I'm a Leeds lad, an immensely proud too. I would love Leeds to be Britains 3rd city (assuming Birmingham is 2nd based on it's sheer size). However the competition is fierce, and most of all from that awful city across the pennines beginning with 'M'.
In some respects, Leeds can claim to be better - but is Leeds playing catch-up in too many areas? I DON'T want this to turn into a row over which city is the better - just where Leeds needs to improve.
For a start I think we are lacking in public transport (trams, 24hr buses, more local train stations), arenas (we aint got one), stadia (no where to hold major finals), international flights, major shop brands (selfridges etc), media (no major national newspaper HQ and only regional BBC base), international profile (more people heard of Manc abroad) and looks like they've got more and taller buildings planned too! :eek2:

LeedsLad, Leeds is a great place. If I were ranking cities based on how nice the cities are I'd rank it third behind Manchester and Glasgow. You have to remember, though, that the developments you mentioned above are often dependent on the size of the conurbation, not the area they decided to call the city. Leeds is developing at a great speed, but it won't catch up with Manchester in these areas because the conurbation has a smaller population and is growing slower.

Manchester conurbation - 2.3 million
Birmingham conurbation - 2.3 million
Leeds conurbation - 1.5 million

Be proud of your city, it really is going places and it's one of the best cities in Europe, but don't expect too much from it.

Be proud, your always have nicer people then Manchester, and you're doing just fine as you are. Not many cities in Europe have a 52 storey tower planned, us included :)

Be proud, your always have nicer people then Manchester, and you're doing just fine as you are. Not many cities in Europe have a 52 storey tower planned, us included :)
Indeed, but that would be because Leeds is growing much faster than Birmingham...

Maybe it is, but theres no shame in that - Leeds afterall is the UK's 3rd biggest city behind London and Birmingham, although only just ahead of Glasgow, Sheffield, Bradford, Edinburgh and Liverpool :)

Leedslad - list 5 things that you think Leeds needs to catch up with Manchester (or Brum or whereever you are comparing with).

Then list five things that Leeds has that Manchester (or whereever you are comparing with) would like to have.

From doing this, compaing cities with each other, you can easily see which cities have more infrastructure / facilities then each other.

For example, we could all think of things that London has that Greenock would love to have but not vise versa.

Maybe it is, but theres no shame in that - Leeds afterall is the UK's 3rd biggest city behind London and Birmingham, although only just ahead of Glasgow, Sheffield, Bradford, Edinburgh and Liverpool :)
No... You continually ignore the evidence don't you. It's either:

1. Birmingham
2. Leeds
3. Glasgow

or

1. London
2. Manchester
3. Birmingham

Then again, fools like you don't seem to comprehend the fact you can't mix and match methods. Either use the true "conurbation" measure (the second result) or use the political "local authority" measure (the ridiculous first one), but don't mix and match, measuring everywhere by local authorities except London.

:hahaha: Poor Earlybird, his been made to get out all his little statistics, fumbled here and there to put Manchester at number 2 :rofl:

BrumC, why do you enter into these arguements with EB?
You seem to manage to get yourself into a right old huff when EB hints at something negative about Brum (he is negative about everywhere bar Manc, just ignore him), yet you ignore other people being negative about Brum, e.g. the scousers in http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=5135272&postcount=24

BC, ignore him, and don't be so defensive, this thread is about Leeds, not a discussion about Manchester and Brum.

EB - grow up.

Leeds is playing catchup with Manchester, but then so is everybody else, apart from London.

ps60 - what would you say are the 5 things that Leeds 'needs' to start catching up with Manchester?

Plus, is Leeds actually catching up, or is Leeds still falling further back?


I was thinking the other day, I reckon a good indication of how far our cities have come - or how they relate to each other, is the willingness for people to pay to live in the city centre. In 2000 the 1st £1m falt was sold in Manchester, when did other cities first sell their city centre flats for £1m? I'd suggest that gives a good idea of how far behind / infront other cities are in terms off development, for example, if Greenock sells a city centre flat in 2002 for £1m, I'd suggest that Greenock is 2 years behind in development, as people are willing to pay a similar amount 2 years after in Manchester.

Does anyone know when the first £1m flat was sold in Leeds?

ps60 - what would you say are the 5 things that Leeds 'needs' to start catching up with Manchester?

Plus, is Leeds actually catching up, or is Leeds still falling further back?


I was thinking the other day, I reckon a good indication of how far our cities have come - or how they relate to each other, is the willingness for people to pay to live in the city centre. In 2000 the 1st £1m falt was sold in Manchester, when did other cities first sell their city centre flats for £1m? I'd suggest that gives a good idea of how far behind / infront other cities are in terms off development, for example, if Greenock sells a city centre flat in 2002 for £1m, I'd suggest that Greenock is 2 years behind in development, as people are willing to pay a similar amount 2 years after in Manchester.

Does anyone know when the first £1m flat was sold in Leeds?

Sports facilities of Manchester
Arena
Concert hall
Shopping centres like Manc
Development area like Spinningfields
Supertram

Thats six we can think of. Hopefully, all will come, but Supertram is the least likely.

Indeed, but that would be because Leeds is growing much faster than Birmingham...
leeds is bigger than manchester earlybird.

I'll tell you what, for the 9th largest city in the country, Manchester certainly punches well above it's weight, and puts those bigger than it well and truely to shame...

or maybe, the artificial political boundaries are not a very good way of determining the influence of an area, and what kind of infrastructure results in that region.

Maybe we should discuss the merits of Leeds, and it's increasing strength, rather than trying to pretend that Manchester is somehow off lesser imprtance and size to places such as Bradford.

leeds is bigger than manchester earlybird.
No, it's smaller by about 800,000 people. Why is it that you, BrumCulture and Harrogate #1 are the only people who seem to use a local authority boundary to measure cities yet a conurbation to measure London so you don't sound stupid saying it's the smallest in the UK?

ps60 - you gave the following examples of areas where Leeds lacks behind Manchester...


Sports facilities of Manchester
Arena
Concert hall
Shopping centres like Manc
Development area like Spinningfields
Supertram

Given that Manchester is still progressing (at quite a rate) with things such as the expansion of OT, new rugby stadia, large redevelpoments of major shopping centres (Arndale opening later this year), newer large office developments (Piccadilly Place) and tram expansion looking very likely, is it fair to say that no, Leeds it not catching up. Yes Leeds is developing, but, Manchester is also continuing full steam ahead, and continuing to pull away (in terms of developments) from other provincial cities?

Happy for some to give 5 examples of what Leeds has that Manchester 'needs', and areas that Leeds is pulling away in etc.

I thought that Manchester was bigger than Leeds?!

ps60 - you gave the following examples of areas where Leeds lacks behind Manchester...


Sports facilities of Manchester
Arena
Concert hall
Shopping centres like Manc
Development area like Spinningfields
Supertram

Given that Manchester is still progressing (at quite a rate) with things such as the expansion of OT, new rugby stadia, large redevelpoments of major shopping centres (Arndale opening later this year), newer large office developments (Piccadilly Place) and tram expansion looking very likely, is it fair to say that no, Leeds it not catching up. Yes Leeds is developing, but, Manchester is also continuing full steam ahead, and continuing to pull away (in terms of developments) from other provincial cities?

Happy for some to give 5 examples of what Leeds has that Manchester 'needs', and areas that Leeds is pulling away in etc.
I may not be able to give five examples, but I can certainly give one - lower crime rate.

Bitcher, ignore them, they are argueing about pointless political boundaries.

'Manchester' only has about 400k people living there, what most people see as Manchester though includes many of the other parts of Greater Mancester, making the population around 2m.

Brum has a very similar population, maybe slightly higher than that.

Leeds however is significantly lower, despite having around 750k people paying council tax to Leeds City Council, very few people in places such as Bradford consider themselves to be from Leeds.


This will no doubt attract a million replies from Leeds No1, EB and Brum culture, but that basically is the long and short of the reasons for this arguement.

ps60 - I agree, also less of a divide between rich and poor.

Over here we have a terrible divide, some of the poorest wards in the country (around Benchill in Wyenshawe, are less than 3 miles from some of the richest outside London - Hale in Altrincham.

Don't get me wrong, I am not saying Leeds is worse than Manchester, Manchester has some terrible faults.

LeedsLad,

Manchester conurbation - 2.3 million
Birmingham conurbation - 2.3 million
Leeds conurbation - 1.5 million

Be proud of your city, it really is going places and it's one of the best cities in Europe, but don't expect too much from it.

Earlybird, can you explain to me how you arrive at 1.5 million for Leeds conurbation. I hope you are not including Bradford.

No, it's smaller by about 800,000 people. Why is it that you, BrumCulture and Harrogate #1 are the only people who seem to use a local authority boundary to measure cities yet a conurbation to measure London so you don't sound stupid saying it's the smallest in the UK?
but what you never say is that you are talking about greater manchesters population which is not fair on leeds or anyone else.

Well you havbe to remember that both Birmingham and Manchester have always been major cities, always seen as much bigger than Leeds- until now. Leeds has grown immensley and still is. Most of the things Leeds needs, it is getting (or trying to), such as improved public transport ,arenas, more and better retail...ect. Leeds is gaining more flight and should continue to. Most people outside have only heard of Manchester because of Manchester United. I suppose some people will have heard of Leeds United, Headingley or Leeds Tykes...
Metro are planning more stations. Selfridges may move into the Harewood Quarter just as John Lewis have confirmed they will move into the Eastgate Quarter. Primark have also recently opened. There may be no national newspaper HQ in Leeds but it still has some international banks. By 2012, providing Leeds gets its facilites it could easily rival any other city.
On the word of tall buildings, Leeds is till 2nd I believe and for all we know Leeds could have a quick boom in proposals in the exact same way as Manchester. Leeds was in the lead with proposals before remember, it has a longer way to go than Manchester simply because Leeds has always been a smaller city.

Oh my god, back onto populations.

Tommygun, have a look at the infrastructure in Greater Manchester, it all centres on Manchester - i.e. a monocentric conurbation - largely continuous urban.

Compare this to West Yorkshire, a polycentric area, that is largey rural.

I don't think EB is actually using the strict GM figures - I guess you get to that figure using the ONS figures that count much of north Cheshire (Handforth etc) that is in the urban area, which infrastructure (e.g. buses etc) centre in on Manchester, and not places such as Wigan. Similar things cannot be said for Leeds and West Yorkshire.

P.S. I apologise for prolonging this, but look at http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/qbc_map2.pdf t see how GM is so based around Manchester, bet you cannot find a similar map for West Yorks.

Earlybird, can you explain to me how you arrive at 1.5 million for Leeds conurbation. I hope you are not including Bradford.
That's the conurbation population as published by ONS.

but what you never say is that you are talking about greater manchesters population which is not fair on leeds or anyone else.
No I'm not. I'm talking about the urban area. Greater Manchester in 2004 was 2.6 million, whereas the Manchester conurbation made up 2.3 million of that. The conurbation, that is the urban area, is the most fair definition of a city. Why do you think places like New York, London, Paris and Tokyo are so big? It's because their population figures are based upon the urban areas, not upon some ridiculous line somebody decided to draw through the middle of it for administrative purposes.

I bet in Commonwealth contries Yorks cricket are better known than Lancs.

Well techincally you should refer to them as West Midlands, Greater Mancehster and West Yorkshire, of which the pricnipal cities are Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
With nothing against Manchester or any of the other major cities, I believe that Leeds is the best of these places for living. I know these were just on TV programmes, but Leeds was not in the worst places to live or on the toughest towns. Its poorest ward is only 36th in the country. It is really easy to get to the Peak District and Yorkshrie Dales Natonal Park and some of the best scenery in England- it is quite a good city for living, considering its size, I would say it leads here. Alot of what is being built is what Manchester has got, but what is being built is in some cases what Manchester has got but also what it hasnt got. As long as it gets a move on, it can catch up with Manchester in the areas where it hasnt. The Airport probably wont for a long time though, thats about it.

Leeds No1, do you honestly think Leeds will ever compete with Manchester in terms of local public transport?

What about internation recognition? It may be one reason, but United are a massive reason, and contiuing to grow in size and recognition - I seriously doubt Leeds United will ever get anywhere near the same in terms of influence etc (any chance of extending the ground to 76k???)

Media being based in the city, BBC about to move 2000 people up here, already got Granada and a good few newspaper offices.

Yes Leeds is moving on, but lets not imagine that Manchester is standing still here, just as Leeds is struggling to start it's tram network Manchester is if anything pulling away in this area.

Well techincally you should refer to them as West Midlands, Greater Mancehster and West Yorkshire, of which the pricnipal cities are Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds.
Why should we? Do you hear people referring to the London conurbation as Greater London? Or New York as Greater New York? Or Tokyo as Greater Tokyo? No. The "Greater" bit should be used, as with places in North America, to refer to the metro area, not the conurbation. Even then, the conurbations cover different areas to the metropolitan counties.

No- what are you on about. Greater Manchester is the name given to that area, you know that.
I do think Leeds, and any city really, can be as good in Manchester in transport- to be totaly honest I think Glasgow is better than Manchester in transport, and Newcastle too.

The original question was 'Is Leeds playing catch up?'

The Manc version of the free-be Metro last Thursday had a couple of facts about Manc city centre living, would be very interested in the equivelent facts for Leeds...

It said 20k now live in the city centre, and the first £1m flat was sold in 2000 (Parsonage Gardens - I remember it well).

Would be very interested what the equivelent numbers are for Leeds, I'd imagine the population of Manchester city centre is probably growing faster than anywhere else even today.

Further to this, a big deficiency that Lioners seem to see with Leeds is the lack of trams, I'll confidently guess we'll have a network with 100 stops before you get the first, another example of where Leeds is not keeping pace?

Along with BBC moves, BoNY etc I'd suggest Leeds is not keeping pace.

Leeds No1, Glasgow, Newcastle, Liverpool (???) may all have superior public transport to Manchester, but that is nt what is being discussed.

Can you honestly see Leeds ever getting near a light rail system that Manchester will have - given that your 1st lines are not going to happen, and our 4th, 5th and 6th lines are likely to start soon?

They havent been cancelled yet. It'll just keep trying coz theres no other long term option. If it cant develop it gradually, itll be bigger. If it doesnt get this scheme then the next scheme will jsut be this one and another line because of demand by then.

No- what are you on about. Greater Manchester is the name given to that area, you know that.
I do think Leeds, and any city really, can be as good in Manchester in transport- to be totaly honest I think Glasgow is better than Manchester in transport, and Newcastle too.
The metropolitan county is called Greater Manchester, yes (then again London is really Greater London) but we weren't talking about metropolitan counties. We were talking about conurbations, which have completely different boundaries. What on all this earth are you talking about.

As for the comments about transport - ridiculous is all I can say.

Leeds No1, please don't embaress yourself with your lack of understanding on the subject of light rail - you are trying this with the wrong person - trust me.

Leeds's compulsary purchase orders run out soon, the government have not given te go ahead. Leeds will either be back to square one with the trams, or have to look for an alternative.

Compare this with Manchester, Labour manifesto said phase three would be funded, Tony Blair has said that it will go ahead, the funding has been confirmed (to a certain extent - £520, and the first part of the work, i.e. the upgrade work, is about to go out to tender).

Now how on earth, is this not Leeds losing ground to Manchester? Manchester was already ahead, and is continuing to pull away - even if by some miracle Leeds did get the go ahead (which it won't) you'll get a 30 stop network, we are getting a further 70 stops - how is this Leeds catching up?

The original question was 'Is Leeds playing catch up?'

The Manc version of the free-be Metro last Thursday had a couple of facts about Manc city centre living, would be very interested in the equivelent facts for Leeds...

It said 20k now live in the city centre, and the first £1m flat was sold in 2000 (Parsonage Gardens - I remember it well).

Would be very interested what the equivelent numbers are for Leeds, I'd imagine the population of Manchester city centre is probably growing faster than anywhere else even today.

Further to this, a big deficiency that Lioners seem to see with Leeds is the lack of trams, I'll confidently guess we'll have a network with 100 stops before you get the first, another example of where Leeds is not keeping pace?

Along with BBC moves, BoNY etc I'd suggest Leeds is not keeping pace.

Leeds had 6800 city centre residents in 2003 as reported by the City Council 2005 handbook. I'd expect that the population has risen up to about 7500 since then. The Council also believe that if all the schemes currently planned come to fruition, then the City Centre will eventually hold 25,000 people. That will obviously take sometime.

Leeds can't compare to Manchester / Greater Manchester in terms of infrastructure or current scale of development and investment.

Playing catch up it nothing to do with it. Leeds is developing and experiencing a rennaisance, however to try and compare it to other Northern cities demeans the entire process.

Nobody on these forums can provide an unbiased view, and it annoys me that a simple question like 'Is Leeds Playing Catch Up' spurns more pointless and boring point scoring.

P.S. Leeds' first £1m flat was sold in Merchants Quay in 2002 (rumoured to be sold to Julian Richer, of Richer Sounds fame).

I do like it when we stray onto my Mastermind specialised subject of light rail :-)

Public transport is the only area where its losing ground, but it doesnt mean it cant catch up is the basic point. If it did get its network, further extensions would almost immediateley be proposed to Bradford. It won't go for other options- what options could it take- every other option it does except road charging, all the others are more expensive. This is all down to one mans few words remember. I'd be interested to see how the bus and rail network compares, bearing in mind Leeds is a more compact city anyway.

Public transport is the only area where its losing ground, but it doesnt mean it cant catch up is the basic point. If it did get its network, further extensions would almost immediateley be proposed to Bradford. It won't go for other options- what options could it take- every other option it does except road charging, all the others are more expensive. This is all down to one mans few words remember. I'd be interested to see how the bus and rail network compares, bearing in mind Leeds is a more compact city anyway.
Only public transport??? What about sports facilities (SportCity, Old Trafford expansion, new Salford Reds stadium, new horse race course)? Or population? Or outside investment? Or construction? Or media? Or skyline? Or shopping (loads of new developments including massive expansions of both the Arndale and Trafford Centres)?

I'd put quite a bit of money on Leeds devoping a guided bus network instead of trams over the next 10 years.

Be interesting how successful it will be since no other city has really tried it.

Public transport is the only area where its losing ground, but it doesnt mean it cant catch up is the basic point. If it did get its network, further extensions would almost immediateley be proposed to Bradford. It won't go for other options- what options could it take- every other option it does except road charging, all the others are more expensive. This is all down to one mans few words remember. I'd be interested to see how the bus and rail network compares, bearing in mind Leeds is a more compact city anyway.
But you act like Manchester is just going to rest after phase 3. Phase 4 is already in planning, with lines through central Salford and into Stockport town centre amongst other places.

Leeds No1, you are probably right Leeds will catch up Manchester - a bit, with things like the arena - however, even in this case, your arena will be 13k compared to the 22k over here - so will never actually catch it up properly. Yes, Leeds will make up some ground, but only as it has a very low (if anything) base in some terms of infrastructure.

I'd be quite interested to know which parts of the Leeds infrastructure you think will catch up AND pass Manchester in say the next 20 years???

Airport?
Light rail?
City centre population?

Why is size such an issue? To me quality of life is much more important.
Yeah Manchester is bigger than Leeds cant argue with that but that does'nt make it a better place to live.

rich - read the first post in the thread, from a Lioner, the question was not about standard of life, but international profile, 24hr buses etc, something I think we have been discussing.

The size was kind of bought up by EB and BrumCulture being naughty.

eeeeeeeekkkkkkkkkk :eek2:


off for a beer, getting bored now :runaway:

Smart - I think you'll find I have actually posted several things where Leeds beats Manchester hands down - for example the rich poor divide.

Have a look who started this thread - a Lioner, it was simply asking a question that (I at least) have tried to answer honestly, without trying to wind up the Lioners on here.

Transport is in the governments hands, but that doesn't stop there from being a difference with how they are progressing, it doesn't matter that the money comes from central government, the fact remains that Manchester is much more likely to progress it's light rail plans than Leeds.

In what way is Leeds a victim of it's own success (genuine question)?

Well when I said the 'M' word, when asking if Leeds was playing catch up, I DIDN'T say:
Is Leeds playing catch up to Manchester, Salford, Stockport, Oldham, Sale, Stockport, Bury and Rochdale combined.
I said is Leeds playing catch up to Manchester on it's own
Otherwise we could include Castleford & Bradford etc
So FORGET all those places that merge in. I'm talking in terms of city v city.
Leeds leads the way in terms of parks (2nd greenest city in Europe), open country side, nightlife (just), local people, nicest centre.
I think it's a tie for shopping, and big business.
I mentioned where I think Leeds lacks at the 1st post.
Let the squabbles commence....

It is actually true, that Leeds is a victim of its own success. I already said that the airprot wont catch up for a long time, although it is likeley to improve its quality alot, maybe beyond Manchester, just not the size. The Arena in Leeds will not be as big as Manchesters, but it will be of a higher quality- one of the highest in Europe (so they say). Leeds' roads will improve- the city council have said they are putting money into resurfacing and improving many roads.

I'd put quite a bit of money on Leeds devoping a guided bus network instead of trams over the next 10 years.
I believe Leeds already has 2 guided busway lines. However, they're the old fashioned ones and not very good, not the fancy new electric Irisbuses like the one planned for Manchester-Leigh.

I think they were built in 1996 or 1997... I dont see why electric buses cant use them...

Fair enough Leeds Lad, if you want to compare the area that MCC control and the area that LCC control then it may be different - but I'd suggest that is rather irrelevant.

If you do compare Manchester will appear to have far far too much infrastructure / facilities for it's size - due to the geography of the city and it's boundaries.

Well when I said the 'M' word, when asking if Leeds was playing catch up, I DIDN'T say:
Is Leeds playing catch up to Manchester, Salford, Stockport, Oldham, Sale, Stockport, Bury and Rochdale combined.
I said is Leeds playing catch up to Manchester on it's own
Otherwise we could include Castleford & Bradford etc
So FORGET all those places that merge in. I'm talking in terms of city v city.
Leeds leads the way in terms of parks (2nd greenest city in Europe), open country side, nightlife (just), local people, nicest centre.
I think it's a tie for shopping, and big business.
I mentioned where I think Leeds lacks at the 1st post.
Let the squabbles commence....
In that case, you have just made this thread a complete waste of time. It was quite interesting before. You cant make up your own rules and expect everybody to follow them, especially when they are wrong :ohno:

Leeds Lad, if you can produce a similar map to this one...

http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/qbc_map2.pdf

that shows W Yorks as monocentric as Greater Manchester then maybe it would be a worth while comparision, but as I guess you cannot, I'd suggest you should include the urban area around Manchester when comparing the facilities that a city has, especially as those services such as the 24hr buses, light rail etc cross from one bourgh to another.

Well when I said the 'M' word, when asking if Leeds was playing catch up, I DIDN'T say:
Is Leeds playing catch up to Manchester, Salford, Stockport, Oldham, Sale, Stockport, Bury and Rochdale combined.
I said is Leeds playing catch up to Manchester on it's own
Otherwise we could include Castleford & Bradford etc
So FORGET all those places that merge in. I'm talking in terms of city v city.
Leeds leads the way in terms of parks (2nd greenest city in Europe), open country side, nightlife (just), local people, nicest centre.
I think it's a tie for shopping, and big business.
I mentioned where I think Leeds lacks at the 1st post.
Let the squabbles commence....
All the places that "merge in" ARE the city. Don't start being a clown and using a meaningless boundary for comparisons as it makes the thread pointless.

city

n 1: a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts

Or are you going to start using the foolish local authority definition for a city that some other people on this thread use? BTW, by that definition London is the smallest city in the UK.

It also make a joke of the comparision since much of "Manchester's" infrastructure crosses political boundaries - unlike in Leeds I'd suggest.

That's the conurbation population as published by ONS.

Sorry to come back with this issue of populations - but it is important in comparing cities and how they have been 'catching up' in relative terms.

The population of Leeds Metropolitan Borough is 715,000. That includes the urban area and more rural areas and small discrete towns like, Otley, Wetherby and Morley. It is impossible for the conurbation to be 1.5 million, whatever ONS says, and is probably nearer 0.5 million only.
Bradford, nine miles away, also contains rural areas and small towns like Shipley, Ilkley and Bingley and numbers only 467,000.

In terms of conurbation (that is continuous built up area ), Leeds is probably equivalent to Sheffield with 512,000.

It is easy to see how true these comparisons are by just looking at a good fairly large scale road map to see the relative built up areas.

This really shows how well Leeds is doing pro rata. :)

I think they were built in 1996 or 1997... I dont see why electric buses cant use them...
I would much prefer to see the new Irisbuses running along the Leeds guided busways than the current double deckers. The Irisbus is so great. Its like a metrotram on wheels.
With an overhaul, the Leeds guided bus system could be pretty good. Remodel the stations to be more like the Bradford ones, and plant trees along the routes so that they dont look like a concrete wasteland.

I didn't say the areas controlled by the council - I just mean that Salford is a city in it's own right - just as Bradford is. No one would normally count Bradford as part of Leeds, even though it merges in geographically.

Fred2 - I tend to agree - however, I don't want to be seen to be winding up some fellow Lioners.

Using Multimap, or Google earth you get an idea of the comparative sizes of the cities - and you are right, Leeds is doing exceptionally well for it's size - but comparing it to Manchester is similar to comparing Manchester to London (in my opinion).

aaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!! :eek2:

Leedslad - I take it you've never been to Manchester?

Would you consider Westminster City Council to be seperate from the City of London?

Oh so it seems Manchester has to go down the road of including all the outer towns all the time. I'm bored now, goin for a beer! PS not going to go to Wetherspoons in Middleton GREATER MANCHESTER again, visited it on Friday at 6pm, six women were fighting outside, what a dump! I'm so glad I live in little Leeds, bliss.
wow... nice to see such fantastic maturity coming from Leeds forumers :sleepy:

I agree, Middleton is a dump - 'The John Peel' is it?

But walking from Middleton to Manchester you don't leave urban area, but manage to pass tough Bury before entering Manchester (when going up passed Heaton Park).

An example of the difference between GM and WY.

As I said before, Leeds doesn't have the poverty that GM has, I'd include Middleton in the poorer areas of GM in that.

For MetroLink: http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/6C36F2BD-0290-45A3-B281-B05D91BB4BE3/0/MetroTrain2005.jpg

I didn't say the areas controlled by the council - I just mean that Salford is a city in it's own right - just as Bradford is. No one would normally count Bradford as part of Leeds, even though it merges in geographically.
What a load of rubbish.

Salford city centre is in Manchester! Manchester United play in Trafford! The "Manchester" leg of X Factor took place in the Lowry hotel, Salford! The Salford Triathlon took place in Salford, Trafford and Manchester! The "Museum of the Manchesters" is in Tameside! The places are completely integrated.

Bradford, on the other hand, has it's own city centre, it has it's own commuters, it's a completely separate place.

hhhmmmmmmmm......................................boring!!!



Go back to your wonderful Manchester threads.

Leeds lad - buses not trains - as has been discussed to death previously, train lines are very historical and tend to cover very rural areas - I could similarly produce maps like that suggesting the whole country is based around either London, Brum, Crewe or even York.

Buses have the advantage of only running where there is a population that requires them, therefore rural areas tend to cut off the routes.

See if you can find one that has buses routes from all around WY that centre in on Leeds - you cannot, since WY is made up of 6 different 'centres' for it's public transport. Have a look at the web site, you'll find it on there somewhere.

Often when people say Manchester they are getting confused and shortening 'Greater Manchester', which gives the impression that it is the city rather than the area. 'Greater Leeds' has been proposed and was said to stretch as far as York. If this was to happen I'm sure people would shorted 'Greater Leeds' to 'Leeds', but York would still be a separate city.

That's facinating Leeds Lad.

Are you suggesting that the urban area around Leeds city centre is home to as many people as the urban area around Manchester city centre?

Any better Metrolink? http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/CE2AAE23-2264-4059-B817-9864DAB24758/0/CrossBoundaryLftweb18Mar05.pdf

Not suggesting anything about populations, suggesting that people often shorten Greater Manchester to Manchester. However Manchester is a city in it's own right. Greater Manchester is an area including Manchester and other cities.

Often when people say Manchester they are getting confused and shortening 'Greater Manchester', which gives the impression that it is the city rather than the area. 'Greater Leeds' has been proposed and was said to stretch as far as York. If this was to happen I'm sure people would shorted 'Greater Leeds' to 'Leeds', but York would still be a separate city.
So you are of the opinion that London is the smallest city in the UK then? After all, what people call London is actually Greater London, a collection of metropolitan boroughs just like Greater Manchester. You are of the opinion that Wembley, Heathrow and the Houses of Parliament are not in London?

Leeds Lad, so how many buses in Marsden have city centre on the front meaning Leeds City centre?

Not suggesting anything about populations, suggesting that people often shorten Greater Manchester to Manchester. However Manchester is a city in it's own right. Greater Manchester is an area including Manchester and other cities.
Greater London is an area including London and Westminster. Are you suggesting people are wrong, that London should not be called London but instead should be called Greater London, meaning the UK's capital is one of the world's smallest cities (in fact it would need to be 13 times larger to qualify as a city in the US)?

Right, bed time.

Cannot believe I got dragged into this.

If you cannot see the difference between Manchester and Leeds with regards boundaries there is no point going on.

P.S. Leeds - http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=430000.406162103&Y=435000.453927169&width=700&height=400&gride=429828.406162103&gridn=433981.453927169&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=1&scale=200000

Manchester - http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?client=public&X=430000.406162103&Y=435000.453927169&width=700&height=400&gride=429828.406162103&gridn=433981.453927169&srec=0&coordsys=gb&db=freegaz&addr1=&addr2=&addr3=&pc=&advanced=&local=&localinfosel=&kw=&inmap=&table=&ovtype=&zm=1&scale=200000

Obvious that Leeds is nerly twice the size isn't it?

Night night

As London is a capital city it is completely different to a regional city

As London is a capital city it is completely different to a regional city
But London isn't the capital by your definition. The Government is actually based in the City of Westminster, not the City of London. Why, in your opinion, can London consist of multiple boroughs, NYC consist of multiple boroughs, Tokyo consist of multiple boroughs, Paris consist of multiple boroughs but Manchester cannot? Also, why should London be treated differently just because it is the capital? Does this not make the whole concept of a city meaningless?

I'm not saying Manc can't have boroughs - I will allow it (not that its up to me). All I am simply saying is that if Leeds is to be compared to anywhere, it has to be on a city v city basis, because Leeds is a city. If we are to compare Greater Manchester with anywhere it should be West Yorkshire - not Leeds on it's own. The difference is that West Yorkshire has countryside between cities and towns, unlike Greater Manchester which sprawls with little countryside - hardly desirable!

I'm not saying Manc can't have boroughs - I will allow it (not that its up to me). All I am simply saying is that if Leeds is to be compared to anywhere, it has to be on a city v city basis, because Leeds is a city. If we are to compare Greater Manchester with anywhere it should be West Yorkshire - not Leeds on it's own. The difference is that West Yorkshire has countryside between cities and towns, unlike Greater Manchester which sprawls with little countryside - hardly desirable!
That's not true though. Salford has no city centre, it shares it with Manchester. Trafford is nothing more than a suburb, consisting of nothing more than a couple of tiny commuter towns and Europe's largest industrial estate. Towns in Tameside like Denton and Droylsden are nothing more than large housing estates.

When I make comparisons of cities I do not compare all of Greater Manchester to the Leeds local authority. I compare the central urban areas of the two. If you look at the ONS figures the Manchester Urban Area (note Manchester, not Greater Manchester) consists of 2.3 million people, whereas the Leeds Urban Area (note Leeds, not West Yorkshire) consists of 1.5 million. This is undoubtably the most fair comparison. If you look at it, this is also the definition used for cities like NYC, London and Tokyo. The only people who use local authority boundaries are those who are desperate to make where they live seem better than it actually is.

Why is comparing urban areas not a comparison of cities anyway? The dictionary definition of a city is an urban area. The UK definition of a city is a place granted a charter by the monarch, but if you actually look at it Greater London (or London as people call it) doesn't have one.

This is fair enough - I can see why this is a fair measure - I am not speaking in terms of population though. I have no real preffered measure of what is or isn't a city. While I can see the sense of your measure, I also see the sense of using authority boundaries. Bradford council isn't likely to invest in something to improve Leeds.
Most of the things I suggested are located within Manchester City centre anyway - the centre of the tram network - the arenas etc.
Why are you so keen to count Salford as part of Manc anyway? Its a dump. Just like we dont want to be associated with Bradford

This is fair enough - I can see why this is a fair measure - I am not speaking in terms of population though. I have no real preffered measure of what is or isn't a city. While I can see the sense of your measure, I also see the sense of using authority boundaries. Bradford council isn't likely to invest in something to improve Leeds.
Most of the things I suggested are located within Manchester City centre anyway - the centre of the tram network - the arenas etc.
Why are you so keen to count Salford as part of Manc anyway? Its a dump. Just like we dont want to be associated with Bradford
Why am I so keen to count Salford? Because it's getting massive regeneration, it's home to Salford Quays, the Imperial War Museum, the Lowry Gallery and will probably soon be home to four towers in the 150m+ range.

As for councils not investing in something to improve other areas, why do you think Manchester City Council is one of the prime sponsors of the Salford Triathlon?

Leeds is playing catch up to Manchester
Glasgow is playing catch up to Leeds
Liverpool is playing catch up to Glasgow
Newcastle is playing catch up to Liverpool
Birmingham isnt catching up to anybody because they are realy crap!!! and only deserve to come last.

Another atagonistic attitude by EB filtering onto somebody elses thread. For God's Sake, this is about how Leeds can catch up with Manchester, and EB can never let it lie if somebody mentions populations etc. Grow up, calm down and discuss the questions asked. Or fuck off back over Kinder Scout if you can't deal with it.

Another atagonistic attitude by EB filtering onto somebody elses thread. For God's Sake, this is about how Leeds can catch up with Manchester, and EB can never let it lie if somebody mentions populations etc. Grow up, calm down and discuss the questions asked. Or fuck off back over Kinder Scout if you can't deal with it.
You can't discuss how a city can "catch up" if you don't know what it has to start with. You can't know what it has to start with if you don't know the boundaries. If you are to set boundaries those boundaries must fairly represent the city in question. Surely this makes sense? Or can you not see the logic in measuring both with the same stick?

The original question...



I'm a Leeds lad, an immensely proud too. I would love Leeds to be Britains 3rd city (assuming Birmingham is 2nd based on it's sheer size). However the competition is fierce, and most of all from that awful city across the pennines beginning with 'M'.
In some respects, Leeds can claim to be better - but is Leeds playing catch-up in too many areas? I DON'T want this to turn into a row over which city is the better - just where Leeds needs to improve.
For a start I think we are lacking in public transport (trams, 24hr buses, more local train stations), arenas (we aint got one), stadia (no where to hold major finals), international flights, major shop brands (selfridges etc), media (no major national newspaper HQ and only regional BBC base), international profile (more people heard of Manc abroad) and looks like they've got more and taller buildings planned too!



to be honest Leedslad, the example you gave meant we had to compare the EB (and my) version of Manchester rather than the strict city boundaries.

For example, going through you list off comparisions...

Public transport - public transport doesn't simply stop at a political boundary, the trams, 24hr buses and train stations are all planned for the whole conurbation of Manchester as opposed to just the bit that is ran by MCC. I'd there suggest that ignoring all public transport artuaries that go over the boarder into the continuous urban areas is important. For example, the Altrincham line of the Metrolink is entirely in Trafford (even Cornbrook which is actually right above to boarder - for those people who don't realise the situation in Manchester go and stand on Cornbrook, 10m to the left is Salford, you are in Trafford 10m in front is Manchester city centre). The Altrincham line brings in thousands of employees everyday into the city centre - yet you want to not include this in the comparision as it is not stricty in the part of Manchester that pay their council tax to MCC - not a fair comparision in my opinion.

Arena - well, virtually all arena's in Manchester (canot think off any anyway) are in the part of Manchester that pay council tax to MCC - so compare all you like, Leeds may be playing catch up here, but will never actually fully catch up.

Stadi - here is another example of the problems off defining Manc by political boundaries. Where was the 2003 champions League final held? Well according to UEFA etc is was in Manchester - that is what all the blurb said. Prior to the match, they always hold a ceromony at the local town hall to present the trophy to the local council leader - despite Trafford Town Hall being about 500m from Old Trafford, this ceromony was held in Manchester. Somehow, I reckon those thousands off Italians that turned up from Turin and Milan were totally unaware that they were not in Manchester when they watched that match, and the following day, Italian newspapers ran adverts thanking MANCHESTER and not Trafford for the hospitality.

International flights - Manc airport is inside Manchester CC area, and I don't think anyone really believes Leeds / Bradford will get anywhere near catching up Manc airport before oil runs out.

Major shops brands - I'll give you two examples, John Lewis's and Selfridges both claim to have two stores in Manchester - yet they actually have 0 and 1 respectively if you are going by your definition of Manchester. Have a look at their websites, and see how they describe their 'Manchester' shops, they don't differentiate between Trafford, Stockport and Manchester, they simply say they are in Manchester, 5 miles from the city centre. If John Lewis opened a store in Bradford, would they advertise it as in Leeds? I doubt it.

Media - again virtually all media is based in the city centre, and with the plannd 2000 extra BBC staff coming up here I think it is safe to say (again) that Leeds is actually falling further behind Manchester.

international profile - I'd suggest most people have heard of Manchester due to United, ironic really, they don't even play in Manchester - how are you going to take this into account when only considering the part of Manchester that pays taxes to MCC - they are getting an articial boost from Trafford. P.S. Away teams to OT tend to stay in The Lowry, ehich is in Salford, in Manchester city centre and play in Trafford!!!

Taller buildings - well yes, there are more in Manchester.



and finally, with reagards urban sprawl, looking at the figures - and population density maps, I think you'll find that the sprawl around Manchester is actually significantly more densely populated that that around Leeds, the reason it goes on so much more is simply due to the vast difference in size of the cities (EB definition).

This is fair enough - I can see why this is a fair measure - I am not speaking in terms of population though. I have no real preffered measure of what is or isn't a city. While I can see the sense of your measure, I also see the sense of using authority boundaries. Bradford council isn't likely to invest in something to improve Leeds.
Most of the things I suggested are located within Manchester City centre anyway - the centre of the tram network - the arenas etc.
Why are you so keen to count Salford as part of Manc anyway? Its a dump. Just like we dont want to be associated with Bradford

Because where as Leeds only conects with Bradford at certain points, and the only bit on continous devlopment is a thin strip through the countryside, Salford sits bang next to Manchester city centre, there is no counryside between them, and they are quite clearly connected, look on google earth and compare.

Brooklyn is a different city to New York (Manhattan) does that mean that when comparing London to New York we shouldn't include Brooklyn, The Bronx, Queens or Staten Island, because thy're all individual cities?

Personally I think Manchester should have one council that includes all its continous urban area, whilst all the seperate councils work well together, it could work much better as one unit, and if its official city population is 2 million like it should be, it would be easier to gain the international recognition as a major european city it deserves, not that it isn't doing this anyway, but it would just be simpler for it to be one city.

The UK does over complicate things with all the different types of local/regional government. I'd simplyfy the entire system if it was up to me,

Leeds is playing catch up to Manchester
Glasgow is playing catch up to Leeds
Liverpool is playing catch up to Glasgow
Newcastle is playing catch up to Liverpool
Birmingham isnt catching up to anybody because they are realy crap!!! and only deserve to come last.

PMSL! How in God's name is Glasgow playing catch up to Leeds! Leeds has more tall buildings planned at the minute ( although not if Cheapside goes well ) but in terms of infrastructure and facilities Glasgow anihilates it. We are the largest shopping centre outside London ( with 30% more retail floorspace than Birmingham our nearest rival ), the largest rail network outside London, a vast bus and coach network ( 7000 buses a day go down Union street alone ) Glasgow Airport is considerally larger than Leeds/Bradford ( we also have Glasgow Prestwick Airport ), three football stadia seating over 50'000 people ( only city in Europe currently to have that ), Europes largest intergrated exhibition and conference centre, when Pacific quay is finished it will be Europes largest media campus ( BBC, STV and Channel 4 ), many newspapers are based in the city, its the third most visied city in the U.K after London and Edinburgh, Glasgow has a booming film/tv industry, is consistantly named the U.K coolest most fashionable city and one of the music hotspots in the world right now, Glasgow has over 70 parks just in the city boundary some on a scale Leeds can only dream of, our museams and art galleries are many and stunning, Glasgow is the fastest growing business tourism destination in Europe. All in all I'd say Leeds has a lot of catching up to do to even be considered to be Glasgow's equal.

Yes, I would agree that Glasgow is ahead of Leeds.

I find it interesting that some people (from the 'smaller' cities) seem to have this believe that their cities are in some way catching up, as if the 'bigger' cities are standing still.

As I hope I have made clear in post 86, I think if anything the gap is continuing to widen between the cities.

The only reason Salford is considered to be part of Manchester is because of Greater Manchester County, if there was Greater Leeds of Greater Birmingham (instead of West Midlands) every shop opening in Bradford would be "Selfridges shop in Leeds (Bradford town centre)".
By naming the county Greater Manstester automatically you include the whole metropolitan area. Salford and all towns around big economic centres like Manchester, Birmingham, Glasgow are influenced by them so it should exist a municipality named Greater Manchester (Greater Birmingham, Greater Glasgow etc.).
Then it would be much easier to create a Centralised development framework based on the real boundaries (economic influence) and not just the political boundaries (city).

I like Leeds a lot, its modern and prosperous city with many exciting new developments but its never going to catch up with Manchester, Birmingham or Glasgow - they are simply too far ahead. In terms of transport infrastructure there just will never be the money to build a system to compare to Manchester or Glasgow - if you wanted to duplicate the M8 through Glasgow for example it would probably cost £4 - 5 billion, then you need to add a subway and build many new rail lines etc etc. I dont want to sound like I'm being critical of Leeds but if you just look at the transport infrastructure it is just so far behind Glasgow or Manchester. So what Leeds needs to catch up is a fair question but it will never happen. I also agree that Manchester is pulling away from Leeds in terms of development, I think Birmingham and Glasgow are too and Liverpool will start too aswell.

Leeds No1 - you are ignoring the massive difference in the reality of the situation though.

Greater Manchester has one centre, the economic power of the central area of Manchester and Salford is mile more important that any other part of the area.

Leeds and Bradford, although not the same in size are two very distinct centres, as is Wakefield, Halifax Huddersfield etc. There is no way you could consider Huddersfield to be as much a part of Leeds as say Sale being part of Manchester.

If you think that the only difference is the name you are very very mistaken.

What percentage of buses in Huddersfield have 'City Centre' on the front and head to Leeds city centre? Any?

Compare and contrast to the infrastrcuture in the area around Manchester, and that around Leeds. There is simply no comparision - all roads lead to Manchester over here (literally), the same is not the case over in West Yorks, which has a very polycentric geography.

I'll try and find the DfT document that describes Greater Manchester as a large urban area with one main economic hub, whilst West Yorks is a semi rural county with many centres.

I'm not sure that this is the best use of anyone's time, is it?

Manchester is a very different city physically, so there's a problem with the question itself. Personally, it only interests me how Leeds develops in the next few years within itself rather than against completely different entities. Manchester is a fantastic city and leads the way in regional development, this should be an inspiration to all of us, not a source of despair.


As far as I'm concerned, instead of this internecine conflict, i would like to see UK provincial cities try to achieve something on the world stage, to prove there is more to this island than the efforts of those in the smoke. To be able to hold on to the best and brightest so that the quality of life and the scale of acheivement is something to be proud of. For all the talk of office blocks and conference venues, schools are the most important resources a city has, and in those terms, all our major cities are underperforming generally.

there's other types of infrastructure...

in terms of backbone for the uk both are 10gb/s centres for the uk janet, but with the warrington centre having more networks connected to it as well as being part of the janet test network where leeds isn't.
Leeds is finally getting some LLU action too and could see 8mb/s dsl services without the need for being on bt's network.

I do know that C&W have a big backbone in manchester and a smaller network in leeds.

Leeds does have a growing tech economy (I work for the company that invented the commercial vehicle tracking market!) too...

What percentage of buses in Huddersfield have 'City Centre' on the front and head to Leeds city centre? Any?


All buses in west yorkshire specify the destination. 'Leeds City Bus Station' or 'Leeds Interchange'. Some might say 'Huddersfield Town Centre'. The buses dont mean much anyway- here all buses heading into Harrogate say 'Harrogate' not 'Town Centre'.

http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/6C36F2BD-0290-45A3-B281-B05D91BB4BE3/0/MetroTrain2005.jpg
The rail network across West Yorkshire is also centred around Leeds. Its a bit different in West Yorkshire anyway, there are 2 major cities in West Yorkshire, and only 1 in Greater Manchester (I dont see Salford as a major city)

If the supertram goes ahead and then extends into Bradford it will still centre around Leeds.

Who operates the majority of buses in Manchester too.
http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/yorkhumber/leeds/home/index.php

Stagecoach operate the majority of buses in Manchester.

So, how many of those buses in Huddersfield have Leeds City Centre on the front then?

I'm not sure that this is the best use of anyone's time, is it?

Manchester is a very different city physically, so there's a problem with the question itself. Personally, it only interests me how Leeds develops in the next few years within itself rather than against completely different entities. Manchester is a fantastic city and leads the way in regional development, this should be an inspiration to all of us, not a source of despair.


As far as I'm concerned, instead of this internecine conflict, i would like to see UK provincial cities try to achieve something on the world stage, to prove there is more to this island than the efforts of those in the smoke. To be able to hold on to the best and brightest so that the quality of life and the scale of acheivement is something to be proud of. For all the talk of office blocks and conference venues, schools are the most important resources a city has, and in those terms, all our major cities are underperforming generally.

Amen to that.

Why is everyone so concerned about proving their city is the biggest? Who cares as long as you are happy where you live? I lived in Manchester till I went to university and then went on to Leeds where I continue to live.

I could of chosen to go back to Manchester but I chose not to, not because I thought Leeds was bigger, but because I was happier there. And that by no means is meant to suggest that Leeds would be better for everyone, it just worked out better for me.

All Leeds forumers trying to prove Leeds is bigger than Manchester consider this -

One of the best things about Leeds is its compact size. Outside rush hour you can be free of the city centre in less than quarter of an hour. On a night out you can walk from one end of the city centre to the other in about ten minutes, rather than getting a taxi. It's easier to know where you are than in a bigger city.

And finally, (and to my mind as a skyscraper fan, this is fantastic) its compact nature helps Leeds skyline look all the more impressive through the dense concentration of its high rise buildings, something which could become even more true in the future.

Let's focus on the positives of each other's cities and compare them not to each other, but to the rest of Europe. UK plc is in very healthy shape at the moment when compared to our neighbour countries as is evident from the shiny tower cranes dominating our skylines, and with each passing year regional cities like Manchester and Leeds become more and more cosmopolitan. Infrastructure and facilities will improve as part of this.

Leeds isn't playing catch up with bigger cities. For its size it has all the facilities it needs. Bigger doesn't always mean better, but it doesn't always mean worse either, just bigger!!!

I'm not sure that this is the best use of anyone's time, is it?

Manchester is a very different city physically, so there's a problem with the question itself. Personally, it only interests me how Leeds develops in the next few years within itself rather than against completely different entities. Manchester is a fantastic city and leads the way in regional development, this should be an inspiration to all of us, not a source of despair.


As far as I'm concerned, instead of this internecine conflict, i would like to see UK provincial cities try to achieve something on the world stage, to prove there is more to this island than the efforts of those in the smoke. To be able to hold on to the best and brightest so that the quality of life and the scale of acheivement is something to be proud of. For all the talk of office blocks and conference venues, schools are the most important resources a city has, and in those terms, all our major cities are underperforming generally.

Sound common sense! I agree with you completely about the difficulties the problem poses but I'm interested that nobody much has picked up until now the real issue of the relationship between Britain's provincial cities and London. The way I see it, we have moved backwards over the last century or so and an inbalance has developed. By the end of the 19th century, this country had seen the emergence of a group of cities made wealthy through commerce and manufacturing: Bristol, Birmingham, Coventry, Liverpool, Manchester, Bradford, Sheffield, Leeds, Hull, Newcastle, and Glasgow (and I've probably forgotten some). These, by and large, had displaced the older centres such as York and Norwich and produced a tremendous explosion in civic activity. Think of the town halls, churches, libraries, art galleries, markets, colleges and universities that were built and paid for out of this new wealth.

This physical development was the outward expression of a strong sense of pride and confidence, and I'm not sure that we have recaptured that though I hope we will. The word "provincial" is almost always used nowadays in a derogatory way because everything is focussed on London to an obsessive degree. That isn't, by the way, a criticism of London, merely an observation. If you recall that one reason why the Manchester bid for the Olympics failed was because nowhere outside the capital was considered to have the pull of London. That notion would sound bizarre in Germany or Spain where Munich and Barcelona hosted the Games. It would also be surprising to the inhabitants of the many cities in the rest of Europe which have retained that sense of indentity and self-worth that we've lost.

Also, you could equally produce such maps off York or Crewe - since as they historically are the hubs of railway networks.

Provide a map of the bus routes - actual bus routes as opposed to where buses run in general, that show frequent buses.

http://www.gmpte.com/pdfmaps/qbc_map2.pdf shows actual bus route, that run regularly, from every bourgh, straight into Manchester.

Leeds Lad posted one yesterday, but I get the impression that the routes signified were not for a particular single bus journey. For example, are there similar bus routes from Halifax and Huddersfield straight into Leeds like this - or is it more a case that the majority of bus route in Halifax actually stay with Halifax and head towards Halifax town Centre, as I suspect?

Leeds No1, be interested in your explanation in comparing the GMPTE map of the GM bus routes to the following...

http://www.wymetro.com/BusTravel/MapsAndGuides.htm

specifically these maps...

http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/C5EBBCA9-631E-48EC-814B-C8135B93D5C7/0/BradfordMap.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/A8975677-FF8B-4312-8FB0-ED2AB2B5C2A4/0/CalderdaleMap.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/9191A098-058D-405E-9C4C-A607E0B1FF0A/0/NKirkleesMap.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/E0C8830B-782F-4D74-A783-5B241543D40F/0/SKirkleesMap.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/9CF6E371-0C53-4B3C-89CD-D2CC4A02A665/0/LeedsMap.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/2FE790AD-FDD8-4A6B-B76E-4B6021EEAADF/0/WakefieldMap.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/4F65F4B8-FEC8-409E-AD5E-10998BA9944D/0/Ilkley.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/2FD35CAC-A23C-4B72-84F2-CCC201D28E06/0/Keighley.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/4FCEE887-C732-4B3A-8128-8CC02A04168D/0/Silsden.pdf
http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/DB702A3A-4D4A-4617-9902-31DE513B1D4A/0/SK_RuralSKirkleesMap.pdf



If you can show me where on those maps I should be seeing all the routes being centred on Leeds I'd be quite impressed.

or, go to http://www.gmpte.com/content.cfm?subcategory_id=102861

select the Manchester city centre bus station and look at the number of destinations servered that are outside the MCC boundaries.

Any chance of a similar list of places outside of Leeds that are servered by Leeds bus station?

there's other types of infrastructure...

in terms of backbone for the uk both are 10gb/s centres for the uk janet, but with the warrington centre having more networks connected to it as well as being part of the janet test network where leeds isn't.
Leeds is finally getting some LLU action too and could see 8mb/s dsl services without the need for being on bt's network.

I do know that C&W have a big backbone in manchester and a smaller network in leeds.

Leeds does have a growing tech economy (I work for the company that invented the commercial vehicle tracking market!) too...
If you're going to use technology to compare cities then London and Manchester are the only UK cities with international internet exchanges and transatlantic fibreoptic links. We also have the National Computing Centre. :)

and the two large global IT companies that I have worked for (IBM and Fujitsu) have significant offices in Manchester, but either nothing, or next to nothing in Leeds.

IT doesn't seem to be a very large industry in Leeds (not with the very large IT companies anyway).

This map and destination list shows all services (I think, except National Express) leaving Leeds City Bus Station, Leeds Station Interchange, Leeds Infirmary Street Bus Point, Leeds Corn Exchange Bus Point, Leeds Boar Lane Bus Point and the various bus stops around the Public Transport Box.

http://www.wymetro.com/NR/rdonlyres/0EA4CDD7-7ED2-41BA-84F0-2124BC9DE523/0/LeedsWTCYB.pdf

Not that many services actually go into the principal City Bus Station, many buses into it are from outside Leeds.

If you're going to use technology to compare cities then London and Manchester are the only UK cities with international internet exchanges and transatlantic fibreoptic links. We also have the National Computing Centre. :)

However Leeds claims to have a larger internet sector than London, which would suprise me seeing as Leeds was the first UK city to have full internet coverage.

Leeds No1 - do you (alone) really fail to see the difference between Manchester and Leeds or are you simply on a really bad wind up?

The several links I showed at the top of this page all showed how 'independent' each area of W Yorks is, this is simply not the case in Manchester.

Do you honestly beleive the intregration of the West Yorks areas to be anywhere near to as close as those over in Manchester?

If so, I hope that the Harrogate Education system improves soon.

eb: I thought I'd mention it since everyone was going silly over buses, trams n trains that there are other places that leeds is bigger than most in the uk but still needs to catch up with the likes of london and manchester. LLU kicking off could well be the boost leeds needs :)
Hell, I have my own plans for opening up my wifi network and become my own mini isp :)

I think leeds is doing well for starting it's own companies in IT rather than attracting already large firms (which I would prefer).. energis has changed hands again (currently running the backbone that used to be the planet, which was one of the largest core backbones in the uk... I've not looked at it's stats since about 98/99..)

I never said Leeds' transport system was as good as Manchesters, but I said it had potential to become as good as it- well so do most places. West Yorkshire has more places or bigger importance than Greater Manchester (nameley Leeds and Bradford) so in West Yorkshire is makes more sense and is better for commuters to be able to go direct to Bradford instead of going to Leeds to go to Bradford, unlike in Manchester where for most journeys you will have to go into Manchester to come back out, in general.

http://www.uksfavouritecity.com/PDFs/FactSheets.pdf Also this is why Leeds' isnt really catching up, and in some areas already does better. All of these are facts, so theres no debate over it, but they are there to attract people to the city so they're written to make them look as good as possible, but the basic fact is true.

I agree Leeds No1 - Leeds certainly is ahead of Manchester in certain things - e.g. dvide between poor and rich.

Your pdf link seems to be comparing the MCC area with the LCC area.

A good idea? Maybe, especially should you want to 'big up Leeds', but an accurate representation of the infrastructure, and economy of an area? Most probably not.

Well it obviously doesnt show the ban things to balance it out because then it wouldnt be effective in attracting people but I'm sure any city trying to attract businesses would do this too, so it does provide an accurate representation of the area as long as whoever looks at it researches the bad too.

Indeed, and I don't think that anyone on this web site has not said that there is not lots for Leeds to be proud off - that pdf highlights some off them very well.

I don't think we actually disagree much here you know, I simply think you take the view given in the pdf, and are maybe a little blinded by your hatred towards Manchester about the reality of the situation over the Pennines, with regards the actual make up of the city, and how this compares to Leeds, but also, the fact the Manchester is continuing to grow, just as Leeds is, if not more so.

Well here I hear more about Leeds than any other city, just like most people in this area where Leeds is the capital of the region- just as you probably hear more about Manchester than Leeds. I dont really have a view of the world that everything is great in Leeds, seeing as its not my favourite city but its proximity to me generates an interest. I have lived in Sri Lanka and in the South and been to most places in the UK. Ill hopefully be able to get a more updated view of Birmingham later this week when I visit, and Ill have a look in Leeds after and compare to see how much, if any, it has in the obvious catching up (aka things an untrained visitor would see).

Wow my simple question led to all this squabbling!! Is every thread like this?
I think the basic flaw in my question 'Is Leeds playing catch up to Manchester', is the definition of each city.
Leeds is pretty easy to define - there seem to be no problems with that. Roughly speaking we can define 'Leeds' as being bound by the A1, M1, M62, Bradford boundary to the left and as far as the Airport to the North.
Defining 'Manchester' has proved a little more tricky, as the last 100 posts have proven!!
Given, Manchester is geographically different to Leeds. Leeds is a stand-alone city, whilst Manchester and the neighbouring cities/towns have sprawled through history to merge into one large urban area.
My original thought was to compare the actual city centres (as this is where most developments/attractions/transport hubs are located), but to also include other things such as maybe airports which are located outside the city centre, but associated with the city.
I guess this will lead to endless squabbling so let battle commence....

Leeds No1. - Maybe you should try and take more notice off other places then, only when you have knowledge others do you have a true understanding off yourself (on many levels).

P.S. If you freely admit you don't know much about what is going on in Manc etc, why do you make repeated claims about the relevant status off each location?


Leedslad - to be fair, I think virtually everything mentioned about Manchester, except the airport and sports stadia are city centre - and to be fair, you did ask about transport and stadia in the initial question.

I didnt say I didnt know much about it, I did say I knew more about Leeds though. Its not like I havent been to Manchester. Infact I went there 2 months ago, which isnt that long considering Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield are all closer- well Im not sure about Sheffield, but its quicker to get to.

Leeds certainly offers a better shopping environment even if at this time the shops arent as good, in some peoples opinions. Primark has recently opened though, and more shops are likely to open by Christmas probably along The Headrow, Manchester needs to catch up in providing a larger pedestrianised shopping area. Leeds' City Centre also offers the advantage of having the station and bus routes coming so close to the shopping core and by of course having the markets which is certainly unique to Leeds. It may also be an advantage that the city centre is defined by the riverside and inner ring road and that inside here each quarter is defined. Leeds also has the advantage of being able to provide development space so close to the already important areas- It is a suprise that areas like Quarry Hill, Eastgate/Harewood and the Riverside havent already been developed. The proximity of each skyscraper along the Riverside and around some areas of the inner ring road corridor means its skyline will probably end up looking quite clustered and dense, which is already showing despite having no properley tall buildings.

Leeds No1 - in post 39 you state...


Public transport is the only area where its losing ground...


Whereas in 113 you suggest you are not very up to speed on the other cities.

Presumably to make that comment in post 39 you must have a fair grounding on what is happening over here, such as the BBC moves, Metrolink expansion, BoNY, Spinningfields etc, or did you make that comment in ignorance?

Also, you also state...


I dont really have a view of the world that everything is great in Leeds, seeing as its not my favourite city but its proximity to me generates an interest.


Out of interest, qhat is your favorite city then?

Metro - that is exactly my point - I was trying to stop all the irrelevant squabbling over what is/isn't a city, which city is bigger blah blah etc etc.
I am trying to refocus the thread on the original question, by defining what I meant by Leeds and Manc.

Well, no then, Leeds is not catching Manchester.

Manchester has loads more developments in the pipeline, the projected population of the city centre is already miles higher, and will contiue to grow at a faster rate, companies such as the BBC are moving lots off well paid jobs to the city centre, and there is something in the region of 5m sq ft off office space currently required to fill the expected demand over the next few years - all city centre stuff that Leeds cannot get close to.

So, in answer, no Leeds is not catching up, but is still doing very well all the same.

I'm not sure its possible to talk of a city being way ahead of another. Everyone will have different criteria.

For example, to throw a spanner in the works of who's 'ahead' in terms of regenration, there are a few city centre streets in Manchester lined with empty buildings, that's not really the case in Leeds due to its smaller city centre. :dunno:

Metro - that is exactly my point - I was trying to stop all the irrelevant squabbling over what is/isn't a city, which city is bigger blah blah etc etc.
I am trying to refocus the thread on the original question, by defining what I meant by Leeds and Manc.
Its pointless. Either way you set out the rules, there will always be some people who will disagree.
If you had it as the actual borough of Manchester against Leeds, there would be some claiming it is unfair (and it is) because the political borough only makes up a small part of the actual city.
If you had it as the more common definition of Manchester (the conurbation), you would get Loiners saying that it isnt fair because some believe that the political boundary marks the end of the city.
Whatever way you try it, you are still going to get this same old debate.
Over the past year since the whole incident in the Rate No.1 Deansgate thread, I cant remember a single city comparison thread in the UK forum which hasnt involved political boundaries.

I didnt say I didnt know much about it, I did say I knew more about Leeds though. Its not like I havent been to Manchester. Infact I went there 2 months ago, which isnt that long considering Leeds, Bradford and Sheffield are all closer- well Im not sure about Sheffield, but its quicker to get to.

Leeds certainly offers a better shopping environment even if at this time the shops arent as good, in some peoples opinions. Primark has recently opened though, and more shops are likely to open by Christmas probably along The Headrow, Manchester needs to catch up in providing a larger pedestrianised shopping area. Leeds' City Centre also offers the advantage of having the station and bus routes coming so close to the shopping core and by of course having the markets which is certainly unique to Leeds. It may also be an advantage that the city centre is defined by the riverside and inner ring road and that inside here each quarter is defined. Leeds also has the advantage of being able to provide development space so close to the already important areas- It is a suprise that areas like Quarry Hill, Eastgate/Harewood and the Riverside havent already been developed. The proximity of each skyscraper along the Riverside and around some areas of the inner ring road corridor means its skyline will probably end up looking quite clustered and dense, which is already showing despite having no properley tall buildings.
Manchester has loads of pedestrianised shopping areas, has a square bound by the Printworks, Arndale Centre and the Triangle, not to mention Metrolink lines running through the city centre. And not only have I been to Manchester, I have been into quite a few pubs and bars there - in the Printworks (bars like Norwegian Wood, Hard Rock Cafe, Lucid etc), the Zinc Bar and Grill, the Wellington (I think next to the oyster bar), where theres a nice square with tables and chairs - very pleasant on a sunny day.

Manchester has some pedestrianized shopping aeras- so do most places but I still think that in the way of a pedestrian shopping environment Leeds wins.
I prefer London and Glasgow above Leeds even though I would prefer to live in Leeds as it easily has the highest standard of living overall. And I do know about the BBC moves, Spinnigfields, but its nothing which cant be equivalated by Leeds. Leeds will hopefully have its own equivalent of Birmingham's Bullring by 2010. Anyway Im going out, dont expect any more replies tonight.

I'm not a big fan of pedestrianisation. It gives a place a very smalltown provincial feel to it. Pedestrianisation also contributes to the cloning effect in city/town centre streets.
Briggate is quite nice, but a lot of Leeds' shopping streets are pretty dull and look like a street I could see in Chorley or Blackburn. I prefered the traffic carrying streets around City Square and the Financial Quarter a lot more.

OK forget the last line of the last post, Ill just get people to come here.
Anyway, while the general pedestrianization thing might not be to everyones taste, it still is better and more practical. It means that more people can be on one street and for somewhere like Briggate, it was meant to be pedestrianized from the beginning. It clears the street from alot of pollution too. Leeds still has busy roads as shopping streets. The Headrow is one of the bigger ones obviously, which will grow in its retail importance alot over the next few years. Vicar Lane and Boar Lane are other examples. Its not so much an advantage of the look, as its not to everyone's taste, but for praticality and for the benefit of the shops and environment.

I'm not a big fan of pedestrianisation. It gives a place a very smalltown provincial feel to it. Pedestrianisation also contributes to the cloning effect in city/town centre streets.
Briggate is quite nice, but a lot of Leeds' shopping streets are pretty dull and look like a street I could see in Chorley or Blackburn. I prefered the traffic carrying streets around City Square and the Financial Quarter a lot more.

Yeah, you've said that before but i don't agree. The Headrow doesn't fit that description, nor does King Edward Street. Commercial Street and Lands Lane are small-scale but quaint, and a lot more chracterful and interesting to shop in than tall anonymous streets in Brum, or in Chorley for that matter.


Come on, what are you talking about? It could be Venice. :cheer:

http://people.nit.ca/~dcoombs/ukuug2004/200408/img_9958_sm.jpg


http://people.nit.ca/~dcoombs/ukuug2004/200408/img_9970_sm.jpg

Sorry, too much coffee.

True story. Talking to a guy from China today and making big claims for the north. He asked me if there was anything famous in Leeds.
I deliberated for a very long time before answering with the words - Kirkstall Abbey.

Kirkstall Abbey? :gaah:

Well I dont think those pictures do as much justice as possible for pedestrian Leeds. I can't think of anything really famous in Leeds-some famous people though... Headingley is kinda well known...

Wonder how many people in China know much about cricket or rugby?

di livio - having had a couple more hours to think about it have you come up with a better answer yet?

Yeah, you've said that before but i don't agree. The Headrow doesn't fit that description, nor does King Edward Street. Commercial Street and Lands Lane are small-scale but quaint, and a lot more chracterful and interesting to shop in than tall anonymous streets in Brum, or in Chorley for that matter.


Come on, what are you talking about? It could be Venice. :cheer:

http://people.nit.ca/~dcoombs/ukuug2004/200408/img_9958_sm.jpg


http://people.nit.ca/~dcoombs/ukuug2004/200408/img_9970_sm.jpg
It certainly wouldn't be Preston, though. :no: :D

Those streets arnt much different to Preston's pedestrianised streets, or anywhere elses.

Just thought off something Leeds may be famous for...





















It is...



























only...































30miles from Greatness :)

http://www.ukuug.org/events/linux2004/leeds/Albion_Place.jpg

http://www.biology.leeds.ac.uk/assets/Briggate.jpg

http://img1.travelblog.org/Photos/2154/5951/t/21877-View-of-Leeds-City-Centre-0.jpg

http://www.corecities.com/coreDEV/images/leeds_shopping.jpg

You don't find these sort of pedestrian streets in other towns and cities...

Just thought off something Leeds may be famous for...

It is...

only...

30miles from Greatness :)

Oh good lord. Do I have to do this again. Jimmy Saville, Emmerdale, Just Us, Kay Mellor, Vera Duckworth off Corrie, bloke who married Liv Tyler, Peter O'Toole, Alan Bennett, Willis Hall, that shocking C4 show about nurses. I could go on.......and I will....here's a list from a myleeds website. Bloody depressing reading.

Actors & Actresses
Elizabeth Dawn (mad)
Emmerdale (populated by models and mental cases)
Gaynor Faye (big mouth)
John Simm (plays druggies)
Peter O'Toole (alcoholic)
Vic Reeves (alcoholic and loon)

Musicians
Chumbawamba (anarchists)
Mel B (musical anarchist)
Sisters Of Mercy (loud)
The Music (never heard of them)
The Wedding Present (dated)
Utah Saints (did a cover of Sesame street theme tune)
Robert Palmer (dead)
Royston Langdon (married to Liv Tyler, rubbish band)

Media
Chris Moyles (fat)
Jeremy Paxman (obnoxious)
Jimmy Saville (barking, but loves his Mum, who's dead)
Jude Kelly (creative, but decamped to London)
Kay Mellor (big mouths mum, large)
Linda Barker (oh shit.....)
Michael Parkinson (arms crossed, inoffensive questioning, crinkled)
Richard Whiteley (dead)
Justine Sellman (never heard of her, oh lawd, quick google shows she was on Big Brother 2005. this is low, so low.)

Writers & Artists
Alan Bennett (droll)
Andrew Morton (pedaller of celebrity trash)
Barbara Taylor Bradford (glossy)
Damian Hirst (overrated taxidermist)
Helen Fielding (made women even more incomprehensible than ever)

Business & Politics
Henry Moore (dead, but has a sculpture park off the M1)
Marco Pierre White (t$%t)
Sir Ken Morrison (control freak).

Who said we need to play catch up. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Before anyone gets upperty, I'm being flippant, facetious and trying to highlight that this thread has more posts than the Venture Tower thread - now that is crazy what's going on!

You missed Verbalcious, Kaiser Chiefs, Nell McAndrew. Does Science BB count- I guess hes famous for the time being.

You missed Verbalcious, Kaiser Chiefs, Nell McAndrew. Does Science BB count- I guess hes famous for the time being.

oh good heavens No.1 - it was meant to be ironic.

I know it was lol! But they're bigger than most those people

I dont think Leeds should need to worry about catching up, if it does need to anyway. Obviously if theres a debate about it people are unsure and 1/2 of the 'new Manchester' and a possible area where it needs to catch up is after the result of a bomb. I think its fair to say Leeds is ahead of Liverpool in what it can and will be able to offer, and I dont really know about Birmingham. Similar sorta thing to Manchester I guess, even though Birmingham is much bigger. Other than size, most of what Leeds needs to catch up with Birmingham are already proposed or under construction...

I started reading this thread and it went downhill from the very first post. So, I can't be arsed reading much more.

Why the fuck do we concern ourselves with this petty city v. city BULLSHIT?

Privately I have opinions about all of our cities, but I don't try and piss everyone else off by saying them. On a positive note, they all have something unique to offer.

In case any of you haven't noticed, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Leicester, Birmingham, Newcastle, Ashby-de-la-fucking-Zouch (no offence) are ALL trying to play catch up with the capital.

London is possibly the world's richest city, and good luck to it. Nowhere else in Britain comes anywhere close just yet, but in 20 or 30 years time, the gap WILL have closed.

And in 20 or 30 years time, there'll still be people moaning on about how Leeds isn't quite Birmingham, and people will still be boring us with their anti-Manchester drivel.

Grow up.

di livio - having had a couple more hours to think about it have you come up with a better answer yet?

Of course not. :dunno:

di livio - asked the wife yesterday - she reckons Emmerdale.

Oh good lord. Do I have to do this again. Jimmy Saville, Emmerdale, Just Us, Kay Mellor, Vera Duckworth off Corrie, bloke who married Liv Tyler, Peter O'Toole, Alan Bennett, Willis Hall, that shocking C4 show about nurses. I could go on.......and I will....here's a list from a myleeds website. Bloody depressing reading.

Actors & Actresses
Elizabeth Dawn (mad)
Emmerdale (populated by models and mental cases)
Gaynor Faye (big mouth)
John Simm (plays druggies)
Peter O'Toole (alcoholic)
Vic Reeves (alcoholic and loon)

Musicians
Chumbawamba (anarchists)
Mel B (musical anarchist)
Sisters Of Mercy (loud)
The Music (never heard of them)
The Wedding Present (dated)
Utah Saints (did a cover of Sesame street theme tune)
Robert Palmer (dead)
Royston Langdon (married to Liv Tyler, rubbish band)

Media
Chris Moyles (fat)
Jeremy Paxman (obnoxious)
Jimmy Saville (barking, but loves his Mum, who's dead)
Jude Kelly (creative, but decamped to London)
Kay Mellor (big mouths mum, large)
Linda Barker (oh shit.....)
Michael Parkinson (arms crossed, inoffensive questioning, crinkled)
Richard Whiteley (dead)
Justine Sellman (never heard of her, oh lawd, quick google shows she was on Big Brother 2005. this is low, so low.)

Writers & Artists
Alan Bennett (droll)
Andrew Morton (pedaller of celebrity trash)
Barbara Taylor Bradford (glossy)
Damian Hirst (overrated taxidermist)
Helen Fielding (made women even more incomprehensible than ever)

Business & Politics
Henry Moore (dead, but has a sculpture park off the M1)
Marco Pierre White (t$%t)
Sir Ken Morrison (control freak).

Who said we need to play catch up. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it!

Before anyone gets upperty, I'm being flippant, facetious and trying to highlight that this thread has more posts than the Venture Tower thread - now that is crazy what's going on!
Michael Parkinson's from Barnsley.

Michael Parkinson's from Barnsley.


and supports United (Manchester version).

and supports United (Manchester version).
He supports Barnsley. Carry on with your boring shite. I enjoy reading the development threads on here, but this sort of thread has been done over and over again for the past year. Fucking Groundhog day.

You don't find these sort of pedestrian streets in other towns and cities...
No, you don't... :crazy:

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/exchange-square.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/arndale.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/half-moon-chambers.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/stanns-square.jpg

I like St. ann's square, but the second photo's pretty grim.

:goodbye:

Well the last picture is pretty poor. The 3rd pic down is OK but I can think of places in other towns that look like that, the other 2 are surrounded by modern buildings which any city can do and what the Bullring in Birmingham equivilates to and what the Harewood and Eastgate Quarter will provide. The street furniture in all those streets looks very average.
How many cities have continuous Edwardian Architecture retaining nearly every original feature and with recreated shop fronts instead of mixmatch shop logos and names, clearly shown in the 3rd picture.

Here are a few more pedestrian areas I took photos of then...
http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/canalst-2.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/chethams2.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/gn.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/town-hall.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/albert-square.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/police-st.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/picc-gardens2.jpg

http://eb.cx/q2/2005-08-20/hardman-boulevard.jpg

Well the last picture is pretty poor. The 3rd pic down is OK but I can think of places in other towns that look like that, the other 2 are surrounded by modern buildings which any city can do and what the Bullring in Birmingham equivilates to and what the Harewood and Eastgate Quarter will provide. The street furniture in all those streets looks very average.
How many cities have continuous Edwardian Architecture retaining nearly every original feature and with recreated shop fronts instead of mixmatch shop logos and names, clearly shown in the 3rd picture.
Seriously, who cares? It makes the place look extremely provincial and dated. I'd much rather have what we have thank you very much. We have some of the best pedestrianised areas in the UK and the plans are to pedestianise another large section of the city centre soon.

LN1, Leeds does have a terrific city centre, but you've got to admit, Manchester's blows Leeds away. I don't need EBs pictures to tell me that, just go to Manchester, have a good nosey around, and see for yourself. It would be hard to imagine that any other city centre outside London is better than Mancs, and it would be hard to imagine that more goes off in any other city centre outside London than Manchesters.

So why post them if you dont care... Not every thread is about Manchester, you'd prolly win the award for ruining the most threads if there was one.

jesus, is this still going on? it's depressing enough for me to read it, i don't know what it must be like for you poor buggers that are writing it all.

something famous about leeds, that Manchester doesnt have!


Sheep shaggers :)

Shouldn't this thread read 'Leeds and Manchester slag each other off thread'?

PS It's the welsh that shag sheap!!

Shouldn't this thread read 'Leeds and Manchester slag each other off thread'?

PS It's the welsh that shag sheap!!

Lets not slag each city off. Both Leeds and Manchester are great cities but there is little doubt Manchester is a country mile ahead of all outside London.

It's not just the Welsh that shag sheep, there are two brothers in Seacroft that were convicted of the very crime last year.

Lets not slag each city off. Both Leeds and Manchester are great cities but there is little doubt Manchester is a country mile ahead of all outside London.



Quite right, Born in the North. I am getting weary of all this silly rivalry. Manchester is much larger than Leeds and is ahead in very many ways. Yet, pro rata, Leeds is doing very well - and promises better !

Maybe we should all accept that Manchester is the greatest city in the world (far larger than New York et al and leeds is merely a small fishing village in comparison. This will then hopefully stop all this bull shit and people can get back to supporting the city and not bending over and taking this from Manchester. Regardless of what developments etc have happenend in Manchester it is still Manchester!!!!

Typhoo - quite the opposite, not sure why you are getting so flustered about this discussion.

You has made claims that you disagree with? I think you'd get your point across much more succinctly if you actually address the comments you disagreed with than agruing points that no one is actually making.

Read first four pages of this and come to one conclusion that Metrolink is working very
hard to take EB's title of the biggest arrogant bastard manchester has ever produced.

Don't EB and Metrolink ask themselves why manchester has this, that and the other
over other cities? Not because it is so fuppin beautiful but because of all the Whitehall
handouts. Said it before... manchester is the whore of whitehall.

One example if manc tram phase three or whatever got knocked back and Leeds tram
got the go ahead then we wouldn't have that far to catch up. Same with a lot of other
stuff.

EB and Metrolink are beginning to sound like that Harry Enfield character:
said with an annoying brum accent (no offence brummies);
"Don't know if yews knaws this but weeve gut more munny thun youusse"

Yes you pair of manc winders you might have more money but Leeds has a lot
more style. Leeds can get the tram, tall buildings, new business's, sporting arenas
and on and on but manchester can never get beautiful countryside surrounding
its city.

Yes Manchester is a world class city, that is not to say that Leeds isn't. People must remember that bigger isn't always better.

On my many visits to both Leeds and Manchester centres, whilst Manchester has alot of high quality finished projects, I get a greater buzz on my return to Leeds traveling down the M621 towards the centre. There is a real WOW factor with the skyline and the fact that you can see almost the whole city together. Manchesters developments are spread out over a much larger area, giving it a much smaller WOW factor.

Either way both citys can be proud and can expect many more years of growth.

Not because it is so fuppin beautiful but because of all the Whitehall
handouts. Said it before... manchester is the whore of whitehall.

One example if manc tram phase three or whatever got knocked back and Leeds tram
got the go ahead then we wouldn't have that far to catch up. Same with a lot of other
stuff.

EB and Metrolink are beginning to sound like that Harry Enfield character:
said with an annoying brum accent (no offence brummies);
"Don't know if yews knaws this but weeve gut more munny thun youusse"

Yes you pair of manc winders you might have more money but Leeds has a lot
more style. Leeds can get the tram, tall buildings, new business's, sporting arenas
and on and on but manchester can never get beautiful countryside surrounding
its city.

Whitehall handouts? I thought you were above such silly excuses greg! (well, not really)

Why are you mentioning the tram? Manc thought tooth and nail to get its tram money re-instated, relatively Leeds has done very little. Who else do you expect to happen under these circumstances. You wouldn't have to play catch up if you got your tram....erm...do some bloody protesting AND GET IT THEN!

Manc can never have beautiful countryside? surrounding it's city? You what? What's the peak district then? That borders Manchester for several miles. What about the Cheshire countryside that is only a few miles south. Lots more easily reached by fantastic transport links.

You whine about Manc being ahead, I'm not sure what else you expect considering that Manchester is clearly bigger and of greater importance than Leeds.

CAW123 that is your opinion and like the other people from the Manchester Metro threads, why is it always Leeds you have to attack and talk down? It is no wonder people from the Leeds thread pages are provoked into perhaps going a little too far with their replies.

So please cool it or go back to your glorious Manchester threads.

CAW123 that is your opinion and like the other people from the Manchester Metro threads, why is it always Leeds you have to attack and talk down? It is no wonder people from the Leeds thread pages are provoked into pehaps going a little too far with their replies.


How is than an attack on Leeds.

We all know the city could've done more to save the supertram, can do more.

I seriously doubt you will find too many people who disagree with the statement of Manchester being bigger and more important than Leeds. Hey, maybe the picture will be different in 10,15,20 years time, but right now, you cannot deny this.

Just seeing greggo labelling Manc the 'whore of whitehall' devalues everything the city has achieved over the past 15 years.

Whitehall handouts? I thought you were above such silly excuses greg! (well, not really)

Why are you mentioning the tram? Manc thought tooth and nail to get its tram money re-instated, relatively Leeds has done very little. Who else do you expect to happen under these circumstances. You wouldn't have to play catch up if you got your tram....erm...do some bloody protesting AND GET IT THEN!

Manc can never have beautiful countryside? surrounding it's city? You what? What's the peak district then? That borders Manchester for several miles. What about the Cheshire countryside that is only a few miles south. Lots more easily reached by fantastic transport links.

You whine about Manc being ahead, I'm not sure what else you expect considering that Manchester is clearly bigger and of greater importance than Leeds.

The only thing that surround manchester is salford!
God knows whats on't tother side of its Oh So Glorious conurbation but I
know it aint countryside.

Leeds did more than enough to put in a fair claim for the tram. That's a croc
caw and you know it. The future development of Leeds could rely heavily
on the tram being constructed. The city got behind it, that was evident on
the web.

I'm not whining about manc being ahead. I'm highlighting the advantages
manc has over other cities when it comes to handouts.

On a thirty year time scale Leeds has done far better than manc.
Thirty years ago this conversation would have never taken place because
Leeds was so far behind manc. In such a small amount of time Leeds has
gained so much and if it wasn't for a little group called the ira Leeds would
have probably overtook manc by now. Leeds owes a lot of its success to
Leeds. manc owes a lot of its success to whitehall and the ira.

There's no doubt manc is ahead of Leeds at the moment but it was so much
more ahead 30 years ago and 30 years is no time at all. 30 years from now
who knows. mancs brownfield will have all been developed! Leeds can grow
and stretch and still be surrounded by beautiful countryside manc can grow
up (i wish its posters would) but still be surrounded by salford

Whilst I largely agree with what you are saying CAW123, Grego66 raises an important issue. "Has Manchester been more successful with projects such as supertram because it is under full Labour control." We will never know the true answer!

Samrtcity and Gregg, all 3 Manc Metrolink extensions had a cost benifit ratio in excess off 2.3, the Leeds one had a debatable 1.5.

GMPTE worked hard to get those figures (cutting part of the airport line for example).

Since Manc has by far the best figures in the most critical part of the bid - i.e. cost / benifit, it is hardly a surprise that Manc gets the funding when Leeds doesn't.

But hay, still....................

But hay...

That means if there was the slightest thing wrong in those Leeds figures, such as there were in Liverpool with how they planned to fund the tram purchase (as is very very likely as the PTE would put the best possible figures forward) then the Leeds ratio would drop below 1.5, which in turn would mean it was possible to fund the project using strict government guidelines for infrastructure projects, whereas, Manchester was still well above the 1.5, and moving upwards by all accounts.

But hay (II)..

why let the actualy facts off the situation get in the way at having a dig at 'Whitehalls Whores'.

But hay (III)...

When was the last time an article like this was written about Leeds?

If Leeds is catching Manchester up, then it most be racing up towards Brum...


http://www.joneslanglasalle.co.uk/e...rter/NR1908.htm

Are we really lagging behind? Printer Friendly Version



Birmingham may regard itself as the second City, but Manchester is coming up fast on the rails, with many observers regarding its Northern rival as running ahead in the race. Guy Webber, head of Jones Lang LaSalle’s Birmingham office, travels north to compare the two cities offerings and asks if Birmingham is really lagging behind Manchester or whether the hype is obscuring the bigger picture?

In recent years Birmingham has lost some major office relocation contracts to Manchester, its fiercest rival. High profile companies including e-sure and Bank of New York have chosen to bypass Birmingham and head up the M6, attracted by the Manchester ‘buzz’, which shows no sign of abating.

In light of the Deputy Prime Minister’s recent comments, I believe it is now important to cut through the ‘hype’ and assess whether Manchester has a genuine competitive edge and if the ‘hype’ is actually obscuring the bigger picture.

A key factor in any decision to relocate a business is human capital and Manchester has for many years traded on its reputation for having the biggest student population of any UK city. Unfortunately, this reputation is a false one. Birmingham now has the largest student population and academic institutions able to rival Manchester’s best. It must also be remembered that the student population contributes to Birmingham’s position as Europe’s youngest population, a critical selling point for employers looking to attract the internet generation.

Most importantly, according to SOC Government data available from the Office of National Statistics, 45% of Birmingham employees are classed as highly skilled. In particular, over the last ten years, the city has enjoyed considerable growth in key occupations, including a 12% increase in the numbers of managers and professionals over the last ten years and a 19% increase in service type occupations.

A second key factor is accessibility, both nationally and internationally. On a national basis, I believe Birmingham is a much more ‘accessible’ city, not least because it is still possible to have a morning meeting in London and still be back in Birmingham for another meeting in the afternoon. Birmingham New Street may require redevelopment along the lines of Manchester’s Piccadilly station, but it has the edge in terms of providing train access to every major train station in the UK direct. Like it or not, Manchester Piccadilly remains much more isolated. It is also worth emphasising the strategic importance of both Birmingham’s Rail and Motorway network providing easy access to ALL England and Wales major conurbations within one and a half to two hours of Birmingham including Heathrow and Central London.

In terms of international accessibility, there is a clear need for Birmingham to extend its runway in order to place itself firmly on the international map. For a City that lost a high profile battle with Central Government in the 1980s to divert the proposed investment in Stansted Airport to the North, Manchester has bounced back to prove its critics wrong and develop what is now unquestionably regarded as the UK’s biggest regional airport.

A quick inventory of destinations to the vital North American market, prove the point. From Manchester it is now possible to fly to New York, Chicago, Washington, Las Vegas, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Miami and Orlando. Birmingham’s links stop with Newark, Orlando and New Jersey, a critical isolation the wider world and may provide the answer as to why the Bank of New York preferred the Manchester offering. The proposed runway extension at Birmingham Airport may well begin to redress this balance, but Manchester will take some catching up in this regard.

Increasingly, ‘soft’ factors, such as the City’s retail offering, are becoming increasingly important and, in this area I would also give Manchester the edge. There is little to separate the two cities, but Manchester has undoubtedly moved quicker to create a vibrant city centre environment, capable of attracting the biggest names in retailing.

The Arndale Centre is unrecognisable from 10 years ago and now boasts the biggest Marks & Spencer with 18,500 sq metres of shopping space, linked by the impressive Corporation Street bridge. The city has also attracted Harvey Nicholls, only the second to be built outside London. Birmingham’s development of the Bull Ring has been equally as impressive, but Manchester is further along the redevelopment road and currently has the edge.

Culturally, I do believe that Birmingham has more than enough to compete with its northern rival. The combination of the Symphony Hall, International Convention Centre and National Indoor Arena eclipses the Manchester offering and, while GMex is an impressive structure, it cannot compare to the NEC as an exhibition centre. The refurbishment and extension to the Hippodrome (home to the Birmingham Royal Ballet) now houses one of the finest Auditoriums in the Country.

However, I do believe there are two critically important areas where Manchester undoubtedly has an edge. The first is Manchester’s single identity which it puts forward to inward investors when selling the City. Manchester is very focussed and united as a region, putting forward a united front under one banner.

By contrast, the biggest criticism of Birmingham is the lack of a single direct contact, able to co-ordinate the different organisations involved in any relocation or investment decision. Birmingham currently has a plethora of organisations, all of which must be contacted and included in any negotiation, including Marketing Birmingham, Locate in Birmingham, Birmingham Forward and the Chamber of Commerce. This situation is extremely off-putting for organisations seeking to relocate.

The second big advantage is Manchester’s ability to phase their commitment to future office development. Manchester always knows which scheme is the next ‘big one’ and this focus enables it to sell the development hard to potential relocators and investors. Birmingham is rarely as focussed in this regard - in fact if you asked a dozen property developers which is the next big Birmingham development you will probably get a dozen different answers.

I do passionately believe that in many respects, Birmingham is still not making enough of its many attributes. Critical among these are the further redevelopment of the city’s waterside areas. Whilst tremendous progress has been made to maximise the benefits offered through Birmingham’s extensive canal network at a number of prestigious projects, including The Mailbox, Brindley Place and a number of developments off the Gas Street Basin, there remains an untapped network that can offer exciting opportunities for mixed use development. These include the Digbeth Digbeth branch canal, on Fleet Street the Birmingham & Fazeley canal and Eastside. Gondolas may well have been noted, but there is some way to go before comparisons can be made to Venice!

There is also clear evidence emerging that the ‘second city’ argument is losing its potency. Evidence from North America suggests that quality of urban environment, not size, is increasingly important when attracting business. Birmingham can learn lessons from the likes Portland in Oregon, which is a good example of a city that has been very successful in attracting some of America’s largest companies, but cannot be regarded as a major city in US terms.

While great strides have been made, Birmingham cannot afford to rest on its laurels. Investors are increasingly looking for a combination of qualities when making relocation decisions, not just passively accepting the second city argument. As a city we need to have serious discussions about presenting a united front to inward investors in order to unlock its true potential.

The only thing that surround manchester is salford!
God knows whats on't tother side of its Oh So Glorious conurbation but I
know it aint countryside.

Leeds did more than enough to put in a fair claim for the tram. That's a croc
caw and you know it. The future development of Leeds could rely heavily
on the tram being constructed. The city got behind it, that was evident on
the web.

I'm not whining about manc being ahead. I'm highlighting the advantages
manc has over other cities when it comes to handouts.

On a thirty year time scale Leeds has done far better than manc.
Thirty years ago this conversation would have never taken place because
Leeds was so far behind manc. In such a small amount of time Leeds has
gained so much and if it wasn't for a little group called the ira Leeds would
have probably overtook manc by now. Leeds owes a lot of its success to
Leeds. manc owes a lot of its success to whitehall and the ira.

There's no doubt manc is ahead of Leeds at the moment but it was so much
more ahead 30 years ago and 30 years is no time at all. 30 years from now
who knows. mancs brownfield will have all been developed! Leeds can grow
and stretch and still be surrounded by beautiful countryside manc can grow
up (i wish its posters would) but still be surrounded by salford

No Salford does not 'surround Manchester', Salford is just one borough of ten and is the the west of Manc. And anyway,Salford is in fact 65% green space!

If you flew a plane 500m above Manc going west you'd die after a few miles as you'd crash into the Peak District slopes of Kinder Scout et al. Do you seriously have no idea of Mancs proximity to the countryside? Sure, it isn't as close as in Leeds(because it's a bigger city, more area you see), but some fantastic rural areas are only a few miles away! Go on about countryside all you like but Manc has it's fair share.

Now now you are being silly with the IRA quip. If Leeds could really have overtaken Manc, why did we have a tram opened 5 years before the IRA blew up the Arndale? Why did we have an arena open the year before? And why did we already have regeneration schemes already in place and starting?
The IRA attack led to the replacement of 3 buildings, and some renovations in one part of Manc city centre. It's effect on the wider city was minimal, we were already getting going. Jesus man, I thought you were actually rather intelligent. I cannot believe the shit you vomit out, Manc owes it's success to the IRA and whitehall? Says one thing to me greg, jealousy.

Yeah, 30 years from now, who knows?

Whilst I largely agree with what you are saying CAW123, Grego66 raises an important issue. "Has Manchester been more successful with projects such as supertram because it is under full Labour control." We will never know the true answer!


I agree with caw on a lot of issues as well, I don't resent manc getting
funded after the devastating ira attack .......and all the benefits since.

I do however find it annoying that on a Leeds forum we are constantly
being reminded of 'manchesters' success when it so obviously isn't.
manchester cannot boast to have the monopoly on its own success.

Like a team of twenty in a game of footy against a team of eleven and
gloating because they won the game 1-0 .....after extra time.

Gregg, was it someone from Manc or Leeds who started the Is Leeds catching Manc thread, one the Leeds forum?

20 men against 11? Surely since Leeds has by far the bigger population (sic) it has the advantage when it comes to attracting more business?

Surely it is 11men 'Manchester' versus 17men Leeds.

Gregg, was it someone from Manc or Leeds who started the Is Leeds catching Manc thread, one the Leeds forum?


Leeds I believe and I know the thread was overtook by people using probably
the sneakiest backhanded slights (at Leeds) I have ever read.

Don't piss in our ears and tell us it is raining. At least with EB we know where
she stands.

Question: 30 years ago today would you say manchester was further ahead
than Leeds than it is today?

Question: If it wasn't for the ira would manchester be so far ahead of Leeds?
remember I don't resent the handouts for that but lets not forget where the
money came from, what it bought and what the ira actually demolished.

Question that long arse piece of text you C&P'd was that actual fact, heresay
or just the writers point of view?

and on .....

20 men against 11? Surely since Leeds has by far the bigger population (sic) it has the advantage when it comes to attracting more business?

Surely it is 11men 'Manchester' versus 17men Leeds.


Well I'm glad we agree on something...progress. Leeds does in actual fact
have a bigger populus than manchester. Unfortunately manchesters purse
is a lot bigger; therefore can afford to pay the other six players and of course
bung the referee.

OT but can't resist:
By the way Malcolm Glazer is a Leeds fan. God bless the USA and of
course the manchester buccaneers. LOL

30 years ago Manchester seemed to be in terminal decline, the 70's recession was in full grip and Manchester was about to go through 10 years off terrible economic decline - don't kid yourself that Manchester hasn't progressed loads in the last 30 years. So not, I'd say Manchester has pulled further away over the last 30 years. Name any large multinational that was here 30 years ago. How important was Manchester airport 30 years ago? Manchester would have had a similar public transport system 30 years ago. On all the above examples I'd suggest Manchester has moved further ahead over the last 30 years.

IRA bombing bought about some redevleopment (through insurance money, not government hand outs) in a very limited area. Before this, Castlefield, the arena and plenty off other regeneration had already started. I think you should look back to the Olympic bid to when the regeneration really took off. Why did Leeds not bid for the Olympics?

The C&P is simply someone's point off view, but a very well thought out point off view, from what seems to be a proffesional in these matters. There are many other articles covering the same talking point, i.e. the relative positions of Manchester and Leeds. Why is there never any about Leeds and Brum?

I haven’t posted on here for a while – the last time I stopped was as a result of threads like this. I came back today, had a bit of a conflab with Metrolink and then checked out what else had been happening. Looks like nothing has changed. Instead of appealing for a bit of maturity and a return to common sense perhaps it’s best if I try and illustrate why threads like this cause so much damage.

Over the Christmas period I was invited to a neighbours drinks party. While I was there I met a member of the Leeds Civic Trust Council (The Council being the elected governing body of Leeds Civic Trust) and we got talking about Leeds past, present and future. He asked at one point where I got my information from and I told him about this forum and gave him the address.

He seemed really interested in it and also said that Commercial Confidentiality issues aside he would be more than happy to provide details and in depth information about proposed schemes in Leeds seeing as the Trust seeks to put as much as possible into the public domain to provoke debate. All in all, it would have been a bit of a coup for this forum.

A couple of weeks later I saw him and asked if he’d had a chance to take a look on here. He laughed and said he had and that he found it a bit of a let down and ultimately far too “childish” because of the “stupid Leeds/Manchester thing”. He has since asked if this place had matured at all, unfortunately I’ve always had to say no.
I would ask anyone who cares to read this thread again because this is exactly what he was referring to.

Personally, I’d ban members of the Manc forum posting on the Leeds one and vice versa, it seems the only way to move forward unless certain posters grow up. I’m not naming names because there are just as many from both sides but until the times comes when this sort of crap has gone this forum will be spoilt by the minority of users, which is always the case I suppose….

Well said, The Oil ! Couldn't agree more.

No Salford does not 'surround Manchester', Salford is just one borough of ten and is the the west of Manc. And anyway,Salford is in fact 65% green space!

If you flew a plane 500m above Manc going west you'd die after a few miles as you'd crash into the Peak District slopes of Kinder Scout et al. Do you seriously have no idea of Mancs proximity to the countryside? Sure, it isn't as close as in Leeds(because it's a bigger city, more area you see), but some fantastic rural areas are only a few miles away! Go on about countryside all you like but Manc has it's fair share.

Now now you are being silly with the IRA quip. If Leeds could really have overtaken Manc, why did we have a tram opened 5 years before the IRA blew up the Arndale? Why did we have an arena open the year before? And why did we already have regeneration schemes already in place and starting?
The IRA attack led to the replacement of 3 buildings, and some renovations in one part of Manc city centre. It's effect on the wider city was minimal, we were already getting going. Jesus man, I thought you were actually rather intelligent. I cannot believe the shit you vomit out, Manc owes it's success to the IRA and whitehall? Says one thing to me greg, jealousy.

Yeah, 30 years from now, who knows?

and if you flew 50 or so miles you'd be in the irish sea what does that prove?
I'm talking about what surrounds the two cities Leeds-countryside
manchester-salford ...yeh I know an over exaggerated poke but you know
what I'm talking about, manchester is surrounded by it's wonderful conurbation
you know that infrastructure thats thrown down our necks everytime a border
issue comes up. You can't have it both ways, it's either a positive or a negative
and in the instance I am pointing out it is most definitely a negative.

If you flew a plane??? Who the fuck as got a plane? On the other hand the
Leeds hand if you took a steady stroll....see the difference. Your talking about
flying planes to find green, WTF LOL

Oh bullshit; manc did very well out of the ira bomb thank you very much.
Dont even dare and try and play that down to one part of the city centre.
Of course the whole city benefitted how else could it have not? A complete
regeneration of a fair size of the city centre! but the rest of the city didn't
benefit...oh jeeez!! your having a laugh.
Regeneration schemes already in place? what's this more heresay? and I
believe sheffield had a tram system in place before the ira bomb. No disrespect
to sheffield but that is saying absolutely nada, nothing.
The arena, well okay congratulatuons on the arena you can have that one
but one and I hasten to add ONE arena does not make a booming city. I mean
every dog as its day right?

I stand by it pal. without the ira and whitehall Leeds would have caught up if
not overtook.

Incidentally, The Oil, if you see this Civic Trust bloke again ask why they don't update their appilcations news more often on their website. Used be about every moth - now it seems like two months. Current dates from 3 July.

So, who started this thread in the first place then? Someone from Manchester or Leeds? Was it not always going to provoke such a reaction?

It is Manchester that is always involved in everything against Birmingham and Leeds because they are obviously seen as a threat to take importance and overtake. In the last 20-30 years, Leeds has had a much larger percentage change in growth than Manchester anyway.
I don't know why Mancunians and Salfordians have to come onto the Leeds and Birminham forums and play hell, at least I don't mess threads up on the Manchester thread.

30 years ago Manchester seemed to be in terminal decline, the 70's recession was in full grip and Manchester was about to go through 10 years off terrible economic decline - don't kid yourself that Manchester hasn't progressed loads in the last 30 years. So not, I'd say Manchester has pulled further away over the last 30 years. Name any large multinational that was here 30 years ago. How important was Manchester airport 30 years ago? Manchester would have had a similar public transport system 30 years ago. On all the above examples I'd suggest Manchester has moved further ahead over the last 30 years.

IRA bombing bought about some redevleopment (through insurance money, not government hand outs) in a very limited area. Before this, Castlefield, the arena and plenty off other regeneration had already started. I think you should look back to the Olympic bid to when the regeneration really took off. Why did Leeds not bid for the Olympics?

The C&P is simply someone's point off view, but a very well thought out point off view, from what seems to be a proffesional in these matters. There are many other articles covering the same talking point, i.e. the relative positions of Manchester and Leeds. Why is there never any about Leeds and Brum?


By comparison no matter how lyrical you want to get about it it's so obvious
that Leeds has gained on manchester in the last 30 years. So, so obvious,
you talk about manchester airport 30 years ago LOL I'm not sure Yeadon
even existed then! Have you even seen pics of Leeds 30 years ago compared
to the manc of 30 years ago, vast difference. Now today there is very little
to choose and what's more Leeds is growing and spreading because....it
physically can. To even suggest 30 years ago that Leeds would emply more
people in its city centre would have been laughable....
Between 1981 and 2002 employee job growth in Leeds (estimated at 86,000)
has been higher than any other major city.
Over the last 20 years, more jobs were created in Leeds than in any major
city outside London.
Leeds is one of the UK's largest centres for financial and business services
with over 30 national and international banks based in the city.
Of course manc can compete with that even better it but the fact is we
can have this sort of debate and competition today but 30 years ago it
wouldn't have been possible because 30 years ago manc was so further ahead
of Leeds. It's so obvious Leeds is catching up.No doubt.


Why didn't manchester win the bid?

heh Leeds didnt bid for the olympics because it would have put in a serous bid if it was to bid. Both the Manchester and Birmingham bids were seen as jokes and the IOC said that ATT London was the only city which would have a chance.
And even if it did host it, so what- Harrogate, a tiny place compared to Leeds, hosted eurovision, which while a joke is still a major european contest so in other words, things like this don't really say anything.

And you all wonder why dickhead Mancs pile in over here.

manchester came 3rd, hardly a joke.

came 3rd and benifited greatly from the bidding process - would Common Wealth games and all that followed from that have happened without the bid?

How is the Leeds Common Wealth games bid coming along?

heh Leeds didnt bid for the olympics because it would have put in a serous bid if it was to bid. Both the Manchester and Birmingham bids were seen as jokes and the IOC said that ATT London was the only city which would have a chance.
And even if it did host it, so what- Harrogate, a tiny place compared to Leeds, hosted eurovision, which while a joke is still a major european contest so in other words, things like this don't really say anything.

Dear God, did nobody read what was said a bit ago about intelligent contributions? I don't believe for one minute that Manchester's bid was seen as a joke. If it was, then they must have turned themselves round pretty fast to pull off the Commonwealth Games.

I'm annoyed with this whole bloody thread because I don't agree with its basic premise, I'm annoyed with myself for posting here but, most of all, I'm annoyed with this stupid fucking squabbling.

Now look what you've done - you made me swear.

Is Leeds playing catch up to what????

Leeds is doing fantasticly well improving,in all area's it doesnt need to try and become something else,it should concentrate on being Leeds ,
Manchester,Birmingham ,Liverpool ,if fact all the British major cities are doing great,so stop bickering about a load of shite and be happy all the regional cities are dragging themselves out of years of depression.

I know this is the Leeds forum,and ive only been there a few times,but ive heard great things about Leeds,and long may it continue.
When i left school i can honestly say Manchester where i live was the biggest shithole going,the regeneration started well before the IRA bomb, i can understand younger Manc's getting excited by all the change going on in our city,but i put it down to them not knowing the Manchester i saw as a kid.

Please could everyone stop these stupid arguments because they are getting very tiresome .

and if you flew 50 or so miles you'd be in the irish sea what does that prove?
I'm talking about what surrounds the two cities Leeds-countryside
manchester-salford ...yeh I know an over exaggerated poke but you know
what I'm talking about, manchester is surrounded by it's wonderful conurbation
you know that infrastructure thats thrown down our necks everytime a border
issue comes up. You can't have it both ways, it's either a positive or a negative
and in the instance I am pointing out it is most definitely a negative.

If you flew a plane??? Who the fuck as got a plane? On the other hand the
Leeds hand if you took a steady stroll....see the difference. Your talking about
flying planes to find green, WTF LOL

Oh bullshit; manc did very well out of the ira bomb thank you very much.
Dont even dare and try and play that down to one part of the city centre.
Of course the whole city benefitted how else could it have not? A complete
regeneration of a fair size of the city centre! but the rest of the city didn't
benefit...oh jeeez!! your having a laugh.
Regeneration schemes already in place? what's this more heresay? and I
believe sheffield had a tram system in place before the ira bomb. No disrespect
to sheffield but that is saying absolutely nada, nothing.
The arena, well okay congratulatuons on the arena you can have that one
but one and I hasten to add ONE arena does not make a booming city. I mean
every dog as its day right?

I stand by it pal. without the ira and whitehall Leeds would have caught up if
not overtook.

Well greg the plane thing wasn't a piece of serious prose for god's sake! I was merely saying that Manchester is surrounded by idyllic countryside with hills in excess of 500m high. You could walk there if you wanted.

Regeneration schemes were already in place greg, ever heard of a place called Hulme? They started blowing down the old crime ridden crescents and rebuilding in 1995. MEN Arena went up in 1995. Castlefield was being regenerated. Salford Quays had began regenerating.

The bomb gave us a 2/3rd regenerated Arndale, the Shambles building and M&S Building. A new Exchange Square with Urbis at one end. And 3 old buildings were regenerated. All built through private investment or insurance money. This is not a large portion of Manc city centre.

These claims that Leeds would have caught or overtaken Manchester were it not for the bomb is simply laughable, seriously greg, that honestly is insane. Leeds is doing great but it is still a small fish in a big pond, it still has along way to go to catch up with Manchester and Birmingham in almost every sense.

Leeds is growing fast and will have it's day in the future but you are getting ahead of yourself, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham were all bigger places to begin with and still are.

The fact that you are constantly trying to discredit Manchesters achievements with your 'whore of whitehall' and IRA jibes confirms your frothing-at-the-mouth bias towards Leeds. Continue with your visions of the days where Leeds is top cheese in the UK but don't pretend they've happened already.

Is Leeds playing catch up to what????

Leeds is doing fantasticly well improving,in all area's it doesnt need to try and become something else,it should concentrate on being Leeds ,
Manchester,Birmingham ,Liverpool ,if fact all the British major cities are doing great,so stop bickering about a load of shite and be happy all the regional cities are dragging themselves out of years of depression.

I know this is the Leeds forum,and ive only been there a few times,but ive heard great things about Leeds,and long may it continue.
When i left school i can honestly say Manchester where i live was the biggest shithole going,the regeneration started well before the IRA bomb, i can understand younger Manc's getting excited by all the change going on in our city,but i put it down to them not knowing the Manchester i saw as a kid.

Please could everyone stop these stupid arguments because they are getting very tiresome .

A responsible and reasoned approach, thankyou.

Oil, I feel disipointed that you feel the way you do about the threads here. Whilst the debate has gone round in circles to a large degree, people all have their own opinions. I expect that people of many different age groups and backgrounds use this site, so with it will always come a certain amount of immaturity. Others just loose their composure in the heated debate.

It is great that we all have so much to shout about with our great northern cities. :)

Leeds is growing fast and will have it's day in the future but you are getting ahead of yourself, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham were all bigger places to begin with and still are.

Well Liverpool is certainly not bigger than Leeds, and these threads wouldnt be here if it was debatable if Leeds or Manchester were bigger. So what if they were bigger before, most of us are living in the present, so what happened in the past is irrelevant.

Right, so if someone talks about it a lot that makes it true does it?

I guess all those mad religious web sites that say evolution didn't happen, and all those discussions on the subject, must mean that there it is possible that on the 6th day god invented man, and we didn't evolve.

No1 - have a look at some 'Islamic' (I know they are not Islamic - just using the label off Islam but you know what I mean) sites, see with is discussed on them, what they claim people in the west get up to - is all that true? After all, lots off people are debating it, therefore it must be true?

Or am I not following your logic here?

wth is that supposed to mean

also, following on more with that kind off logic...
It is often debated on here is Manchester or Brum is the UK's second city - therefore using your logic, there must be some truth in it.

Yet, there has never (as far as I can tell) been a debate whether Leeds or Brum is the second city - therefore - using your logic - this is not even open for debate.

Therefore - surely - using your logic - if there is a chance that Manchester is uk 2nd city, but not Leeds (never debated), surely Manchester is bigger / more important than Leeds as it is debatable if Manchester is the 2nd city, but not Leeds?

Or do I miss understand YOUR logic?

??? you're earlybird aren't you...

No1 - you claim because people discuss if Leeds is as big as Manchester it must be a debatable fact - I am simply pointing out lots off crap is dicussed, it doesn't make it true.

I'm interested why you think something being discussed means it may be true - and if it does, where the logic in post 196 falls down?

what? if Leeds and Manchester continue with the average precentage growth then Manchester is gonna have to be prepared it will be officially taken over, even though it has been already despite so many people wanting to debate it and include all of Greater Manchester- Im not talking anymore on this issue on this thread, because this is a Leeds forum where nobody cares about Manchester.

No1 - please explain your logic - why does discussing something give it legitimacy, as you suggest in 193? Or are you once again simply going to make comments and then not back them up?

the census backs everything Ive said up. no more comments here.

How does the census back up the statement made in 193 - i.e.

and these threads wouldnt be here if it was debatable if Leeds or Manchester were bigger


Once again you have made a statement, and are totally unable to back it up.

No1 - you lose all creditility whatsoever when you make claims such as the one above, and then when questioned on the subject are totally unable to back it up.

To be honest, it suggests you don't have a clue what you are talking about - which I think may not be far from the truth.

what? if Leeds and Manchester continue with the average precentage growth then Manchester is gonna have to be prepared it will be officially taken over, even though it has been already despite so many people wanting to debate it and include all of Greater Manchester- Im not talking anymore on this issue on this thread, because this is a Leeds forum where nobody cares about Manchester.

Average pecentage growth, erm...try actual growth and you'll see there is a huge gap and Manchester will never be 'taken over' by Leeds.

It's a Leeds forum where nobody cares about Manchester.....so remind me why this thread exists in the first place.

and if you stand by the logic in 193 - please explain why the logic off 196 is not an inevitable follow on from that?

I am not normally one to go for referneces when putting forward an arguement, but I think that Wikpedia have got it just about right...

Leeds

Leeds is a city in the county of West Yorkshire, in the north of England. The River Aire runs through the city. Leeds is part of a metropolitan borough named the City of Leeds. According to the 2001 census the urban area of the city had a population of 429,243, while the entire city has a population of 726,939. It is one of England's core cities.

In 2003, Leeds was voted the "favourite UK city" in a survey by Conde Nast Traveller magazine.

An inhabitant of Leeds is locally known as a Loiner, a word derived from the 'Loins' (or lanes) around Briggate in the city's centre, although the term is rarely used or understood. The mock-classical adjectives Leodensian and Leodiensian are sometimes used by some local sports clubs.

Manchester

Manchester is a city in the north-west of England. The place is named from the old British name Mamucium plus ceaster, derived from the old Latin "Castra". The metropolitan borough of Manchester, with a population of 422,302, lies at the heart of a large conurbation called Greater Manchester, with a population of 2,513,468. It is one of England's core cities and is regarded by some as England's second city [1].

The term "Manchester" is often used to refer to the entire conurbation, much as "London" is usually used to mean Greater London, but many of the constituent parts of Greater Manchester, such as Salford, Wigan and Bolton, were once substantial and separate towns, and retain strong identities. People from Manchester are called Mancunians.



I think that just about sums up the differences, one is a city with an urban population off just under 500k, a city that is doing very well for itself.
The other, is at the heart if a conurbation over 5 times in size.

Those trying to make comparisions are simply barking, the difference in the cities is there for all to see, and only those with very blinkered views on things cannot see what is there for the neutral people (such as Wikpedia) to point out.

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

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds is anyone is interested.

and so, once again, when No1 is challenged to backup one off his wild statements that he's made with no thought whatsoever, he has disappeared, with no explanation - hoping to come back as if he had never said it.

How often has he done this now?

Remember the 'Leeds is more compact' statement that he wouldn't expand on?

heh Leeds didnt bid for the olympics because it would have put in a serous bid if it was to bid. Both the Manchester and Birmingham bids were seen as jokes and the IOC said that ATT London was the only city which would have a chance.

That statement is so immature, it's laughable.

In terms of 'this is a Leeds thread and nobody's interested in Manchester', you seem to have a real irrational hostility towards Manchester, the big city over the Pennines. How do you feel about Hull?

The impression I get on SSC is that the majority of contributors/users aren't really up for any city v city antagonistic bullshit. It's ok as a piss take, but that's where it should end. I'm as interested in and impressed by what's happening in Leeds, Liverpool and Birmingham as I am with Manchester. You should try it.

I am not normally one to go for referneces when putting forward an arguement, but I think that Wikpedia have got it just about right...

Leeds

Leeds is a city in the county of West Yorkshire, in the north of England. The River Aire runs through the city. Leeds is part of a metropolitan borough named the City of Leeds. According to the 2001 census the urban area of the city had a population of 429,243, while the entire city has a population of 726,939. It is one of England's core cities.

In 2003, Leeds was voted the "favourite UK city" in a survey by Conde Nast Traveller magazine.

An inhabitant of Leeds is locally known as a Loiner, a word derived from the 'Loins' (or lanes) around Briggate in the city's centre, although the term is rarely used or understood. The mock-classical adjectives Leodensian and Leodiensian are sometimes used by some local sports clubs.

Manchester

Manchester is a city in the north-west of England. The place is named from the old British name Mamucium plus ceaster, derived from the old Latin "Castra". The metropolitan borough of Manchester, with a population of 422,302, lies at the heart of a large conurbation called Greater Manchester, with a population of 2,513,468. It is one of England's core cities and is regarded by some as England's second city [1].

The term "Manchester" is often used to refer to the entire conurbation, much as "London" is usually used to mean Greater London, but many of the constituent parts of Greater Manchester, such as Salford, Wigan and Bolton, were once substantial and separate towns, and retain strong identities. People from Manchester are called Mancunians.



I think that just about sums up the differences, one is a city with an urban population off just under 500k, a city that is doing very well for itself.
The other, is at the heart if a conurbation over 5 times in size.

Those trying to make comparisions are simply barking, the difference in the cities is there for all to see, and only those with very blinkered views on things cannot see what is there for the neutral people (such as Wikpedia) to point out.

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

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeds is anyone is interested.


I do wish this puerile argument between Leeds and Manchester would cease.
There is absolutely no doubt that the latter is the larger city/urban area/conurbation. However,that only goes to show how well Leeds is doing pro rata ! :)

Leeds is doing very well, so is Manchester, and Liverpool. It'll all make for a healthier, wealthier North. That's what I'm interested in!

Leeds is doing very well, so is Manchester, and Liverpool. It'll all make for a healthier, wealthier North. That's what I'm interested in!

I agree. I've no intention of reading the entire thread, but the important thing is that each city is booming. Both cities have massive numbers of developments.

Ah, I can see my words earlier had a great effect on my fellow Loiners - not to mention my Mancunian bretheren over the hills! Oh well, let's hope that this will die down in the next couple of days, until the next time it's brought up.......

Continue with your visions of the days where Leeds is top cheese in the UK but don't pretend they've happened already.


No caw I know where Leeds stands in the pecking order but the question
of the thread and the questions that have resulted is what I'm talking about.

The major more serious question I have asked is either being ignored or
satisfied by here-say and opinion.

Looking at where the two cities started 30 years ago; which city has made
the most progress? and is Leeds City has far behind manchester as what it
was 30 years ago?

It is loosely debatable which city is top today but that argument can never
be satisfied because of the border issue. The mancs go for the conurbation
(not countryside by the way) I tend to go towards the legal boundaries that
can be seen on any official map!

I will personally say though I think manchester has the edge at the moment.
It's by how far though compared to 30 years ago. Leeds is the biggest
achiever of the last 30 years by far imo.

So to answer the original question in this thread I will say 'Yes Leeds is
playing catch up'.....................So what? It is hardly surprising, look at the
lead manchester started with...ala....30 years ago.

Hello Leedsonians and Yorkshirevites,
This thread reminds me of school
PILE ON!!!!! Ah, those were the days, crushed under a mass a pubescent young men having been pushed over a crouching wag. Anyhow…

Grego, the 30 year claim you make is an interesting one, which being only 26, I don’t really have the knowledge to refute or support. How does this 30 years work historically. I assume that you accept that Manchester had developed quicker in the last 10-15 years (Metrolink, Bridgewater hall, bomb envy, first and more mature city living boom, Hulme and Moss Side, the Arena etc…, etc… make it pretty much impossible to argue otherwise with much credibility imo). So, given this, is your argument that in the 15-20 years before that (1975-1990or1995) Leeds developed much faster than Manchester and at a rate that eclipses the last 10-15 years? Very interesting if true. I guess Manchester must have been hit pretty hard under those Tories then, and Leeds prospered? I’m not the best at history, fill me in.

Also, most older folk on the Mancehster boards seem to think Manchester was a complete dump in the 1970s and 1980s. Are they wrong or is it the case that Leeds was still worse?

Manchester 30 years ago, compared to Leeds (if someone could provide the equivelent Leeds info I'd be grateful).

Firstly lets look at transport - an important part off any cities infrastructure...

An airport is vitally important for attracting forgien business - see BoNY coming to Manchester and not Brum, 30 years ago Manc was a nothing airport, carrying very very few passengers, today it carries in the region of 24m people a year, and is expected to grow to 40m in the next 10 years or so. There are also 60 odd flights a day to London, the financial capital off the country.

So question 1 - has Leeds airport 'caught up' Manchester airport ovre the last 30 years? How many passengers did it have last year, and how many cities in the vital American market are servered. How many flights a day are there to London?

Second part of transport - motorway infrastructure - Manchester previously had a semi-circular motorway passing through some off it's southern suburbs, made up of what was the M63 and the M62. Manchester now has a ring road (it is not an orbital as a good proportion of the city lies outside it - see the signs on it, they say things like 'Manchester Ring Road West M60 Sale' near where I live), feeding onto this motorway, and into the suburbs are motorways such as the M67, M66, M56, M(A)6144, M62, M602 and M61. As far as I am aware, most of these motorwats have been constructed in the last 30 years. Now no matter how anti-car you are, we are a society reliant upon the car.

So question 2, could someone please list me the major road / motorway improvements Leeds had had over the previous 30 years.

West Coast Mainline upgrade - until quite recently, the West Coast Mainline has been a joke, and as such, the vast improverments over the previous 10 years or so has been very benificial for the cities links to other major cities such as London. I grant you, the WCML may not be up the the standards of the ECML, however, that is not the point, the point is which is 'catching up' (or pulling away).

So question 3 - what equivelent project to the WCML improvements has Leeds had over the previous 30 years?

Local public transport - the biggest sinlge improvement in Manchester's public transport over the last 30 years has to be the Metrolink, at present carrying 20m a year, and operating at over 100% off capacity - due to the huge success. Manchester has secured £520m towards the expansion of the network, such that in the next 10 years around 50m a year will be being carried.

Question 4 - what transport improvements has Leeds had over the previous 30 years that mean Leeds is catching up Manchester? What have they got planned to equal the 50m a yar light rail system that Manchester has been planning and getting funding for during the previous 30 years?

Business environment - 30 years ago Manchester had no convention centre, or exhibition halls, it now has the GMEX and Greater Manchester Internation Convention Centre - ok, they may not be the best in the world, but they are a vast improvement on what there was 30 years ago.

Question 5 - Please give examples of exhibition and convention centres that Leeds has developed over the last 30 years that are anywhere near as successful as the Manchester ones.

Lesuire activites - now all cities in the world have improved the reatils over the last 30 years - i'd suggest Manchester's has been over the previous 15 years, since the firt 15 years included places such as the Arndale. Anyway, in the last 30 years, not only has the city centre seen vast improvements (still going on) but places such as New Catherderal Street, St Annes Sq, King Str, Millennium Sq, The Triangle etc are making the city centre much much better. Plus, add to this the Trafford Centre, and the combined retail revenue taken combined far outstripes any other city in the country except London.

Question 6 - I suspect Leeds shopping has improved greatly over the last 30 years - as all cities have, but why does Manchester still take more revenue without the TC, but when adding the TC on (since all Manc's have easy access to it, and many consider it the 'shopping centre' of Manchester) Leeds is no where to be seen.

Business building - ovre the last 30 years, buildings were closing in Manchester, e.g. Eagle Star and the Department for Employment - however, over the previous 15 years, this has been reversed, both these building are to be redeveloped. At the moment, there is a 4m sq ft development (Spinningfields) coming to a close, with supposedly another 5m sq ft still required - this is a total turn around from the days when Eagle Star and the DfE were closing up.

So, question 7 - what is the largest office developement constructed in Leeds over the last 30 years, and how much more is in the pipe line?

Finally - sport and lesuire.

Like is or not, Manchester is now quite well known in many part of the world - particularly europe, asian and parts of africa due to the very high profile of the english premier league, and the largest team in that division. This has bought Manchester international fame.

Question 8 - Manchester is globally (kind off) famous for it's football team - what is Leeds famous for?

Continuing sport and leisure - 2 Olympic bids (coming 3rd in one) and a very successful Commonwealth games (credited for helping london get the olympics) have given Manchester a great sporting infrastructure.

Question 9 - Could someone please let me know where in Leeds I could find the follwoing infrastructure, all stuff that has been developed over the last 30 years...
a) 76k football stadium
b) 48k football stadium
c) athletics track with 4k capacity (something like that anyway)
d) velodrome
e) 2 * 50m in one building
f) 22k capacity arena

Ok, the 76k football stadium may not be due to the Olmpic bid or the Commonwealth, but it has certainly developed over the previous 30 years.

Be glad if someone could answer the above questions in a way that would show Leeds has generally been catching Manchester up over the previous 30 years.

I can't be bothered to answer all those questions but in the way of railways, Leeds Station was totally rebuilt in 1991 with new rails and signals on the rail lines into the station. Most stations and tracks have been replaced or upgraded at least once too. Now, you can expect to be able to catch a train once every 1/2 hour to the capital on GNER with additional services on midland mainline services.
I dont really think you need to go back 30 years to see how much Leeds has changed- even I can remember what it was like before 1998 which is kinda when it started to redevelop.

"Also, most older folk on the Mancehster boards seem to think Manchester was a complete dump in the 1970s and 1980s. Are they wrong or is it the case that Leeds was still worse?"


Frozen please dont call me older folk, im only fuckin 33

No1 - I notice you didn't answer the questions higher in the page.

I notice you also haven't shown Leeds to be CACTHING Manchester - you have shown precisely no evidence for it whatsoever.

Leeds station got a refurb- so has Manchester.

You can get a train every 30mins to London - same for Manchester (you can also get a plane about every 15mins).

No one is denying Leeds has changed - that is not the question, all provincial cities have changed dramatically over the last 20 years or so, the question is 'Is Leeds catching Manchester', so far you have provided precisesly zero evidence of any examples as to where Leeds is catching Manchester up.

You cannot remember what Manchester was like before 1990 I bet.

I think until recently Leeds has always been a bit neglected but I dont think its ever had as high crime and poverty as some areas of Manchester. I seem to remember Leeds for having buses, litter, the market and pretty much Kirkgate and that area. I kinda went alot then didnt go for a while, but then when I started going more much more regularly in about 2000 maybe it was like a different city.

I know I havent, and I have no intention of answering it because you know what I would say. Leeds Station didn't get a refurb, it was rebuilt.

Ok, so Manchester has higher crime, that is not the question. Leeds has changed a lot in the last 30 years - that is not the question.

The question is, 'Is Leeds catching Manchester?'.

You have provided absolutely zero evidence of any examples where Leeds is catching Manchester, please do so.

read the rest of the thread, theres plenty.

Of course it isn't 'catching' Manchester - no sensible observer would claim that. Just to give one example in the field of music: when Leeds can claim two residents orchestras and a top class modern concert hall it it could be said to have caught up. Is this at all likely ? Nevertheless, I still say that Leeds, pro rata, is doing very well indeed.

No1 - I have read the rest off the thread, and cannot see any examples, please let me know which posts in particular I should be looking and, and don't say read them myself, as I will take that as if you cannot find any examples yourself.

Manchester 30 years ago, compared to Leeds (if someone could provide the equivelent Leeds info I'd be grateful).

Firstly lets look at transport - an important part off any cities infrastructure...

An airport is vitally important for attracting forgien business - see BoNY coming to Manchester and not Brum, 30 years ago Manc was a nothing airport, carrying very very few passengers, today it carries in the region of 24m people a year, and is expected to grow to 40m in the next 10 years or so. There are also 60 odd flights a day to London, the financial capital off the country.

So question 1 - has Leeds airport 'caught up' Manchester airport ovre the last 30 years? How many passengers did it have last year, and how many cities in the vital American market are servered. How many flights a day are there to London?

Second part of transport - motorway infrastructure - Manchester previously had a semi-circular motorway passing through some off it's southern suburbs, made up of what was the M63 and the M62. Manchester now has a ring road (it is not an orbital as a good proportion of the city lies outside it - see the signs on it, they say things like 'Manchester Ring Road West M60 Sale' near where I live), feeding onto this motorway, and into the suburbs are motorways such as the M67, M66, M56, M(A)6144, M62, M602 and M61. As far as I am aware, most of these motorwats have been constructed in the last 30 years. Now no matter how anti-car you are, we are a society reliant upon the car.

So question 2, could someone please list me the major road / motorway improvements Leeds had had over the previous 30 years.

West Coast Mainline upgrade - until quite recently, the West Coast Mainline has been a joke, and as such, the vast improverments over the previous 10 years or so has been very benificial for the cities links to other major cities such as London. I grant you, the WCML may not be up the the standards of the ECML, however, that is not the point, the point is which is 'catching up' (or pulling away).

So question 3 - what equivelent project to the WCML improvements has Leeds had over the previous 30 years?

Local public transport - the biggest sinlge improvement in Manchester's public transport over the last 30 years has to be the Metrolink, at present carrying 20m a year, and operating at over 100% off capacity - due to the huge success. Manchester has secured £520m towards the expansion of the network, such that in the next 10 years around 50m a year will be being carried.

Question 4 - what transport improvements has Leeds had over the previous 30 years that mean Leeds is catching up Manchester? What have they got planned to equal the 50m a yar light rail system that Manchester has been planning and getting funding for during the previous 30 years?

Business environment - 30 years ago Manchester had no convention centre, or exhibition halls, it now has the GMEX and Greater Manchester Internation Convention Centre - ok, they may not be the best in the world, but they are a vast improvement on what there was 30 years ago.

Question 5 - Please give examples of exhibition and convention centres that Leeds has developed over the last 30 years that are anywhere near as successful as the Manchester ones.

Lesuire activites - now all cities in the world have improved the reatils over the last 30 years - i'd suggest Manchester's has been over the previous 15 years, since the firt 15 years included places such as the Arndale. Anyway, in the last 30 years, not only has the city centre seen vast improvements (still going on) but places such as New Catherderal Street, St Annes Sq, King Str, Millennium Sq, The Triangle etc are making the city centre much much better. Plus, add to this the Trafford Centre, and the combined retail revenue taken combined far outstripes any other city in the country except London.

Question 6 - I suspect Leeds shopping has improved greatly over the last 30 years - as all cities have, but why does Manchester still take more revenue without the TC, but when adding the TC on (since all Manc's have easy access to it, and many consider it the 'shopping centre' of Manchester) Leeds is no where to be seen.

Business building - ovre the last 30 years, buildings were closing in Manchester, e.g. Eagle Star and the Department for Employment - however, over the previous 15 years, this has been reversed, both these building are to be redeveloped. At the moment, there is a 4m sq ft development (Spinningfields) coming to a close, with supposedly another 5m sq ft still required - this is a total turn around from the days when Eagle Star and the DfE were closing up.

So, question 7 - what is the largest office developement constructed in Leeds over the last 30 years, and how much more is in the pipe line?

Finally - sport and lesuire.

Like is or not, Manchester is now quite well known in many part of the world - particularly europe, asian and parts of africa due to the very high profile of the english premier league, and the largest team in that division. This has bought Manchester international fame.

Question 8 - Manchester is globally (kind off) famous for it's football team - what is Leeds famous for?

Continuing sport and leisure - 2 Olympic bids (coming 3rd in one) and a very successful Commonwealth games (credited for helping london get the olympics) have given Manchester a great sporting infrastructure.

Question 9 - Could someone please let me know where in Leeds I could find the follwoing infrastructure, all stuff that has been developed over the last 30 years...
a) 76k football stadium
b) 48k football stadium
c) athletics track with 4k capacity (something like that anyway)
d) velodrome
e) 2 * 50m in one building
f) 22k capacity arena

Ok, the 76k football stadium may not be due to the Olmpic bid or the Commonwealth, but it has certainly developed over the previous 30 years.

Serious question - how long did it take you to do this? Also, what are you after? No jokes or sarcasm here, I'm just interested.

tp begin with, theres nothing to say that Manchester is officially ahead of Leeds in anyway- Sheffield has an arena, meadowhall, trams...etc but so what. The arena in Leeds will be of one of the highest qualities in Europe we are assured, and the regneration of the whole the of eastern city centre (Clarence Dock, Brewery Wharf, The Gateway, Trinity 1, Quarry Hill, Kirkgate, Eastgate/Harewood) will provide a new face to Leeds- the Eastgate/Harewood quarter is being designed to push Leeds up in the shopping league so you can expect alot from this, with further improvements on Quarry Hill. Despite the airport being small for a city of Leeds and Bradford's combined size it is still growing and doing well.

Oil, about 10minutes.

No1 - still no examples off where Leeds is catching Manchester up.

Which off your examples shows developments in Leeds that are out pacing Manchester?

Oil - what did I hope to show? Well, unless you question the views put forward by some off your fellow Lioners then they start to be taken as true.

Some people have been making unsubstantiated claims about Leeds catching Manchester, I have provded evidence to the contary - I am now waiting for someone to provide evidence to back up their claims.

Still waiting I should say.

Your not reading any of these posts, so I cant be bothered with this, and Im off out soon anyway, Im not wasting my day finding stuff out you don't read.

Oil, about 10minutes.

No1 - still no examples off where Leeds is catching Manchester up.

Which off your examples shows developments in Leeds that are out pacing Manchester?


And what do you want to get out of this thread?

Oil - what did I hope to show? Well, unless you question the views put forward by some off your fellow Lioners then they start to be taken as true.

Some people have been making unsubstantiated claims about Leeds catching Manchester, I have provded evidence to the contary - I am now waiting for someone to provide evidence to back up their claims.

Still waiting I should say.

But you already know they can't, don't you?

Oil - I have about 30minutes in the morning between going for a run, having a shower and having to go to work, to fill that time I come on the internet. As this is a discussion I have been involved in I felt I'd reply.

No1 -you have provided no evidence in how Leeds will catch Manchester up - the arena will be just over half the size off ours, regeneration is taking place in all cities, including Manchester and Leeds - you've provided no evidence that Leeds is cacthing Manchester in these stakes, in fact, only to show that it's falling further behind - nowhere near the amount off developement compared to Spinningfields, Piccadilly Place and Southern Gateway.

Your airport is tiny and will never catch Manchester, even if oil was never going to run out.


So, where SPECIFICALLY is Leeds catching Manchester?

LN1 please say that you now accept that Leeds is not catching Manchester (whether true or not) just so that Metrolink can go back under his stone. Please this is pointless and boring.

I need not point out the fact that this is called 'Is Leeds playing catch up?' There is no mention of manchester in this title. Is Leeds catching up to Norwich, Krakow or Manila? Who knows, yet I do not see endless pages of debate on this subject. The title is too vague to debate. We are playing catch up to Scarborough if the length of Leeds beach is at debate!!!

Typhoo - have you not read the first post in this thread (from someone from Leeds) I'm a Leeds lad, an immensely proud too. I would love Leeds to be Britains 3rd city (assuming Birmingham is 2nd based on it's sheer size). However the competition is fierce, and most of all from that awful city across the pennines beginning with 'M'.



So I take it this was not about Leeds and Manchester then?

Given someone (from Leeds started this thread) and then others from Leeds continues to make, unsubstantiated, claims that Leeds was in fact catching up Manchester, in response to the original question (by someone from Leeds), what is your problem with being asked for evidence?

Should we believe what the likes off Gregg and No1 say without questioning what they are actually saying?

Or should we question what we are being told, to help broaden our minds a little?

The lengthy post above was simply questioning some off the points put forward by some Lioner posters, and not one off them has been able to backup their claims that Leeds is actually catching Manchester, by providing evidence for their claims for both cities.

Waiting (still) in anticipation for those claims to be backed up.

For fucks sake man...

dgnr - so we should just accept what people are saying and not question them in any way?

Should we all go around like zommbies just believing what we are told and we shouldn't question?

Are you really happy for people to continually to make statements as if they are true without being questioned.

If people don't like being questioned about comments they make, I suggest they stop making the comments.

I agree with dgnr8. All seems a bit pointless to me.

LN1, that last response you did meant nothing towards the issue in question.
All you said is that Leeds was growing and that you are ahead of Sheffield.

dgnr - so we should just accept what people are saying and not question them in any way?

Should we all go around like zommbies just believing what we are told and we shouldn't question?

Are you really happy for people to continually to make statements as if they are true without being questioned.

If people don't like being questioned about comments they make, I suggest they stop making the comments.

I don't think that's what dgnr8's saying at all. It's more about making your point and challenging the stupidity that gets posted when one or two people come on here and spout utter drivel. Good for you when you set out all that Manchester's achieved in the last few years. But there's no need to bang on about the argument ad nauseam. That way, you make yourself almost as much of a nuisance as the drivel spouters.

dgnr - so we should just accept what people are saying and not question them in any way?

Should we all go around like zommbies just believing what we are told and we shouldn't question?

Are you really happy for people to continually to make statements as if they are true without being questioned.

If people don't like being questioned about comments they make, I suggest they stop making the comments.

I don't think that's what dgnr8's saying at all. It's more about making your point and challenging the stupidity that gets posted when one or two people come on here and spout utter drivel. Good for you when you set out all that Manchester's achieved in the last few years! But there's no need to bang on about the argument ad nauseam. That way, you make yourself almost as much of a nuisance as the drivel spouters.

aviator - I am not banging on about Manchester, I am simply pointing out that, if anything, Manchester is pulling away from Leeds - is this not relevant considering the nature off this discussion. I have then left it open for someone who has made contary claims to reply, and point out where I am mistaken, and where Leeds is 'catching up' Manchester.

Metrolink Kurt, this is all in vain, LN1 will never admit that Manchester is ahead of Leeds. If that's what he truly thinks, theres nothing anyone can do to change it.

All this city vs. city stuff is reaching epidemic levels now, but then again this is a thread that was inevitably going to go this way from the very start. In a way these threads are good, they are a lightning rod that keeps all the shit in one thread, same with the 'best future skyline' thread in the City forum.

Can't believe I wasted my time arguing with greggo, that will never achieve anything. :ohno:

Lets have a new thread, the City on City love thread, in which the object is to say as many nice things about other cities as possible? :laugh:

Metrolink Kurt, this is all in vain, LN1 will never admit that Manchester is ahead of Leeds. If that's what he truly thinks, theres nothing anyone can do to change it.

All this city vs. city stuff is reaching epidemic levels now, but then again this is a thread that was inevitably going to go this way from the very start. In a way these threads are good, they are a lightning rod that keeps all the shit in one thread, same with the 'best future skyline' thread in the City forum.

Can't believe I wasted my time arguing with greggo, that will never achieve anything. :ohno:

Lets have a new thread, the City on City love thread, in which the object is to say as many nice things about other cities as possible? :laugh:
Manchesters ahead of Leeds, and after what I've seen on the Manchester forum and in Manchester itself, I'll be amazed if its not ahead of Birmingham and Glasgow as well.

Lets have a new thread, the City on City love thread, in which the object is to say as many nice things about other cities as possible? :laugh:

CAW123 this was never a Leeds vs Manchester thread from the start, with the title of "is Leeds playing catch up". There was never a mention of Manchester.

So can we put this thread to bed now?

Smartcity - have a read of the first post in this thread and then tell me it is not about Manchester.

How many other cities are there 'over the pennines' starting with M?

For those who have forgotten the very first post in this thread...


Is Leeds playing catch up?
I'm a Leeds lad, an immensely proud too. I would love Leeds to be Britains 3rd city (assuming Birmingham is 2nd based on it's sheer size). However the competition is fierce, and most of all from that awful city across the pennines beginning with 'M'.
In some respects, Leeds can claim to be better - but is Leeds playing catch-up in too many areas? I DON'T want this to turn into a row over which city is the better - just where Leeds needs to improve.
For a start I think we are lacking in public transport (trams, 24hr buses, more local train stations), arenas (we aint got one), stadia (no where to hold major finals), international flights, major shop brands (selfridges etc), media (no major national newspaper HQ and only regional BBC base), international profile (more people heard of Manc abroad) and looks like they've got more and taller buildings planned too!


Smartcity and anyone else who claims this was not about Manchester and Leeds, what the hell was it about then?

For those who have forgotten the very first post in this thread...



Smartcity and anyone else who claims this was not about Manchester and Leeds, what the hell was it about then?

You showing how big and clever you are.

ffs...

You showing how big and clever you are.


it could also be said that this thread showed how much certain people from Leeds spout pro-Leeds and anti-Manchester propaganda, and yet they are totally unable to backup any off their comments.

it could also be said that this thread showed how much certain people from Leeds spout pro-Leeds and anti-Manchester propaganda, and yet they are totally unable to backup any off their comments.

And why are they "totally unable" to back up any of their comments? Because they can't back up comments that are complete crap. You know that, I know that and everyone who reads this bar Lno1 and Greg knows and accepts this.
You just seem to use this kind of stuff as an excuse to "flex your muscles" and blab on about Manc with no let up, as well as picking the minutiae out of each and every point you know is wrong.
I know I'm lowering myself now by getting involved in this but my annoyance comes from knowing that you and Leeds No1 messed up a really good chance for the Leeds Forum to get detailed inside information around Xmas and 9 months later you're still at it.
Of course the irony of it is that neither of you live in Leeds. Cheers lads...