in the North-east and South-west have each clinched £9 million-worth of deals, while those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have managed just £343 million between them.

The Federation of Small Businesses described the discrepancies as “astounding”.

The apparent unfairness will be discussed at a round table meeting between England’s nine regional development agencies and Compete4, the body which helps award 2012 contracts.

In 2005, when London won the Olympic bid, Sebastian Coe, chairman of Locog, pledged that the games would “provide a unique opportunity for businesses of all shapes and sizes across the UK.

I'm sure investors will appreciate the connecting flight they have to get from Amsterdam. Why not just fly to MAN and save the uneccessary hassle? :cheers:

Perhaps they want to pick up some clogs and Edam on the way?!

A nice story, well done guys. No idea how much the Uni influences these things, are you not born to it?

However, this will be nice publicity for us and raises the Uni to another level again.
Not the 1st nobel prize winner either?

Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov win Nobel prize for physics for work on single layers of carbon at Manchester University

How does you Uni compare?

Nobel prize winners
Overall, there have been 24 Nobel Prizes awarded to staff and students past and present, with some of the most important discoveries of the modern ages being discovered in Manchester.
Chemistry
Ernest Rutherford (awarded Nobel prize in 1908), for his investigations into the disintegration of the elements and the chemistry of radioactive substances (He was the first to probe the atom).
Arthur Harden (awarded Nobel prize in 1929), for investigations on the fermentation of sugar and fermentative enzymes.
Walter Haworth (awarded Nobel prize in 1937), for his investigations on carbohydrates and vitamin C.
Robert Robinson (awarded Nobel prize in 1947), for his investigations on plant products of biological importance, especially the alkaloids.
Alexander Todd (awarded Nobel prize in 1957), for his work on nucleotides and nucleotide co-enzymes.
Melvin Calvin (awarded Nobel prize in 1961), for his research on the carbon dioxide assimilation in plants.
John Charles Polanyi (awarded Nobel prize in 1986), for his contributions concerning the dynamics of chemical elementary processes.
Michael Smith (awarded Nobel prize in 1993), for his fundamental contributions to the establishment of oligonucleotide-based, site-directed mutagenesis and its development for protein studies.
Physics
Joseph John (J. J.) Thomson (awarded Nobel prize in 1906), in recognition of the great merits of his theoretical and experimental investigations on the conduction of electricity by gases.
William Lawrence Bragg (awarded Nobel prize in 1915), for his services in the analysis of crystal structure by means of X-rays.
Niels Bohr (awarded Nobel prize in 1922), for his fundamental contributions to understanding atomic structure and quantum mechanics.
Charles Thomson Rees (C. T. R.) Wilson (awarded Nobel prize in 1927), for his method of making the paths of electrically charged particles visible by condensation of vapour.
James Chadwick (awarded Nobel prize in 1935), for the discovery of the neutron.
George de Hevesy (awarded Nobel prize in 1943), for his work on the use of isotopes as tracers in the study of chemical processes.
Patrick M. Blackett (awarded Nobel prize in 1948), for developing cloud chamber and confirming/discovering positron.
Sir John Douglas Cockcroft (awarded Nobel prize in 1951), for his pioneer work on the splitting of atomic nuclei by artificially accelerated atomic particles and also for his contribution to modern nuclear power.
Hans Bethe (awarded Nobel prize in 1967), for his contributions to the theory of nuclear reactions, especially his discoveries concerning the energy production in stars.
Nevill Francis Mott (awarded Nobel prize in 1977), for his fundamental theoretical investigations of the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems.
Andre Geim and Konstantin Novoselov (awarded Nobel prize in 2010), for groundbreaking experiments regarding the two-dimensional material graphene.[67]
Physiology and Medicine
Archibald Vivian Hill (awarded Nobel prize in 1922), for his discovery relating to the production of heat in the muscle. One of the founders of the diverse disciplines of biophysics and operations research.
Sir John Sulston (awarded Nobel prize in 2002), for his discoveries concerning 'genetic regulation of organ development and programmed cell death'. In 2007, Sulston was announced as Chair of the newly-founded Institute for Science, Ethics and Innovation (iSEI) at the University of Manchester.[68]
Economics
John Hicks (awarded Nobel prize in 1974), for his pioneering contributions to general economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory.
Sir Arthur Lewis (awarded Nobel prize in 1979), for his pioneering research into economic development research with particular consideration of the problems of developing countries.
Joseph E. Stiglitz (awarded Nobel prize in 2001), for his analyses of markets with asymmetric information. Currently, Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz heads the Brooks World Poverty Institute (BWPI) at the University of Manchester.

Well done Manchester

Manchester 25

Liverpool, Brum, Glasgow combined less than 20.

So, again Manchester head & shoulders ahead.

You knew I would find out!

Government subsidy again ey?

Wiggley?

I cannot find any for Leeds!?

You have named a building after someone but he has never been to Leeds before he cut the ribbon.

Chin up son.

Another of this year's winners was Manchester born, World's 1st test tube baby (Oldham-Manchester) pioneer Robert G. Edwards.

Tremendous again for Manchester's academic prestige.

Knowledge Capital project is highly justified and certainly something we seem to excel in.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11476301

Minor Manchester to get a direct link to HS2 yet Larger Liverpool won't.

Despite the low levels of council tax collection and despite the end of statist Labour and the NWDA.

How can this be?

Still, it may mean that there is a vastly improved faster connection from Lime Street to the largest non-London airport so it ain't all bad for those at the west end of the East Lancs.

Manchester has more people looking up and counting random things that nobody cares about than any other city in the UK.

A nice story, well done guys. No idea how much the Uni influences these things, are you not born to it?

However, this will be nice publicity for us and raises the Uni to another level again.
Not the 1st nobel prize winner either?



How does you Uni compare?



Well done Manchester

This is a bashing thread not an accolades one. Although you and WG would walk the bullshit prize if there was such a thing.

Brimingham (lucky barstewards..get 3 directions to HS2) can't argue with geography.
Leeds- well powering on, well done!
Glasgow- fair play
Edinburgh- lucky in my eyes with Glasgow much larger but ho hum!

Manchester- never, ever in doubt!

This is a bashing thread not an accolades one. Although you and WG would walk the bullshit prize if there was such a thing.

For £900,000 I would study hard.

Fair play, if your city's Uni was anywhere near as good as Manchester then you would post it as well.

Manchester Uni: big league on world scale.

Manchester has more people looking up and counting random things that nobody cares about than any other city in the UK.

HS2
Nobel Prizes
Football stadia
Office Blocks
BBC move
ADUG/man City

Liverpool Willy Waters

All worth posting about.

Not us who brought up council tax collection rates!! :)

Manchester has more people looking up and counting random things that nobody cares about than any other city in the UK.

Anyway, c'mon Yosef, you love it.

You punch way above your Liverpool Middleweight size.

Good job us heavyweight Manchester types like sparring with our little kid brother.

Go tell ya ma!

But council tax collection rates are of paramount importance.

If a tiny part of the region has a slightly less than usual ability to collect council tax it means things like light rails schemes cannot be delivered, HS2 won't come to the city and no growth can ever occur there.

Well apparently some think it's important :lol:

I am awaiting the explanation of the omission of Liverpool from the HS2 network.

Who are they going to blame for this now the usual suspects that have been to blame for everything in the past are not involved :lol:

Because, obviously, Manchester is a more successful city than either Liverpool or Leeds. The question, in my opinion, is why?If Manchester is more successful than Liverpoool, then why does it have less to show for it?

Still, it may mean that there is a vastly improved faster connection from Lime Street to the largest non-London airport so it ain't all bad for those at the west end of the East Lancs.



Great, can't wait. By the time HS2 is constructed, will that airport at the Bell End of the East Lancs still be the largest non-London airport in the world?

HS2
Nobel Prizes
Football stadia
Office Blocks
BBC move
ADUG/man City

Liverpool Willy Waters

All worth posting about.

Not us who brought up council tax collection rates!! :)

Just pointing out that Manchester City Council is not the model authority it has been portrayed as. It is failing in one of it's most fundamental responsibilities and that is an issue for criticism and investigation.

This is a bashing thread and that is what I am doing. Take your accolades to the correct thread. If you can't find it start one.

because low levels of council tax collection Monkey.

It's also why we don't give jobs to cockneys :lol:

Kurt's just trying to get under our skin for all those years of masturbation he wasted on his Hornby trainset, only to find out Hornby was a scouser.

will someone please think of the council tax.

One of the ten boroughs of Greater Manchester does a poor effort of collecting it.

Look at the harm it's doing to the regions economy. It's criminal :lol: seriously East :lol: :lol:

But council tax collection rates are of paramount importance.

If a tiny part of the region has a slightly less than usual ability to collect council tax it means things like light rails schemes cannot be delivered, HS2 won't come to the city and no growth can ever occur there.

Well apparently some think it's important :lol:

Boo fucking hoo! We didn't get a tram and now were not getting a train set. The entire population hereabouts can't get to sleep at nights for worrying about such life or death matters.

Kurt's just trying to get under our skin for all those years of masturbation he wasted on his Hornby trainset, only to find out Hornby was a scouser.

Ouch.

However, Hornby in France is it now?

Just interested in why you all think you aren't included on this scheme?

Bit strange really.

Now Labour and the North West statists have gone I'd have thought normality would haveresumed and Liverpool would have been included on this important piece of infrastructure.

Never mind eh?

Kid yourself it won't affect the future prosperity of either region and live in your dream world.

After all, at least all the Merseyside authorities collect their council tax :lol:.

No doubt in 30 years when Manchester has a fully fledged mass transit system and HSR connecting the city to other large economies and the region is benefitting accordingly history will have been re-written by our scouse cousins to ensure that it was 'Manchester's fault'.

The statist imperialist regionalists will have put Liverpool at the disadvantage.

The reality however...

The Mancs can't take criticism, even when it's well-founded. Look no further than here, or their reaction to the revelation that Manchester is the crime capital in another thread.

Grow up and stop pretending that everything in Manchester is positive and brilliant, it isn't.

The Mancs can't take criticism, even when it's well-founded. Look no further than here, or their reaction to the revelation that Manchester is the crime capital in another thread.

Grow up and stop pretending that everything in Manchester is positive and brilliant, it isn't.

You get nowhere looking backwards and not being positive.


Manchester; airport, BBC, ADUG, Metrolink, University, 157m of Beetham, MEN Arena, Cycling centre, BMX arena, Man City, man United... yup looking good.

We love it! Sorry but compared with Liverpool/Brum/Leeds/Glasgow awesome.

Babylon 5 will be completed before HS2

Babylon 5 will be completed before HS2

Aye, HTF can it take until 2030 to finish it!

Spain, France,Germany...all motoring ahead...Spain/Barcelona build quicker than it took our lot to build a 1:30 scale model of a locomotive.

Bloody British..how did we conquer the world and spread our language around the globe?

We cannot organise Heathrow Runway 3, Cross-rail, HS2 anything....

We invented the jet engine and left it in a lock-up in Fulham.

Dicks.

You get nowhere looking backwards and not being positive.


Manchester; airport, BBC, ADUG, Metrolink, University, 157m of Beetham, MEN Arena, Cycling centre, BMX arena, Man City, man United... yup looking good.

We love it! Sorry but compared with Liverpool/Brum/Leeds/Glasgow awesome.

Looking backwards? Me? Everything you mention above has been in place for years. Nothing special in that list and much of it built and supported with public money donkey's years ago.

Strewth!

Aye, HTF can it take until 2030 to finish it!

Spain, France,Germany...all motoring ahead...Spain/Barcelona build quicker than it took our lot to build a 1:30 scale model of a locomotive.

Bloody British..how did we conquer the world and spread our language around the globe?

We cannot organise Heathrow Runway 3, Cross-rail, HS2 anything....

We invented the jet engine and left it in a lock-up in Fulham.

Dicks.

Are you sure it wasn't invented in Manchester? Everything else seems to have been.

Looking backwards? Me? Everything you mention above has been in place for years. Nothing special in that list and much of it built and supported with public money donkey's years ago.

Strewth!

BBC
Metrolink
ADUG

WTF are you on about? all £1bn + projects with diggers on site.

Backwards?

Not in this city sunshine.

Onwards, and upwards....hold on if you want...the ride is gonna be good. Did we mention Disney are coming?

Who said everything was positive and brilliant?

You are doing it again Yoshef, putting words into other peoples mouths :lol:

BBC
Metrolink
ADUG

WTF are you on about? all £1bn + projects with diggers on site.

Backwards?

Not in this city sunshine.

Onwards, and upwards....hold on if you want...the ride is gonna be good. Did we mention Disney are coming?

Well why not? Mickey Mouse is already there.

BBC
Metrolink
ADUG

WTF are you on about? all £1bn + projects with diggers on site.

Backwards?

Not in this city sunshine.

Onwards, and upwards....hold on if you want...the ride is gonna be good. Did we mention Disney are coming?

At least that's true. It's always pissing down.

At least that's true. It's always pissing down.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/stationdata/

No it isn't.

Aye, HTF can it take until 2030 to finish it!

Spain, France,Germany...all motoring ahead...Spain/Barcelona build quicker than it took our lot to build a 1:30 scale model of a locomotive.

Bloody British..how did we conquer the world and spread our language around the globe?

We cannot organise Heathrow Runway 3, Cross-rail, HS2 anything....

We invented the jet engine and left it in a lock-up in Fulham.

Dicks.

Well all these where before the so called "consultation phase" existed, you know the phase when, every retarded gimp is invited to say his opinion so that the cost of the project can double-triple etc.....

Just imagine the British Empire if there was a consultation phase for lets say colonising Africa or Asia..... :)

Oh wowwwww, a BMX arena, just what everyone wants.

Oh wowwwww, a BMX arena, just what everyone wants.

Along with the Athletics arena, Cycling Velodrome, Ski Slope another thing you can add to the BIG CITY leisure stuff Leeds' aint got.

What is it you excel in again?

Have you anything...a town on steroids= Leeds.

A city on steroids=Manchester.

Big league sonny, not for you to be argueing in here, this is for Liverpool/Brum/Glasgow and Sheffield to be discussing.

Nothing small time.

Oh wowwwww, a BMX arena, just what everyone wants.

Well done. You've picked out the only one that is not a major piece of infrastructure that is regularly mentioned on the Leeds subforum as an item the cities could do with.

Haha, The Fly, you are more Wiggley than Wiggley himself! When's the avatar photo coming?

Oh wowwwww, a BMX arena, just what everyone wants.

admit it, you're just jealous ;)

admit it, you're just jealous ;)

Leeds offer the youth of their area that other great outdoors activity.

Spraypainting.

All the rage, on the side of the empty resi blocks nobody likes or lives in.

Leeds offer the youth of their area that other great outdoors activity.

Spraypainting.

All the rage, on the side of the empty resi blocks nobody likes or lives in.

Photos please?

Photos please?

They are just not the kind of thing I hang in my gallery.

Would one suggest you take a `bus' to your local `gallery' and view for yourself.

Just off to check our streets really are not gold!

Bloody British..how did we conquer the world and spread our language around the globe?Guns, Germs and Steel.

http://www.europeancitiesmonitor.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ECM-2010-Full-Version.pdf

Where is your city?

Answer- some way behind us!
Page 7 chaps.

Glasgow, Edinburgh & Brum aren't that far behind?

http://www.europeancitiesmonitor.eu/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ECM-2010-Full-Version.pdf

Where is your city?

Answer- some way behind us!
Page 7 chaps.

Was it not one of the small towners trying to use these stats as an example of Manchester being in decline the other day? Quoting the 1990->2009 drop as being a sign of that drop.

Seems we're on the up again :lol:

Was it not one of the small towners trying to use these stats as an example of Manchester being in decline the other day? Quoting the 1990->2009 drop as being a sign of that drop.

Seems we're on the up again :lol:

You lot are embarrassing and the fact that true mancs don't come in and tell you to stop embarrassing yourselves too doesn't say much for them either.

Small towners as in Sale Cheshire where you're from hey Wirlie,honestly,you couldn't script it.:lol:

Yep, small towner if that's how you want to see it.

Amazing the oppurtunity so close and the infrastructure it has for a small town of 50,000 people.

Well who were you referring to when you said small towners?

Those who I consider to live in small towns.

Have you not been keeping up?

Those who I consider to live in small towns.

Have you not been keeping up?


Not really I only read the replies because I know your part is pointless,name,names.

What?

You want me to name names?

Leeds + Liverpool = Manchester in my view. As such residents of Leeds and Liverpool = small towners.

Do please try to keep up son.

This thread has descended into cringeworthy embarrassment now.

Leeds, Liverpool and Manchester, the cities not lies about Bury being in Manchester, are all pretty similar sized, as much as it hurts people like Wirlie to hear it. I suppose Wirlie is from some boring place like Altrincham, no surprise he doesn't want to admit he's not from Manchester.

It was cringeworth 448 pages ago.

Exceptionally now that some require the same posts repeating from a couple of days ago.

There is an echo on this forum a lot of the time.

Well now you know what you're dealing with everyone,a lad tucked away in a small town in Cheshire is referring to two of Britain's largest cities as small towns,oh the irony,let the ridicule begin.

Indeed. Let the ridicule begin.

You really don't get it do you small towner?

Does it really matter? People seem to have no sense of humour about these things, who cares if he genuinely does believe that, then it is quite funny but ultimately harmless.

Parochialism is shit.

Does it really matter? People seem to have no sense of humour about these things, who cares if he genuinely does believe that, then it is quite funny but ultimately harmless.

Parochialism is shit.

Indeed, it is great fun winding up the small towners though about their inferiority complexes.

Exposed.:lol:

I live in a City mate you don't,it's hilarious to see you squirm.I can leave this thread knowing it's job done while you deflect the fact that you've been exposed for the knob you are.I'll see tomorrow in what cringeworthy manor you manage it.:cheers:

Inferiority to Sale.:hahaha:

Indeed, it is great fun winding up the small towners though about their inferiority complexes.

Equally your posts in this thread are reguarly hilarious in their desperation, SSC is just one bubbling mass of insecurity it seems.

Exposed.:lol:

I live in a City mate you don't,it's hilarious to see you squirm.I can leave this thread knowing it's job done while you deflect the fact that you've been exposed for the knob you are.:cheers:

Hmm - similar case to when Sandblast waxes about Birmingham far too much when he's actually from Gloucestershire. Perhaps both of them just feel they need to belong somewhere?

Thing is Paul, I consider the town of Sale to be in what constitutes Manchester.

Presuming you are not going to insist on Manchester being just Manchester City Council as Manchester if you are I give up, then I'm interested to know if you consider Bagley and Northern Moor as being in Manchester or not? If so and I guess you are, then I presume you would have to include Sale Moor and Sale.

But as I have said over and over again, different people see a city as different things. As you said you don't consider Sale to be in Manchester. Unless you insist on Manchester ONLY being MCC then neither is more right than the other, they are simply opinions.

So, in my opinion I live in a large city, about the same size as Leeds and Liverpool combined.

If you don't consider Sale to be in Manchester then equally Leeds and Liverpool will shrink maintaining the simple equation that holds as true as e=mc2 that Manchester = Leeds + Liverpool combined.

Now please do try to keep up this time.

Equally your posts in this thread are reguarly hilarious in their desperation, SSC is just one bubbling mass of insecurity it seems.

exactly, it is harmless but that doesn't stop it being completely pathetic.

just think about what it is that you're doing kurt. is it really funny or is it in fact very very sad??

To be honest it fills up time when I am on the train.

Once I get home in 15mins I'll be gone again until my next dull train journey.

If you were to note down my postings to this forum I bet you could get a pretty good idea of when I'm on the train.

When there is something more interesting to do on the train I'llpost here a lot less.

Thing is Paul, I consider the town of Sale to be in what constitutes Manchester.

Presuming you are not going to insist on Manchester being just Manchester City Council as Manchester if you are I give up, then I'm interested to know if you consider Bagley and Northern Moor as being in Manchester or not? If so and I guess you are, then I presume you would have to include Sale Moor and Sale.

But as I have said over and over again, different people see a city as different things. As you said you don't consider Sale to be in Manchester. Unless you insist on Manchester ONLY being MCC then neither is more right than the other, they are simply opinions.

So, in my opinion I live in a large city, about the same size as Leeds and Liverpool combined.

If you don't consider Sale to be in Manchester then equally Leeds and Liverpool will shrink maintaining the simple equation that holds as true as e=mc2 that Manchester = Leeds + Liverpool combined.

Now please do try to keep up this time.

Sale not being Manchester means Liverpool and Leeds shrink, this is great stuff.

I agree though, every opinion is valid....I consider Sheffield to be in Barnsley, can you prove me wrong? Don't give me any bullshit about boundaries etc.

eh? I thought you wanted me to leave?

Different people see cities as different thing yes?

Why is Northern Moor in Manchester but not Sale Moor?

To repeat again. I (that is not to say everyone) see a city as an urban lump around a central core until you reach countryside.

In the case of Manchester that includes Sale in Manchester.

If you wish to have the urbanity level (pop/sqkm) higher then it equally effects all cities as outer lying aress drop off.

Want you to leave? Not at all, I'm enjoying the pantomime :)

I have no idea about the specific boundary issues in Manchester, I'm fairly certain that it is underboundaried to an extent, as is Liverpool, whereas Leeds is probably overboundaried. Manchester is the biggest of the 3 in my opinion, but the difference is negligible. Personally I like having lots of different places in this country with different traditions, accents etc. This obsession of the larger cities to claim everything as being within their boundaries is strange, Sale is a different place to Manchester to a lot of people, I can't really judge seeing as I know little of the area.

As I have editted above, I (not everyone) consider a city to be an urban lump around a central core functioning as a whole.

What do you consider a city?

Why do you consider say Northern Moor to be Manchester but not Sale Moor for example? where is the obvious end of one and start of the other?

Manchester is the biggest of the 3 in my opinion, but the difference is negligible.
Oh, come off it.

GM is much,much bigger than Merseyside and West Yorkshire.

There is no scale, no measure, no statistic that cannot be brought up to prove this.

Want you to leave? Not at all, I'm enjoying the pantomime :)

I have no idea about the specific boundary issues in Manchester, I'm fairly certain that it is underboundaried to an extent, as is Liverpool, whereas Leeds is probably overboundaried. Manchester is the biggest of the 3 in my opinion, but the difference is negligible. Personally I like having lots of different places in this country with different traditions, accents etc. This obsession of the larger cities to claim everything as being within their boundaries is strange, Sale is a different place to Manchester to a lot of people, I can't really judge seeing as I know little of the area.


And as I have said REPEATEDLY I (not everyone) consider a city to consist of an urban lump around an urban core acting as a functional whole.

I've just said that I don't know what sale moor and its relationship with Manchester, both geographically and traditionally, is so I can't comment. I'm assuming it's somewhere like Huyton, which sprung up as on overspill from Liverpool and has no real fixed identity or history of its own(probably being a bit disrespectful there, feel free to correct me)? I'm not really arsed about it, but its when people start including places like Bury and Bolton in Manchester, when they clearly aren't and have totally separate history and most tellingly accents.

Oh, come off it.

GM is much,much bigger than Merseyside and West Yorkshire.

There is no scale, no measure, no statistic that cannot be brought up to prove this.


Well yes, Greater Manchester is bigger than Merseyside and WY but that isn't the city of Manchester, as I have being repeatedly saying. The city of Manchester is a similar size, sorry but it's obviously true.

To be honest it fills up time when I am on the train.

Once I get home in 15mins I'll be gone again until my next dull train journey.

If you were to note down my postings to this forum I bet you could get a pretty good idea of when I'm on the train.

When there is something more interesting to do on the train I'llpost here a lot less.

are you on the trans-siberian express or something?

Albion, it is exactly because some people want to use different methods of comparing a city that I prefer the urbanness of the lump around the centre.

The Office of National statistics call this the Primary Urban Area.

The Manchester primary urban area (which does not include the towns you mention) is as big as Wirral+Liverpool+Leeds.

That is all I am saying, what I (not everyone) consider to be a city, Manchester is the same size as Leeds and Liverpool combined.

Anyway, this will be last post, about to get to Trafford Bar. Some would say I left Manchester 2miles ago.

It's the same with Leeds, except even more pronounced because they seem to include shitloads of villages miles away from the centre in 'Leeds'. I understand that people want to be seen to have the biggest dick, but it is stretching it a bit.

Well yes, Greater Manchester is bigger than Merseyside and WY but that isn't the city of Manchester, as I have being repeatedly saying. The city of Manchester is a similar size, sorry but it's obviously true.


What do YOU consider to be a city?

Do YOU consider countryside to play a part in being some of a city?

Can a city be seperated by several miles of open fields?

There is no right or wrong answer.

I just prefer PUA as you can actually compare like with like.

Well yes, Greater Manchester is bigger than Merseyside and WY but that isn't the city of Manchester, as I have being repeatedly saying. The city of Manchester is a similar size, sorry but it's obviously true.

But this irrelevant.

The people of Oldham/Bury/ Alty etc are not in Manchester no. But they the facilities of Manchester. Any other discussion is plain weird

What absurd logic says Manchester is in isolation?

Trafford centre is not, niether is Manchester United.
The Lowry is Salford, but the Lowry Hotel is across a bridge from Manchester Cathedral.
The Greater Manchester Metrolink runs to Bury and soon to Oldham & Rochdale, Altrincham, Salford, Trafford

Pointless. Give a sh*t.

GM is massively bigger than Merseyside and West Yorkshire by about 700,000-1m people.

Hence, we have all these great facilities and Liverpool/Leeds do not!

Simples.

It's the same with Leeds, except even more pronounced because they seem to include shitloads of villages miles away from the centre in 'Leeds'. I understand that people want to be seen to have the biggest dick, but it is stretching it a bit.

So how do YOU consider a city and do you have anyway of comparing like for like?

As I said, your opinion is no more right or wrong than mine. Just different.

What cannot be argued though is the urban lump around Manchester is as big as the ones around Leeds and Liverpool combined.

But this irrelevant.

The people of Oldham/Bury/ Alty etc are not in Manchester no. But they the facilities of Manchester. Any other discussion is plain weird

What absurd logic says Manchester is in isolation?

Trafford centre is not, niether is Manchester United.
The Lowry is Salford, but the Lowry Hotel is across a bridge from Manchester Cathedral.
The Greater Manchester Metrolink runs to Bury and soon to Oldham & Rochdale, Altrincham, Salford, Trafford

Pointless. Give a sh*t.

GM is massively bigger than Merseyside and West Yorkshire by about 700,000-1m people.

Hence, we have all these great facilities and Liverpool/Leeds do not!

Simples.

What on earth are ranting on about now you incredibly strange man? This discussion is about city sizes, and you've just admitted I'm right. I wouldn't argue that Manchester serves more people as main shopping area etc, but its completely irrelevant to the discussion.

You seem to be an incredibly warped and insecure man who rants on about 'facilities' incessantly, we get it you love your city and want everyone to know how great it is. By any chance, are you about 5,6?

Northern Rail kids.

Not the fastest trains.

Right, very nearly home. Albion have a look at Primary Urban Areas, you will see why I consider them to quite well reflect the RELATIVE sizes of English cities.

So how do YOU consider a city and do you have anyway of comparing like for like?

As I said, your opinion is no more right or wrong than mine. Just different.

What cannot be argued though is the urban lump around Manchester is as big as the ones around Leeds and Liverpool combined.

Seeing as I'm a history student perhaps I'm a bit of a traditionalist, but I tend to view our cities as they always have been. Obviously they grow, but 'urban area', to me, is something different from the actual city. I can accept Trafford, Salford etc being included in Manchester though, but then again I'm not from there I don't know how people feel about it. I know plenty of people who use Hull as the main shopping area, leisure etc but would be offended if you said they were from Hull.

It just seems on here, that a few of the Manchester posters seem incredibly insecure about it all.

I know plenty of people who use Hull as the main shopping area, leisure etc but would be offended if you said they were from Hull.


Well they are cretins. Sorry.

Bolton would be 1/10th the size it is now. It is now a Manchester commuter town. As is Bury etc.

Just as The Wirral is for Liverpool

All other talk otherwise is childish, ill informed bull shit.

Grow a pair to them I say.

Friggin weird.

Largest conurbation Urban area: GM - WY - MS



Largest individual City by size: Leeds - Liverpool - Manchester.


Now can we end this meaningless shit!

Well they are cretins. Sorry.

Bolton would be 1/10th the size it is now. It is now a Manchester commuter town. As is Bury etc.

Just as The Wirral is for Liverpool

All other talk otherwise is childish, ill informed bull shit.

Grow a pair to them I say.

Friggin weird.



Greater Manchester contains Manchester and most of it's metropolitan area, including some it shares with Liverpool (Wigan), with the main exception of Macclesfield. Merseyside does NOT contain most of Liverpool's metropolitan area. In that sense it's not a like for like comparison.

Well they are cretins. Sorry.

Bolton would be 1/10th the size it is now. It is now a Manchester commuter town. As is Bury etc.

Just as The Wirral is for Liverpool

All other talk otherwise is childish, ill informed bull shit.

Grow a pair to them I say.

Friggin weird.

can't argue with that.

Largest conurbation Urban area: GM - WY - MS



Largest individual City by size: Leeds - Liverpool - Manchester.


Now can we end this meaningless shit!

Yes ... you'd love to end it, wouldn't you .... because most people in the UK and the rest of the World have this round the other way ... starting with the biggest .... Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds ...... for the English provinces, with BIRMINGHAM being about the same size as Leeds and Liverpool combined!

If Birmingham tagged on every little town and village that surrounded it, as Leeds appears to be doing, then Birmingham would have a population of about 5 Million people!! :cheers:

Largest conurbation Urban area: GM - WY - MS



Largest individual City by size: Leeds - Liverpool - Manchester.


Now can we end this meaningless shit!

You are back.

So then, the fact you do not answer speaks volumes about the confidence you hold in your position :lol:

On the weekend, did those attending the Grand Final at Old Trafford consider they were watching rugby in Manchester or not?

Not able to answer it are you small town chicken boy.

Yes ... you'd love to end it, wouldn't you .... because most people in the UK and the rest of the World have this round the other way ... starting with the biggest .... Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds ...... for the English provinces, with BIRMINGHAM being about the same size as Leeds and Liverpool combined!

If Birmingham tagged on every little town and village that surrounded it, as Leeds appears to be doing, then Birmingham would have a population of about 5 Million people!! :cheers:

What has that got to do with what i just put?

On the weekend, did those attending the Grand Final at Old Trafford consider they were watching rugby in Manchester or not?.
Greater manchester maybe but not the city of manchester.

Seeing as I'm a history student perhaps I'm a bit of a traditionalist, but I tend to view our cities as they always have been. Obviously they grow, but 'urban area', to me, is something different from the actual city. I can accept Trafford, Salford etc being included in Manchester though, but then again I'm not from there I don't know how people feel about it. I know plenty of people who use Hull as the main shopping area, leisure etc but would be offended if you said they were from Hull.

It just seems on here, that a few of the Manchester posters seem incredibly insecure about it all.

Not at all, just find it amusing that people use criteria such as people who 'feel like they are from a city' to discount the likes of Sale then count Morley as part of Leeds despite the fact that the resident repeatedly elect 6 councillors from the Morley indpendence party.

I simply want people to compare like with like. Doing so will in my opinion ALWAY show Manchester to be the same size of Leeds and Liverpool combined which explains a great deal of why you see show much major infrastructure in Manchester that is totally absent in both Leeds and Liverpool.

Greater manchester maybe but not the city of manchester.

But do you accept that many in attendence considered themselves to be watching a match of rugby in Manchester? That is THE critical point.

But do you accept that many in attendence considered themselves to be watching a match of rugby in Manchester? That is THE critical point.

No,

You reckon that MANY of those in attendence did not think they were in Manchester?

I think we disagree but can never be proven right either way.

Personally, from all media coverage and experience I always hear Old Trafford as being in Manchester, the North Stand even has it written all over it.

If you disagree personally then fair enough but I am very surprised that you think that MANY people consider Old Trafford not to be in Manchester.

Tell me, why do you consider the BBC, Sky and most of the media describe the ground to be in Manchester if many do not consider it to be in that city?

and even if you personally do consider Old Trafford to be not part of Manchester can you really not see that the residents of that part of town contribute a hell of a lot more to whar makes up what many consider to be the city that people who may live in somewhere like Leeds but in reality lives in a village miles away from what most would consider the city?

If not, then dear boy you need to think about what you are saying.

Albion, it is exactly because some people want to use different methods of comparing a city that I prefer the urbanness of the lump around the centre.

The Office of National statistics call this the Primary Urban Area.

The Manchester primary urban area (which does not include the towns you mention) is as big as Wirral+Liverpool+Leeds.

That is all I am saying, what I (not everyone) consider to be a city, Manchester is the same size as Leeds and Liverpool combined.

Anyway, this will be last post, about to get to Trafford Bar. Some would say I left Manchester 2miles ago.

Make mine a pint of Stella, while your purse is open.

Not at all, just find it amusing that people use criteria such as people who 'feel like they are from a city' to discount the likes of Sale then count Morley as part of Leeds despite the fact that the resident repeatedly elect 6 councillors from the Morley indpendence party.

I simply want people to compare like with like. Doing so will in my opinion ALWAY show Manchester to be the same size of Leeds and Liverpool combined which explains a great deal of why you see show much major infrastructure in Manchester that is totally absent in both Leeds and Liverpool.

Your opinion is only one of about 6 billion in the world, and the overwhelming majority will never have heard of your tiny fiefdom.

GM is no more a city than the EU is a country. To pretend otherwise is demented. Where are all those people from Bolton, Rochdale et al laying claim to be Mancunians?

Despite what official boundaries and figures state there is a population of 2 million within Liverpool's gravitational pull, and that doesn't include Wigan, whose major criminals always seem to be tried in Liverpool. Can't speak for Leeds but perhaps somebody else can put this deluded fella right on that score.

Where did I say Greater Manchester equated to a city or Manchester?

Did you miss the did where I said I consider the Primary Urban Area as being a good reflection of the relative sizes of cities?

If you are after the economic influence of an area maybe you want to consider the Travel To Work Area. The same rule applies, Manchester=Liverpool+Leeds.

Simples.

oh and I do totally accept my view is as insignificant as yours.

I do point out though that major infrastructure we see in our cities pretty much reflects the PUA list when you put them in order.

Despite what official boundaries and figures state there is a population of 2 million within Liverpool's gravitational pull, and that doesn't include Wigan, whose major criminals always seem to be tried in Liverpool.
Oh dear.

He knows not what he says.

NO MAJOR criminal cases will be heard in the home court for the area...they are always at another nearby or the high court in London.

THEREFORE you have just confirmed Wigan is Manchester.

Back to school, sunshine.

Leeds is doing really well for a 'town on steroids', more so as the self proclaimed capital of the world Manchester is so nearby.

-"second largest employment total outside London"
Wow Manchester is so big, I'm guessing most of the residents are on benefits cheating the system. They must be to have a 'small town having a higher employment total. Who's to blame them really with a corrupt council.

-Leeds is the UK’s largest centre for business and financial services outside London, according to ONS Annual Business Inquiry
Poor Manchester, you can build as many offices as you like but you will never beat Leeds. Good to see you making an effort though, having one of the highest free office space in the country is a worthy award.

-Leeds Business School, is the largest in the UK.
Foolish Manchester people, how you can even attempt to beat Leeds when a small town has the largest business school in the UK.

-largest teaching hospital in Europe
World renowned teaching hospital, more than likely the doctors who are curing you Manchester residents of leprosy are from Leeds.

There are many more facts (see previous pages) I could show but the corrupt Manchester council might send out a warrant to arrest me......

Oh dear.

He knows not what he says.

NO MAJOR criminal cases will be heard in the home court for the area...they are always at another nearby or the high court in London.

THEREFORE you have just confirmed Wigan is Manchester.

Back to school, sunshine.

I don't want to sound nasty here, but do you have learning difficulties or something? There are plenty of criminal cases which are tried in the home city, major ones at that. Just look at the case of Steven Gerrard, not a major case perhaps but still highly publicised and he was tried in Liverpool, probably wrongly.

Wigan is quite simply not Manchester, nobody there considers it to be and I don't believe even you, someone who I genuinely think could be retarded, consider it to be.

tell me, in those comparisons does it compare the city of Manchester with the city of Leeds or is it a more fair comparison of comparing like with like and acknowledging Manchester in reality extends beyond the local authority boarders?

Why would it surprise you the second largest authority (larger than London) has the second most businesses etc?