ill assume it is as no other city has been mentioned

Poor deluded Bob. If you base your definition of a "city" on what I consider to be a city, i.e. the urban area, then Nottingham is stagnant, with the top three for growth being London, Manchester and Birmingham in that order. If your definition is a local authority then Nottingham is shrinking ( http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8659.xls ). Under neither definition is Nottingham growing, so it couldn't possibly be the fastest growing city in the UK. Never was (in the last few centuries anyway), never will be.

Don't worry Bob. Nottingham is still more famous than Manchester in the bigger picture.

Even Robin Hood's officially moved from Nottingham to South Yorks, so things must be bad....... :)

What do you mean by that?

I think United out do Robin Hood for Fame...

http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Nottingham&word2=Manchester and
http://googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=Robin+Hood&word2=Manchester+United

This is a silly thread- it is clear that London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester are much faster growing than Nottingham, even if Nottingham is doing well for a city of its size. But then I think that maybe NewcastleGatesead is doing just as well.

This is a silly thread- it is clear that London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester are much faster growing than Nottingham, even if Nottingham is doing well for a city of its size. But then I think that maybe NewcastleGatesead is doing just as well.
But that's the whole point. Nottingham isn't doing well at all. If you use my definition of a city then it's the same size now that it was a few years ago and will continue to be the same size in 2020. If you use the definition some people in here use, i.e. the local authority, then Nottingham has shrunk over the past few years and is expected to continue shrinking beyond 2020.

Nottingham has a great Tram system, that has to be worth something.

Nottingham has a great Tram system, that has to be worth something.
So does Blackpool, but everybody still hates it!

Blackpool's trams are ace! I wouldn't rely on them as a transport method though... they're definetely a tourist thing...

Blackpool's trams are ace! I wouldn't rely on them as a transport method though... they're definetely a tourist thing...
Surprisingly, a lot of people use the trams to commute, as well as simply get around. Its good, cos you can park up in the town centre and get a tram to the various attractions along the prom (its a bloody long walk from the tower to the pleasure beach). Its also good if you live in Fleetwood and Cleveley's, where the trams run along the street.

Well yes I know, but I wouldn't particularly rely on them, unless I gave myself alot of time...

What about Milton Keynes?

What about Milton Keynes?
Slower than Manchester, Birmingham and Leeds to name just three.

Milton Keynes is growing?

supposedley- apparently the government has massive plans to build thousands of new homes and make it really quite a large place in the South. I heard BBC a few months ago that it would be 1/4 of the size of Birmingham. Nothing happening at the moment though, which is why its not growing now really.

Milton Keynes is growing?
By somewhere in the region of 2,000 a year atm.

http://www.mkweb.co.uk/futurecmk/home.asp

http://www.mkweb.co.uk/futurecmk/images/CMKMapNew.jpg

Milton Keynes Council's own estimate for June 2004 is now 216,810 people, with 181,690 living in the 'new city' area and 35,120 people living outside.

If the current Structure Plan allocation of dwellings growth in Milton Keynes to 2011 is reached, by the year 2011 the population will have risen to 255,780 people living in the Borough. That's an average of almost Twelve extra people every day between 2001 and 2011.

Its crap that MK is built (and still building) on urban sprawl. I cant believe that highrises are banned.

Really? That is really stupid. In the UK particularly, and especially the SE, we should be realising that we should all be going up rather than sprawling out. Central Milton Keynes should build some proper high rises. It's the perfect place for them, with its grid layout, and could possibly erase its boring, soulesss image.

density brings problems to a town like London, as infrastructure can't cope. we have narrow roads, narrow tube tunnels, etc. I'm not sure density should get anymore. It is possibly optimum as it is. Although to be truely 24 hours a day it would have to be denser.

I live right near Milton Keynes, it sucks!

No but most UK cities are able to have hi-rises. Every city has large brownfield sites which can be deeloped with hi-rises and high quality infrastructure to cope with modern demands. Milton Keynes is doing all this but sprawling instead- it can easily go hi-rise- wide roads, bus lanes, cycle lanes, trams- everything is possible for it- why aren't they doing it?

No but most UK cities are able to have hi-rises. Every city has large brownfield sites which can be deeloped with hi-rises and high quality infrastructure to cope with modern demands. Milton Keynes is doing all this but sprawling instead- it can easily go hi-rise- wide roads, bus lanes, cycle lanes, trams- everything is possible for it- why aren't they doing it?

Yeah, Milton Keynes is a shitty example of British town planning. :(

I mentioned Milton Keynes as being the fastest growing in the Uk because lets not forget that 60 years ago it was a mere village with next to no people. Now it houses 1/4 million. Impressive, unlike the town itself altho I do find it somewhat interesting because it's grid layout ain't like anywhere else in the UK. And I agree it could look well smart with some high-rises.

I think Milton Keynes has a height restriction to something like 3 storeys, although that will probably change with new guidelines.

There was talk about expanding it to a population of 2 million, something which concerns us Brummies somewhat!

But to add to the debate, there are a couple of new towns in the pipeline, which will outstrip anywhere else in terms of rate (I know they are not cities) - they will be looking at a 30-50 times population rise in 25 years. Staggering.

Thats ridiculous- I know MK has plans for big expansion, which Im not particularly against but why outwards? The wider everything is spread, the wider the money has to be spread which means a lower quality of services, rather than a small, dense area of good services. Why new towns too? I can think of hundreds of brownfield sites in practically every city that could be filled, and thousands of places which could be redeveloped better...

This is a silly thread- it is clear that London, Birmingham, Leeds and Manchester are much faster growing than Nottingham, even if Nottingham is doing well for a city of its size. But then I think that maybe NewcastleGatesead is doing just as well.

Birmingham/Black Country have just been shown to be losing population faster than anywhere else in the UK apart from some areas of London. It was in the national press last month.

From what I recall, virtually all the major cities were losing population between the last two censuses - apart from maybe Sheffield. Some were slight, but others were losing amounts in double figures.

I think Milton Keynes has a height restriction to something like 3 storeys, although that will probably change with new guidelines.

There was talk about expanding it to a population of 2 million, something which concerns us Brummies somewhat!

But to add to the debate, there are a couple of new towns in the pipeline, which will outstrip anywhere else in terms of rate (I know they are not cities) - they will be looking at a 30-50 times population rise in 25 years. Staggering.

Maybe it's new Labour spin. We've had white papers about how all the cities will get tram systems (Now mostly cancelled) and white papers showing every airport will need six runways by 2030 (Probably not) and god knows what else...

What they seem to forget that MK was built so people could flee London and have gardens & fresh air. If they turn it into a sprawling urban mess, they'll end up with same problems most cities have and it'll lose its appeal. MK is designed for people who want to live in a village, but can't bear not to have supermarkets and shops and facilities nearby, and don't want to live in those nasty old cities with terraced houses.

The difference is that the nasty old cities have some character & tradition and history. MK is artificial, all from the same period, and will end up being a miserable mess.

Well it might be the case for a short period of time, but overall over the last 10 years, population in Leeds has been rising, so why would that be any different for other major cities...

Birmingham/Black Country have just been shown to be losing population faster than anywhere else in the UK apart from some areas of London. It was in the national press last month.

From what I recall, virtually all the major cities were losing population between the last two censuses - apart from maybe Sheffield. Some were slight, but others were losing amounts in double figures.
Martin, ONS have shown population growth for all the large cities in the UK each year since the 2001 census. Would you care to show us one of these national press articles?

I was looking at Nottingham on Wikipedia and someone has wrote on it saying that Nottingham is the fastest growing city in the UK after Glasgow. They don't include any evidence or sources however!

...I wonder who wrote that...

Did you know Nottingham was founded in 2500AD (making it the oldest and therefore most important city in the universe) and was the starting point of the renaissance, the birth place of Elvis Presley and also one of the seven wonders of the world.

Nottingham is mentioned in the bible 5 times, most notably in Genesis; "And God got to the seventh day and realised his creation, the universe lacked a certain spark, and god did create Nottingham and Nottingham was the second fastest growing city in the Uk after Glasgow although God created no evidence to back such a claim up"

common knowledge...

...I wonder who wrote that...

There is a Nottingham version of Early Bird out there ;)

MK is designed for people who want to live in a village, but can't bear not to have supermarkets and shops and facilities nearby, and don't want to live in those nasty old cities with terraced houses.

The difference is that the nasty old cities have some character & tradition and history. MK is artificial, all from the same period, and will end up being a miserable mess.

Very true and good summary of MK there. The thing I hate about Milton keynes apart from the artificialness of it is the layout whereby housing estates surround a shopping centre and the empty spaces everywhere that make it feel like a town and not a city. Of course some people like it but I despise it. Add some interesting architecture and public art and some skyscrapers and better mix of buildings in all the gaps and it could be alot better.

There is a Nottingham version of Early Bird out there ;)
Yeh, and he started this thread :laugh:

Bob the Builder's grasp on reality seems rather tenous to say the least!

However comparing him to Early Bird is a little unfair, no-one deserves to be tarred with that brush ;)

MK expansion is going ahead although not on the scale published earlier this year - the council leader was surprised by the 2 million figure!

From what I heard from someone very in-the-know the last week, they aim to be the 8th (I think he said 8th) largest city (conurbation) in the country within 20 years.

Puts the rest of us to shame really.

It is going ahead though as they are making all the infrastructure upgrades - schools, hospitals, roads, shopping etc

Very bad idea to do it in the south I think- it would be a better idea to share the expansion around smaller but important cities, maybe NewcastleGateshead, Aberdeen, Hull, Bristol, Southampton?

Did you know Nottingham was founded in 2500AD (making it the oldest and therefore most important city in the universe) and was the starting point of the renaissance, the birth place of Elvis Presley and also one of the seven wonders of the world.

Nottingham is mentioned in the bible 5 times, most notably in Genesis; "And God got to the seventh day and realised his creation, the universe lacked a certain spark, and god did create Nottingham and Nottingham was the second fastest growing city in the Uk after Glasgow although God created no evidence to back such a claim up"

:) :) :)

Earlybird should maybe leave Manchester for once in his born days, might do him some good.

Earlybird should maybe leave Manchester for once in his born days, might do him some good.
I've been to Nottingham. I'll never go there again. There are only three places in the UK I truly dislike. Birmingham, Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent.

We love you...
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/Accura/DSC00204.jpg

I've been to Nottingham. I'll never go there again. There are only three places in the UK I truly dislike. Birmingham, Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent.

Not a fan of the midlands then? How come?

I've been to Nottingham. I'll never go there again. There are only three places in the UK I truly dislike. Birmingham, Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent.

Because people who live there are very good judges of character.

I've been to Nottingham. I'll never go there again. There are only three places in the UK I truly dislike. Birmingham, Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent.

Ever been to Middlesbrough?

I've been to Nottingham. I'll never go there again. There are only three places in the UK I truly dislike. Birmingham, Nottingham and Stoke-on-Trent.

I haven't really been to Birmingham, so can't comment, but Nottingham is lovely (great Trams) but agree re Stoke it is a prize dump.

Ever been to Middlesbrough?
Yes I have. Also been to Cumbernauld.

^^ Maybe he's read this - the most recent Experian retail ranking, that places Nottingham above Manchester:

1.West End
2.Glasgow
3.Birmingham
4.Leeds
5.Nottingham
6.Manchester
7.Southampton
8.Cardiff
9.Norwich
10.Bluewater
11.Chester
12.Reading
13.Liverpool
14.Newcaste
15.Leicester

http://press.experian.com/documents/showdoc.cfm

Birdiebonce usually rants and raves about how shit somewhere is when he feels it threatens Manchester in some way. Take it as a complement. Hence, the constant shitbag denigration of Birmingham - a city with huge similarities to Manchester, in size, importance, industrial history, civic facilities, etc., etc. An argument can easily be made for a preference for Manchester (one I have myself, on balance, out of those two) or vice versa.

Earlybird could easily say that Manchester is a bit better than Birmingham for reasons x, y and z, whilst conceding that there isn't much in it, in other areas, and people might have respect for him. The fact that he constantly screams about how Birmingham is the shittest place in the universe, seems to be only a reflection he realises subconsciously or otherwise that Manchester's superiority over Birmingham is a damn close run thing if it exists at all.

As I said, if Birdy slags something off with viscous and unwarranted ferocity, it's because he's found out that it's maybe better than Manchester in some way.

He really should learn to be proud of his city and express that in terms other than how shit everywhere else is. It makes him look like a fool and other people (unfairly for the city) think less well of Manchester, the opposite effect one can only imagine he's hoping for.

He shags washing machines Aled..

Ever been to Middlesbrough?

Don't dis the Boro ;)