Where are you getting those figures from? There are different definitions, but I've yet to see one that matched that. ONS had the urban areas in the 2001 census as:

GM urban area - 2,240,230
WM urban area - 2,284,093

Primary urban areas is what I was talking about.

Wikipedia "list of primary urban areas UK"

Just rechecked, the difference is actually about 30%.

Brum 2.3m
Manc 1.75m

Think that is a relatively fair representation of the RELATIVE sizes of the cities NOT necessarily the actual sizes.

Primary urban areas is what I was talking about.

Wikipedia "list of primary urban areas UK"
A Primary Urban Area is not a definition of an urban area, it is a sub-division of one.

A Primary Urban Area is not a definition of an urban area, it is a sub-division of one.

See my edited post above, don't care what it is or is not, in my (and only my) opinion it gives a fair representation of relative sizes of cities.

See my edited post above, don't care what it is or is not, in my (and only my) opinion it gives a fair representation of relative sizes of cities.
That doesn't change the fact that the figures you gave weren't figures for what you said they were, much as if I took a figure for the average weight of cats in Birmingham and Manchester and called those the urban area populations. If you give figures and claim they are something they aren't it gives a misleading representation of reality.

Ha, that figure for Manchester is exactly how I see it too. I usually exclude Bolton, Wigan and Rochdale.

I'll sorry, I made a mistake, I meant PUA.

I should have been much clearer.

Ha, that figure for Manchester is exactly how I see it too. I usually exclude Bolton, Wigan and Rochdale.

On the whole yes, but there are small parts of these places that some may consider to be Manchester, e.g. Middleton (Rochdale) and Boothstown (Wigan), they are very much in the urban limp and are mostly focused on the same centre as the rest of the lump.

I agree with you on PUAs being the best measure though. I remember the first discussion I had with Wiggles on the subject many moons ago.

MCR population increase will be due to immigration rather than people flocking from nearby cities.

MCR population increase will be due to immigration rather than people flocking from nearby cities.

grbSQ6O6kbs

Ah, I see 16485999643 has appeared, did he ever explain the collapse in Leeds retail in the latest CACI retail footprint and how Leeds will soon be ahead of Manc (3rd) but below Brum (4th) soon :lol:

The Fly from Leeds.

Going by the latest, lots of places have seen a collapse in retail spending, but London West End has seen a large increase. Leeds will probably overtake Manchester in the amount of retail it has, but probably won't in terms of spending (in fact I'm certain it won't)

Leeds will probably overtake Manchester in the amount of retail it has, but probably won't in terms of spending.

Says who?

No doubt it will overtake Manchester but not Brum?

Do you even have any figures for this?

P.S. The only reason I raise it is because 18395992836 spent so long quoting some report without ever questioning it, when any fool could tell it was spin, just it said something he wanted to hear so never questioned it.

Okay.

And I said probably, meaning it might but might not. Certainly not stating it definitely will. (should have used another word instead of probably)

Trinity could propel Leeds ahead of Manchester. Could. Not that it matters anyway. Getting above Nottingham is enough.

Okay.

And I said probably, meaning it might but might not. Certainly not stating it definitely will. (should have used another word instead of probably)

Trinity could propel Leeds ahead of Manchester. Could. Not that it matters anyway. Getting above Nottingham is enough.

When Eastgate is completed I expect Leeds to be ahead of Manchester considering Eastgate focus is entirely on luxury goods. 1m sq ft of new retail focusing on high end expensive items will bound to have a big effect on retail spending.

On the whole yes, but there are small parts of these places that some may consider to be Manchester, e.g. Middleton (Rochdale) and Boothstown (Wigan), they are very much in the urban limp and are mostly focused on the same centre as the rest of the lump.

Boothstown is in Salford. Leigh nearby is in Wigan, the accent change in about 1.5 miles is incredibly dramatic.. or was about 8 years ago.

Boothstown is in Salford. Leigh nearby is in Wigan, the accent change in about 1.5 miles is incredibly dramatic.. or was about 8 years ago.

Sorry (again) my knowledge of that neck of town is somewhat limited to work colleagues and random pub crawls.

Oh and people like to make out that small difference are very important yet them ignore the enormous differences between Rusholme and Cheetham Hill, between Tower Hamlets and Bromley.

Sorry (again) my knowledge of that neck of town is somewhat limited to work colleagues and random pub crawls.

Oh and people like to make out that small difference are very important yet them ignore the enormous differences between Rusholme and Cheetham Hill, between Tower Hamlets and Bromley.

Surely that should read "that neck of the County." No way is Boothstown the same town as Sale which is where Metro lives.

Boothstown is in Salford.

Kids beat me to it! (I didn't read ahead!)

Boothstown is Salford. :)

Aye, kids pointing out my error.

As I say, my experience of that neck of the woods is somewhat limited to a friend that lives close to me and works there, a colleague who lives there and the odd pub crawl around that part of town. I certainly am no expert of goings on around there and don't pretend to make any statements about the place being in or out of any town, city, igloo, space ship or whatever. It matters not a jot.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/1583761_unemployment-falls-in-greater-manchester---but-north-west-figure-is-up?rss=yes

Population booming and unemployment falling for 4th month.

So, unless I am mad, we have more in work, less out of work and are growing.

Not much wrong with that.

Lol. Seriously?

Father Ted moment coming up. Near and Far away.

Brum 1m people + 88,000
Man 500,000 up 80,000


Do the math sunshine.

Yes. do the maths. The percentage may be greater but Birmingham still has 8,000 more people then Manchester in the city.

AKA as getting bigger. :lol:

No, it's not getting bigger. It's getting smaller relative to Manchester.

Quality. Oh dear the state of maths education is still high I see, all those straight A grades.

Father Ted. Near and Far Away again.

Tee hee

Jesus christ.

Here we go.

2001:

Birmingham: 977,087
Manchester: 442,700

2011:

Birmingham 1,073,000
Manchester 503,100

Difference in population.

2001 = 534,387
2011 = 569,900.

Change = Birmingham+ 35,513

Yes % growth is different but that doesn't change the fact that Birmingham grew bigger than Manchester.

Regarding size - Manchester has 4,336 per sq km, Birmingham 4,018.

Jesus christ.

Here we go.

2001:

Birmingham: 977,087
Manchester: 442,700

2011:

Birmingham 1,073,000
Manchester 503,100

Difference in population.

2001 = 534,387
2011 = 569,900.

Change = Birmingham+ 35,513

Yes % growth is different but that doesn't change the fact that Birmingham grew bigger than Manchester.

Regarding size - Manchester has 4,336 per sq km, Birmingham 4,018.
Erm that is density not size.

You don't seem to understand what the numbers mean do you?

What point are you trying to convey exactly?

The point we were making is that Manchester is growing much faster than any other UK city. Much, much faster.

The relative population totals is not relative.

In terms of geographic coverage, then the comparable conurbations of GM and WM, showed GM, again, growing faster then the WM.

Both are great conurbations, growing in size, which will help us to compete with comparable continental areas or our noisy, but *essentially insignificant, neighbours.

*the bashing bit

Using your figures above, do you not understand that at a certain date (obviously not going to happen because of geographic boundary reasons), Manchester will overtake Birmingham in size? You don't do you. That is how bad our maths has become.

When? 2300??

Erm that is density not size.

You don't seem to understand what the numbers mean do you?

What point are you trying to convey exactly?

The point we were making is that Manchester is growing much faster than any other UK city. Much, much faster.

The relative population totals is not relative.

In terms of geographic coverage, then the comparable conurbations of GM and WM, showed GM, again, growing faster then the WM.

Both are great conurbations, growing in size, which will help us to compete with comparable continental areas or our noisy, but *essentially insignificant, neighbours.

*the bashing bit

Using your figures above, do you not understand that at a certain date (obviously not going to happen because of geographic boundary reasons), Manchester will overtake Birmingham in size? You don't do you. That is how bad our maths has become.And yet, in the grand scheme of things, if Manchester had a million population and their neighbor, Liverpool, had less than half that figure it, Liverpool, would still be the nicer of the two and most renowned worldwide. City bashing you say?:lol:

Which you just did....


Anyway, does anybody really care about this shit? I live in a city where the Metropolitan Area is smaller than Manchester City, and it's fantastic!

Which you just did....


Anyway, does anybody really care about this shit? I live in a city where the Metropolitan Area is smaller than Manchester City, and it's fantastic!

Well said lad.

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/business/s/1583761_unemployment-falls-in-greater-manchester---but-north-west-figure-is-up?rss=yes

Population booming and unemployment falling for 4th month.

So, unless I am mad, we have more in work, less out of work and are growing.

Not much wrong with that.

I guess. Most of the jobs are part time. Watch unemployment shoot up, especially in London, when the Olympics is over. No good creating lots of part time, low skilled, low paying service jobs.

I guess. Most of the jobs are part time. Watch unemployment shoot up, especially in London, when the Olympics is over. No good creating lots of part time, low skilled, low paying service jobs.

That would make more sense! A rise in employment levels, although welcome, makes no sense in the current climate. Where from?!

And you can only fit 45 thousand in Eastlands.

And you can only fit 45 thousand in Eastlands.

48,000 actually :)

Fair enough MK, if it were 45 it would be smaller than Pompey. :yes:

What?

Count, can you count the population of........

TJxKvwMIVtA

Which you just did....


Anyway, does anybody really care about this shit? I live in a city where the Metropolitan Area is smaller than Manchester City, and it's fantastic!Yep, Portsmouth is a very nice place, as are most coastal cities. Just something about them, Baltimore over KC, Boston over Indianapolis, Seattle over Sacramento, Savannah over San Antonio, Newcastle over Leeds, Liverpool over Manchester. :)

Southampton is definitely not nice. Nor is Sunderland. Lol.

Yeah if you say so.... also, American cities are absolutely shite

Southampton isn't coastal. It's up the Test Estury.

Estuaries are coastal.

They are usually considered coastal.. like Hull and Liverpool.

They are usually considered coastal.. like Hull and Liverpool.

You'd have to be mentally challenged to think of Hull as a coastal town, it's about 25 miles inland! Liverpool is far closer to the sea, and indeed some of its Northern suburbs are actually on the coast.

It's because it's located on a large estuary, has a marina and probably smells like fish. Coastal town.

Southampton is definitely not nice. Nor is Sunderland. Lol.But they are nicer than Burnley or Northallerton. Right?Yeah if you say so.... also, American cities are absolutely shiteIs that including New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston etc? You must the exception to the rule. I think every Limey on these forums want's, and some think, their city to be like New York City.:lol:They are usually considered coastal.. like Hull and Liverpool.New York is on the Hudson River, Boston the Charles River, Baltimore the Cheaspeak Bay, San Francisco on San Francisco Bay and all are considered coastal cities.

Burnley, sure, but Northallerton is lovely.

Burnley, sure, but Northallerton is lovely.OK, Burnley, Blackburn, Batley, Huddersfield, West Bromwich, Crewe, etc.

America has wonderful cities, wonderful places, I've only been to New York but it's no different to London. It's super vibrant, has many cool independent districts and nice-ish architecture.

Yep, Portsmouth is a very nice place, as are most coastal cities. Just something about them, Baltimore over KC, Boston over Indianapolis, Seattle over Sacramento, Savannah over San Antonio, Newcastle over Leeds, Liverpool over Manchester. :)

Newcastle is a dump, the centre is lovely really nice, so is the student area. The rest of it though is an inbred breeding ground :nuts:

It's because it's located on a large estuary, has a marina and probably smells like fish. Coastal town.

Only if you're thick and don't understand geography and how rivers work.

Newcastle is a dump, the centre is lovely really nice, so is the student area. The rest of it though is an inbred breeding ground :nuts:Well it is the city bashing thread so, Go for it guy!

But they are nicer than Burnley or Northallerton. Right?Is that including New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston etc? You must the exception to the rule. I think every Limey on these forums want's, and some think, their city to be like New York City.:lol:

New York on a whole is a run down shit hole with a only few decent areas in the city.

Chicago is a much better looking city but still is a terrible city on the whole.

San francisco - few nice places but in general just like most other US cities it is Crap.

Boston - no comment on that dump

New York on a whole is a run down shit hole with a only few decent areas in the city.

Chicago is a much better looking city but still is a terrible city on the whole.

San francisco - few nice places but in general just like most other US cities it is Crap.

Boston - no comment on that dumpYou are an exceptionally well traveled individual or, a bullshitter par excellence.:lol:

Lad 2011 logic confuses me...

http://oi51.************/6qxvs7.jpg

Only if you're thick and don't understand geography and how rivers work.

Do you always resort to petty insults when people don't agree with you? Twat.

Hull is almost always regarded a coastal, so I guess the majority of people are 'thick' (pretty rich coming from yourself).

You are an exceptionally well traveled individual or, a bullshitter par excellence.:lol:

Heres a just few reasons why American cities are crap.

Wide Road going down city centre streets - some are almost as wide as motoways here we have in the UK, how horrid is that?

I'm all for tall buildings but when the city is over run by tall buildings with no proper streetscape then i'm against them.

When you look at american cities they are mostly dominated by Office blocks with no streetscape below - (just the office entrance) you get the odd street that isn't yes, espcially in NY but that is not the average american city and New York isn't exactly nice or comparable to the average European cities.

Most American cities use indoor malls for shopping which i find is a terrible shopping exiperience.

I also absolutely hate the grid systems, its all painfully sqaure.

I like New York, but I wouldn't want my city to be exactly like it. I'd rather Leeds be exactly like Paris, Stockholm or Berlin. New world cities don't do anything for me, Europe all the way.

Heres a just few reasons why American cities are crap.

Wide Road going down city centre streets - some are almost as wide as motoways here we have in the UK, how horrid is that?

I'm all for tall buildings but when the city is over run by tall buildings with no proper streetscape then i'm against them.

When you look at american cities they are mostly dominated by Office blocks with no streetscape below - (just the office entrance) you get the odd street that isn't yes, espcially in NY but that is not the average american city and New York isn't exactly nice or comparable to the average European cities.

Most American cities use indoor malls for shopping which i find is a terrible shopping exiperience.

I also absolutely hate the grid systems, its all painfully sqaure.

You're probably going to tell me you've actually been to these places (Boston, New York, San Francisco, Chicago), but the impression you give makes it seem like you haven't. Have you?

Newcastle is a dump, the centre is lovely really nice, so is the student area. The rest of it though is an inbred breeding ground :nuts:

Nah Newcastle's suburbs are alright. Its only the West End and some of the East End thats horrible. No different to any other city.

Newcastle has some really wealthy suburbs.. just like every other city in the UK. :eek:

Do you always resort to petty insults when people don't agree with you? Twat.

Hull is almost always regarded a coastal, so I guess the majority of people are 'thick' (pretty rich coming from yourself).

I just find your ignorance really irritating, loads of people thought the world was flat, doesn't make it so. Hull is 25 miles inland, it is not on the coast. How more plain do I have to be? This isn't a matter of 'agreement' this is a matter of facts, a fact which you don't seem to be able to understand very well.

Nah Newcastle's suburbs are alright. Its only the West End and some of the East End thats horrible. No different to any other city.

Yeah I'm rather fond about Newcastle, I've never actually lived there but every time I have visited it has been very pleasant and the people are the friendliest in the UK (In my opinion).
I would definitely choose it over Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield and a few other cities.

Boston is quite nice; not like the average US city. No grid pattern in Central Boston; muh more like a European city.

October start for our 5th 100m+ building.....42 stories..... seeya later guys....leaving you in the dust... keep talking, cus we are walking the walk.

:)

October start for our 5th 100m+ building.....42 stories..... seeya later guys....leaving you in the dust... keep talking, cus we are walking the walk.

:)

September 10th start for these office/residential buildings.

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/2798/33549698.png

Also 650M pound Eastgate starts in April as developer sold of offices in London to fund the development.

:tyty:

Been through planning, proven developer, start date confirmed?

Hope so, not seen that render before, what is it? How tall?

I don't see it on any thread...I see lots of other projects...this would be talked about? Surely?

Been through planning, proven developer, start date confirmed?

Hope so, not seen that render before, what is it? How tall?

I don't see it on any thread...I see lots of other projects...this would be talked about? Surely?



look, and you shall see...../

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1461481


Here's the developers intention to be on site before 10th Sept:


http://i48.************/dglyjn.png

https://publicaccess.leeds.gov.uk/online-applications/files/B43272AFEC88DFF5453F8665572EA3CF/pdf/06_02880_OT-12_9_00138_-_AGENT_LETTER-625114.pdf[/QUOTE]

OK, Burnley, Blackburn, Batley, Huddersfield, West Bromwich, Crewe, etc.

You can find nice places inland and horrendous ones by the coast - you generalise too much. See Canvey Island, Grimsby, Sunderland, Barrow in Furness, Redcar, Sellafield or the Isle of Sheppey for reference.

Been through planning, proven developer, start date confirmed?

Hope so, not seen that render before, what is it? How tall?

I don't see it on any thread...I see lots of other projects...this would be talked about? Surely?

Ones about 100m (33 storeys) they then decrease in size. Information is all over atm as LCC planning portal is very unreliable, most documents are unavailable then suddenly
available. It happens with all projects. Check the High Rise proposal thread for more information showing in detail plans.

The buildings are residential/office.

Location
http://i49.************/wvwu8x.png

Skyline
http://i49.************/1s1sav.jpg

Building design
http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j73/xapbpoh/doncastersplans.jpg

Cladding, as seen on clarence House (tall building)
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7103/7280816502_962d2ba0d2_b.jpg
They should be on sight by 10th September (document from LCC), all seems too good to be true so I guess we'll see.

October start for our 5th 100m+ building.....42 stories..... seeya later guys....leaving you in the dust... keep talking, cus we are walking the walk.

:)

If you honestly think it'll start in October you're stupid.

If you honestly think it'll start in October you're stupid.

Hi dickwad. I doubt I am stupid, to be fair, you display most of those qualities with your post on the Brum airport forum. Totally unnecessary.

Remember our Beetham Tower, you know the tallest by miles? Same guy. That started in a similar time-frame when announced.

This tower will again top anything in Brum, height wise.

Unlucky.

Hi dickwad. I doubt I am stupid, to be fair, you display most of those qualities with your post on the Brum airport forum. Totally unnecessary.

No. You're stupid. As proven countless times.

Remember our Beetham Tower, you know the tallest by miles? Same guy. That started in a similar time-frame when announced.

Yes. I remember. Quite fantastic tower. However that took over a year to start on site in a much better economical climate if you haven't noticed.

Infact on average, jobs over £50m in cost take 62 weeks to start on site within the UK.

This tower will again top anything in Brum, height wise.

Unlucky.

Jeez.

You really are a little kid aren't you??

Again. We'll see how the situation pans out but I wouldn't go bragging too soon.

It's the bashing thread chum

Unlike the Brum airport thread.

Beetham site needed a viaduct clearing. This does not need as much remedial work. In addition the site is accessible, unlike Beetham.

Still, you know best.

5 towers 100m+

Manchester. God's own.

2nd City? 1 tower. 1! 2 if you count an aerial.

Loser.

God. How embarrassing do you look! do you work for the MEN by any chance??

Even if this project was approved by October - the procurement of the works would take months.

The application is vague to the extreme - where are the detailed renders? sections? materials? etc? ...

It's great news that another towers been proposed but dont be so foolish into thinking this will be on site within 12 weeks.

God. How embarrassing do you look! do you work for the MEN by any chance??


It's great news that another towers been proposed but dont be so foolish into thinking this will be on site within 12 weeks.

Remind everyone how long from announcement to work started on Beetham Manc, please.

Hi Eco, taking me on are you big boy.

Go fetch boy, go find. I have set you a task. "Embarrassing"? Not for me.

shush... Eco gone quiet.

Any more polite comments, big boy?

Seeya

Planning permission was granted in October 2003.[1][17] The skyscraper was part of Manchester's regeneration,[18] and by the end of 2003 before construction had started, 206 of the 219 apartments and 4 of the 16 penthouses had been pre-sold.[19] The skyscraper was built when much of the United Kingdom was experiencing an economic boom and high rise towers were being built in many English cities.
Ground and foundation work commenced at the beginning of 2004 and building started in April 2004

There you go Eco. Apology accepted. How....erm "embarrassing" for you.

:)

Oh I see, you did not read! Work on site or tower above ground. If only you asked the right question. Classic mistake.

Embarrassing.

Fly, are you taking substances while posting, you are definitely on one here,

if that tower starts in October I will show my arse at the top of King street, give me a time and date and i will do it.

better get cutting a piece of that humble pie

Fly, are you taking substances while posting, you are definitely on one here,

if that tower starts in October I will show my arse at the top of King street, give me a time and date and i will do it.

better get cutting a piece of that humble pie

re-read, work on site, the tower won't be out of the ground until next year.

Feckin big concrete block on site at moment. But men with chisels by October? Could well be given Beetham in years gone by.

Eco had a pop on the Brum forum, so is itching to take me on. Fine.

The location of the Manchester tower seems a bit rubbish. Surrounded by brown field plots. Would be better if it would be more central. Same applies to Leeds one though, although I guess its part of a wider development rather than a stand alone tall.

Anyway where is the information for the Manchester tall? It all seems very vague. All we have seen so far is one blurry render, there should be some PDF's on the MCC planning portal website shouldn't there?

The Leeds one was approved a few weeks ago, which puts on site construction from planning consent at only a few months.

The location of the Manchester tower seems a bit rubbish. Surrounded by brown field plots. Would be better if it would be more central. Same applies to Leeds one though, although I guess its part of a wider development rather than a stand alone tall.

Anyway where is the information for the Manchester tall? It all seems very vague. All we have seen so far is one blurry render, there should be some PDF's on the MCC planning portal website shouldn't there?

The Leeds one was approved a few weeks ago, which puts on site construction from planning consent at only a few months.

http://www.riverstreetproject.info/our_proposals.html

basic at best

Jesus christ.

You're of your rocker. In today's climate they wont touch building the damn thing unless it's 60-70% pre-sold.

Unless you're telling me this little known developer is going to build speculatively? where are they going to get the money from. The banks?? Do you know how long it took Sahlia to get a loan from HSBC? 2 years and they are Kuwaiti led billionaires.

We are in recession. 2003. We were in a boom. Unless they pre-sell 60-70% of the apartments this won't even get out the ground.

The location of the Manchester tower seems a bit rubbish. Surrounded by brown field plots. Would be better if it would be more central. Same applies to Leeds one though, although I guess its part of a wider development rather than a stand alone tall.

Anyway where is the information for the Manchester tall? It all seems very vague. All we have seen so far is one blurry render, there should be some PDF's on the MCC planning portal website shouldn't there?

The Leeds one was approved a few weeks ago, which puts on site construction from planning consent at only a few months.

Where abouts is the Leeds building going to be built?

And just because it is brownfield on google maps doesn't mean it is these days :) Although I agree it is definitely on the edge of the city centre making it an odd place for such a tall building.

Cretin
Embarrassing
Off Rocker

Anything else to add today? Calm down. FFS your depressing me. Sorry we announced another 100m+.

Might not happen, let's just piss on all the parades.

We have a great track record of building our proposals unlike Brum, which is a litany of failed projects and is now ranked behind Liverpool in the UK tall building list.

It's the bashing thread chum

Unlike the Brum airport thread.

Beetham site needed a viaduct clearing. This does not need as much remedial work. In addition the site is accessible, unlike Beetham.

Still, you know best.

5 towers 100m+

Manchester. God's own.

2nd City? 1 tower. 1! 2 if you count an aerial.

Loser.


Birmingham has 2 towers over 100metres and 3 if you count an ariel

FACT

Where abouts is the Leeds building going to be built?

And just because it is brownfield on google maps doesn't mean it is these days :) Although I agree it is definitely on the edge of the city centre making it an odd place for such a tall building.

The images were posted on the previous page, I'll just re post the location image

http://i49.************/wvwu8x.png

The Leeds development is far more adventurous than the Manchester proposals. If you added all the proposed buildings together you'd get over 300m.

Birmingham has 2 towers over 100metres and 3 if you count an ariel

FACT

1 tower over
1 at 100m
1 aerial

I choose my words carefully ;)

Anyway, stuff seems to be happening in Manc/Brum/Leeds despite the recession which is great news

Yeah I'm rather fond about Newcastle, I've never actually lived there but every time I have visited it has been very pleasant and the people are the friendliest in the UK (In my opinion).
I would definitely choose it over Leeds, Bristol, Sheffield and a few other cities.

I went to uni there so I know it very well. Its one of my 3 fave cities (the other 2 being Liverpool and Manchester).

Princess nightclub boat???

Legendary, only in Newcastle.

Still got those squealing train tracks?

Legendary, only in Newcastle.


Or Glasgow ;)

Or Bristol.

I went to uni there so I know it very well. Its one of my 3 fave cities (the other 2 being Liverpool and Manchester).

They'd be my 3 favourite as well, followed by Dublin and Glasgow.

United have a party canal barge down the Bridgewater on match days...not quite a cruise ship...

Newcastle's was 1st though? 20+ years back?

I think Bristols may be older, Londons older still.

it will never match my hazy memories of the toon and the mammoth bottles of brown ale and Vaux bitters

Ah I love Newcastle Brown Ale. Very few places have a drink which represents that city so well, like Bristol and proper Westcountry Cider (more than 60% of cider worldwide is consumed in the UK, most in the SW, seriously).

Ah I love Newcastle Brown Ale. Very few places have a drink which represents that city so well, like Bristol and proper Westcountry Cider (more than 60% of cider worldwide is consumed in the UK, most in the SW, seriously).

I suppose production having been moved to Dunston and then Tadcaster, with the original brewery demolished, represents the plight of many local industries before it.

The location of the Manchester tower seems a bit rubbish. Surrounded by brown field plots. Would be better if it would be more central. Same applies to Leeds one though, although I guess its part of a wider development rather than a stand alone tall.

Anyway where is the information for the Manchester tall? It all seems very vague. All we have seen so far is one blurry render, there should be some PDF's on the MCC planning portal website shouldn't there?

The Leeds one was approved a few weeks ago, which puts on site construction from planning consent at only a few months.

With a 29 storey and 33 storey tower included in this development, we could see two 100m towers here taking Leeds to four 100m + towers. Now that would be exciting stuff.

With a 29 storey and 33 storey tower included in this development, we could see two 100m towers here taking Leeds to four 100m + towers. Now that would be exciting stuff.

It depends on what kind of apartments/offices we see.

Usually offices are have much higher ceiling heights than apartments so if each tower has an office element of say 25% in each block then we could well see two buildings over 100m.

Height of development

http://i50.************/34gk5e1.png

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/9137/18909038.png

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/2893/79221867.png

http://img819.imageshack.us/img819/7923/96051719.png

http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/9593/latitudefullschememodelau1.jpg

http://img824.imageshack.us/img824/6602/54925803.png

The location of the Manchester tower seems a bit rubbish. Surrounded by brown field plots. Would be better if it would be more central. Same applies to Leeds one though, although I guess its part of a wider development rather than a stand alone tall.

Anyway where is the information for the Manchester tall? It all seems very vague. All we have seen so far is one blurry render, there should be some PDF's on the MCC planning portal website shouldn't there?

The Leeds one was approved a few weeks ago, which puts on site construction from planning consent at only a few months.

It hasn't made the planning portal yet.

Don't worry, when it does the information will be posted. Until then........

I don't understand, is the tallest building 130 or 110 metres high?

it will never match my hazy memories of the toon and the mammoth bottles of brown ale and Vaux bitters
and rauol merts facebook friends of course...:cheers:

I don't understand, is the tallest building 130 or 110 metres high?

It will be between the numbers I've listed.

If the developer is trying to be cheap as possible when it comes to the office element then it will be 110m for the tallest block. However it's common for the office element to have higher ceilings, so it's likely we will see it at the upper end of the scale (130m).

Have they put in for full planning yet?

The information isn't available on LCC but they say they want to be on site before 10th September so we'll see if we can reach that hurdle.

They better get cracking, I thought they only put in for Outline Planning a few weeks ago? Anyway, let's see as you say.

They'd be my 3 favourite as well, followed by Dublin and Glasgow.

Dublin has some good spots but a lot of it is full of bad spots. Rundown areas in the inner cityand crime is going up because of the recession.

Tripadvisor noting Manchester "a city with well over 2 million people" and little biddy Brum as being "a city of just over a million". Deluded literature.

Tripadvisor noting Manchester "a city with well over 2 million people" and little biddy Brum as being "a city of just over a million". Deluded literature.

That is because clearly Manchester is not 500,000 people. It makes the guide look stupid to say that is Manchester. 500,000 with an airport, towers, shopping centres, orbital motorway, cricket, football clubs, arena, office market.

SO, logically they went for the next banding up.

I think our facilities easily make Brum feel like 1/2 the size:

Football- make Brum look non-league
Office market- twice the size of Brum
Tall buildings- way ahead
Metro system- miles ahead
International acknowlegement- not even worth considering
University standing (how many Nobel prize winners!)- Top 25 in the world ranked to Brum's? Is it even measured?

By historical standards, Brum is larger, not by any modern, moving forward metric!

Face it. You will be calm again if you do.

Tripadvisor noting Manchester "a city with well over 2 million people" and little biddy Brum as being "a city of just over a million". Deluded literature.

Putting the Birmingham figure aside, is the Manchester figure really a million miles from the truth? The comment is fair and just about right!

Putting the Birmingham figure aside, is the Manchester figure really a million miles from the truth? The comment is fair and just about right!


Why put the Birmingham figure aside? That's the whole point of his gripe isn't it?

Why put the Birmingham figure aside? That's the whole point of his gripe isn't it?

But the gripe was the Manchester figure!?

Add Brum's neighbouring boroughs and urban continuity and you get 2.5 million excluding Coventry as it's separate.
Manchester's "well over 2 million" would include boroughs that are almost dissected from its urban make-up.

To add to Fly - Brum isn't too far behind in tall buildings as our skyline looks more dramatic, we have 2 PL football teams in Villa and WBA, our cricket ground is bigger than OT, our Metro is complemented with a good Light Rail network, we still have 1 more arena than Mcr, huge exhibition centre, better concert halls, our 4 universities are well represented, our international reputation is up there due to USA and Jamaica athletics teams training here, our G7 summit in 1998, as well as Eurovision a week later, our GDP higher than Mcr's, our office supply is expanding as well as our hotels portfolium.

But the gripe was the Manchester figure!?


It's a complaint about the comparative sizes of the two cities as presented by Trip Advisor. You need to read past the first eleven words to unlock the secret meaning of the post.

Surely it's just a case that the person who was asked to do the Brum write up on Tripadvisor used a different type of statistic than the person who did the Manchester one? Presumably as Fly said because using the definition of Manchester that excludes Old Trafford or the Quays would be faintly ridiculous for a travel website.

Exactly. I think everyone’s looking into it too much. Manchester constantly gets battered with the 'so called' synonymous figure of 500, 000? What’s the big deal?

And likewise Brum!! We are only ever stated as being a "city" of 1 million by every media voice in the UK, but our urban environs are bigger and more populated than GM.
Have you ever heard in the media of Dudley or Solihull or Walsall of being in Birmingham? No, me neither. So we get a worse deal.

perhaps they should have told the truth, that manchester is a county of 2 million people, not a city of 2m.
according to this list http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uk_topcities.html
theres a long way to go for manc to be 2nd city!
haha

It is pointless going there they will never understand the difference between one city and a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation

They seem to think because the conurbation has be named Greater Manchester that the whole urban area is Manchester but really the only reason it has Manchester in the name is due to it being the largest city in the Urban area.

It's gonna be a long night.

our Metro is complemented with a good Light Rail network

Hmmm???

Brum is great
Manchester is greater.

Both at 2.7m ish

Who cares.

Hmmm???

I think he meant heavy rail.

It is pointless going there they will never understand the difference between one city and a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conurbation

They seem to think because the conurbation has be named Greater Manchester that the whole urban area is Manchester but really the only reason it has Manchester in the name is due to it being the largest city in the Urban area.

In most cases, a conurbation is a polycentric urban agglomeration, in which transportation has developed to link areas to create a single urban labour market or travel to work area.[1
So, your link is not Manchester. Manchester is the dominant in location (centre of circle) and population size.

So, nothing like a conurbation at all then.

In addition Salford melds with Manchester. It is one. Not 2 cities. There are no boundaries. It is just a "City of London" "London" scenario.

Same with Brum "melding" with Solihull and Sandwell as our 2 nearest neighbours - no boundaries there either son!! So what are you suggesting? Manchester is somehow denied its standing because of Salford's separation or Brum's because of Solihull and Sandwell not playing ball too?

Birmingham's bigger, everyone knows this.

The area that covers the ‘City of Leeds’ is essentially ‘Greater Leeds’. The urban core/settlement that is called ‘Leeds’ is Leeds proper by all accounts. The area that covers the ‘City of Leeds’ contains 10 other ‘towns’!!! This also applies to the ‘City of Bradford’ that contains 7 other ‘towns’ and the ‘City of Wakefield’ that contains 9 other ‘towns’!!! How many towns are there in the ‘City of Manchester’!!!??? The ‘City of Manchester’ essentially works as the wider city’s urban core/settlement!!! Anyone that thinks that Manchester is just the ‘City of Manchester’ is clearly living in a fantasy world!

There are fantasists and realists - Manchester uses its environs to sell itself as "one city" when clearly it's using satellite towns to big it up and Brum loses out as our urban neighbours won't co-operate in the same insubordinate way!

There are fantasists and realists - Manchester uses its environs to sell itself as "one city" when clearly it's using satellite towns to big it up and Brum loses out as our urban neighbours won't co-operate in the same insubordinate way!

But in no stretch of the imagination is Manchester a mere city of 500,000! This is the whole point. If you look at the whole infrastructure, facilities, urban-ness and much, much, much more, Manchester is clearly bigger than Leeds or Bradford. So are you saying Manchester is smaller than Leeds or Bradford!!!??? Because if you are..........

How many times have we been through this now.

Manchester the city is smaller than: The City of Birmingham, The city of Leeds, The city of Liverpool, The city of Bradford, The city of Sheffield, the city of Glasgow.

But 'The City' makes no sense. It should be like Brighton and Hove, one City, one Unitary Authority.

I'm not saying Mcr is only 500,000 and appreciate the figure is much higher but in the same format / stats whatever you want to judge by, I'm saying that Brum isn't just 1.1 million either! More like 2.4 million. Equal measuring.

I still believe brum is the bigger city, but it NEEDS to sort it's Transport out (New Street is a good start). Bring the XC Line under MM Branding and ticketing too.

Though, that new Pink livery? Really? It lacks the timelessnes of the new Manchester one of the Sleekness of Nottinghams. I have to say it looks faddy.

500,000 or not, it still kicks arse.

17,000 spectators for a basketball match.

70,000+ spectators right now for an Olympic football match.

Good luck to your cities and their bigger populations. At least you've all got something to crow about over Manchester.

Whoops, sorry I forgot, Old Trafford is in Trafford and not in Manchester.

How many times have we been through this now.

Manchester the city is smaller than: The City of Birmingham, The city of Leeds, The city of Liverpool, The city of Bradford, The city of Sheffield, the city of Glasgow.

And the problem with most of these ‘City of’ areas is that essentially these are these cities’ greater areas whereas the 'City of Manchester' is essentially Manchester’s urban core!!!

And the problem with most of these ‘City of’ areas is that essentially these are these cities’ greater areas whereas the 'City of Manchester' is essentially Manchester’s urban core!!!


Wrong actually and Seen as you still haven't grasped it yet i figured this map might help you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Map_of_Manchester.png/220px-Map_of_Manchester.png

Portsmouth has the same problem, as does Southampton. Bristol too.

Wrong actually and Seen as you still haven't grasped it yet i figured this map might help you:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d0/Map_of_Manchester.png/220px-Map_of_Manchester.png

Is Salford a different place then? Are the houses two doors down from me not Portsmouth? Is Watford not London?

Is Salford a different place then? Are the houses two doors down from me not Portsmouth? Is Watford not London?

It is indeed a different place part of the same conurbation Just like South shields isn't Newcastle

Portsmouth has the same problem, as does Southampton. Bristol too.

As does Liverpool and Nottingham.

In fact, Leeds and Sheffield are the only two big/mid-sized cities that don't span more than one local authority.

Oh, and London the ‘city’ has a population of just over 7,000 and is the smallest city in England and the second smallest local authority by population in England. Greater London is not ‘officially’ a city!!! Boo, got ya ha ha ha ha ha!!! I’m just a purest and a realist and I don’t suck up to my local cities. Like I’ve said before, for example just because it’s called the ‘City of Leeds’, it is essentially Greater Leeds. It contains 10 other towns within that area!!!

It is indeed a different place part of the same conurbation Just like South shields isn't Newcastle

Or Croydon is in London.

Greater London and Greater Manchester are the same thing you dope.

I'm going to bash my own city....


The Admiralty Quarter development in Portsmouth has some pretty dumb rules:

No Pets: This one makes sense, pretty standard...
No Advertising on your Balcony: Pretty odd, but makes sense...
No Drying Washing on your Balcony: Ok, this is silly, it's the most eco friendly way of drying washing quickly. Particularly in weather like this.
No sitting on the grass or using the Gardens: The fuck?

It be like standing on the Scotch and English Border saying both sides are the same place when they are definitely not the same place, they are both individual countries part of the same sovereign state, Just because they touch doesn't make them the same place.

It be like standing on the Scotch and English Border saying both sides are the same place when they are definitely not the same place, they are both individual countries part of the same sovereign state, Just because they touch doesn't make them the same place.

That’s like comparing apples to cheese!!! Lol!


One example is of a city that covers many boroughs. The other example is of two countries without any territory issues!

Questions for MP.

When somebody say's to you Birmingham's population is 5 million(I stand corrected), do you correct them straightaway?

When the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, or any other media organization states Birmingam's population is 5 million, do you correct them via phone, email, letter, twatter(spelt that way), etc?

When the 2nd city argument rears it's ugly head again and Birmingham's population is once again 5 million, do you correct,,,,(oh shut up you boring Manc c***!)

So why do you always have the need, the urge, erm....., to always correct Manchester's population?

500,000 or 2.5 million, it's no threat to you or Birmingham. So what's your problem, gripe, beef, this is fun, etc?

Greater London and Greater Manchester are the same thing you dope.

Not exactly, to be fair.

GM is no different to Merseyside (Greater Liverpool), West Midlands (Greater Birmingham), Tyne & Wear (Greater Newcastle) etc. The only reason it's called "Greater Manchester" is because it's original planning name, SELNEC (South East Lancashire and North East Cheshire), was ridiculous and they couldn't think of a geographic name ("Irwellside" wouldn't have been accurate for Ashton, Stockport, Wigan, Altrincham etc).

Places like Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale are not Manchester. The people there don't think of themselves as being from Manchester, despite the towns being totally economically and socially linked to Manchester. When they're talking to someone who doesn't know the area, they'll most likely say they're "from Manchester" though. This is the same as Southport, Ellesmere Port, Runcorn etc with Liverpool. Or most of the south east with London. I'm sure there's equivalents in Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow etc too.

For the clever ones on here. Who can spot the border crossing?

I've walked it a million times. The smell of biscuits in the sir is divine(McVities biscuit factory)

A box of Penguins for anyone who get's the answer first. Or you can have a box of Jaffa Cakes instead.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2246/2325762646_c9810fcc3e_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/raver_mikey/2325762646/

Not exactly, to be fair.

GM is no different to Merseyside (Greater Liverpool), West Midlands (Greater Birmingham), Tyne & Wear (Greater Newcastle) etc. The only reason it's called "Greater Manchester" is because it's original planning name, SELNEC (South East Lancashire and North East Cheshire), was ridiculous and they couldn't think of a geographic name ("Irwellside" wouldn't have been accurate for Ashton, Stockport, Wigan, Altrincham etc).

Places like Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale are not Manchester. The people there don't think of themselves as being from Manchester, despite the towns being totally economically and socially linked to Manchester. When they're talking to someone who doesn't know the area, they'll most likely say they're "from Manchester" though. This is the same as Southport, Ellesmere Port, Runcorn etc with Liverpool. Or most of the south east with London. I'm sure there's equivalents in Birmingham, Newcastle, Glasgow etc too.

I probably have to disagree with you there. Greater Manchester is different to other metropolitan counties. Greater Manchester might not be as Manchester as Greater London is London, but Greater Manchester certainly is more Manchester than other metropolitan counties respectively are the largest city within them. I believe a major factor for naming that metropolis Greater Manchester is exactly for this very reason, to recognise the Manchester metropolis as it was more of a case than any other city apart from London!

Salford-Manchester?
Manchester-Salford?

Erm....(scratches head)

http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/manchesterdailyphoto/575849588/1/tumblr_l1wh6nRylJ1qaou2a

http://www.manchesterdailyphoto.com/post/575849588

Salford-Manchester?
Manchester-Salford?

Erm....(scratches head)

http://www.tumblr.com/photo/1280/manchesterdailyphoto/575849588/1/tumblr_l1wh6nRylJ1qaou2a

Stunning, gorgeous, beautiful building by the way! :)

For the clever ones on here. Who can spot the border crossing?

I've walked it a million times. The smell of biscuits in the sir is divine(McVities biscuit factory)

A box of Penguins for anyone who get's the answer first. Or you can have a box of Jaffa Cakes instead.

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2246/2325762646_c9810fcc3e_b.jpg

http://www.flickr.com/photos/raver_mikey/2325762646/

It's where the back of that sign is, since the other side presumably says "Welcome to Stockport" on it.

I probably have to disagree with you there. Greater Manchester is different to other metropolitan counties. Greater Manchester might not be as Manchester as Greater London is London, but Greater Manchester certainly is more Manchester than other metropolitan counties respectively are the largest city within them. I believe a major factor for naming that metropolis Greater Manchester is exactly for this very reason, to recognise the Manchester metropolis as it was more of a case than any other city apart from London!

Ever been to Merseyside (Greater Liverpool)? With the exception of Southport (which was transferred from Lancs to Merseyside at the last minute - and even then is only really separated from Liverpool by golf courses and an RAF base) the entire county is one continuous lump of suburbia radiating out from the city centre (Birkenhead is not a separate urban area - you can cross the Mersey into the city centre in less than 5 mins on the underground, ferry or two road tunnels).

I don't know much about the other metropolitan counties, to be fair. But if Greater Manchester is all Manchester (and I believe it mostly is, minus the towns in the north of the county (the towns themselves, not the met boroughs), but plus places like Wilmslow - the whole thing and more is Metro Manchester though), then Merseyside is all Liverpool (minus Southport and bits of St Helens - but these (and West Lancs and about a third of Cheshire) are Metro Liverpool).


And no, "Greater Manchester" only has its name because the county has no defining natural feature (like the Mersey or the Tyne/Wear) and the geographic location (like West Yorkshire, West Midlands) sounded ridiculous (SELNEC).

It's where the back of that sign is, since the other side presumably says "Welcome to Stockport" on it.

I was guessing it said "Trafford MBC. Welcomes You" :lol:

The Trafford MBC boundary sign near my flat has a spelling mistake, it says "Trafford Welcome You" (missing 's' from 'welcomes'). It really irritates me even though it's so minor... I'm dying to correct it with a red permanent marker :lol:

In my view:

Manchester - city of, Salford, Tameside, Stockport, Oldham, Trafford and Rochdale. So a population of around 1.8-2 million.

Liverpool - city of, Knowsley, Sefton (bar Southport), Wirral (Id say including some of the Cheshire bits like Ellesmere Port), Rainford and Rainhill areas only in St Helens. So a population of around 1.2 million.

Newcastle - city of, Gateshead, North and South Tyneside. Population of around 800,000.
Sheffield - city of and Rotherham. Population of 750,000.

Leeds - would downsize to around 650,000 due to its current size including villages not even part of the city.

Do not know places like Birmingham and Nottingham to comment.

It's where the back of that sign is, since the other side presumably says "Welcome to Stockport" on it.

Get in there Cher! You win. :banana:

No seriously. PM me your address and either a box of Penguins or Jaffa Cakes is on it's way to you. :eat:

In my view:

Manchester - city of, Salford, Tameside, Stockport, Oldham, Trafford and Rochdale. So a population of around 1.8-2 million.

Liverpool - city of, Knowsley, Sefton (bar Southport), Wirral (Id say including some of the Cheshire bits like Ellesmere Port), Rainford and Rainhill areas only in St Helens. So a population of around 1.2 million.

Newcastle - city of, Gateshead, North and South Tyneside. Population of around 800,000.
Sheffield - city of and Rotherham. Population of 750,000.

Leeds - would downsize to around 650,000 due to its current size including villages not even part of the city.

.

How does that make sense? taking away them little villages from Leeds population (which would actually leave Leeds with a population of 700k) yet with the other cities (Liverpool, Newcastle, Sheffield, Manchester) they take onboard other cities and large towns - what kind of logic is that?

These stats about the dominating city.....

Manchester 0.5 million among a county of 2.4 million = 21%
Birmingham 1.1 million among a conurbation of 2.5 million or a county of 2.7 million = 44% at the lowest rating.

WestYorks kid is a little short of knowledge about our conurbations.
And Jerb - I would never say Brum's population is 5 million but whenever I see that Brum's number is quoted as being the city authority only compared against a city that is using its county's population I will flag it up. I would say that Brum is city of 2.5 million largely. The 1 million mark is totally underwhelming, parochial and wrong.

Even if you included the City of Sheffield and the town of Rotherham, the population would still come below 700,000. But the City of Sheffield, much like Leeds, has lots rural areas in its boundaries.

For Liverpool, I actually did add up population for that area, and the figure came to just under 1 million (the big urban area on Wirral, plus Crosby/Bootle, all of Knowsley).

Either way, these discussions are totally pointless, nobody is ever going to agree on what constitutes a city and what the true populations are. Just give it a rest.

Lol!

Liverpool - 466,000
Knowsley - 145,000
The majority of Sefton - 250,000
Rainhill and Rainford - 20,000
Wirral - 320,000

equals = 1.1 million there abouts.

Anyway, I said Leeds would downsize because those villages are not part of Leeds at all which is why people on here for example always state that Leeds is overbounded. Maybe 650,000 was too low so 700,000 would be more realistic. I did state it was my view and not a fact of the world.

Even if you included the City of Sheffield and the town of Rotherham, the population would still come below 700,000. But the City of Sheffield, much like Leeds, has lots rural areas in its boundaries.

For Liverpool, I actually did add up population for that area, and the figure came to just under 1 million (the big urban area on Wirral, plus Crosby/Bootle, all of Knowsley).

Either way, these discussions are totally pointless, nobody is ever going to agree on what constitutes a city and what the true populations are. Just give it a rest.

City of Liverpool = 466,400
Wirral = 319,800
Sefton = 273,800 -90,000 (Southport) = 183,800
Knowsley = 145,900
Rainford, Rainhill, Eccleston Park (from St Helens) = 25,000

Total Liverpool = 1,140,900


Rest of St Helens = 152,000
Southport = 90,000
Ormskirk and Skelmersdale = 110,300
Widnes and Runcorn = 125,800
Ellesmere Port = 81,800
Weaver Vale = 65,000 (guess)

Total Liverpool Bay Area (i.e., the wider Metro area) = 1,765,800

Adding in Chester and the adjacent bits of Flintshire comes to just over 2 million.

These stats about the dominating city.....

Manchester 0.5 million among a county of 2.4 million = 21%
Birmingham 1.1 million among a conurbation of 2.5 million or a county of 2.7 million = 44% at the lowest rating.

WestYorks kid is a little short of knowledge about our conurbations.
And Jerb - I would never say Brum's population is 5 million but whenever I see that Brum's number is quoted as being the city authority only compared against a city that is using its county's population I will flag it up. I would say that Brum is city of 2.5 million largely. The 1 million mark is totally underwhelming, parochial and wrong.

I know a lot about our conurbations thank you. The point is that Birmingham has already got a large local authority bearing its name & Leeds, Bradford, Wakefield and Sheffield have all already got large local authorities bearing their names in the context of cities whereas cities like Manchester, Liverpool, Newcastle and Nottingham haven’t. This is very misleading in the context of cities. I have been to all of our major cities apart from Bristol. I like all of our major cities and never ever slate any of them. Birmingham is my second favourite city. I think Manchester and Birmingham support London very well on the world stage as the next cities and there isn’t any other city in the same league as them. What I say is purely from the heart and my best of views. I do actually disagree with you about Birmingham being larger than Manchester but apart from that, Birmingham is a world class city along with Manchester.

Let the people who live in places decide where they live, is that not alright?

These stats about the dominating city.....

Manchester 0.5 million among a county of 2.4 million = 21%
Birmingham 1.1 million among a conurbation of 2.5 million or a county of 2.7 million = 44% at the lowest rating.

WestYorks kid is a little short of knowledge about our conurbations.
And Jerb - I would never say Brum's population is 5 million but whenever I see that Brum's number is quoted as being the city authority only compared against a city that is using its county's population I will flag it up. I would say that Brum is city of 2.5 million largely. The 1 million mark is totally underwhelming, parochial and wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought both GM and West Midlands (County) now both have 2.7 million people? (2011 census)

City of Liverpool = 466,400
Wirral = 319,800
Sefton = 273,800 -90,000 (Southport) = 183,800
Knowsley = 145,900
Rainford, Rainhill, Eccleston Park (from St Helens) = 25,000

Total Liverpool = 1,140,900


Rest of St Helens = 152,000
Southport = 90,000
Ormskirk and Skelmersdale = 110,300
Widnes and Runcorn = 125,800
Ellesmere Port = 81,800
Weaver Vale = 65,000 (guess)

Total Liverpool Bay Area (i.e., the wider Metro area) = 1,765,800



Thinking about it I think Ellesmere Port is Liverpool. Runcorn would be if Widnes swapped places with it lol. Ormskirk is Liverpool. I do not think Skem is but it probs would be part of the metro.

Maybe VDB but when I think of Brum's conurbation I don't include Coventry because it's clutching at straws to be honest. That's why I say 2.5m as a round figure for my metro city.
I take on board WY2M's opinions - but I disagree about Mcr being bigger. It's just hype.
All I can do is to fight Brum's corner whenever I see it advertised in a bad or disrespectful light which seems to be on a daily basis nowadays....

Ellesmere Port is clearly not in Liverpool. What about Chester?

And including the whole of the Wirral in Liverpool's stats is ridiculous. Why do people want every single place to be swallowed up by one place? It's nice to have little towns, villages etc outside of the city to visit. The way people go on you'd think once you got North of Stoke only Liverpool, Manc and Leeds exist as separate entities.

North Wales needs a foster home.

Cumbria is also lonely and could do with a caring and loving family.

If you can give these two....... a future, please contact........

Maybe VDB but when I think of Brum's conurbation I don't include Coventry because it's clutching at straws to be honest. That's why I say 2.5m as a round figure for my metro city.
I take on board WY2M's opinions - but I disagree about Mcr being bigger. It's just hype.
All I can do is to fight Brum's corner whenever I see it advertised in a bad or disrespectful light which seems to be on a daily basis nowadays....

I definitely disagree with Wigan town being part of Manchester. It's completely seperate from the urban area etc. However they're towns within Wigan borough which could be included as Manchester like Leigh, Boothstown and Atherton.

Bolton's a tricky one because it's very much part of the urban area. You can easily go from central Manchester way up to Bromley Cross north of Bolton without seeing fields. But there seems to be a big "independent" theme going on in Bolton which doesn't really secure it to Manchester as much as the other boroughs.

We'll have to see what happens to Oldham and Rochdale. Rochdale's working population has the highest percentage of those who work in central Manchester in the whole of GM (except Manchester itself) so I suppose that would glue it a bit? Both may become more Manchester-ised with Metrolink like Bury has.

Just my view.

Ellesmere Port is clearly not in Liverpool. What about Chester?

And including the whole of the Wirral in Liverpool's stats is ridiculous. Why do people want every single place to be swallowed up by one place? It's nice to have little towns, villages etc outside of the city to visit. The way people go on you'd think once you got North of Stoke only Liverpool, Manc and Leeds exist as separate entities.

Yeah I'm not sure about Ellesmere Port. It's definitely Metro Liverpool though. Chester is very closely linked too.

All of Wirral (met borough) is Liverpool suburbia. Of course, it's a collection of small towns (like London) but they're still part of the city. Where's the Royal Liverpool Golf Club? Hoylake.

North Wales needs a foster home.

Cumbria is also lonely and could do with a caring and loving family.

If you can give these two....... a future, please contact........


Newcastle can have custody of Cumbria :lol:

Hoylake is not in Liverpool like London's suburbs are in London. A city is constituted by areas within it, nobody would ever, ever say 'I'm in Liverpool' when they were in Hoylake.

Hoylake is not in Liverpool like London's suburbs are in London. A city is constituted by areas within it, nobody would ever, ever say 'I'm in Liverpool' when they were in Hoylake.

Yes it is.

Hoylake (and West Kirby etc) is classic 'metroland' suburbia - like most of North London. If Liverpool didn't exist, neither would all the small 'metroland' suburbs. It's the same situation with Wilmslow and Manchester.
This is totally different to places like St Helens and Widnes - they're independent towns which have grown towards Liverpool and ultimately become absorbed into Greater Liverpool. If Liverpool didn't exist, St Helens and Widnes would still be small Lancashire industrial towns. Just like Oldham, Rochdale with Manchester.

No it isn't, it's clearly detatched from Liverpool, whether it would exist with or without Liverpool isn't important, it doesn't make it part of the City of Liverpool. As I say, I think what consitutes a city is what people living there think and say, not what some geeks (myself included) on a skyscraper website say. I doubt anyone ever says 'I'm off to Liverpool' when they're going to Hoylake, because they are clearly different places.

Btw, comparing it to North London is absolutely absurd, have you ever been to North London?

Hoylake is part of the scouse riviera. London isn't coastal, it doesn't have comparable areas.

Of course it does, London is one continuous urban area, a true megacity. There are no gaps. Hoylake is a small place near Liverpool (if we're to accept that Birkenhead is Liverpool), it's not in it. If we started included places like Hoylake in cities there'd be pretty much nothing but them.

No it isn't, it's clearly detatched from Liverpool, whether it would exist with or without Liverpool isn't important, it doesn't make it part of the City of Liverpool. As I say, I think what consitutes a city is what people living there think and say, not what some geeks (myself included) on a skyscraper website say. I doubt anyone ever says 'I'm off to Liverpool' when they're going to Hoylake, because they are clearly different places.

Btw, comparing it to North London is absolutely absurd, have you ever been to North London?

Someone who lives outside of the North West would say they were 'going to Liverpool' if they were visiting somewhere on the Wirral - such as the Royal Liverpool Golf Club in Hoylake.

I find it bizarre that people think Ellesmere Port is in Liverpool..

Someone who lives outside of the North West would say they were 'going to Liverpool' if they were visiting somewhere on the Wirral - such as the Royal Liverpool Golf Club in Hoylake.

Do you really believe that? Well there's not much else I can say, I've clearly got a massively different perception of how people view things. Liverpool is a city, a large city within the UK, but it doesn't include Hoylake. Even saying Hoylake, in Liverpool sounds ridiculous to me. Huyton, Bootle maybe even Birkenhead and Wallassey but not Hoylake for me.

Of course it does, London is one continuous urban area, a true megacity. There are no gaps. Hoylake is a small place near Liverpool (if we're to accept that Birkenhead is Liverpool), it's not in it. If we started included places like Hoylake in cities there'd be pretty much nothing but them.


Where is its Open/links courses situated?

Liverpool isn't a megacity, dunno if you've noticed. Not sure why you're still comparing it to London.

I've heard someone from Bristol say they've been windsurfing in West Kirby, in Liverpool.

Do you really believe that? Well there's not much else I can say, I've clearly got a massively different perception of how people view things. Liverpool is a city, a large city within the UK, but it doesn't include Hoylake. Even saying Hoylake, in Liverpool sounds ridiculous to me. Huyton, Bootle maybe even Birkenhead and Wallassey but not Hoylake for me.

Yes.
There's been many times here in Manchester where someone I've just met (upon hearing my accent) has told me they have friends/family from Liverpool and when I've asked where abouts, the answer has been somewhere like West Kirby or Ormskirk. When I lived in Nottingham, I even met some people from Southport and Widnes who said they were from Liverpool.

A few metres of fields (that's all that separates Hoylake from Wallasey) don't affect the social, cultural and economic structure of a place - especially when the other side of Hoylake is the Irish Sea!

Was on holiday in Florida a few years ago and sat down next to a large group of people at an outdoor cafe, the waitress asked them where they where from, they all said Liverpool. I asked them what part of Liverpool they where from, they answerd Hoylake, West Kirby, Parkgate, Little Sutton and Ellesmere Port, Albion had better tell them thy don't know where they live.

Bolton's a tricky one because it's very much part of the urban area. You can easily go from central Manchester way up to Bromley Cross north of Bolton without seeing fields. But there seems to be a big "independent" theme going on in Bolton which doesn't really secure it to Manchester as much as the other boroughs.


I'm working with a girl who says she's from Manchester as it's easier to say than Boloton cos most people don't know of it

Yes.
There's been many times here in Manchester where someone I've just met (upon hearing my accent) has told me they have friends/family from Liverpool and when I've asked where abouts, the answer has been somewhere like West Kirby or Ormskirk. When I lived in Nottingham, I even met some people from Southport and Widnes who said they were from Liverpool.

A few metres of fields (that's all that separates Hoylake from Wallasey) don't affect the social, cultural and economic structure of a place - especially when the other side of Hoylake is the Irish Sea!

Exactly!

This is why people who live in villages that surround Leeds class themselves as Leeds residents. Perhaps alot is to do with the history behind the area. If there's nothing going on ie no town hall etc then it's hard to create an identity with a place if it's essentially a housing estate just of a city.

I'm working with a girl who says she's from Manchester as it's easier to say than Boloton cos most people don't know of it

Most people don't know about Bolton? Not sure who she's been talking to but I'd argue Bolton is one of the UK's most well known towns... can understand why someone would say Manchester for easiness though

I would say for population

Manchester- 2.5m - As the whole GM contribution is relatively new (35+ years old) people are always going to struggle to accept that say Salford is part of Manchester. I'd expect the younger generation to class this as Manchester but not the older ones. It'll take time.
Birmingham- 2.5/7 - Places like Wolverhampton aren't in my view in Birmingham and as such shouldn't be classed as such. If we can see some sort of proper linkage ie no competition between neighboring cities then this can definitly outperform Manchester.
Liverpool- Theres a giant swamp (wirral) that separates the two places so that might create too much of a boundary although it doesn't seem too.
Leeds- 800k - Leeds boundaries have been as such for decades, people who live there accept they are part of Leeds and don't class themselves as the suburb they live in. So tough!

Most people don't know about Bolton? Not sure who she's been talking to but I'd argue Bolton is one of the UK's most well known towns... can understand why someone would say Manchester for easiness though

Bolton... really?!?!

I only know of it cos we once got lost there on the way to Blackpool.

:nuts:

I would argue towns aren't well known anyway.

I wouldn't be able to name a town of the top of my head apart from the grim ones in South/West Yorkshire- Barnsley, Wakfield etc

I'm working with a girl who says she's from Manchester as it's easier to say than Boloton cos most people don't know of it


Not surprised, how do you pronounce that?

Was on holiday in Florida a few years ago and sat down next to a large group of people at an outdoor cafe, the waitress asked them where they where from, they all said Liverpool. I asked them what part of Liverpool they where from, they answerd Hoylake, West Kirby, Parkgate, Little Sutton and Ellesmere Port, Albion had better tell them thy don't know where they live.

I've told certain people I'm from Birmingham even though being from Dudley I don't consider myself as a Brummie, they're just more likely to have heard of Birmingham.

I even once told a naive person in Florida that we were from "north of London" as I couldn't be bothered to explain further. :|

Someone who lives outside of the North West would say they were 'going to Liverpool' if they were visiting somewhere on the Wirral - such as the Royal Liverpool Golf Club in Hoylake.

Or the 'University of Liverpool Botanic Gardens' at Ness. Wirral is Liverpool suburbia. I live just three miles from Oxton Village( Wirral), as the crow flies ( I live in Liverpool, by the river) - but about seven miles from Crosby ( Liverpool).

I was brought up - for my first seven years in Pensby ( Wirral), by Liverpool born parents, and later on, in my teenage years, in Bromborough( Wirral). In between those times I was Living in West Derby ( Liverpool), and my father continued working in Bromborough ( Wirral). The Wirral is Liverpool suburbia. You can see the Liverpool waterfront /skyline from most/many places on The Wirral; its centrality is clear. When in Oxton, Liverpool Cathedral appears to be just down the road - and if you take both Mersey tunnels to be roads- then it is!

Same police force. Merseytravel.

I would argue towns aren't well known anyway.

I wouldn't be able to name a town of the top of my head apart from the grim ones in South/West Yorkshire- Barnsley, Wakfield etc

I think Bolton is pretty well known around the UK. It's got the best market or something like that, Peter Kay etc. If it means anything my mum's relative from Bideford, Devon knew about it.

I think I could name a few towns across the North. Certainly in Lincolnshire because of my Dad living there... I might be able to name a few in the south... probably non in Scotland apart from Paisley ...


EDIT: and Wirral is definitely part of Liverpool.

I would say for population

Manchester- 2.5m - As the whole GM contribution is relatively new (35+ years old) people are always going to struggle to accept that say Salford is part of Manchester. I'd expect the younger generation to class this as Manchester but not the older ones. It'll take time.
Birmingham- 2.5/7 - Places like Wolverhampton aren't in my view in Birmingham and as such shouldn't be classed as such. If we can see some sort of proper linkage ie no competition between neighboring cities then this can definitly outperform Manchester.
Liverpool- Theres a giant swamp (wirral) that separates the two places so that might create too much of a boundary although it doesn't seem too.
Leeds- 800k - Leeds boundaries have been as such for decades, people who live there accept they are part of Leeds and don't class themselves as the suburb they live in. So tough!

You're using a bit of a double standard there to justify your own attitudes; the current boundaries of the city of Leeds are exactly as old as those of Greater Manchester. If you believe that boundaries shape identity then you have to accept that they have shaped both for the same amount of time.

Also I don't really understand the numbers you've attached to the cities. If you don't think Wolverhampton is Birmingham, then the city can't have a population of 2.7 million, as that's the population of the whole county including Coventry and Wolverhampton.

You can have whatever beliefs you want, but if you can't define them consistently you'll look like a pillock.

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l537/openlyjane/Various/P1180295.jpg

Oxton ( Wirral). Radio city Tower in background.

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l537/openlyjane/Various/P1180160.jpg

Horse & carriage ride ( Oxton, Wirral)

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l537/openlyjane/Various/P1180369.jpg

View from Birkenhead Park ( Wirral)

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l537/openlyjane/Various/P1180048.jpg

Cafe in Oxton ( Wirral)

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l537/openlyjane/Various/P1170920.jpg

View from Oxton, Wirral.

Lifeboat station in Hoylake ( Wirral) - note Liver Bird.

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l537/openlyjane/various%202/P1190940.jpg

http://i1122.photobucket.com/albums/l537/openlyjane/various%202/P1190948.jpg

Not sure what happened to Wirral's discrete Viking feel there Oj! :uh:

S'alright. "Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes" (Whitman).

^^ Well, there was a fella who looked like Kirk Douglas in my old local in Wallasey.

Here's a pretty cool travel brochure from the 1930s

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4032/4458153106_4602e8c6be_z.jpg
MikeyAshworth (http://www.flickr.com/photos/36844288@N00/)

"I am large, I contain multitudes".Your ears certainly are.:lol:

You're speaking to Walt Whitman, not me. Take your beef to him. :yes:

Was on holiday in Florida a few years ago and sat down next to a large group of people at an outdoor cafe, the waitress asked them where they where from, they all said Liverpool. I asked them what part of Liverpool they where from, they answerd Hoylake, West Kirby, Parkgate, Little Sutton and Ellesmere Port, Albion had better tell them thy don't know where they live.The Golf Channel here in the US was telling us that the Royal Lytham & St. Anne's golf links are located in the Liverpool metropolitan area and, the Open Championship will be returning to Liverpool in 2014 when the tournament is staged at the Royal Liverpool course.:)

I once had the misfortune to meet a croupier on board a cruise ship who hailed from Wallasey but who claimed she was not from Liverpool. A lady gamer, with a North American accent, chided her about this, drawing laughs from her fellow gamers. I inquired as to her knowledge of Liverpool and she replied that she was the assistant US Consulate in Liverpool for many years, and had fond memories of the place and it's people.

You're speaking to Walt Whitman, not me. Take your beef to him. :yes:Think he could HEAR me.

Didn't know Walt ever drove through Brampton on his way from Trona to the airport?:hilarious

Was on holiday in Florida a few years ago and sat down next to a large group of people at an outdoor cafe, the waitress asked them where they where from, they all said Liverpool. I asked them what part of Liverpool they where from, they answerd Hoylake, West Kirby, Parkgate, Little Sutton and Ellesmere Port, Albion had better tell them thy don't know where they live.



Forgive me if I don't trust what some randomers, who clearly want Liverpool to include little vilages nearby in the city, say, you may well be telling the truth but I'm not going to take it as evidence. You think if you asked the majority of residents in Hoylake if they lived in Liverpool they'd say yes? Barmy.

A city is a continuous urban area, villages nearby are not within the city. Leeds tries to do this let's not do the same with Liverpool. West Kirby is just not in Liverpool.

Is Hoylake/West Kirby not contiguous with the rest of Liverpool? That I don't know having spent plenty of time there and having lived in greater Liverpool for most of my life (well just over half) is an indication that whether it or not has little relevance to Hoylake and West Kirby being Liverpool suburbs. That they are is so self-evident that it is bizarre to be even having this conversation. If someone trundles around on google street map working out if there is a sufficient enough gap between houses between Moreton and Meols what they find doesn't have much relevance to this debate whatever it is.

Same old problem, non-scousers telling us not the way it is, but the way they wish it was.

People from Hoylake are Liverpudlians? lol, now it becomes a broader thing. Same thing with Alderley Edge and Manchester, Harrogate and Leeds etc etc. Just because a place has a relationship, strong links with somewhere doesn't make it the same place.

Why would I wish it to be anything, it makes no odds to myself, but it's simply the truth of the matter.

As I said earlier on, go and tell them they're not scousers.

The burden of proof is on the ones claiming something, it was earlier on in the thread that Pablo whatever suggested it was in Liverpool, I disagreed. It clearly means a lot more to you than me, if you believe it Hoylake is part of the city of Liverpool that's fair enough. Just seems like a desperation to incorporate absolutely everywhere into one place, most likely to ease egos because of the odd obsession with size on this forum (as if living within a city with slightly more people than other is a personal triumph), I don't see the need, to me a city is a continuous urban lump and doesn't include villages and towns nearby.

It's not so clear cut. St Helens is a town for instance, it exists because of certain economic activity occurring and retains an independence because it still does even though many of it's districts are now Liverpool suburbs.

Places like Hoylake exist because the railways enable commuting in to Liverpool.

Hoylake is most certainly of Liverpool whilst St Helens is geographically fortunate to be a town in it's own right but with increasing links to Liverpool.

Birminghams cousins in the Black Country and Manchesters to the East and North confuse the issue further. I personally consider say West Bromwich and Dudley as "Birmingham" but not so much Walsall or Wolverhampton.

It's difficult to define the city and even the metro in England.

Ok let's halt the discussions for a moment about other cities that cover many boroughs and talk about London. What makes London so special as to why it deserves to encompass other settlements, towns and cities? And please don't say obvious things like "it's the capital" or "it has a mayor" or "it's urban area is that big" because these are not a good enough reasons if some of the reasons are not a good enough reasons for other cities! Remember, Greater London is officially a county and not a city! Greater Manchester for example is just short of a major otherwise everything else like its transport authority, it's top level local governance and the fact it covers more than one borough is just like London. So why is London a special case people?

Same old problem, non-scousers telling us not the way it is, but the way they wish it was.

I don't know whether that's Albie's problem. Probably simply ignorance.

Ok let's halt the discussions for a moment about other cities that cover many boroughs and talk about London. What makes London so special as to why it deserves to encompass other settlements, towns and cities? And please don't say obvious things like "it's the capital" or "it has a mayor" or "it's urban area is that big" because thats not a good enough reason if its not a good enough reason for other cities! Remember, Greater London is officially a county and not a city! Greater Manchester for example is just short of a major otherwise everything else like its transport authority, it's top level local governance and the fact it covers more than one borough is just like London. So why is London a special case people?


London, as in Greater London, is all one continuous urban area though, Greater Manchester isn't so that's why it's, very clearly, not all part of the same city. I'm bemused as to how anyone could think a village/town that's unconnected physically to the urban zone could be considered a part of it.

People either have no idea what London is like in comparison to other cities or are just deliberately ignoring it.

London, as in Greater London, is all one continuous urban area though, Greater Manchester isn't so that's why it's, very clearly, not all part of the same city. I'm bemused as to how anyone could think a village/town that's unconnected physically to the urban zone could be considered a part of it.

People either have no idea what London is like in comparison to other cities or are just deliberately ignoring it.

Fair enough. So what you are saying is it's not so much about 'Greater London' which is a county but the urban lump of it?

London, as in Greater London, is all one continuous urban area though, Greater Manchester isn't so that's why it's, very clearly, not all part of the same city. I'm bemused as to how anyone could think a village/town that's unconnected physically to the urban zone could be considered a part of it.

People either have no idea what London is like in comparison to other cities or are just deliberately ignoring it.

To be fair, the majority of Greater Manchester is an urban lump.

If we're judging cities by 'urban lump' rather than boundaries or how they are governed (even if they are similar to London) why are so many cities around the world not fully 'urban lumps'?

London, as in Greater London, is all one continuous urban area though, Greater Manchester isn't so that's why it's, very clearly, not all part of the same city. I'm bemused as to how anyone could think a village/town that's unconnected physically to the urban zone could be considered a part of it.

People either have no idea what London is like in comparison to other cities or are just deliberately ignoring it.

Suburbs don't have to be totally continuous with the city's main urban lump.

Speke, Kirkby and Maghull aren't technically continuous with Liverpool's main urban lump. Speke is separated from Hunt Cross by an industrial park. Kirkby is separated from Fazakerley and Croxteth by the M57. Maghull is separated from Aintree by Switch Island. No one would claim these places aren't Liverpool - so why is Hoylake/West Kirby not Liverpool? They're only separated from Moreton by a few fields.

Where do people from Hoylake and West Kirby work? Where do they go to shop? Where do they go for a night out? They're coastal villages - there's nothing the other direction but water! Without Liverpool, they'd be tiny deprived fishing villages of a few hundred people - like some places in North Wales. But they're not - they're affluent Liverpudlian suburbs. A rough analogy in Manchester would be Middleton - not really continuous but still a Mancunian suburb.

The opposite would be St Helens. It's totally continuous with Liverpool. Some of its districts (Rainhill, Eccleston Park) are Liverpool suburbs. But the town itself is totally independent. It has its own localisms that 'Liverpool overspill' towns and villages don't. If Liverpool didn't exist, St Helens would still be a Lancashire industrial town. Again, an analogy with Manchester would be somewhere like Oldham - totally continuous but still a separate town.


A lot of those villages inside the City of Leeds actually are Leeds suburbs.

A lot of those villages inside the City of Leeds actually are Leeds suburbs.

This is a very important comment! If the 'City of Leeds' is a city with so much rural-ness, then why can't other cities be cities in their extended versions for example Greater Manchester?

My opinion of a city is of one continuous urban zone, so obviously Manchester is a lot bigger than the City of Manchester, likewise with Liverpool and their boundaries. I just don't think villages and towns separated from the rest of the urbanity should be said to be in a city, regardless of whether they're dependent on the city or not.

The point of many of these places is that they're small little villages to move out of the city from, obviously they are related to Liverpool, linked to it, friends with it whatever else you wanna say, but not actually in it.

Therefore if a (very small) housing estate was built on the thin sliver of undeveloped land between Meols and Moreton, say, and nothing else changed whatsover Hoylake and West Kirby would change instantly from not being to being Liverpool suburbs. Albie's theory is very strange.

The one thing I would disagree with Pabs' argument is his joining with Albie in calling Hoylake/West Kirby (yes they are contigious) "villages". They aren't village-like at but form a rather large connected area of suburbia comprising overwhelmingly of C20th housing estates.

The burden of proof is on the ones claiming something, it was earlier on in the thread that Pablo whatever suggested it was in Liverpool, I disagreed. It clearly means a lot more to you than me, if you believe it Hoylake is part of the city of Liverpool that's fair enough. Just seems like a desperation to incorporate absolutely everywhere into one place, most likely to ease egos because of the odd obsession with size on this forum (as if living within a city with slightly more people than other is a personal triumph), I don't see the need, to me a city is a continuous urban lump and doesn't include villages and towns nearby.


I don't think anybody has claimed that Hoylake was 'in Liverpool'; what people have said is that large parts of The Wirral form part of Liverpool's 'suburbia': part of 'Greater Liverpool'.

Nobody is even saying that such residential areas are Liverpool 'suburbs' in the strictest sense of the word - not in the same way that, for example, Tuebrook, Childwall, Wavertree are Liverpool suburbs. However, Hoylake, Oxton, Meols, Heswall etc are part of Liverpool 'suburbia'.

It is interesting to note that the American usage of the term suburb implies all satellite towns of major cities.

I thought that's exactly what people were arguing.

I thought that's exactly what people were arguing.

That's where you have misunderstood.

A source of difficulty may be that some think that the word suburb means any district of a city. Therefore one hears funny stuff like the Kirkdale suburb of Liverpool. The truth is that comparatively little of what currently lies behind the borough of Liverpool's boundaries is suburban. Tuebrook has been mentioned for example while it is a fairly high-density district on the edge of the inner-city. And only the outermost parts of Wavertree are suburban (Picton clock eastwards?) although some of it definately is. Most of Liverpool's suburbs are outside its city boundaries and there are more of them on the Wirral peninsula than anywhere else.

This is a very important comment! If the 'City of Leeds' is a city with so much rural-ness, then why can't other cities be cities in their extended versions for example Greater Manchester?

I guess it all comes down to what people define themselves as. Even though a town like Otley is definitely not connected to Leeds, and is on the edge of the city boundaries, people there say they are from 'Leeds', a lot of them work in Leeds, shop in Leeds and support Leeds United.

I wouldn't consider a place like Otley as being part of Leeds myself, but merely a town that is dependent on Leeds in labour market terms.

Another good example is Ilkley, a popular commuter town that is located in Bradford yet has a Leeds postcode, businesses there will even say they are located in 'Ilkley, Leeds', but it's definitely not in Leeds at all, just very connected.

I guess it all comes down to what people define themselves as. Even though a town like Otley is definitely not connected to Leeds, and is on the edge of the city boundaries, people there say they are from 'Leeds', a lot of them work in Leeds, shop in Leeds and support Leeds United.

I wouldn't consider a place like Otley as being part of Leeds myself, but merely a town that is dependent on Leeds in labour market terms.

Another good example is Ilkley, a popular commuter town that is located in Bradford yet has a Leeds postcode, businesses there will even say they are located in 'Ilkley, Leeds', but it's definitely not in Leeds at all, just very connected.

Yeah this is the thing. I see the 'City of Leeds' essentially as 'Greater Leeds' and the 'City of Bradford' essentially as 'Greater Bradford' however, the 'City of Leeds' is Leeds nonetheless and the 'CIty of Bradford' is Bradford nonetheless. This is the reason why I see the whole of 'Greater Manchester' as Manchester. So essentially, in the context of the 'City of Leeds' and and in the context of the 'City of Bradford', Greater Manchester is the 'City of Manchester'. Not all areas of a city are completely connected. There is nothing wrong with that.

The difference with the City of Bradford is, the people of Keighley and Ilkley don't associate themselves with Bradford. Who would? :nuts:

Yeah this is the thing. I see the 'City of Leeds' essentially as 'Greater Leeds' and the 'City of Bradford' essentially as 'Greater Bradford' however, the 'City of Leeds' is Leeds nonetheless and the 'CIty of Bradford' is Bradford nonetheless. This is the reason why I see the whole of 'Greater Manchester' as Manchester. So essentially, in the context of the 'City of Leeds' and and in the context of the 'City of Bradford', Greater Manchester is the 'City of Manchester'. Not all areas of a city are completely connected. There is nothing wrong with that.

I absolutely understand what you're saying. The whole of Leeds' boundaries are Leeds' urban area, but the whole of Manchester's urban area is within Greater Manchester's boundaries. The Leeds 'lump' fits nicely into Leeds City, the Manchester lump fits nicely into Greater Manchester (but absolutely not into Manchester City).

But you can't simply say that the whole of Greater Manchester is like the whole of Leeds City. Places like Bolton and Wigan would completely disagree. Wigan is its own town altogether.

I absolutely understand what you're saying. The whole of Leeds' boundaries are Leeds' urban area, but the whole of Manchester's urban area is within Greater Manchester's boundaries. The Leeds 'lump' fits nicely into Leeds City, the Manchester lump fits nicely into Greater Manchester (but absolutely not into Manchester City).

But you can't simply say that the whole of Greater Manchester is like the whole of Leeds City. Places like Bolton and Wigan would completely disagree. Wigan is its own town altogether.

I know what you are saying and I've considered that but Bolton and Wigan are to Manchester what Wetherby and Tadcaster are to Leeds or what Keighley and Ilkley are to Bradford. That's my reasoning.

I know what you are saying and I've considered that but Bolton and Wigan are to Manchester what Wetherby and Tadcaster are to Leeds or what Keighley and Ilkley are to Bradford. That's my reasoning.

Commuter towns. Not necessarily suburbs like the rest of Greater Manchester/South GM..

I guess it all comes down to what people define themselves as.

We got underbounded for political reasons. There are many true suburbs in Glasgow that aren't within the boundaries. Contrast with Edinburgh, whose boundaries stretch out to villages and farmland. S'all very sad:(

I don't think people are fully understanding what I'm saying. I know Wigan and Bolton are the least 'Manchester' of the Manchester boroughs. I'm not saying they are Manchester suburbs. What I'm saying is that Whetherby and Tadcaster are to Leeds what Wigan and Bolton are to Manchester. Wetherby and Tadcaster are part of the 'City of Leeds' so what I'm saying is that Wigan and Bolton are part of Manchester in the same way, the same context.

I don't think people are fully understanding what I'm saying. I know Wigan and Bolton are the least 'Manchester' of the Manchester boroughs. I'm not saying they are Manchester suburbs. What I'm saying is that Whetherby and Tadcaster are to Leeds what Wigan and Bolton are to Manchester. Wetherby and Tadcaster are part of the 'City of Leeds' so what I'm saying is that Wigan and Bolton are part of Manchester in the same way, the same context.

First off, no such thing as a "Manchester borough". Unless you think St Helens is a "Liverpool borough" and Walsall is a "Birmingham borough"?!

Second, Wigan and Bolton are to Manchester what Halifax and Dewsbury are to Leeds. Or what Southport and Widnes are to Liverpool. Or what Wolverhampton is to Birmingham.

yeah good analogy, you got it right there pablo
tadcaster is in north yorkshire, in no way the city of Leeds
otley ilkley selby and wetherby are small market towns not in Leeds but would like to be..
I'm not sure what the pie eaters of Wigan think

Some of you are still not getting what I’m saying. If you want to be pedantic and nitpick on the Manchester Borough thing then I don’t really know what to say to you! You full well know what I mean!

I’ve based what I’ve been saying on the basis of comparing like for like. Obviously it might not be 100% accurate but in the context of cities, Leeds’ 751, 500 population covering 213 square miles to Manchester’s 503, 100 population covering 45 square miles is completely and absolutely an incorrect reflection of the true sizes of the two cities respectively. It’s an absurd comparison!

Manchester is closer to what ‘Greater Manchester’ is than what the ‘City of Manchester’ is and the examples posted of “Wigan and Bolton are to Manchester what Halifax and Dewsbury are to Leeds. Or what Southport and Widnes are to Liverpool. Or what Wolverhampton is to Birmingham” is a very silly, absurd and pedantic way of looking at it.

The ‘City of Leeds’ contains 10 ‘other’ towns within it and these are Farsley, Garforth, Guiseley, Horsforth, Morley, Otley, Pudsey, Rothwell, Wetherby and Yeadon. Now in this respect, the 'City of Leeds' is really essentially 'Greater Leeds'. So by this basis, if these 10 ‘other’ towns are part of Leeds, then the equivalent for Manchester in the truest sense is 'Greater Manchester'. Before you reply please take a few minutes to try and understand the underlying meaning of my comments. I’m comparing the two cities in the truest sense against each other.

If you notice, the ‘City of Manchester’ doesn’t contain ’10 towns’. In fact I don’t even think the ‘City of Manchester’ contains any towns ‘proper’ within it. Even the ‘City of Wakefield’ contains 9 ‘other’ towns. Again, essentially, the 'City of Wakefield' is ‘Greater Wakefield’. And another example is the ‘City of Bradford’ which contains 7 ‘other’ towns within it. And once again, in this example, the ‘City of Bradford' is essentially ‘Greater Bradford’. So as you see, it is absurd when these cities are compared to 'just' the ‘City of Manchester’.

Please take a moment to understand my comments first. You’ll notice that’s it’s a pretty fair reflection in the truest sense. I’m not forcing any idea upon anyone though!

If Manchester is as small as people from Liverpool and Leeds are making it out to be, then they really should be taking a long hard look at their cities and wondering why they haven't been as successful as Manchester in recent years. Honest to God, the total lack of realism of people on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Btw, the picture below is totally not in London...
http://www.businesscloud9.com/files/siftmedia-bc9/images/Houses-of-Parliament_Houses-of-Parliament_1.jpeg

If Manchester is as small as people from Liverpool and Leeds are making it out to be, then they really should be taking a long hard look at their cities and wondering why they haven't been as successful as Manchester in recent years. Honest to God, the total lack of realism of people on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Btw, the picture below is totally not in London...


Aye! The largest city in Greater London, Westminster! ;)

If Manchester is as small as people from Liverpool and Leeds are making it out to be, then they really should be taking a long hard look at their cities and wondering why they haven't been as successful as Manchester in recent years. Honest to God, the total lack of realism of people on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Btw, the picture below is totally not in London...
http://www.businesscloud9.com/files/siftmedia-bc9/images/Houses-of-Parliament_Houses-of-Parliament_1.jpeg

Tell me, who on here is trying to make out that Manchester is as small as the City of Manchester boundaries make out? I'm looking back and I cannot see anyone anywhere stating this. I think you're just looking for trouble, mister. :nono:

But if we're using your flawed logic, you could ask, is Manchester, as a city, under-performing for its size, or are Leeds and Liverpool, over-performing for cities of their size? It works both ways, I suppose. I think Manchester should be competing with Munich and Stockholm, or perhaps challenging London in the same way Montreal challenges Toronto or Melbourne challenges Sydney or Barcelona challenges Madrid.

(not an attack on Manchester btw, just me asking Accura4Matalan an honest question)

I don't think people are fully understanding what I'm saying. I know Wigan and Bolton are the least 'Manchester' of the Manchester boroughs. I'm not saying they are Manchester suburbs. What I'm saying is that Whetherby and Tadcaster are to Leeds what Wigan and Bolton are to Manchester. Wetherby and Tadcaster are part of the 'City of Leeds' so what I'm saying is that Wigan and Bolton are part of Manchester in the same way, the same context.

First of all, Tadcaster is in North Yorkshire.

Secondly, I don't think Wetherby as being in Leeds. When I last went, I saw a 'Leeds in bloom' sign, but that's only because it falls under Leeds City Council, if not, it would have been placed under Harrogate or Selby councils, so it makes no difference.

If Manchester is as small as people from Liverpool and Leeds are making it out to be, then they really should be taking a long hard look at their cities and wondering why they haven't been as successful as Manchester in recent years. Honest to God, the total lack of realism of people on this forum never ceases to amaze me.

Who is making out that Manchester is 'small'?!

I've already made it very clear that most of GM is Manchester. But the independent Lancastrian towns of Wigan and Bolton are not part of this!! This is all I'm trying to get WestYorks2Manchester to understand. He seems to be obsessed with Manchester and repeating his opinion that the whole of the county (and nothing outside it) is one city. It just isn't. Bolton (part of GM) is not Manchester, Wilmslow (part of Cheshire) is. The boundaries of the 1974 county are irrelevant.

Do you seriously believe that Wigan is as much 'Manchester' as Withington?!! If so, it's you that has the lack of realism!

I think people make the mistake of misrepresenting a town's connection to a city, to that town being part of the city. I don't even think Bury is Manchester. Its connected to Manchester and the people there may say they are from there to outsiders but I just do not see it.

deleted

yeah good analogy, you got it right there pablo
tadcaster is in north yorkshire, in no way the city of Leeds
otley ilkley selby and wetherby are small market towns not in Leeds but would like to be..
I'm not sure what the pie eaters of Wigan think

Both Otley and Wetherby are officially in Leeds. They are ran by Leeds City Council and are within Leeds city boundaries.

Perhaps the argument on whether Leeds has a smaller inner city area against its Metropolitan area has finally gone forever as the latest census now only shows Leeds population as 751,000 and no figure is shown for the inner area which was around 443,000. Whether you think Leeds boundaries are too large or not, just accept that the city has a pop of just over 750,000 period!

But they're clearly not part of the same urban area as Leeds, are they? They are separate towns, not connected to urban Leeds. People seem to take it very personally when they're told this, maybe they're compensating for smaller things in their life, it really is no reflection on yourself how many people live quite close to you.

Both Otley and Wetherby are officially in Leeds. They are ran by Leeds City Council and are within Leeds city boundaries.

Perhaps the argument on whether Leeds has a smaller inner city area against its Metropolitan area has finally gone forever as the latest census now only shows Leeds population as 751,000 and no figure is shown for the inner area which was around 443,000. Whether you think Leeds boundaries are too large or not, just accept that the city has a pop of just over 750,000 period!

Let's get this right.

According to you and other :blahblah:, Wetherby is part of the City of Leeds.

http://i.imgur.com/VXYAC.jpg

Get to f*** and stop taking the pi**.(sorry for swearing)

Here's what you should do.(you don't have to if you don't want to)

Go to Wetherby and randomly ask passing people whether or not they live in City of Leeds or Wetherby. Also ask them if they feel like they're part of or belong to the city of Leeds.

After they've stopped rolling around the pavement with laughter, you might, just might, get a serious answer, along with some very strange looks and a bit of pisstaking.

I see fields of green, red roses too
I see them bloom for me and you
And I think to myself what a wonderful world.

-Aba0lVdE2c

Some serious overbounding going on there... can we have Bacup, in that case?

http://i.imgur.com/VXYAC.jpg

If you go to Wetherby and ask people if they're part of Leeds, they'll probably say no (and look at you and think 'Leeds isn't posh')

If you ask someone from Otley if they're part of Leeds, they'll probably say yes, and this is coming from a person with relatives and friends in that town (I don't know anyone in Wetherby though).

These places aren't physically connected to Leeds so I don't consider them part of Leeds, but in labour market terms, or leisure terms, both are dependent on Leeds, so are basically dormitory towns.

It has nothing to do with over-bounding, these towns have to be governed from somewhere - either Harrogate, Selby, or Leeds, it makes no difference at all really, over 60% of the City of Leeds live in Leeds itself, and a sizable chunk probably live in places that are not counted in the 'Leeds proper' figure, such as Pudsey, Morley and Horsforth (these places are connected to Leeds and are without a doubt part of Leeds)

Some serious overbounding going on there...

http://i.imgur.com/VXYAC.jpg

Yet Salford and Trafford, etc, according to the usual suspects, aren't part of Manchester. :lol:

F*** it, we're having Wigan, Bolton, and Rochadale as well.(spitting my dummy out)