Blimey, just read the last three pages looking for the Wirlie guy to back up his 'route to Anfield' statement, but after God knows how many posts he still can't do it.

Wirlie do you think others can't see the amount of times you've ignored the question and tried to take the debate somewhere else? Why don't YOU take of your shit covered glasses and admit you were wrong?

tomo - well done. You are comparing the city of Manchester with the city of Liverpool.
Is that what you consider to be what makes up the individual cities then?
Also, as the figures above show, Manc (city of) improved substantially from 2004 to 07.
So come back again, if you do not consider Liverpool and Manchester to be constrained within the relevant local authorities, what data possibly shows Manchester to be the second most deprived city in the UK.


Yoshef - funny how you don't have the confidence to say anything that slightly could possibly be portrayed in the slightest way negative about the city you live in. You REALLY are not very confident about the place are you? Very insecure.
Your imability to accept that I cannot remember the route away from Liverpool and somehow deem this as important is also quite amusing - looking for a let out, as if this somehow means that what I, albion and tomo see if not real :lol: Anything to shift the discussion away from what you may deem negative about Liverpool eh?


Reds - I've said over and over I don't know the route. I have checked on Google Eart I cannot work it out. Are you now going to say that Liverpool doesn't have more derilict housing than other medium / large cities? Some scousers seem to disagree with you.





This forum is amazing - the amount of crap people come out with about vanity projects that in reality mean f* all to an area, yet when challenged about something very real, something like boarded up houses or deprivation they cannot discuss it, instead going into defensive mode, attacking the place up the road (incorrectly) and failing to acknowledge the most obvious facts about where they live.

Edit - been thinking, the hosuing that I am thinking about in particular is on the right of the road, mostly grey (not red brick) in appearance, many with their roof missing.

Wirlie you don't think Liverpool is a bigger city than its boundaries?

Whatever all this BS is, Liverpool is a poor city and has a lot of boarded up places. It's not a fucking competition, Yoshef I can't believe you'r so fucking vain that it embarrases you to live near poor people. Liverpool has a lot of very, very poor places...let's not deny it.

Wirlie you don't think Liverpool is a bigger city than its boundaries?

Yes, of course I do. Hence why I pointed towards the Centre for Cities study that looks at the Primary Urban Area - i.e. the bit of urbaness around a city centre and is not restricted to any authority. Likewise the Hansard link I provided shows council wards - about 5,000 per ward I think. You can see by them than the areas close to the centre of Liverpool is vastly over represented in the list whether or not they are within the Liverpool City Council boundaries. There are loads of reports, and data on the centre for cities web site that repeatedly show Liverpool and Birkenhead as the two most deprived urban (NOT local authority) areas in the country. Manchester PUA is below average, but not anything like as far below average as tomo makes out.



Whatever all this BS is, Liverpool is a poor city and has a lot of boarded up places. It's not a fucking competition, Yoshef I can't believe you'r so fucking vain that it embarrases you to live near poor people. Liverpool has a lot of very, very poor places...let's not deny it.

Indeed it is not a competition. As can be seen by many of my posts on the subject, there is a hell of a lot wrong with the city I live in. I get fustrated when people talk over and over again about the vanity projects in their area, vastly over stating the percived benefits that the actual resident population will receive from said vanity project.

Fact is Liverpool (and Manchester and Brum and Leeds and....) have all got shiny new city centres but not very far away there are very large social problems, problems that won't be fixed by a daily flight to New York, a new arena, a new shopping mall etc.

The real issues that make up the real urban environment for 99% of the population never, ever gets discussed on these threads and when it does the vast majority - especially Yoshef - goes into incredibly defensive mode - finding it impossible to say anything that could possibly be negative about the place that they live but at the same time in other threads massively over egging the importance of vanity projects that will never touch the vast majority of the population (MediaCity:UK being the most obvious in recent times on this forum).

Erm? All 400 yrds? It is not exactly a `district'. More like a street?

Oh hell, I bothered too look> http://goo.gl/maps/Qa1B

17mins on foot 0.7mile.

1/3 is city centre
1/3 is park area

1/3 or 300yrds is derilict?

Hardly Anfield is it!

According to Google maps it's an area of town. We got lost down the side streets a couple of times in the vain search for a decent pub (before eventually settling for that hole next to the Apollo), so I can safely say the area is pretty darn horrific. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&q=ardwick,+manchester&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Ardwick,+Manchester,+Greater+Manchester&gl=uk&ei=zj9eTYruKJKz8QO02Lla&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ8gEwAA

You are correct. Ancoats is the area in question.

Not somewhere that most of us would chose to live, certainly not benefitted from the economic improvements generally seen since the start of the 90's, well certainly not tot he extent that other places have.

Manchester very worryingly ranks very poorly on the equality scales of most reports, to be honest, it will only get better over many generations with the right help and I suspect current government cut backs on back to work programs etc will only harm this.

Unfortunately much of the improvement in economic standards have been benefited by outsiders moving in, a new middle class moving into the city. A groups of well educated people in well paid jobs, jobs that the people of Ancoats in reality would never dream of aspiring to holding down. That si why certain areas have done very well, they have seen lots of rich immigrants moving in (hence the rising population overall), whereas those areas that are less desirable have not attracted the outsiders to come and live in appear to be just as squalid as they always were.

Probably massively over simplified, god knows how you fix it, but that is my simple view on what we're talking about, at least in the context of Manchester.

According to Google maps it's an area of town. We got lost down the side streets a couple of times in the vain search for a decent pub (before eventually settling for that hole next to the Apollo), so I can safely say the area is pretty darn horrific. http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&q=ardwick,+manchester&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Ardwick,+Manchester,+Greater+Manchester&gl=uk&ei=zj9eTYruKJKz8QO02Lla&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ8gEwAA

And impressions count...so the council should spruce up the route, no doubt.

Too busy recruiting Directors of Personnel on £140,000 (more than the PM) etc!

£140,000 a year buys a lot of street improvements

Yoshef I can't believe you'r so fucking vain that it embarrases you to live near poor people. Liverpool has a lot of very, very poor places...let's not deny it.

:lol:

If you can quote my post where I have denied such a thing, please do. I thought you were meant to be bright. He has misrepresented my position numerous times now, to deflect attention from lies and exagerations.

I'm asking him to back up the claims he made about his knowledge of Liverpool, the route between the M62 to Anfield.

I have never ever claimed to have intimate knowledge of Liverpool, I simply post what I see, Albion seems to have seen similar.

If you don't disagree why is it so hard for you to reply to those posts that state that Liverpool has more derilict houses than elsewhere and is more deprived than elsewhere?

Very insecure aren't you? Very very insecure.

You are correct. Ancoats is the area in question.

Not somewhere that most of us would chose to live, certainly not benefitted from the economic improvements generally seen since the start of the 90's, well certainly not tot he extent that other places have.

Manchester very worryingly ranks very poorly on the equality scales of most reports, to be honest, it will only get better over many generations with the right help and I suspect current government cut backs on back to work programs etc will only harm this.

Unfortunately much of the improvement in economic standards have been benefited by outsiders moving in, a new middle class moving into the city. A groups of well educated people in well paid jobs, jobs that the people of Ancoats in reality would never dream of aspiring to holding down. That si why certain areas have done very well, they have seen lots of rich immigrants moving in (hence the rising population overall), whereas those areas that are less desirable have not attracted the outsiders to come and live in appear to be just as squalid as they always were.

Probably massively over simplified, god knows how you fix it, but that is my simple view on what we're talking about, at least in the context of Manchester.

I think you're spot on there - you can see the trend repeated in areas of Leeds where new developments adjacent to the city centre border onto the 'rim' in areas like Holbeck, Little London and the East Bank. Think it's probably more prevalent in Manchester due to the scale of the place, and it's certainly not a trend limited to there - you see it everywhere.

I stayed recently at a friend's place at Islington Wharf in Manchester. Flashy new building, brilliant views but the area it was in was pretty down at heel, and the view from the full height windows was of run down industrial sheds and council estates. I wonder what the original residents make of schemes such as the 'Chips' that have been dropped on their doorstep?

Tbh, I think ONE of the reasons crime is so high in Manchester is due to the huge inequalities right next to each other.

What was it James sang again? "Until I saw such riches I could live with being poor"

I think that along with the none hope of many who live in that area leads to very large social problems, problems that won't be solved by MediaCity or any of the other vanity projects that get so many so giddy on here.

I have never ever claimed to have intimate knowledge of Liverpool, I simply post what I see, Albion seems to have seen similar.

If you don't disagree why is it so hard for you to reply to those posts that state that Liverpool has more derilict houses than elsewhere and is more deprived than elsewhere?

Very insecure aren't you? Very very insecure.



Why am I required to reply to everything I agree with?

Because that is how conversations happen.

Your deliberate ignoring of the questions gives the very real impression that you are not willing to accept the very real situation on the ground.

Still, you are not willing to specifically agree to the points made, still you are scared of posting something that you see as negative about Liverpool.

As I said, you are one very insecure person, very insecure indeed.

Tbh, I think ONE of the reasons crime is so high in Manchester is due to the huge inequalities right next to each other.

What was it James sang again? "Until I saw such riches I could live with being poor"

I think that along with the none hope of many who live in that area leads to very large social problems, problems that won't be solved by MediaCity or any of the other vanity projects that get so many so giddy on here.

There's a strong argument for this. If you look at the areas that have risen up the crime rankings over the past ten years (which in a period of declining crime may merely be holding steady relative to declines in other areas) most of them are the relatively affluent areas adjacent to areas of entrenched poverty.

Characterising mediacity or other inward investment as a 'vanity project' is inaccurate. Whatever else it is it's 1500 skilled jobs moving into the region which on balance can't be a bad thing. However you're right to say that this isn't going to do anything for Manchester's underlying social problems. Look at London, it's one of the most productive cities in the world but its poor are huge in number and its problems immense. Unfortunately our cities don't have the powers or the resources to tackle their social problems and even if they could the structure of our democracy is such that it elevates the short term interests of the better off over all else.

Indeed MC is very positive,

However, the number of people working there compared to the population of the region as a whole is tiny. Sure a very good thing to have those highly paid jobs coming, but the way many on here make out (not just those bigging it up, but those claiming bias, unfairness in location etc) would all have you believe that this is much bigger than it really is.

Your deliberate ignoring of the questions gives the very real impression that you are not willing to accept the very real situation on the ground.





The original point I made, that prompted your input, was about reporters showing the city in as bad a light possible by filming in an HMR scheme.

You claimed the route you take to Liverpool has always been "in a right old state", for as long as you remember, the inference being that street after street of boarded up houses existed on this route prior to the HMR schemes. People make "sensible observations" when they drive to the match.

I assumed you meant Edge Lane area, I explained the entire length of this highway was one huge regeneration project, and detailed the individual components of the scheme.

That is when you then changed your route into the city.

At this point you started:-


making stuff up,
changing the subject,
accusing me of wearing rose tinted spectacles,
asking me question after question about how poor the city is
accusing me of being insecure.

Indeed MC is very positive,

However, the number of people working there compared to the population of the region as a whole is tiny. Sure a very good thing to have those highly paid jobs coming, but the way many on here make out (not just those bigging it up, but those claiming bias, unfairness in location etc) would all have you believe that this is much bigger than it really is.

I suspect that's more the confusion between the BBC move and the Peel spiel about generating thousand upon thousand of media jobs through subsequent phases. It remains to be seen if the development will have the capacity to generate further investment/entreprenuership in the sector in the city, but if it does then the hyperbole on both sides of that debate might be more forgivable.

Yoshef - As I said, VERY insecure.

Che - I am aware of a large company that will be making a lot more than 2,000 highly paid staff redundant in a medium / large northern city in the next 18months.

I bet the discussion that surrounds that issue is at most two postings, probably someone copying and pasting a news article into the relevant cities Economy thread. It will be discussed no further.

Yosef - Hasn't that regeneration project been cancelled? I thought it was one of the things the Tory's cut when they came in?

Che - I am aware of a large company that will be making a lot more than 2,000 highly paid staff redundant in a medium / large northern city in the next 18months.

I bet the discussion that surrounds that issue is at most two postings, probably someone copying and pasting a news article into the relevant cities Economy thread. It will be discussed no further.

You have to remember this is a urban development (and strictly speaking tall buildings) forum. Substantial layoffs do not skyscrapers make. That isn't to say that people should ignore them, but it's not really the purpose of the discussion here.

2,000 private sector jobs lost is a lot for any northern city. I would hope for a least some wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Yosef - Hasn't that regeneration project been cancelled? I thought it was one of the things the Tory's cut when they came in?


Which one?

The HMR has been pulled but I think a few of the worst areas affected, eg Anfield & Breckfield, and Granby, have escaped the chop.

The new housing on Edge Lane won't go ahead until the housing market picks up, but the highway schemes are still going ahead. The boarded up stuff in that area is being bulldozed and will be "landscaped" in the interim (read grass verges and trees!). The new retail park is private money and as far as I know all set to go.

Yosef - Hasn't that regeneration project been cancelled? I thought it was one of the things the Tory's cut when they came in?

Don't expect a sensible response. He'll fudge it as it may be deemed negative towards Liverpool, something his rose tinted glasses filter out.

You have to remember this is a urban development (and strictly speaking tall buildings) forum. Substantial layoffs do not skyscrapers make. That isn't to say that people should ignore them, but it's not really the purpose of the discussion here.

2,000 private sector jobs lost is a lot for any northern city. I would hope for a least some wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Yes, but that 2,000 job losses will affect the potential for new urban fabric in the future, it will lead to much less demand.

We'll see the news come out, a couple of weeks later something that can be deemed positive - say a new Ryanair route to Tennerife (which ain't going to help the urban fabric either) and that new route will be a sign that xxxxx is 'on the way up' and 'now competing against the governments favorite northern city' type bull shit you get on here.

Don't expect a sensible response. He'll fudge it as it may be deemed negative towards Liverpool, something his rose tinted glasses filter out.


The HMR is hugely negative, I'm quite happy to discus that with you. What is your position on the scheme?

Which one?

The HMR has been pulled but I think a few of the worst areas affected, eg Anfield & Breckfield, and Granby, have escaped the chop.

The new housing on Edge Lane won't go ahead until the housing market picks up, but the highway schemes are still going ahead. The boarded up stuff in that area is being bulldozed and will be "landscaped" in the interim (read grass verges and trees!). The new retail park is private money and as far as I know all set to go.

It was the HMR I was thinking of. Good that some of it is still going ahead though, rather that than just leaving the empty houses. Though I too have some reservations with the way it's been carried out.

I'd be wary about the bulldozing and landscaping though. There's areas of north Manchester that have been "landscaped" since the 60s. New parks are a good thing, random wasteland is not so great.

Yoshef - I have no position on it. But unlike you I can see negative things in my city and am very happy to discuss them.

Maybe one day you'll have enough confidence in Liverpool to be able to discuss it freely, clearly that day is a long way off.

It was the HMR I was thinking of. Good that some of it is still going ahead though. Rather that than just leaving the empty houses.

I'd be wary about the bulldozing and landscaping though. There's areas of north Manchester that have been "landscaped" since the 60s. New parks are a good thing, random wasteland is not so great.

Completely agree with you, Scotland Road and most of Everton already suffer from this.

Yes, but that 2,000 job losses will affect the potential for new urban fabric in the future, it will lead to much less demand.

We'll see the news come out, a couple of weeks later something that can be deemed positive - say a new Ryanair route to Tennerife (which ain't going to help the urban fabric either) and that new route will be a sign that xxxxx is 'on the way up' and 'now competing against the governments favorite northern city' type bull shit you get on here.

I see the connection, I just don't think most people here find it interesting to speculate on the negative implications of today's economic news on tomorrow's development opportunities. Most people are here because they're interested in urban developments and because they have a surfeit of civic pride. We are all biased towards examples of the former and evidence for the reasonableness of the latter. We want to believe the positive news and so take offense at the negative as it challenges our prejudices. Keep reporting it by all means, but don't imagine you're above the fray, or that people will appreciate it.

We're all by our presence here weirdos. :nuts:

Yoshef - I have no position on it. But unlike you I can see negative things in my city and am very happy to discuss them.

Maybe one day you'll have enough confidence in Liverpool to be able to discuss it freely, clearly that day is a long way off.


If you have no position on it, why did you feel inclined to comment on my post about it?

I see the connection, I just don't think most people here find it interesting to speculate on the negative implications of today's economic news on tomorrow's development opportunities. Most people are here because they're interested in urban developments and because they have a surfeit of civic pride. We are all biased towards examples of the former and evidence for the reasonableness of the latter. We want to believe the positive news and so take offense at the negative as it challenges our prejudices. Keep reporting it by all means, but don't imagine you're above the fray, or that people will appreciate it.

We're all by our presence here weirdos. :nuts:


Think it has more to do with Kurt always being the first to post bad news on the Liverpool forum, then getting in a hissy fit when people don't agree with his mantra that Liverpool is in a worse state than it was in the 80s.

To borrow a phrase, people make sensible observations; acts like a clown, must be a clown.

Difference between me and you yoshef is I post a mix of balanced posts, I post as I see things and in the northern cities there are loads of negative stories that rarely get an airing on these boards - YOU see this as negative because are so insecure you have not got the confidence to discuss these issues.

Because of your insecurities you ignore all the (many more than any other cities) negative posts I make about Manchester in this thread and right across the Manchester forum, yet when I make a post that you deem to be negative about Liverpool you become all defensive as if I am singling out Liverpool for attack. It isn't, it is just posting as I see things. No need to get all defensive about the matters for gods sake - have some bloody confidence!

You are blinkered to such an extent you can only focus on what you deem to be attacks on your beloved Liverpool, ignoring that the type of post that upsets you so much are nothing compared to what I say about where I live, then because you are so insecure about talking about Liverpool you start twisting matters and ignoring the actual point.

You have not got the confidence to discuss the issues brought up in this discussion, you have not got the confidence to discuss the poverty that we see across the northern cities, the reason being is it worst of all in Liverpool and you are very insecure about that.

No, the mains differences between you and I:-



I'm happy to talk about the built environment on a built environment forum. You're not.
I like to make my points concise, and clear. The majority of your posts are lengthy, inane, meandering rubbish. However, sometimes, if we're really lucky, you put it into paragraphs.
I'm objective. You're a drama queen.
You make stuff up. I don't.
You troll on other city forums, at the mention of anything negative about Manchester. I don't.
I have friends in the Manchester forum. You have no friends in the Liverpool forum.


:)

Blinkers still on there yoshef :lol:

Che - I am aware of a large company that will be making a lot more than 2,000 highly paid staff redundant in a medium / large northern city in the next 18months.

I bet the discussion that surrounds that issue is at most two postings, probably someone copying and pasting a news article into the relevant cities Economy thread. It will be discussed no further.

Thanks for the information Wirlie G. I have passed it on to "Financial Leeds" and the local press. Watch this space...

Thanks for the information Wirlie G. I have passed it on to "Financial Leeds" and the local press. Watch this space...

Hello Wirlie's puppet account...

Ha. Good shout suburban.

Hello Wirlie's puppet account...

Far from it. Some people do a bit of research before posting:



Lloyds Banking Group Consider Manchester Office for New Northern Hub

Published by Vicky on Tuesday, 29 June 2010 at 10:46 AM

Lloyds Banking Group are reportedly considering merging its northern offices, which could see the company move up to 2,000 jobs into Manchester city centre.

Early speculation suggests that the banking giant has been linked with Spinningfields, the 'Canary Wharf of the North', which has also made headlines this week following law firm Halliwells' impending entry into administration and an expected takeover of their Hardman Square office by rival Hill Dickinson.

According to the MEN, Lloyds Banking Group are restructuring its property portfolio which is likely to impact many of its staff based in the North, although possibly excluding employees based in Chester.

The group is understood to be considering a single regional hub in Manchester city centre, which could see a requirement of up to 200,000 sq ft of office space. Along with Spinningfields, St Peter's Square is also reportedly a viable option.

Speaking to the MEN, Simon Reynolds of GVA Grimley's Manchester office says that Lloyds still have to make several important "strategic decisions" before deciding how much space it might need in Manchester.

"Lloyds has about five or six hubs and it's good to know that Manchester is one of them," he said. "There's still some water to go under the bridge before a decision is made but Manchester could be a viable northern location."

He added: "These top end requirements don't tend to come along too often and although there are strategic decisions still to be made, Manchester can argue that it ticks all the boxes for a large hub."

Lloyds is expected to make a decision before 2012.

* FeedSubscribe

http://www.officebroker.com/blog/2010/06/29/Lloyds+Banking+Group+Consider+Manchester+Office+for+New+Northern+Hub_FTOC29062010905846M/

Thanks for the information Wirlie G. I have passed it on to "Financial Leeds" and the local press. Watch this space...

With all due respect. I think everybody who needs to know, already knows.

I'm sure LCC and the it's agencies are fighting hard to keep those jobs in Leeds. I'm sure MCC and MIDAS are doing likewise, trying to get those jobs to Manchester.

The winner will eventually come out.

Hello Wirlie's puppet account...


Sadly, that wouldn't surprise me in the slightest.

I think it's important to note the basis of the article is sources in the Manchester property community, and the spin should be taken into account. As the original MEN article that blog is lifted from rightly states, Manchester is just one of LBG's hubs in the north, along with Leeds and Glasgow. I doubt any consolidation would see a complete departure from any other hub, either.

I don't think it's something that should be speculated on too much at this stage. If anyone remembers 'Project Bluebird' from a couple of years ago, that got the property and inward investment communities of Leeds and Manchester very excited but ultimately failed to materialise.

With all due respect. I think everybody who needs to know, already knows.

I'm sure LCC and the it's agencies are fighting hard to keep those jobs in Leeds. I'm sure MCC and MIDAS are doing likewise, trying to get those jobs to Manchester.

The winner will eventually come out.


I can't say I have seen anything in the press about this, but as whirlie G claims to be some kind of bankster with inside knowledge it sounds like a done deal.

I will post the responses I get (if any) on here.

Whilst he occasionally posts a lot of sense, Wirlie G also dabbles in idle speculation as much as anyone else, and I'm sure anybody with enough seniority in the banking sector would know better to keep a tight lid on an issue such as this (not to mention wouldn't have time to post so extensively on an internet forum). It's good to see the sector is taking on apprentices and work experience students though :)

whirlie G claims to be some kind of bankster.

Sp.

The article sounds a tad too biased for my liking. Who asked the question?

The only parts that we can take seriously are the quotes.

"Lloyds has about five or six hubs and it's good to know that Manchester is one of them," he said. "There's still some water to go under the bridge before a decision is made but Manchester could be a viable northern location."

He added: "These top end requirements don't tend to come along too often and although there are strategic decisions still to be made, Manchester can argue that it ticks all the boxes for a large hub."

There is nothing to suggest Manchester is the main city of choice for this. Just one of many...

I think it's important to note the basis of the article is sources in the Manchester property community, and the spin should be taken into account. As the original MEN article that blog is lifted from rightly states, Manchester is just one of LBG's hubs in the north, along with Leeds and Glasgow. I doubt any consolidation would see a complete departure from any other hub, either.

I don't think it's something that should be speculated on too much at this stage. If anyone remembers 'Project Bluebird' from a couple of years ago, that got the property and inward investment communities of Leeds and Manchester very excited but ultimately failed to materialise.

That only didn't materialize because of the banking crash. However, given different circumstances, it may well have happened.

I remember reading an article in Propertyweek(?) not so long ago about the said bank now looking at consolidating all of it's functions in London. I forgot to post it.

However, given different circumstances, it may well have happened.And "given" different pissing tackle, my aunt may well have been my uncle.:lol:

Karl Pilkington has a kindred spirit. Must be something in the water.:rofl:

:cheers:


Manchester 'better' place to live than London, global study finds

By Andrew Hough 7:00AM GMT 22 Feb 2011

Manchester offers a better quality of living than London, a global survey has concluded.

Researchers found that the British capital was a worse place to live due to the perceived threat of crime and terrorism, according to The Economist Intelligence Unit.

According to the study of 140 cities, published on Monday, Manchester had better health care and was a more "stable" city.

The Global Liveability study ranks cities based on 30 factors including health care, culture, environment, education and personal safety.

Manchester was ranked 42nd with an average rating of 90 while London was 11 positions lower with a rating of 88.4. The world average was 76.0 compared to the Western Europe average of 92.0.

"Manchester's liveability ... is slightly higher than London's because the factors that make them great places to visit also put a burden on them," said Jon Copestake, the report's author.

"London scores worse ... in the stability category because it has a higher perceived threat from petty crime and terrorism."

Vancouver topped the annual survey with a 98 rating while Australian and Canadian cities dominated the survey's top 10 locations. The highest European city was Austrian Capital Vienna with 97.4.

Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe, was named the worst city with 37.5 points, narrowly beating out the Bangladesh capital of Dhaka with 38.7.

"Mid-sized cities in developed countries with relatively low population densities tend to score well by having all the cultural and infrastructural benefits on offer with fewer problems related to crime or congestion," Mr Copestakehe added.

The "best" cities

1. Vancouver, Canada

2. Melbourne, Australia

3. Vienna, Austria

4. Toronto, Canada

5. Calgary, Canada

6. Helsinki, Finland

7. Sydney, Australia

8. Perth, Australia

8. Adelaide, Australia

10. Auckland, New Zealand

The worst

1. Harare, Zimbabwe

2. Dhaka , Bangladesh

3. Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

4. Lagos, Nigeria

5. Algiers , Algeria

6. Karachi, Pakistan

7. Douala, Cameroon

8. Tehran, Iran

9. Dakar, Senegal

10. Colombo, Sri Lanka

Source: The Economist Intelligence Unit

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8338405/Manchester-better-place-to-live-than-London-global-study-finds.html



Manchester named as better place to live than London... or Rome, or New York

February 21, 2011


Manchester is a better place to live than London, Rome or New York, according to a new global survey.

The city was hailed as having a 'vibrant individual culture' by the editor of the international league table – with the attraction of Manchester United, the legacy of the Commonwealth Games and the clubbing scene all being recognised as reason to visit the city.

Manchester was placed 42nd on the Economist Intelligence Unit's rankings of 140 major cities, coming 11 places above London.

Out of the five categories the cities were judged on, Manchester’s strongest was culture and environment, scoring 96.5 out of 100.

Jon Copestake, the survey’s editor, said: “In many countries you find that all the culture is in the capital but that isn't the case in Britain.

“Manchester may not have London's high cuisine or the West End but it is home to one of the world's largest sports teams in Manchester United, it has the legacy of the Commonwealth Games and it has a proven record of a vibrant individual culture.”

He said live music at the M.E.N. Arena, a strong clubbing scene and art in places like the Manchester Art Gallery had boosted the city's score.

Councillor Mike Amesbury, Executive Member for Culture and Leisure, said: “This is superb news and it validates our deliberate focus to use culture and sport as a vehicle for economic and social renaissance.

“It spells out the facts that we're a world-class city, up there with the best.”

Manchester scored 91.7 on healthcare and the same for education.

Its weakest class was stability, which includes crime and the threat of terrorism, where it ranked only 85.

But it was still considered significantly safer than London – a key factor in it skipping ahead of the capital in the city rankings.

Mr Copestake said: “London has had a major terrorist attack in the last six years and there is a perception that it has a much higher threat of terrorism than Manchester.”

Despite an overall score of 90, Manchester still fell slightly below the Western European average of 92.

Its transport networks and the stock of good-quality housing dragged its total down, earning it an infrastructure score 85.7.

Vancouver topped the list with a score of 98, while Harare, the strife-riven capital of Zimbabwe, came bottom with 37.5.

Four Australian cities made it into the top 10 along with three in Canada.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/s/1408821_manchester_named_as_better_place_to_live_than_london_or_rome_or_new_york

Manchester IS a very good place to live for a very good proportion of the population. Plus it is slowly getting better, or was until the recession.

Still a shite place to visit though.

Exactly opposite of London, expect the recession bit, in my opinion.

Manchester IS a very good place to live for a very good proportion of the population. Plus it is slowly getting better, or was until the recession.

Still a shite place to visit though.

Exactly opposite of London, expect the recession bit, in my opinion.


a good proportion of the population of Manchester?

No idea what proportion.

But those with decent education and a decent job can have a very good quality life in and around Manchester.

Tis why so many people pay so much to live in the nicer parts of it.

Someone provide me a percentile graph the show the household income in GM and I will give you a better idea of the proportion.


By the way, lets not forget that in London, there are 3m people who live below the governments definition of the poverty line - now given the cost of living in London I would argue that they have at least as bad a quality of life as someone living in Gorton, Ordsall, Moston, Ardwick....

Back to Manchester, the expanding middle classes in Chorlton, Didsbury and to a lesser extend Withington, Sharston, Old Trafford, Stretford are getting good job oppurtunitites and decent ammenities - hence the rise in population in the urban lump around central Manchester.

The wider region though, out to Rochdale, Wigan and Bolton is not sharing this improvement in oppurtunity anything like enough though. The middle classes appear not, yet, to be moving to Rochdale (town - not MBC) when they have the money to lvie where they want.

No idea what proportion.
But those with decent education and a decent job can have a very good quality life in and around Manchester.A better question ('s) would be, 'what proportion the Karl Pilkingtons occupy?' And just what kind of education he/they have?:lol:

Sloney - have your friends contacted Granada to apologise for their criminal activity yet?

A good friend recently moveed to Canada to become a police man, maybe if you pass on their details we could arrange for them to be brought to justice?

:lol:

You bull shitting foul.

You bull shitting foul.I rest my case.:rofl:

Just looking at some of those Manc 'burbs on Google Streetview, admittedly I haven't been to most of them, but boy do they look dull. Whalley Range looks like the most interesting part? Probably some Wirral snobbery on my part. Blob might be an apt description!

Maybe dull, in fact almost certainly dull. Much of it was built in the 1930s and is all the same dullness.

Check out what people will pay to live in those dull houses though.

Me thinks that the report the was posted earlier didn't rank dullness of housing in suburbs as a huge negative, in fact, very few surveys ever do.

From...
http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=Liveability2011

The Liveability Ranking and Overview assesses living conditions in 140 cities around the world. A rating of relative comfort for 30 indicators is assigned across five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. The survey gives an overall rating of 0-100, where 1 is intolerable and 100 is ideal.




I ain't paying $500 to get the full report to find out what those 30 indicators are, but I am guessing, may be wrong, that dullness of suburbia is not high on the list.

Dull blob factor.

Yep, probably.

Decent quality of life for many though.

Sloney - have your friends contacted Granada to apologise for their criminal activity yet?

A good friend recently moveed to Canada to become a police man, maybe if you pass on their details we could arrange for them to be brought to justice?

:lol:

You bull shitting foul.

Trespassing isn't a crime. They might have found a way to sneak in. ;)

They'd have had to rebuild it as well :lol:

I was surprised Manchester scored high on healthcare considering Manchester women die the youngest in the UK (on average).

Anyway Im sure most places are better to live in than London. Its an over-populated, over-priced shit tip these days.

I was surprised to read Pittsburgh was the most liveable city in the U.S. Live and learn.

I was surprised Manchester scored high on healthcare considering Manchester women die the youngest in the UK (on average).

Anyway Im sure most places are better to live in than London. Its an over-populated, over-priced shit tip these days.

Again, those that live in the City of Manchester will be right at the bottom of many health tables, but I am willing to bet that analysis carried out that provided the league table did not consider Manchester to be constrained within the city of Manchester boundaries. If someone wants to cough up $500 we'll know for sure.

Just looking at some of those Manc 'burbs on Google Streetview, admittedly I haven't been to most of them, but boy do they look dull. Whalley Range looks like the most interesting part? Probably some Wirral snobbery on my part. Blob might be an apt description!

Whalley range does have about the most character out of them all.

The in-laws live in a monster 6 bed house in Whalley Range.

Sure, it has character, but it is a fucker to heat and has persistant damp problems.

Prefer my dull as fuck warm, cheap to run suburan house thank you very much.

Prefer my dull as fuck warm, cheap to run suburan house thank you very much.Bunch of cheap fucks you Mancs. TheFly doesn't want to pay anymore than $600.00 for a 9 hour flight but gets a hard on when he walks his dog past the houses of the wealthy and you would rather live in a dolls house rather than pay to heat decent sized accommodation to an acceptable level for personal comfort.:ohno:

The in-laws live in a monster 6 bed house in Whalley Range.

Sure, it has character, but it is a fucker to heat and has persistant damp problems.

Prefer my dull as fuck warm, cheap to run suburan house thank you very much.



If most of those houses were built in the 1930s, they'll probably have the same problems with damp and / or heat loss.

Not from my experience.

Maybe the ones in Whalley Range have had less well off occupants through the years that have not maintained the houses as well as the more prosperous areas. There is huge numbers of 1930s housingg stock around south Manc in very good condition.

Check out rightmove.co.uk.

Not from my experience.

Maybe the ones in Whalley Range have had less well off occupants through the years that have not maintained the houses as well as the more prosperous areas. There is huge numbers of 1930s housingg stock around south Manc in very good condition.

Check out rightmove.co.uk.




1930s houses have cavity walls which were much better at preventing damp, but they bring a set of problems of their own, such as cheap wall ties, or people filling the cavity with insulation which acts as a damp bridge. Correctly maintained and properly insulated, they're fine, the same as any house.

Maybe, but given how much people are wiling to pay for the houses something is clearly right with them.

Save the Children saying more child poverty in Manchester (but may have been Greater Manchester) than anywhere else in the country today.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12544372 - it is local authority and Manc is equal worse with Tower Hamlets.

Pretty meaningless statistics really, but that's charity social science for you.

I read that in the metro. Bad times.

As Che states.

Pretty meaningless.

Arbituary inner cities have more poverty than richer suburban authorities.

Shock.

As Che states.

Pretty meaningless.

Arbituary inner cities have more poverty than richer suburban authorities.

Shock.

To be fair to Save the Children they aren't interested in comparison between different areas, but in aggregating total number of children in poverty so they can make a political point.

Indeed they are.

I suppose I am critisising the lazy way the media report such stories rather than Save the Kiddies, who I am sure a wonderful job and have got good publicity for this report.

Save the Children saying more child poverty in Manchester (but may have been Greater Manchester) than anywhere else in the country today.

More jobless homes than any where else too it said.

Probably.

As per comments going back through the last few days the division in Manchester is shocking. The new wealth that has been created (that is not captured in the report as it mostly lives outside the local authority but still within what most consider to be Manc) has not been shared very well at all.

There is a fast growing sizeable middle class in what many see as Manchester but large numbers of very poor.

Thankfully, when you compare the whole of what many would consider to be a city - as the Centre for Cities study showed - 'Manchester' is no where near the bottom of the heap.

Still, how do you provide oppurtunities to those really poor acorss the city? God knows.

Still, how do you provide oppurtunities to those really poor acorss the city? God knows.

There are many, many jobs and many, may people who cannot be bothered. "It's not worth my while" they say.

Until we turn off the gravy train, that will remain the case.

2million migrant workers came into this country during the 17 year boom. Taking jobs that this shower deemed beneath them.

Now the tax revenues drop and we are left with this rump of lazy b7astards.

Shame.

Incredibly simplistic to put it mildly.

At present many people would be either worse off or at best marginally off if they worked.

If they do take a job, but then lose it, the gap before any benefits would be a couple of months - to someone with very little money that is very scarey.

Anyhow, as C4 News showed the other day, there are large numbers of working people these days, on minimum wage or near to it, living in or around poverty.

I'd love to know how many people lucky enough to have got a good education and now a reasonable job would get out of bed for £5.85 / hr to be treated like shit on the bottom of the shoe of some rich tosser.

That is just about what we expect a huge number of our population to do.

So how many of us could survive on less than £12k / year? The normal wage of a shop assistant these days.

Incredibly simplistic to put it mildly.

At present many people would be either worse off or at best marginally off if they worked.

If they do take a job, but then lose it, the gap before any benefits would be a couple of months - to someone with very little money that is very scarey.

Anyhow, as C4 News showed the other day, there are large numbers of working people these days, on minimum wage or near to it, living in or around poverty.

I'd love to know how many people lucky enough to have got a good education and now a reasonable job would get out of bed for £5.85 / hr to be treated like shit on the bottom of the shoe of some rich tosser.

That is just about what we expect a huge number of our population to do.

So how many of us could survive on less than £12k / year? The normal wage of a shop assistant these days.
Yeah, dead simplistic and dead straightforward.

Get off your arse and get some pride.

You are not ever going to get a better job by waiting for the job you want.

Lazy bastards need a rocket up their arse by turning off the gravy train.

You are far too simplistic if you think these millions of scroats will get off the couch when they can sit there for decades doing chuff all saying "there are no jobs". A total lie and waste.

They are just lazy. Millions of them.

Entire factories staffed with foreign staff who want to work, live in this country and pay taxes. They cope. They come from a place without our unique welfare culture.

I take simplistic. We are £1.2trillion in debt and rising at £150bn a year....we need drastic, draconian measures to get these non-contributors into work, not only paying tax but not claiming full benefits.

A double whammy of more tax and less spend.

Simples.

Whilst we have a society that requires people to work in shitty, crapply paid jobs you are always going to have a major problem.

The number of of people expected to work for fuck all is shocking and no matter how angry and upset you get Fly, until there are jobs under reasonable terms and conditions at reasonable livable wages then you are always going to be an angry person as the problem will never be solved.

Expecting people to go out to work, for a wage that leaves them in poverty, as we do in this country, is mental and destined to fail, which is exactly what it does.

Completely agree with Wirlie - many jobs are so poorly paid that people feel they are better off on benefits.

Simplistic statements along the lines of "get up off your lazy backside and work your way out it" aren't very constructive or informed.

We need too save the poverty stricken children of Manchester wtf.

Any idea how to ensure that any future prosperity is actually spead more evenly in the future tommy? Instead of just loads of 'outsiders' moving in and taking the better paid jobs as seems to have happened over the last decade or so?

This story, despite it's obvious flaws (local authority not exactly the best basis for comparison), it does go to show, as I repeat over and over again, that vanity projects that get so much air time on this forum REALLY do mean very little the huge swathes of the population of the cities in which we live.

out of interest, does me highlighting this report today suggest that I only post negative things about Manchester?

out of interest, does me highlighting this report today suggest that I only post negative things about Manchester?

Are you a poverty stricken child growing up in the ruins Wirlie.

Poverty is not new, but what is new is this broken working-class, whole swathes of society who have no stake or purpose in society. Writing them off as purely lazy and good for nothing is absolutely pointless and only exacerbates, we've been left with the whirlwind of Thatcherite economcis, greed is good stand on anyone to get to the top have created a country which has deep social problems, neighbourhoods with no prospects and people wonder why we have gun crime and drug problems
advocates of her policies usually haven't lived in the areas hardest hit by her, or if they have they're sociopathic. Our industry is all but dead and all the jobs that this new service economy we have aren't been taken by the former working-classes, but by the middle-class and this new strand of lower middle-class people.

Of course we can't continue to look to the past, however with another tory government slashing at will and selling off public services to corporations I can see little hope at all.

Are you a poverty stricken child growing up in the ruins Wirlie.

Nope, but I live very near to many you are.

Any idea how to ensure that any future prosperity is actually spead more evenly in the future tommy? Instead of just loads of 'outsiders' moving in and taking the better paid jobs as seems to have happened over the last decade or so?

This story, despite it's obvious flaws (local authority not exactly the best basis for comparison), it does go to show, as I repeat over and over again, that vanity projects that get so much air time on this forum REALLY do mean very little the huge swathes of the population of the cities in which we live.

I don't understand, you are are on a construction/architecture forum and you slag off people for discussing it!

Ive got to say, even though your posts are well written, allot of the time they are full of irrelevant drivel, with regards to the topics which interest people here.

If you want to talk about social development, in exclusion to urban development, go and do it on a relevant forum.

I don't mind, in the slightest, people talking about such vanity projects, I will however point out when people over egg their importance on these forums.

How often do people make out things like Media:City, some arena or whatever will make a huge difference to their cities?

Guess what, they don't.

Edit - First, tell me your thoughts on threads like the Media in my city ones? Should we be able to have those discussions on or are they too irrelevant drivel?

To people who are interested in such things they do.

Look at the arena in Leeds. It will make a big difference to music fans in that city as at the moment they don't have a big venue to attract the biggest bands. They have to travel to either Sheffield, Manchester, Nottingham etc.

Hasn't Media City provided employment already for large swaves of people in the North, in the construction industry. Wont it create further jobs when Media City is up and running?

Such things mentioned do make a difference to an area. Even if its a few dozen or a few thousand jobs created, it is helping to enhancing the local economy and society.

If you think there is one solution to fix all our social ills, then you are wrong. All of these things do add up together to help a local area.

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/en/donate.htm
One payment can keep a manc child in north face for one month.

Indeed they do, but listening to many on here you would believe that a single development in a city really will fix all a cities ills.

For no apparent reason my memory is drawn to a certain scouser who made out when the BBC move was announced that it would be the end of the world as we know it. According to him, and several agreed with him the move MUST be stopped due to the massive effect that they had deemed it would have on all sorts of things from the price of petrol to when daffodils wil flower in the srping.

If you actually read the kind of comments people make about some schemes (very often nothing to do witht he architecture but relating to the effect the scheme will have on the economy and many other things) and consider them for a minute you realise how daft many postings are on here.

As an example look at how important many people consider recognition of there city on these forums, then dig deeper and look at why they want that recognition, it's mostly mental reasons.

Anyhow, if you find my postings irrelevant, stick me on 'Ignore', I am sure many others already have, that way you won't get bothered by my inane ramblings any further.

Indeed they do, but listening to many on here you would believe that a single development in a city really will fix all a cities ills.

For no apparent reason my memory is drawn to a certain scouser who made out when the BBC move was announced that it would be the end of the world as we know it. According to him, and several agreed with him the move MUST be stopped due to the massive effect that they had deemed it would have on all sorts of things from the price of petrol to when daffodils wil flower in the srping.

If you actually read the kind of comments people make about some schemes (very often nothing to do witht he architecture but relating to the effect the scheme will have on the economy and many other things) and consider them for a minute you realise how daft many postings are on here.

As an example look at how important many people consider recognition of there city on these forums, then dig deeper and look at why they want that recognition, it's mostly mental reasons.

Anyhow, if you find my postings irrelevant, stick me on 'Ignore', I am sure many others already have, that way you won't get bothered by my inane ramblings any further.

You see I don't take issue with that, I do that myself.

To be honest I have never come across such arguments where they have said that building a project, such as Media City, will bring about the apocalypse.

But if you say so fair do's.

Yeah, dead simplistic and dead straightforward.

Get off your arse and get some pride.

You are not ever going to get a better job by waiting for the job you want.

Lazy bastards need a rocket up their arse by turning off the gravy train.

You are far too simplistic if you think these millions of scroats will get off the couch when they can sit there for decades doing chuff all saying "there are no jobs". A total lie and waste.

They are just lazy. Millions of them.

Entire factories staffed with foreign staff who want to work, live in this country and pay taxes. They cope. They come from a place without our unique welfare culture.

I take simplistic. We are £1.2trillion in debt and rising at £150bn a year....we need drastic, draconian measures to get these non-contributors into work, not only paying tax but not claiming full benefits.

A double whammy of more tax and less spend.

Simples.

I didn't know David Cameron posted on here.

Yeah, dead simplistic and dead straightforward.

Get off your arse and get some pride.

You are not ever going to get a better job by waiting for the job you want.

Lazy bastards need a rocket up their arse by turning off the gravy train.

You are far too simplistic if you think these millions of scroats will get off the couch when they can sit there for decades doing chuff all saying "there are no jobs". A total lie and waste.

They are just lazy. Millions of them.

Entire factories staffed with foreign staff who want to work, live in this country and pay taxes. They cope. They come from a place without our unique welfare culture.

I take simplistic. We are £1.2trillion in debt and rising at £150bn a year....we need drastic, draconian measures to get these non-contributors into work, not only paying tax but not claiming full benefits.

A double whammy of more tax and less spend.

Simples.

What about the thousands of qualified workers who are refused lower paid jobs for been simply over-qualified?

Its silly suggesting you aren't going to get a better job by waiting for the job. The employers won't employ someone who doesn't fit there image, for example a 50 year old is unlikely to ever get a job at Topshop, simply for been too old. The retail industry is extremely fickle.

There are basically two sectors, the skilled e.g. The 1000s of commercial property solicitors, that have been made redundant, they have no job opportunitys. Or the none skilled, and neither are doing too well at all.

Everyone is specialized in something, be it construction ot just working in retail. It's extremely hard to move out of these sectors without the relevant experience.

Your argument is flawed in so many ways I could go on forever....

What about the thousands of qualified workers who are refused lower paid jobs for been simply over-qualified?

Its silly suggesting you aren't going to get a better job by waiting for the job. The employers won't employ someone who doesn't fit there image, for example a 50 year old is unlikely to ever get a job at Topshop, simply for been too old. The retail industry is extremely fickle.

There are basically two sectors, the skilled e.g. The 1000s of commercial property solicitors, that have been made redundant, they have no job opportunitys. Or the none skilled, and neither are doing too well at all.

Everyone is specialized in something, be it construction ot just working in retail. It's extremely hard to move out of these sectors without the relevant experience.

Your argument is flawed in so many ways I could go on forever....
Hmm, so your plan is?

You think all the 3million long term jobless are thick? Incapable of doing anything other than the 1st job they started?

Er?

Don't think so.

They are lazy. They are wasters.

Your plan of tax payer subsidy has created this waste.

2million foreign workers have poured in to meet the demand and are paying tax. Great.

We need to stop allowing people to decline jobs because they don't fancy them.

You will not find a single blue-collar employer in the UK who does not find their UK staff substantially inferior in ability, attendance and attitude to the foerign counter-part. Terrible indictment but report after report highlights this.

We are currently up the creak without a £150bn paddle and you say I am wrong. Fair enough...I stick with what the sharp end reports and says.....our blue-collar unemployed workers are pathetic wasters, watching SKY and playing computer games all day long, collected tax payers money and taking the piss.

Whilst the economy is as it is at present the problem won't be solved.

When it is healthier make work pay - make it such that there really is an incentive to go out to work.

A vastly increase minimum wage is required - a livable wage in this country is about £19k / year in my opinion, trying to get by under that will not be easy if you have a house to run and bills to pay. Whilst the wage is set at £11.5k / year there is no way you are going to get vast numbers of people back into work.

Along with the minimum wage introduce the wage multiplier, as they did in Scando countries, no one person can earn more than 20 times that of another person in the public sector (already in place in many councils) and 40 times another person in the private sector (in the same company).

No matter how much bile you generate Fly, no matter how angry you get, the vast numbers of people that are down at the bottom end of society are not going to go out and work unless there is worth in doing so.

I notice you failed to say whether or not you would work for less than £12k / year.

Until the structure of our economy is corrected, this won't be fixed.

The economy NEEDS people on shitty incomes to continue and yet people like you Fly have zero idea what it is like to try to survive on those wages. We expect Tesco to provide cheap food, we expect the toilets in the offices to be clean.

Guess what, even if the entire population was educated to degree standards and if 100% of the population had a huge 'get up and go' type attitude, these very lowly paid jobs would still need to be done and people like you would be quite happy to expect people to earn fuck all money, to be treated like shit. Amazingly people don't want to take home a terrible wage - a wage you would not work for - to be treated liek crap.

Increase the incentives to work and hey presto - job solved.

FWIW - someone came out on the radio the other day that his rights to benefits were protected under the UN Charter to Human Rights (to which we are signatures).

At first I didn't believe him, but...

http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.


and

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.


basically meant (according to some legal bod) that it is not possible to take away housing nor benefits (that provide it possible to live) from people in this country.

Similar articles are to be found in the European version of hman rights.

Is The Fly a Victorian era mill owner who has been transported in time to the present day?

My guess is he doesn't socialise with many people on minimum wage.

He spends no time with people who if they go over the 16hrs / week lose a raft of benefits for weeks on end which will leave the family struggling to feed himself.

My guess is he doesn't socialise with many people on minimum wage.

He spends no time with people who if they go over the 16hrs / week lose a raft of benefits for weeks on end which will leave the family struggling to feed himself.



Is The Fly a Victorian era mill owner who has been transported in time to the present day?

Ey?


I support the minimum wage. Raise it.

I employ people.

I do not emply work shy pricks who don't turn up for interviews. Who go sick in their 1st week. Who are entirely a sub-set of white, British scroats.

Perhaps in your Guardian reading Ivory Towers, you think differently.

I see this every day. This pathetic excuse for not working. Not having any pride. Not trying.

You know best?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/9397570.stm

Seems others think diffently!

Look at the attitude in the video:

"There are no jobs"...cut to ribbons in 30 secs..... total lack of self-respect, drive, desire or shame. Pathetic, lame excuses because they can sponge for life.

Disgusting.

Add them to tax avoiding high-rollers. It is the vast majority of decent working people who are getting screwed and we need middle class anger to rid ourselves of this insipid crap and claptrap.

:)

Thing is Fly, we think about solutions, you think about problems with no realistic way of fixing them.

Hmm, so your plan is?

You think all the 3million long term jobless are thick? Incapable of doing anything other than the 1st job they started?

Er?

Don't think so.

They are lazy. They are wasters.

Your plan of tax payer subsidy has created this waste.

2million foreign workers have poured in to meet the demand and are paying tax. Great.

We need to stop allowing people to decline jobs because they don't fancy them.

You will not find a single blue-collar employer in the UK who does not find their UK staff substantially inferior in ability, attendance and attitude to the foerign counter-part. Terrible indictment but report after report highlights this.

We are currently up the creak without a £150bn paddle and you say I am wrong. Fair enough...I stick with what the sharp end reports and says.....our blue-collar unemployed workers are pathetic wasters, watching SKY and playing computer games all day long, collected tax payers money and taking the piss.

Just because there are 3 Million Jobless doesn't mean they all accept money from the government.

Like my example used earlier there are many highly skilled professionals that refuse to go on the dole. I know one person that is a commercial property lawyer and can't find work anywhere, he has no chance as his field is so specialized. He could never venture into other parts of law without shelling out £10,000+ and going back to uni. And don't think for a second that he hasn't applied for other jobs, despite been perfectly able to do lower paid jobs the response always is- 'How do we not know you are going to leave this job if one for your the profession you specialize in comes along?'

What do you propose we do for the 100 of thousands of highly skilled, that refuse to go on the dole but can't find a job?

You can't tie everyone under the same string.

Just because there are 3 Million Jobless doesn't mean they all accept money from the government.

Like my example used earlier there are many highly skilled professionals that refuse to go on the dole. I know one person that is a commercial property lawyer and can't find work anywhere, he has no chance as his field is so specialized. He could never venture into other parts of law without shelling out £10,000+ and going back to uni. And don't think for a second that he hasn't applied for other jobs, despite been perfectly able to do lower paid jobs the response always is- 'How do we not know you are going to leave this job if one for your the profession you specialize in comes along?'

What do you propose we do for the 100 of thousands of highly skilled, that refuse to go on the dole but can't find a job?

You can't tie everyone under the same string.
I am not. Specifically I am referring to the unskilled wasters refusing to take the un-skilled jobs.

For everyone else? Well. You have to try.

100 Applications
20 knock on doors, with suit and CV
Take a temporary position to prove the above "you will leave theory" is redundant.
Register with 20 agencies.

It is almost impossible to be un-employed. You have to really not try at all.

Can't find a job in your field? Give up then!?

No, try. Get on your bike. Change career. Think.

Pride, passion, effort, willingness and motivation.

Fly - you are failing to see that our economy, as it stands it dependent upon vast numbers of poor people being treated terribly by their empoyers and paid crap - it is partly this that allows those of us fortunate to have money to have the standard of living we do.

Until you fix the idea that our economy relies upon someone working for their entire life for fuck all in Tesco (or whereever) then I am afraid your anger will get you no where as the workshy, as you put it, will always exist and will just make you more and more angry.

Fly - you are failing to see that our economy, as it stands it dependent upon vast numbers of poor people being treated terribly by their empoyers and paid crap - it is partly this that allows those of us fortunate to have money to have the standard of living we do.

Until you fix the idea that our economy relies upon someone working for their entire life for fuck all in Tesco (or whereever) then I am afraid your anger will get you no where as the workshy, as you put it, will always exist and will just make you more and more angry.

It's no anger...I am planning on getting out of town as soon as funds permit. We are fuc*ed.

All these public sector workers are paying in their 5% of salary per annum and are retiring in droves over the next 5-10years....all on final salary pension schemes.

1 person on £50,000 pays in £5,000 per annum to the pension pot.
That 1 person gets £50,000 for life for what? On average (80 years life exp)15years retirement. So, we as tax payers pay him £750,000 in pension rights for his final salary and an additional £100,000 in state pension rights.

In it not rocket science to see this pyramid selling scheme going bust....oh look it has....£150bn a year budget defecit already.

The entire UK tax and pension system is bankrupt with £1.5trillion `missing' from the pot being claimed from.

Still, if you think we can also pay 3million to complain, then you are totally unaware of the firestorm to hit....the financial crisis was an added bonus...the real storm was predicted 2 decades ago and G Brown thought he knew better!

Not angry, merely astounded how the UK press ignores this calamity about to befall us all!

Yikes.

Hmm, so your plan is?

You think all the 3million long term jobless are thick? Incapable of doing anything other than the 1st job they started?

Er?

Don't think so.

They are lazy. They are wasters.

Your plan of tax payer subsidy has created this waste.

2million foreign workers have poured in to meet the demand and are paying tax. Great.

We need to stop allowing people to decline jobs because they don't fancy them.

You will not find a single blue-collar employer in the UK who does not find their UK staff substantially inferior in ability, attendance and attitude to the foerign counter-part. Terrible indictment but report after report highlights this.

We are currently up the creak without a £150bn paddle and you say I am wrong. Fair enough...I stick with what the sharp end reports and says.....our blue-collar unemployed workers are pathetic wasters, watching SKY and playing computer games all day long, collected tax payers money and taking the piss.

So anyone who is unemployed is a waster? well thats a bit of a generalisation

loads of foreign workers have poured in this country who get paid below the minimum wage, who work for firms undeclared so the companies don't have to pay tax, cash straight in their pocket and hand which they then send back home to help their relatives out, I don't blame them but I tell you who I do blame, the companies involved! we could claim billions back onrich people and companies who are tax avoiders probably more than than trying to solve the tax scrounger problem.But its all about priorities and giving the poor a kick is the easier and popular thing to do these days

There are a variety of reasons why people decline jobs, being worse off is probably the main reason which I can fully understand, what sane person wants to leave themselves worse off ? its not the fault of the person its the fault of a system that doesn't make work pay, its the fault of an economy that makes house prices too high and means that a wage to live on has to be so high in the first place.

It's no anger...I am planning on getting out of town as soon as funds permit. We are fuc*ed.

All these public sector workers are paying in their 5% of salary per annum and are retiring in droves over the next 5-10years....all on final salary pension schemes.

1 person on £50,000 pays in £5,000 per annum to the pension pot.
That 1 person gets £50,000 for life for what? On average (80 years life exp)15years retirement. So, we as tax payers pay him £750,000 in pension rights for his final salary and an additional £100,000 in state pension rights.

In it not rocket science to see this pyramid selling scheme going bust....oh look it has....£150bn a year budget defecit already.

The entire UK tax and pension system is bankrupt with £1.5trillion `missing' from the pot being claimed from.

Still, if you think we can also pay 3million to complain, then you are totally unaware of the firestorm to hit....the financial crisis was an added bonus...the real storm was predicted 2 decades ago and G Brown thought he knew better!

Not angry, merely astounded how the UK press ignores this calamity about to befall us all!

Yikes.

woe is me, what about the budget deficit that has come from helping the banks out?

"All these public sector workers are paying in their 5% of salary per annum and are retiring in droves over the next 5-10years....all on final salary pension schemes.

1 person on £50,000 pays in £5,000 per annum to the pension pot.
That 1 person gets £50,000 for life for what? On average (80 years life exp)15years retirement. So, we as tax payers pay him £750,000 in pension rights for his final salary and an additional £100,000 in state pension rights. "


Sorry to stop you there but this is absolute twaddle. Either you've made a genuine mistake with your figures or or seriously ill-informed about pensions. This is the right wing propaganda that Daily Mail readers love, the tories love but is patently untrue.

'Final salary' does NOT mean you get your salary for the rest of your retired life (if only). It is a PERCENTAGE of final salary, and often not a big one at that anymore. It's all the previous generation that got the good deals...

Just because there are 3 Million Jobless doesn't mean they all accept money from the government.

Like my example used earlier there are many highly skilled professionals that refuse to go on the dole. I know one person that is a commercial property lawyer and can't find work anywhere, he has no chance as his field is so specialized. He could never venture into other parts of law without shelling out £10,000+ and going back to uni. And don't think for a second that he hasn't applied for other jobs, despite been perfectly able to do lower paid jobs the response always is- 'How do we not know you are going to leave this job if one for your the profession you specialize in comes along?'

What do you propose we do for the 100 of thousands of highly skilled, that refuse to go on the dole but can't find a job?

You can't tie everyone under the same string.

These so called skilled professionals who are unemployed but 'refuse' to be on the dole...where do they live?

I'm assuming to have so much pride they have some money to fall back on in the first place which kind of doesn't prove your point, most people on the dole are on the dole because they could not afford to let pride get in the way of accepting money from the state otherwise they would be homeless and destitute.

We are currently up the creakCREAK is the noise a door makes when it needs lubricating. The word you were ignorant of is spelled CREEK and is a small tributary of a larger body of water (river etc).our blue-collar unemployed workers are pathetic wasters, watching SKY and playing computer games.This from a guy who has posted in excess of 3700 messages on this board at all hours of the day and night. :ohno:

Karl Pilkingtons are alive and well in Manchester.:lol:

Indeed, my guess is Fly mixes in circles where he doesn't meet people who quite literally cannot afford to work. Taking a low paid job would leave their family in dire straights.

Taking away their benefits ain't going to help our society either, not unless you really do want to see people around you suffering.

CREAK This from a guy who has posted in excess of 3700 messages on this board at all hours of the day and night. :ohno:



Claims he owns a business which is why he has the time, I believe. Which is surely nonsense - all the senior partners and company owners I'm aware of are the busiest of everyone. Perhaps he is an honorary 'director' in his daddy's company...

I refuse to believe Fly is for real. He's surely a cunning and clever opponent of neo-liberalism and is attempting to paint the advocates of it as complete buffoons.

A

Well you guys seem happy with the current orthodoxy.

Since when have we tried mean-tested benefits?

Back to work sticks?

We have not. Your points are therefore somewhat flawed. Your way has failed, badly.


Time on here gives me the sustenance to witness how the masses are so deluded. It gives me strength and the energy to focus on work.

You are being played like fiddles from the ruling class and played for idiots by the non-working class.

80% tax on petrol and no one riots.

What a set-up.

Maybe we are in the `matrix'.

Wake-up chaps.

20% VAT

21% Income Tax

12.8% rising to 13.8% next month NI.

Oh how you are being squezzed by Labour and now the Tories.

£300bn in PFI deal signed on your next 25 years tax take.

It is so far up the creek/creak (who spell checks?) that to see you all, to a man, `happy' and opposed to the large stick approach is truly baffling.

Ba, Baaa,Baaar go the sheep!

Monumental...especially from Wirlie who is almost hysterical about the prices United charge the fans but is happy to fork out £200-£500 (?) per month in taxes to pay from scroats!

It is so far up the creek/creak (who spell checks?)Those who can't spell, you know, the likes of you, the rest of us can spell and don't need a spell checker.:lol:

Those who can't spell, you know, the likes of you, the rest of us can spell and don't need a spell checker.:lol:

I can't spell or punctuate to save my life. (it's a well known fact on SSC) However, I make up for those shortcomings by retaining numerous facts, figures and relevant articles, which I can recall and find at the drop of a hat. Not only that, but most on here get the general gist of my posts and forgive my shortcomings.(as already mentioned)

Peace be with you brother. And to all who book flights through the travel agents where you work. :goodbye:

A little bash at Liverpool here, where the fuck are the graduate jobs? In my opinion it shouldn't be the top priority but compared to Leeds and Manchester Liverpool must lag behind in terms of graduate retention. I'm still here doing a postgrad but I've got so many friends who would have loved to stay here but the jobs just are not here.

Ey?

I do not emply work shy pricks who don't turn up for interviews. Who go sick in their 1st week. Who are entirely a sub-set of white, British scroats.


:)

Why single out white people?

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/0708/increasing_employment_rates_fo.aspx

Unfortunately like it or not, the rights such as benefits and NHS that British people have fought so hard for over so many centuries are being abused more and more, and not just by lazy white people. Britain is surely seen as a big honey pot for foreign people who seek relative safety of democracy and a state which will look after them and their families more or less free once here, probably combined with aggressive legal challenges by unscrupulous solicitors who specialise in human rights, it can only go on for so long before the cracks turn into great devides, most of the money earned by legal or illegal foreign workers returns to the home country.

We obviously need new people arriving into Britain to do jobs that many white people have gradually fallen out of love with over many decades and to keep the country alive and in touch with the world at large, from food to culture, medicine and so on.

However, I've been stood in an A&E with Indian women shouting at the poor woman on front desk to give them what they demanded for free, they pretended they couldn't speak English and wouldn't give an address, she gave in they walked away with what they asked for (laughing and joking), the next patient was an old Indian guy who could not speak a word of English, again he became angry with the woman on the front desk, then his family arrived who also could not speak English and held up a long line of other people needing urgent attention, turned out he was looking for a different department and their lack of English seemed not to hinder them demanding the rights that my parents have invested in for over one hundred years between them (I could be a black, white or asian person saying this).

As a country we have been a little bit too soft, but the sad thing is this has allowed situations to occur which can be exploited by racist and elitist elements in powerful positions, and the people who feel the pinch are those who are honest genuine hard workers and who have worked all their lives paying taxes which have been stolen from under their noses.

I totally agree that TheFly was wrong to single out 'white people', but you seem to be basing your conclusions of 'foreign' people from one or two bad experiences in A and E.

woe is me, what about the budget deficit that has come from helping the banks out?What an idiot you are! :bash:

The bank bailouts are tiny compared to the budget deficit (still less when compared with cumulative public debt), and when the government sellsits shares in lloyds and RBS they will make a handsome profit for the taxpayer. The budget deficit and government debt is overwhelmingly caused by excessive and unsustainable public spending under Labour.

You have to spend money to make money...

People who abuse the system should thrown out the country, irrespectively their colour. The same applies for British citizens, if you are a scrounger you should have your passport taken away and lose your nationality and I don't give a fuck if your great grandad was fuckin Lancelot....

Put it this way, how much do you think it's going to cost the country when 500,000 civil servants, health workers, local council workers, etc, etc are going to be added to the dole queue? Then minus their spend as they will have little or no expenditure.

Don't give me that shit about Labour spending on vanity prjects. They spent the money on new schools, hospitals, infastructure and other similar projects, which created work and kept people in jobs.Yes they also wasted money, just like any Government does. And no, I don't vote Labour.

The money, billions, went into bailing the banks out and propping them up. It was them that caused this recesssion, regardless of it starting in America. The British banks bought into it 100%. They fucked up and we've kept them going. We the tax payer won't see a wholsale return on that money for years to come. In the meantime the vast majority of the people throughout the country have to suffer, while the bankers still pick up their 6 and 7 figure salaries, plus their 5, 6 and 7 figure bonuses.

Monkey, you're f***ing deluded. No doubt you have a desk full of monitors in the City or Canary Wharf.

Just to prove my point.

Where else do you still pay huge bonuses when that company made a loss. Regardless if it was less than the previous years loss.

RBS loses £1.1 billion in 2010 but PAYS £1.1 billion in bonuses

RBS reports losses of more than £1billion Feb 24 2011 By Scott McCulloch
Bank will pay nearly as much in bonuses as it reported in losses for the 2010 year

The market had expected losses to be around £700 million but bad debt charges from the bank's Irish business led to it staying firmly in the red.
The bank agreed to cut its bonus pool to its investment banking arm, Global Banking and Markets, to £950million this year as part of the Project Merlin agreement with the coalition government.
Despite reducing the bonus pool from £1.3 billion paid out last year, the proportion of the bank's revenues earmarked for bonuses is up from 26 per cent in 2009 to 34 per cent for 2010.
Len McCluskey, general secretary of the Unite union, said taxpayers would be left baffled as to how RBS can "so handsomely reward their investment bankers" in light of continuing losses.
He said: "This is an institution in which over 21,000 front line and support staff have been sacked and RBS still refuse to lend enough to small businesses but bonuses are free-flowing.
"Because of our taxpayer funding, RBS is gradually recovering from the mess caused by their greedy bankers.
"Yet the Chancellor continues to tolerate the award of some £950 million in bonuses to the culprits, instead of ensuring our taxes do not become worthless."
RBS finance director Bruce van Saun also admitted today the bank would pay no corporation tax again in 2011 as it has deferred tax assets of £6.3bn it can use up from previous losses before paying any tax.
The group said it had paid £3.9billion to the UK government in 2010, £1.5bn in payroll taxes and a further £1.5bn in fees which includes participation in the government-managed Asset Protection Scheme.
RBS chairman, Sir Philip Hampton said today's results were a "step change" in the banks financial performance.
He said: "The global economy rebounded strongly in 2010, but the strength of the recovery was unevenly spread across countries, and over time.
"Among our core markets, the UK and the US both returned to fairly modest growth but conditions in Ireland remain very challenging."
The loss of £1.1billion is a vast improvement on the £3.6 billion loss it reported last year, and the UK corporate record loss of £24.3 billion in 2008 when the bank was rescued by the taxpayer.

The banks core business, which chief executive split off from the non-core parts he earmarked for disposal when he arrived at the bank in 2008, posted a operating profit of £7.4 billion which was swamped by £5.5 billion in losses from the remaining non-core parts of the business.

Losses at Ulster Bank, which RBS acquired in 2000, widened to £761million compared to £368million in 2009 and its impairment losses grew to £1.16 billion in 2010 compared to £649 million a year earlier.
A further £2.7billion in impairment losses on loans from Ulster Bank were transferred into the group's non-core division in 2009.
RBS said it remains cautious on its overall exposure in Ireland,
The groups insurance business, which includes Direct Line, Churchill and Green Flag also suffered a disappointing year with nearly £300 million in losses blamed on bad weather an an increase in claims.
Stephen Hester, chief executive of RBS, confirmed he would be taking his £2.04 million deferred shares bonus for 2010.
He said: "Two years on from the global financial crisis, RBS's recovery is ahead of schedule," but added, "We have much work still to do and there are significant obstacles still to overcome."

RBS placed more than £280 billion of its most toxic assets into the government-backed APS in 2008 which put a 90 pence in the pound tax payer guarantee on these assets if losses surpassed £60 billion.
RBS said it was also charged £1.1billion last year for this cover.
Without the APS cost RBS said made an operating profit of £1.9 billion for the year compared to a loss of £6 billion in 2009.
Money put aside for bad loans also dropped 33 per cent compared with last year to £9.3 billion.
RBS - the UK's largest commercial property lender - is expected to sell off more of its commercial property loans this year and warned new lending to the sector would be limited.
The bank reduced its commercial property loan book by more than £10bn last year as part of a move to reduce its exposure to the sector.
Property loans and assets dropped £11bn to £87bn in 2010 as a result of loan repayments, sales and restructuring, and £43 billion of that lending is considered by RBS to be 'non-core' and will have to be either repaid or sold off by 2014

A little bash at Liverpool here, where the fuck are the graduate jobs? In my opinion it shouldn't be the top priority but compared to Leeds and Manchester Liverpool must lag behind in terms of graduate retention. I'm still here doing a postgrad but I've got so many friends who would have loved to stay here but the jobs just are not here.

I totally agree Im moving back in May but I can just imagine that Il be working for Barclays call centre in Wavertree Technology Park. I dont want to live anywhere else though especially not Manchester or Leeds. Newcastle is worse for graduate jobs than Liverpool. Dire situation.

And to all who book flights through the travel agents where you work. :goodbye:Why would you think that I have anything ton do with the travel industry? And furthermore, do you think that revealing someones employment will intimidate them to the extent that they will start to like Manchester?

I would imagine that a travel professional would have the ability to spell correctly, something sorely lacking in most Mancs posting on this forum, yourself probably being the prime example.:lol:

The same applies for British citizens, if you are a scrounger you should have your passport taken away and lose your nationality and I don't give a fuck if your great grandad was fuckin Lancelot....Not even the "white" Commonwealth countries will accept lumpen Brits anymore. Do you think that those commonwealth nations should do the same? Returning the dross back to Blightys shore would give willing workers from third world countries a chance to improve their lot and help their new country prosper.

Put it this way, how much do you think it's going to cost the country when 500,000 civil servants, health workers, local council workers, etc, etc are going to be added to the dole queue? Then minus their spend as they will have little or no expenditure.

Don't give me that shit about Labour spending on vanity prjects. They spent the money on new schools, hospitals, infastructure and other similar projects, which created work and kept people in jobs.Yes they also wasted money, just like any Government does. And no, I don't vote Labour.

The money, billions, went into bailing the banks out and propping them up. It was them that caused this recesssion, regardless of it starting in America. The British banks bought into it 100%. They fucked up and we've kept them going. We the tax payer won't see a wholsale return on that money for years to come. In the meantime the vast majority of the people throughout the country have to suffer, while the bankers still pick up their 6 and 7 figure salaries, plus their 5, 6 and 7 figure bonuses.

Monkey, you're f***ing deluded. No doubt you have a desk full of monitors in the City or Canary Wharf.

Just to prove my point.

Where else do you still pay huge bonuses when that company made a loss. Regardless if it was less than the previous years loss.

RBS loses £1.1 billion in 2010 but PAYS £1.1 billion in bonuses

Amen:cheers:

I dont want to live anywhere else though especially not Manchester or Leeds. Newcastle is worse for graduate jobs than Liverpool. Dire situation.

SO, move back to Liverpool out of pride! :cheers:

As a graduate myself, sounds like a foolish plan! You want to move where the jobs are relating to your degree or forever more get stuck in a rutt, in a call centre! (Like me! and finding it hard to break the cycle! :) )

why not start your own business ^^

You don't have to live in Leeds or Manc to work there.

Plenty of scousers and Yorkshire people in the office where I work, in fact only about 50% live in Manc.

Put it this way, how much do you think it's going to cost the country when 500,000 civil servants, health workers, local council workers, etc, etc are going to be added to the dole queue?

In simplistic, cold-hearted terms it costs the taxpayer less to have 500,000 ex-civil servants on the dole than it costs to keep them in employment. They are not creating wealth when they are employed, they are consuming it whether they are working or on the dole.

And if they remain in employment, where does the money they spend come from? The taxpayer. When they spend the money, where does it end up? Normally in the pockets of private sector shareholders with a little bit of it going back to the government to pay their wages.

I do Criminology and that sector is getting cut lol. I know I would commute to Manchester if I got a job there as I plan to live in Liverpool city centre so it wouldnt be a trauma trying to get there.

If you are doing Criminology where better to work than Manc :D

It is after all the crime capital of the north and ha more of it than almost all other places. :lol:

why not start your own business ^^

Interesting! :sly:

Im thinking of doing a masters actually.

Liverpool currently flying the flag for Britain in terms of banner ratings, I can just hear Wirlie, JRB and Kids groaning from here.

?

When have I ever said anything to suggest that I would groan at that? Muppet.

Your reaction when I said Liverpool was different from Manchester? People don't like 'different' because they think it means people think they're superior. Tbf thefly is probably a more suitable candidate.

Just thought it was worth a mention, as this is an architecture forum after all and we have to hear endless boasting about how many offices certain places have.

Your reaction when I said Liverpool was different from Manchester? People don't like 'different' because they think it means people think they're superior. Tbf thefly is probably a more suitable candidate.

Just thought it was worth a mention, as this is an architecture forum after all and we have to hear endless boasting about how many offices certain places have.

Huh? Can we have a slander box?

Show me where I have decried Liverpool's skyline..indeed I think my last post on it was a "God Damn!" I am jealous.

Prefer our `Denver' density though. You cannot see the skyline in the city. Only when you are miles away!

By the end of the year though another 100m+ tower will be on our skyline.

=4

Double Pool's
Double Brum's
Double Leeds'

:)

Liverpool currently flying the flag for Britain in terms of banner ratings, I can just hear Wirlie, JRB and Kids groaning from here.

Wtf are you going on about?

If you have nothing to say just make it up eh?

In case you have not noticed I repeatedly go on about how I don't give that much of a shit about how outsiders see Manchester, I am much more interested in the life quality of the locals improving.

Click on the link below in my sig Albion. I have come to the conclusion it certainly relates to you on many levels.



EDIT - in fact Albion, answer this simple question, what do you think interests me most? The fact that Liverpool has a better skyline than Manchester, is more recognised around the world etc than Manchester or that our light rail system is gettign a huge expansion and HS2 will be coming in the next couple of decades? I'll give you a clue - search on all the posts I make and see where they are. You really do just make up shit don't you?

Prefer our `Denver' density though. You cannot see the skyline in the city. Only when you are miles away!Is this the Colorado version of 'Denver' you are referring to?:lol: F**k man, you are totally delusional.:ohno:

Your reaction when I said Liverpool was different from Manchester? People don't like 'different' because they think it means people think they're superior. Tbf thefly is probably a more suitable candidate.

Just thought it was worth a mention, as this is an architecture forum after all and we have to hear endless boasting about how many offices certain places have.

Nice try, but I've had similar discussions with nationalists and the like. I don't like these generalisations that groups of people are different.. implying that groups as a whole are different promotes the idea of "other". I think it's fundamentally dehumanising. I'm a no borders kinda guy.

But seriously, the amount of times I have called the Fly and WirlieG muppets.. it's at least as many times as I have called you a muppet. So yeh, I don't take kindly to being put in that list. :ohno: Jrb is genuinley just defensive, and doesn't know how to ignore or react to what he sees as attacks against his city or his team. Ooooooo no, not the team, don't slag off meee team. NNNNNOOOOO.

:laugh:

Calm yourselves gentlemen.

Muppet.

To be honest, I know what I'd rather have. Rome wasn't built in a day, but (Gtr)Manchester is getting there slowly, even in these challenging economic times.

Christ almighty you don't have a sense of humour do you? It was a jokey post, quite clearly, I know you probably couldn't give two shits. But your serious responses(trying to tell me how great Manchester is/will be) are very telling.

Christ almighty you don't have a sense of humour do you? It was a jokey post, quite clearly, I know you probably couldn't give two shits. But your serious responses(trying to tell me how great Manchester is/will be) are very telling.

Me? :dunno: Telling. As in the truth.

Haha, you can't help yourself.

At least you can't continue calling other people out for being defensive now.

Haha, you can't help yourself.

At least you can't continue calling other people out for being defensive now.

Don't worry, I wasn't beating myself up about it. A yes or no would have done.

Saying that, you did feel the urge to reply. :colgate:

Thanks for the feedback. (the original point still stands)

I don't even know what we're talking about anymore.

Anyway, football time.

To be honest, I know what I'd rather have. Rome wasn't built in a day, but (Gtr)Manchester is getting there slowly, even in these challenging economic times.But every generation of Imperial Rome built the world's greatest buildings. By 200 AD Rome could boast of centuries upon centuries of ambitious architecture piled up layer upon layer. Manchester has never built any really impressive architecture, and still isn't today. Ancient Rome:

pHinQD3GAIo

The modern-day Rome is of course London. :)

I fished for Sloyne and he bit.

Watch for obscure references to Denver for the next 12months..I was getting bored with Atlanta

Karl Denver, possibly.

I fished for Sloyne and he bit.

Watch for obscure references to Denver for the next 12months..I was getting bored with AtlantaLiar liar, pants on fire.:lol:

The net's out, gutting and filleting to follow.

Karl Denver was quite good actually.

Awayo you'll like this, the other day I was with my Dad in town trying to buy cheap suits - in a second hand warehouse on Oldham Street we came across the jacket of a former NWDA executive, came with the name badge and some paracetamol. My dad took the paracetamol, I left the name badge with the jacket. It was going for 3 quid. Think his name was Neil Spellor or Mellor or something. Anyway thought you might enjoy that.

Strange tales from strange times. I like this stuff, kids. Keep it coming.

Neil Mellor? Isn't he playing at Wednesday now?

New renders now available for Wellington Place Leeds. Apparently start date for these block is April.
Felt the need to post these on here to show there are some excellent quality proposals in Leeds.
http://img268.imageshack.us/img268/4664/99033368.png
http://img405.imageshack.us/img405/4782/27914859.png
http://img828.imageshack.us/img828/2664/45683489.png
http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/5232/92401289.png
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/6592/30353258.png
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/3667/32805160.png
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/7747/73413196.png
http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/7051/wellington.jpg
http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/4967/13292303.png

They do look good, but I'm pretty sure they won't start without a pre-let. Where did you hear April?

They do look good, but I'm pretty sure they won't start without a pre-let. Where did you hear April?

I read that as well. Think it was Property Week.

There are rumours in the property world that Irvine Sellar (developer of the Shard) is teaming up with Arab financiers to build some really cool new Richard Rogers and Santiago Calatrava-designed skyscrapers in Manchester. One is set to be 350m and the other 270m. Has anyone else heard about this? It could be the big break Manchester needs....

There are rumours in the property world that Irvine Sellar (developer of the Shard) is teaming up with Arab financiers to build some really cool new Richard Rogers and Santiago Calatrava-designed skyscrapers in Manchester. One is set to be 350m and the other 270m. Has anyone else heard about this? It could be the big break Manchester needs....

What time is? Gone past 12 yet?

Which rumours and where Monkey? With your track record of Macunian hatred where did you here this? I assume the site would be Man City?

There are rumours in the property world that Irvine Sellar (developer of the Shard) is teaming up with Arab financiers to build some really cool new Richard Rogers and Santiago Calatrava-designed skyscrapers in Manchester. One is set to be 350m and the other 270m. Has anyone else heard about this? It could be the big break Manchester needs....

April Fools doesn't count after midday. ;)

http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/trinitybridge/index.htm
Calatrava has done work in Manchester before and Rodgers has worked on the Man City site before http://www.richardrogers.co.uk/work/all_projects/east_manchester_strategic_masterplan

Any other source than Monkey you would still be laughing.

I don't know what's worse, Langur's bad April Fools or TheFly's response to it.

I don't know what's worse, Langur's bad April Fools or TheFly's response to it.

Ey? I am showing where daft rumours come from.

I doubt Monkey would be the 1st person to tell us.

I mentioned April 1st.

Doh. No irony.

Well it comes across as you plugging Manchester, as per.;)

Well it comes across as you plugging Manchester, as per.;)

Nah, not with Monkey being the source.

Weasel, Trojan Horse springs to mind: not sure he has ever posted anything other than a picture of a chimney stack about us before...he spent years bigging up Stansted against Manchester.

He definitely needs new material, the chimney stack lost it's appeal after the first dozen times.

There are rumours in the property world that Irvine Sellar (developer of the Shard) is teaming up with Arab financiers to build some really cool new Richard Rogers and Santiago Calatrava-designed skyscrapers in Manchester. One is set to be 350m and the other 270m. Has anyone else heard about this? It could be the big break Manchester needs....

Just leave that to Sheikh Mansour. :wink2:

What's planned won't be anywhere nears as tall, but it's going to smash this..............

http://wwp.millennium-dome.com/images/millennium-dome/millennium-dome-aerial-view.jpg

pile of shite to pieces.

BTW. If anyone wants a smaller version, they're available here. http://www.gooutdoors.co.uk/

Go brum... Go Brum.... Go Brum
:tyty::cheer:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9924/brumskyline.png

Go brum... Go Brum.... Go Brum
:tyty::cheer:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9924/brumskyline.png

"You have already voted. You voted 1/5 stars." Hardly surprised.

"You have already voted. You voted 1/5 stars." Hardly surprised.

I've made my opinions quite clear in the past... I think my vote reflects that :)

It looks like I'm not the only one.....

LOL Birmingham was slated on that one. I doubt Leeds would fare any better.

LOL Birmingham was slated on that one. I doubt Leeds would fare any better.

Precisely my point. I'm looking forward to when (if) Leeds actually makes it up there... :)

I like the Brum panorama, very urban, big city look

LOL Birmingham was slated on that one. I doubt Leeds would fare any better.

Portsmouth got mixed reviews too, though I often wonder sometimes if some of those who gave it the lowest mark were from this forum :ohno:

I gave both Portsmouth and Birmingham 5 stars :) I was aware it wasn't the best picture of Birmingham though.

For those of you who do the daily "Guess the City" thing, I believe Manchester and Birmingham popped up in the same week a few months ago and with both of them people were surprised, putting things like "Chicago" or "Milan" in.

British provincial (I hate that word as well :lol:) cities have a lot to stand for and I really still believe that a lot of people around the world think UK/England = London. We always have to blow our own trumpet ...

For those of you who do the daily "Guess the City" thing, I believe Manchester and Birmingham popped up in the same week a few months ago and with both of them people were surprised, putting things like "Chicago" or "Milan" in..Only someone who had never visited Chicago and Milan would confuse Manchester with either city. In fact, the cities of the mid-west "Rust Belt" state of Ohio (Akron, Cleveland, Cincinatti, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo,) all have far more skyscrapers than Manchesters lone Beetham building. Birmingham? Well that's another subject but, then again, it could, in parts be likened (ever so loosely) to Milan. But to Chicago? Never.

British cities are nothing like those rust belt cities, they may have less scrapers but have a better street experience

Liverpool looks like New York though, dont you think?

Apparently Liverpool and New York are very similar cities. They are twin cities too.

Shame Liverpool lost its overhead railway:(

Here's a good article covering the comparisons of Manchester, Glasgow and Liverpool to Chicago and New York.
http://nastybrutalistandshort.blogspot.com/2010/03/almost-skyscrapers-of-britain-1829-1944.html

There's definitely a symbolic and psychological link between LPL and NYC.

That Brum panorama is ok and at a different angle to my view of it. From my flat near to St Andrews the Cube appears right inbetween the 2 white twin towers (Sentinels) but the panorama is just as impressive.

Liverpool looks like New York.In your dreams.

Why would Liverpool want to look like New York, a mish mash of awful, 1930's skyscrapers that go on forever and ever? Bleh. Frankfurt all the way, baby ;)
http://www.phonebookoffrankfurt.com/images/city-of-frankfurt2.jpg
:drool:

Still, nothing compared to Liverpool :bow:
http://www.samknox.co.uk/images/skyline.jpg
:drool: :drool:

In your dreams.

Two cities developed at different times, with differing interests. Little comparison with city, and skyline.

Portsmouth got mixed reviews too, though I often wonder sometimes if some of those who gave it the lowest mark were from this forum :ohno:

To be fair some genuinely decent cities get slated on the ratings, as the ratings seem to be dominated by Russians who think their local ex-Stalinesque gulag and now new money oil town with giant fake neo-classical palaces and pointless glass skyscrapers in the middle of nowhere is the mutt's nuts!

Go brum... Go Brum.... Go Brum
:tyty::cheer:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9924/brumskyline.png

Well ... what do you expect when you submit lots of quality banners and the one that go's up is the one from the industrial heartland and the worse of the 20 odd submitted.

Still ... Looks a damn lot better then Leeds.

TBH, I didn't think that the banner of Brum that went up was the most flattering view of the city.

Why do Leeds and Birmingham hate each other on this forum? Is it competition for the second most populous city or something?

Why do Leeds and Birmingham hate each other on this forum? Is it competition for the second most populous city or something?

Inflated ego's. Inferiority complex. A bit like Birmingham City fans when it comes to Villa, Wolves and Albion. Have to try and pump out your chest a bit even though you know you never have been never will be better then the others.

I find it ridiculous. I was looking back at pages 200+ coz I am bored and this thread is proper mean. The major cities in the uk are all decent and have different strengths and weaknesses.

I'm on Birmingham's side any day. That's a true great major city, unlike toybox Leeds. Where the hell has Leeds come from anyway? It's just a small Yorkshire town and it's forumers on here are trying to tell us it's bigger and better than the likes of Liverpool & Birmingham?

I'm on Birmingham's side any day. That's a true great major city, unlike toybox Leeds. Where the hell has Leeds come from anyway? It's just a small Yorkshire town and it's forumers on here are trying to tell us it's bigger and better than the likes of Liverpool & Birmingham?

^^ That's why. The propaganda spouted about any non-Leeds city by *some* Leeds forumers is outstanding and most of it is directed at Birmingham, even tho *some* of them haven't even been to the city.

In general, however, a significant proportion of the comments on this thread are contortions of the truth, regardless of the city in question.

I'm on Birmingham's side any day. That's a true great major city, unlike toybox Leeds. Where the hell has Leeds come from anyway? It's just a small Yorkshire town and it's forumers on here are trying to tell us it's bigger and better than the likes of Liverpool & Birmingham?

:ohno:

I'm on Birmingham's side any day. That's a true great major city, unlike toybox Leeds. Where the hell has Leeds come from anyway? It's just a small Yorkshire town and it's forumers on here are trying to tell us it's bigger and better than the likes of Liverpool & Birmingham?

While I accept Birmingham and Manchester have a higher status than Leeds I will rebuke anyone who suggests Liverpool is better than Leeds.

Yes culturally its a very interesting place, and the waterfornt is impressive. But other than that its one of many cities that are draining this country..

^^ That's why. The propaganda spouted about any non-Leeds city by *some* Leeds forumers is outstanding and most of it is directed at Birmingham, even tho *some* of them haven't even been to the city.

In general, however, a significant proportion of the comments on this thread are contortions of the truth, regardless of the city in question.

It's all subjective I guess. It could equally be said that *some* Birmingham forumers take it upon themselves to cause trouble with the more touchy Leeds forumers... not naming names!

While I accept Birmingham and Manchester have a higher status than Leeds I will rebuke anyone who suggests Liverpool is better than Leeds.

Yes culturally its a very interesting place, and the waterfornt is impressive. But other than that its one of many cities that are draining this country..


Don't get ahead of yourself, Leeds has done well in terms of development by letting anyone build any old cheap shite anywhere in the city, but in 10-20 years time it will be comfortably one of the worst looking cities in the UK.

It could equally be said that *some* Birmingham forumers take it upon themselves to cause trouble with the more touchy Leeds forumers... not naming names!

Indeed.

It's all subjective I guess.

Mmmm. But lots of it is simply untrue. I would go as far to say that *certain* forumers deal in propaganda* rather than proper debate.

*As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda, in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus possibly lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or uses loaded messages to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented. The desired result is a change of the attitude toward the subject in the target audience to further an agenda.

Don't get ahead of yourself, Leeds has done well in terms of development by letting anyone build any old cheap shite anywhere in the city, but in 10-20 years time it will be comfortably one of the worst looking cities in the UK.

Thats not why I'm getting at though is it.

Just look at the public sector in Liverpool, the city virtually relies on this industry and has yet to make any notable leaps into the private sector. 10,600 job losses in the public sector, thats over 3% of Liverpool's workforce, and one of the highest in the country.

Other cities which have a history of public sector
dependency and higher levels of welfare payments will be
the places most vulnerable to the Government’s deficit
reduction agenda. Sunderland, Liverpool, Birkenhead,
Swansea and Newport are amongst the cities that are
unlikely to feel the benefits of economic recovery for some
time. These places will be affected more by Government
spending cuts, given they have lower skill levels and levels
of business activity, more people employed in the public
sector, and more people claiming unemployment benefits.

There aren't enough people with 'high skilled qualifications' to even support a thriving private sector. Under 20% of Liverpool's workforce are high-skilled, yet there are over 30% in Leeds. A massive difference, which easily makes the difference between a city to invest in rather than a city to avoid.

It makes matters worse when the population is steadily declining. Even during the 'boom' years when cities such as Liverpool should have been rapidly growing, its population was (and still is) going down. Added by the the city having one of the lowest employment rate (in the bottom three).

As far as I'm concerned there is nothing to stimulate growth in Liverpool. Other cities such as York, Bristol, Reading, Leeds, Manchester and Birmingham are leaps ahead of liverpool in all aspects.

The Boom years did nothing for Liverpool, and the recession or 'recovery' will do even worse.

Why do Leeds and Birmingham hate each other on this forum? Is it competition for the second most populous city or something?

I think the question should be "why does everyone hate Leeds on this forum?" when it is Liverpool and Birmingham who have the reputations of being shitholes in the United Kingdom.. one can only wonder... ;)

@10123, exactly the point, well said

@yosefh, alright, a few recent, awful developments and suddenly all of Leeds is made of shite? Give me a fucking break.

I think the question should be "why does everyone hate Leeds on this forum?" when it is Liverpool and Birmingham who have the reputations of being shitholes in the United Kingdom.. one can only wonder... ;)

Leeds Troll... Jayson... Lad 2011...

These idiots bring a bad name on this forum, I don't mind calling them idiots as its more than one person ;)

Leeds Troll... Jayson... Lad 2011...

These idiots bring a bad name on this forum, I don't mind calling them idiots as its more than one person ;)

People should stick to insulting these people rather than insulting a city of around 500,000 people, bloody ignorance, as far as I'm concerned most people on this forum are trolls. :tongue:

There all jealous thats all.... :bleep:

There all jealous thats all.... :bleep:

Yup, that's right. We're all jealous. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

Yup, that's right. We're all jealous. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

..............of Birmingham been in the bottom three for unemployment :lol::lol::lol::lol:

posted twice grr

It makes matters worse when the population is steadily declining. Even during the 'boom' years when cities such as Liverpool should have been rapidly growing, its population was (and still is) going down.

The Boom years did nothing for Liverpool, and the recession or 'recovery' will do even worse.

Liverpool's population has been growing since 2009 actually. Also, how did the boom years do nothing for Liverpool? Its a totally different place compared with 2001.

I agree with your analysis of the public sector though the city is too reliant on it but the current council do seem to know what they are doing so hopefully that will change.

Liverpool's population has been growing since 2009 actually. Also, how did the boom years do nothing for Liverpool? Its a totally different place compared with 2001.

Yes aesthetically its different, but in real terms- such as the growth in private sector there has been little improvement. This is what all cities such strive for. Instead Liverpool has gone the opposite, with an ever increasing number on welfare. Even during the 'boom' the number on welfare was increasing, granted most places will be post 07, but pre 07 no city should have more on benefits.

I agree with your analysis of the public sector though the city is too reliant on it but the current council do seem to know what they are doing so hopefully that will change.

Tbf you're not the only city, Bradford is the same. They were given billions to change Bradford. Yet it was wasted on utter tripe.

The private sector has grown though. I cant remember the percentage but it has grown. Il try and find it.

Leeds always comes out pretty mangled in these arguments, due to a proclivity to focus entirely on slightly better economic performance. It's like the ugly sister declaring herself better than Cinderella because one of her tits is bigger.

I cant find it I think its on a centre for cities rport but I cba trying to find it. Anyway, I do think Leeds is better economically Im not tyring to dispute that but everything in Liverpool has been improving. Even deprivation has been even though it is still one of the highest.

I feel qualified to pass judgement on Leeds having been to university there for three years.

IMO Leeds city centre doesn't play to it's strengths. None of the tall buildings look particularly good, perhaps this is because Leeds is so hilly? The are spots with great potential, e.g. Millenium Square and the bit behind the Corn Exchange, but they could do with being denser and more engaging.

I feel qualified to pass judgement on Leeds having been to university there for three years.

IMO Leeds city centre doesn't play to it's strengths. None of the tall buildings look particularly good, perhaps this is because Leeds is so hilly? The are spots with great potential, e.g. Millenium Square and the bit behind the Corn Exchange, but they could do with being denser and more engaging.

Pass judgment on what exactly?

While your points are valid I don't think theres much relevancy to the previous posts.

Leeds always comes out pretty mangled in these arguments, due to a proclivity to focus entirely on slightly better economic performance. It's like the ugly sister declaring herself better than Cinderella because one of her tits is bigger.

Yoshef's attempt to claim Liverpool is better than Leeds.
Nothing to back-it-up I see... no surprise there.

But Liverpool is better than Leeds.

- A world class skyline full of heritage and class.
- Two* world-class football football clubs. *arguably
- A stunning waterfront.
- An integrated transport network equipped with underground, reliable railway, buses and soon trams.
- A renowned city recognised around the world not only for heritage but also for the Beatles && football etc.
- A hell of a lot more tourism than Leeds.
- Beaches (albeit not the best, but still, it has beaches.)
- A huge city centre.
- Vibrant. Great nightlife.

But above all, it doesn't take a 2 minute drive from the city centre until you're in the countryside, unlike Leeds.

Liverpool pisses all over Leeds from a great height. No argument really.

Cue more deluded comments from *certain* Leeds forumers. :lol::lol::lol:

Trouble is I actually like Leeds, think its a great city. It's just the small kids living there who are trying desperately to massage their deluded egos by spouting 'facts' and 'figures' about things that most of the population couldn't give a shit about. Quite funny seeing it happen really.

Yoshef's attempt to claim Liverpool is better than Leeds.
Nothing to back-it-up I see... no surprise there.


:dunno: Have I made any claims I need to back up?

I would like to point out though:

1]For the past couple of years Liverpool has had the fastets growing economy outside of London.

2]It has had the highest number of business start-ups after London and Manchester.

3]Liverpool excells in plenty of sectors like Wealth Management but the problem is it doesnt excell in ALL sectors so there are employment opportunities for everyone.

That is all.

Sorry was mistaking it for Voldermorts comment
I'm on Birmingham's side any day. That's a true great major city, unlike toybox Leeds. Where the hell has Leeds come from anyway? It's just a small Yorkshire town and it's forumers on here are trying to tell us it's bigger and better than the likes of Liverpool & Birmingham?

I would like to point out though:

1]For the past couple of years Liverpool has had the fastets growing economy outside of London.

2]It has had the highest number of business start-ups after London and Manchester.

3]Liverpool excells in plenty of sectors like Wealth Management but the problem is it doesnt excell in ALL sectors so there are employment opportunities for everyone.

That is all.

Sorry but I need some factual evidence. Wile the first point has been banded around for Manc/Leeds/Brum on many occasions from various sources. I've never heard it for Liverpool.

Leeds has done very well for itself, but Liverpool crushes it aesthetically and culturally. Leeds never suffered the same extent of deprivation that Liverpool did.

Liverpool Vision.

Indiekid is correct. Leeds didnt fall from grace the way Liverpool and Manchester did. Manchester still has terrible deprivation regardless of the new employment prospects. Reversing the decline from deindustrialisation wont happen overnight it will take decades. I congratulate Manchester though it has come through alot faster than anticipated.

There is no point in trying to deny that Leeds has performed very well in recent years. It's a very well presented city, which looks like a very nice place to live. However Liverpool has just got so much more substance in a number of areas which make it more interesting. In terms of key performance features, I think that transport will hold Leeds back in the future. Liverpool has a very comprehensive and efficient suburban rail network and strong national connections. Its airport has come a very long way in the past decade. Substantial improvements have (and still are) been made to the city's road network.

I agree that transport will hold Leeds back, but Leeds has also had a lot of road investment- even if investment in public transport has been scarce. Recently the ELLR and IRR7 complete the road network in the SE, but before that the M1 SE Leeds Orbital and M621 brought the national motorway network within a stones throw of the City. Only Glasgow is in the same boat as Leeds here. It means both visitors and commuters can speed into the city from either Manchester/Liverpool or Sheffield/London directions without having to trundle through any congested suburbs.

I agree that transport will hold Leeds back, but Leeds has also had a lot of road investment- even if investment in public transport has been scarce. Recently the ELLR and IRR7 complete the road network in the SE, but before that the M1 SE Leeds Orbital and M621 brought the national motorway network within a stones throw of the City. Only Glasgow is in the same boat as Leeds here. It means both visitors and commuters can speed into the city from either Manchester/Liverpool or Sheffield/London directions without having to trundle through any congested suburbs.

Another fib. Birmingham has a dedicated 2-mile stretch of motorway linking the national network (the busiest and longest motorway in the country, the M6) directly to the city centre. Unlike Leeds, which has a motorway "passing close by".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A38(M)_motorway

But above all, it doesn't take a 2 minute drive from the city centre until you're in the countryside, unlike Leeds.

Sorry, but if you think getting stuck in urban sprawl is preferable to having green corridors and beautiful countryside on your doorstep, you're seriously deluded. 'Green infrastructure' is a serious asset.

Would I rather drive half hour and end up in unspoilt countryside, fantastic pubs and drystone walls, or end up in Stockport/Rochdale? No contest.

Another fib. Birmingham has a dedicated 2-mile stretch of motorway linking the national network (the busiest and longest motorway in the country, the M6) directly to the city centre. Unlike Leeds, which has a motorway "passing close by".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A38(M)_motorway

The A38 is a spur of the M6. It's good for getting in and out of Birmingham from the north, but no other direction. It performs the same function that the M602 does into Manchester from the west.

The A38 is a spur of the M6. It's good for getting in and out of Birmingham from the north, but no other direction. It performs the same function that the M602 does into Manchester from the west.

You can "pass close by" Leeds from the south but how do you get into Leeds from the north, east or west? No direct motorway link into the city centre from any direction, not even the south.

Stop clutching at straws, FFS...

Besides this, the A38 is in fact one of the longest A-roads in the UK (292 miles) and passes right through the centre of the city.

You can "pass close by" Leeds from the south but how do you get into Leeds from the north, east or west? No direct motorway link into the city centre from any direction, not even the south.

Stop clutching at straws, FFS...

Besides this, the A38 is in fact one of the longest A-roads in the UK (292 miles) and passes right through the centre of the city.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M621_motorway

The M621 is officially a motorway, and it officially touches the southern boundary of the centre centre. The Inner Ring Road is also a motorway A58 (M) (the first urban motorway - http://pathetic.org.uk/current/a58m/ and A64 (M). Nice try.

Still, I like your interesting take on passing off Brum's 'concrete collar' as a good thing :) . Urban motorways might be important, but they sure as hell aren't pretty, and so much rich urban fabric was destroyed to build 'em.

Sorry, but if you think getting stuck in urban sprawl is preferable to having green corridors and beautiful countryside on your doorstep, you're seriously deluded. 'Green infrastructure' is a serious asset.

Would I rather drive half hour and end up in unspoilt countryside, fantastic pubs and drystone walls, or end up in Stockport/Rochdale? No contest.

What are you taking about? Within half an hour I can be in the Cheshire Countryside. I can also be in countryside within half an hour from the North and East of Manchester. Try another boast.

The A38(M) is a major route into Birmingham from the south too if you look at the layout of the road network. However if the M621 at junction three doesn't qualify as coming into Leeds City Centre then neither does the A38(M) at Dartmouth Circus, the difference in distance from the city centre must be within a few hundred metres so I can't believe anyone is having such a petty argument. Yes in Birmingham the motorway does join onto the Queensway as opposed to the at-grade later sections of Leeds Inner Ring Road, but in terms of accessing the city centres themselves the difference is minimal.

Liverpool does have a decent sized rail network of course but to describe the public transport as integrated is a real stretch. As with the rest of the country it is all planned and run in isolation by different bodies trying to protect their perceived self interests and compete with each other, more or less the opposite of integration barring whatever PTE ticketing hangs over from pre-deregulation days. Also I don't see any evidence of progress with Merseytram.

Can someone explain the similarity?

To me, looking at a map, all the motorways are very far Birmingham city centre, but with some dual carriageways coming in to the city centre. This looks completely different to both a direct motorway right into Leeds city centre and a motorway orbiting the city centre

Who gives a shit?

Can someone explain the similarity?

To me, looking at a map, all the motorways are very far Birmingham city centre, but with some dual carriageways coming in to the city centre. This looks completely different to both a direct motorway right into Leeds city centre and a motorway orbiting the city centre

A38(M) right into Birmingham City Centre, not hard to see on a map I don't think (unless you're looking at Google Maps which has a mapping error showing it in green). Then what's left of the Queensway is grade-separated in much the same way as the A58(M)/A64(M) sections of the Leeds Inner Ring Road despite not being classed as a motorway (and unlike them, the Queensway directly joins the A38(M) forming a continuous route).

Can someone explain the similarity?

To me, looking at a map, all the motorways are very far Birmingham city centre, but with some dual carriageways coming in to the city centre. This looks completely different to both a direct motorway right into Leeds city centre and a motorway orbiting the city centre

Mmm. Show me the maps you're looking at. Show me some street views too. I predict right now that you won't bother.

The A38(M) is a major route into Birmingham from the south too if you look at the layout of the road network. However if the M621 at junction three doesn't qualify as coming into Leeds City Centre then neither does the A38(M) at Dartmouth Circus, the difference in distance from the city centre must be within a few hundred metres so I can't believe anyone is having such a petty argument. Yes in Birmingham the motorway does join onto the Queensway as opposed to the at-grade later sections of Leeds Inner Ring Road, but in terms of accessing the city centres themselves the difference is minimal.

I have demonstrated quite clearly that "only Leeds and Glasgow have a motorway that comes within a stonesthrow of the city centre" is in fact untrue and no one has provided any evidence otherwise. That was the point I was making and now the Leeds propaganda machine has kicked well and truly into action with all manner of input from *certain* forumers (not including you MattN who make reasoned comments) who are trying to defend their town from a dose of reality.

Who gives a shit?

This is very important stuff. Everybody must convince everybody else that their city is the bestest and most important.

A38(M) right into Birmingham City Centre, not hard to see on a map I don't think (unless you're looking at Google Maps which has a mapping error showing it in green). Then what's left of the Queensway is grade-separated in much the same way as the A58(M)/A64(M) sections of the Leeds Inner Ring Road despite not being classed as a motorway (and unlike them, the Queensway directly joins the A38(M) forming a continuous route).

yea i use google maps, and it shows it as a normal a road. just looking at bing maps, and in that it looks pretty similar to the leeds and glasgow scenario.

Who gives a shit?

Good point.

Who gives a shit?

http://msnbcmedia2.msn.com/j/MSNBC/Components/Photo/_new/101117-planes-trains-automobiles-1p.grid-4x2.jpg

Mmm. Show me the maps you're looking at. Show me some street views too. I predict right now that you won't bother.

Google maps. What's with the venomous arsey shit speak? You seem to be filled with so much anger like someone has insulted your mother lol.

This is a city vs city forum that is supposed to be jovial, even if it does predominantly consist of the same handful of manchester, liverpool and brum forumers with deluded egos bigging up their city with endless pages and having a bizzare fascination with attacking leeds in the same breath then getting up in arms when a leeds forumer dares respond or refute said bullcrap and so then diverts said action by shockingly asserting that all leeds forumers do is big up their city (even tho anything said by leeds forumers on this entire thread is a response to a provocation or bullcrap about leeds. It is comical, so dont get angry - and be happy that this is the first time you have ever rebutted a leeds forumer's rebuttal, and actually been correct for once lol :)