Not Liverpool I know but certainly in our spear of influence and therefore worthy of discussion. 440000 sq ft of shops, 100 odd flats, car park, department store and performing arts centre amongst other things.

I'm split between being happy to see development in our region and worrying it might blunt the impact of PSDA. Big improvement on the crap 60's and 70's stuff there now though, for sure.

http://www.northgatechester.co.uk/

http://www.northgatechester.co.uk/_data/01.jpg

Not Liverpool I know but certainly in our spear of influence and therefore worthy of discussion. 440000 sq ft of shops, 100 odd flats, car park, department store and performing arts centre amongst other things.

I'm split between being happy to see development in our region and worrying it might blunt the impact of PDSA. Big improvement on the crap 60's and 70's stuff there now though, for sure.

http://www.northgatechester.co.uk/

http://www.northgatechester.co.uk/_data/01.jpg

It will improve the local offer- but I don't think it will compete with the mighty retail sector Liverpool will have in 3 years time. Lpool should be in the UK's top 3 by then easily. I reckon Chester folk will still hop on the train to Lpool for big nights out and shopping trips.- Assuming that bloody McArthur Glen doesn't tempt them (-I think the place is vile and hardly worth it in terms of prices.)

I was slightly gutted to be honest when I first found Chester was getting a scheme with so much space just as Liverpool was getting its act to together.
Suppose we also have Central Village, the Met Quarter and who knows what else though to look forward to though.

PSDA alone is over a million sq feet isn't it?

PSDA alone is over a million sq feet isn't it? Also, I expect Albert Dock will be far more successful once Kings Dock, Mann Island and PSDA improvements knit it in with the rest of the centre better.

Pj, I don't quite get your logic there. Liverpool Bay is a multi-centred city region and surely it's good if all its nodes are strong? Chester has a different catchment than Liverpool CBD, far more from North Wales than Liverpool has, so I don't see the two centres as competing. As far as I am concerned, what is good for Chester is good for the city region as a whole.

PSDA alone is over a million sq feet isn't it?

It is. I know I'm probably worrying over nothing.

*cough!*

*cough!*

We aren't worried about Preston mate. And put your hand over your mouth in future!

Please forgive me :P

I was slightly gutted to be honest when I first found Chester was getting a scheme with so much space just as Liverpool was getting its act to together.
Suppose we also have Central Village, the Met Quarter and who knows what else though to look forward to though.

Trafford Centre has just announced a large expansion, now Chester, but pjm this will always happen, Liverpool in 2008 will have more than enough attractions to keep the tills busy. My biggest fear for Liverpool ( and all cities) is PARKING. Motorists will always want to use their cars and its up to the city to cater for this, the bombed /slum cleared sites that have been a principle source of land for council/private car park operators is fast disappearing ( both in Liverpool & Manchester) Park & Ride schemes and MSCP will be needed to replace these lost car parks. The city must be seen to be welcoming to the private car, but restrict access into the inner core, were pedestrians should have priority. I would also hope that the Merseytram network would also help in keeping the downtown area clean and keep pollution down.

Trafford Centre has just announced a large expansion, now Chester, but pjm this will always happen, Liverpool in 2008 will have more than enough attractions to keep the tills busy. My biggest fear for Liverpool ( and all cities) is PARKING. Motorists will always want to use their cars and its up to the city to cater for this, the bombed /slum cleared sites that have been a principle source of land for council/private car park operators is fast disappearing ( both in Liverpool & Manchester) Park & Ride schemes and MSCP will be needed to replace these lost car parks. The city must be seen to be welcoming to the private car, but restrict access into the inner core, were pedestrians should have priority. I would also hope that the Merseytram network would also help in keeping the downtown area clean and keep pollution down.

Certainly I think the 2000 spaces in PSDA will help things along in replacing lost space. The problem with dealing with places like the Trafford Centre is of course that they can offer free parking. If the council were to take a more enlightened policy they would seek to reduce these charges where ever possible rather than seeing it as a stealthy way to raise income.

Small point about city centre parking, any idea what percentage of people in Liverpool city centre get there on public transport?

In Manchester it is over 65% (and climbing), parking is not as important as some would imagine.

The majority Metro. Not sure on exact figures but Liverpool has a much lower number of parking space than Manchester for instance.

Merseyrail carry a lot, but the buses are rammed in and out of the centre.

The Chester development looks good, a proper downtown development, the scale in keeping with the city, rather than boxey housing, tin shed shops and offices.

Anyway Chester is only 30 minutes away from Liverpool by train on Merseyrail ..... and vice versa of course!

:)

Your point?

Motorists will always want to use their cars and its up to the city to cater for this,.
Not always the rule. Whenever I travel into Toronto I will take the GO Train (Goverment of Ontario Transit) from Brampton into Union Station. If the GO train isn't feasible I will drive to either Islington or Yorkdale subway stations and take the subway into the city. A very large, and growing, percentage of people who live within the GTA (Greater Toronto Area), but outside of the city, are opting for the commuter solution. Toronto traffic is horrendous and parking fees exhorbitant. I would recon it is only a matter of time before UK cities become the same, which will make the commuter solution more attractive there also.

Parking isnt that bad in Toronto at the moment. There is a hell of a lot of parking around the Gardiner/Spadina. Problem is that its all being built on.

If you're doing some serious shopping then public transport can be a right pain in the arse. The seats on buses are crammed in tighter than the Upper Bullens, a problem amplified if you're carrying more than one small bag of stuff. Now add in people with sprogs in prams, wheelchair users, cyclists, Arriva runnig buses purely when they can be arsed, and not when they're supposed to, and using a car is a very attractive alternative. I'd like to see massive park and ride centres placed at the likes of Brunswick, Sandhills and near Birkenhead Docks, preferably multi-storey or underground, with frequent bus shuttle services for around £1 a day, much like the scheme up and running in Southport, but on a far larger scale. people leaving the cars at Sandhills would be more inclined to visit Central Docks as well when they're tarted up, Brunswick with Brunswick Quay when that is forced through and er, look at Liverpool when in Birkenhead. :) Land is cheap and plentiful, cars would be removed from the streets around the city centre and bus frequency could be increaed accordingly. :)

What do you folks think? :?

Does Liverpool have any existing Park and Rides? :?

Yes Accy,

Merseytravel / Merseyrail provides a number of "Park`n`Ride" facilities at Rail Stations across the region.

Park`n`Ride is currently due to be substantially improved and extented to new areas and a post to that effect is on another thread.

:)

Environmentalists really piss me off sometimes. They complain now that Park and Rides take up too much space. So what do they want everyone to do? Get back in their cars?

A lot depends on wether you build a multi storey car park or tarmac twenty acres or more.

Parking isnt that bad in Toronto at the moment
I guess visiting on a Sunday in summer to take the ferry to Centre Island isn't to bad but when you have to commute on a daily basis it is not only time consuming but damn expensive. What once took 40 minutes to drive is now a 2 hour journey in rush hour. The 401 across the top of the city is a virtual parking lot at all times of the day and 407 is not better at rush hour. I can't count how many times I have driven into the city, only park blocks away from my destination and having to take the subway three or four stations anyway. The first hour of work for those employed in the city is to pay the daily parking fee. Toronto is actively discouraging automobile traffic in the downtown. We are just waiting for them to impose the "London" solution next.

Fair enough, when we lived in TO, we never really went downtown during rush hour. We still got caught on the disgusting traffic jams on the 401 and DVP frequently though. At least Toronto is one of those North American cities where public transport is actually improving, with the new trams coming along soon and the introduction of double decker buses.

In what way is Chester in Liverpool's 'sphere of influence'? Is this just a pipe dream by city regionalists?

The only real links between the two cities I see is the extreme limits of Merseyrail into Chester.

Chester is an historic city in its own right, particualrly with the Roman walls generating tourism. Two of its major employment areas - Chester Business Park and BAe Systems have little if any links with Liverpool, but have a strong Welsh influence.

Apart from its relative proximity to Liverpool, what tangible links are there that suggests Chester should be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Liverpool region, rather than being recognised as an independent city in its own right?

Particularly with Cheshire Oaks, the new Porshe garage there and the Blue Planet (all part of the Liverpool-influenced Ellesmere Port) advertising themselves as 'near Chester', I see Chester more of a competitor to Liverpool's retail sector, rather than Chester being a 'node' within a Liverpool city region.

^At last, somebody with some sense who isnt living in dreamland.

In what way is Chester in Liverpool's 'sphere of influence'? Is this just a pipe dream by city regionalists?

The only real links between the two cities I see is the extreme limits of Merseyrail into Chester.

Chester is an historic city in its own right, particualrly with the Roman walls generating tourism. Two of its major employment areas - Chester Business Park and BAe Systems have little if any links with Liverpool, but have a strong Welsh influence.

Apart from its relative proximity to Liverpool, what tangible links are there that suggests Chester should be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Liverpool region, rather than being recognised as an independent city in its own right?

Particularly with Cheshire Oaks, the new Porshe garage there and the Blue Planet (all part of the Liverpool-influenced Ellesmere Port) advertising themselves as 'near Chester', I see Chester more of a competitor to Liverpool's retail sector, rather than Chester being a 'node' within a Liverpool city region.

Chester is not a city as that term is understood by the world at large, it is a town. A very nice town with much going for it, but still a town.
In the absense of any other major city in close proximity it would be reasonable to say that if Chester had to fall under the influence of any city, Liverpool would be it.

This has been acknowledged by bodies like the NHS, who run their strategic planning on the basis of Merseyside and Cheshire, and Halton council, which chooses to affiliate with Liverpool/Merseyside on certain matters.

Economically the town has certainly benefited from have a large pool of labour on its doorstep to serve its burgening financial services sector. And some might say has seized an opportunity in attracting those companies that would of in the past located in Liverpool, but were put off by its image problems.

Merseyrail (which you mention) commutes thousands. While simple anecdotal things like the number of EFC or LFC posters you'll see shows you clearly the links exist.

I'm not saying the Liverbird should be raised over Chester Town Hall tomorrow, just that there are a lot of shared interests and common ground and that that should be taken into account.

^At last, somebody with some sense who isnt living in dreamland.

This from the lad living in Preston, who claims to be in "Manchestershire".

Chester is very close to Liverpool, but is a fairly important centre for employment and shopping in its own right.

However, by some definitions of a city region, e.g., that used in the Northern Way documents that base city regions on a basis of a percentage of the population commuting to the centre of the city region, Chester is part of the Liverpool city region.

A large proportion of Chester's working population commute to Liverpool every day.

Chester is not a city as that term is understood by the world at large, it is a town. A very nice town with much going for it, but still a town.
What is the population of Chester?

In the absense of any other major city in close proximity it would be reasonable to say that if Chester had to fall under the influence of any city, Liverpool would be it.
But you could say that for anywhere. Why do some people seem to think that the whole of the UK is part of some metro area or another?

Merseyrail (which you mention) commutes thousands. While simple anecdotal things like the number of EFC or LFC posters you'll see shows you clearly the links exist.
Glory supporters are everywhere...

I'm not saying the Liverbird should be raised over Chester Town Hall tomorrow, just that there are a lot of shared interests and common ground and that that should be taken into account.
Like with Manchester? :D

Accy

I have to say there aint much glory in supporting EFC these days. :)

EFC attract maschocists.

JDN21,

"In what way is Chester in Liverpool's 'sphere of influence'? Is this just a pipe dream by city regionalists?

The only real links between the two cities I see is the extreme limits of Merseyrail into Chester.

Apart from its relative proximity to Liverpool, what tangible links are there that suggests Chester should be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Liverpool region, rather than being recognised as an independent city in its own right?"

Question:
In what way is the City of Salford not an independent city in its own right?should it be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Manchester region?

http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/yourcom/salfordlife/aboutsalford.htm
Quote:

"Where is Salford?

Salford is about 200 miles north west of London. With excellent road and public transport links to all parts of the UK, the city is well placed as a visitor and commercial centre."

Question:
Stockport (town) as above, Oldham (town) as above, etc

Question:
The only real links between Manchester Airport I see is the extreme limits of ......

Have a nice day.

I`m off down the pub.

:) :cheers:

Pietari my excuse for being up all night and going to bed in the afternoon is in the name of sex, drugs and some clubbing hole but whats your excuse??

Your dedicated i'll give you that!

JDN21,

"In what way is Chester in Liverpool's 'sphere of influence'? Is this just a pipe dream by city regionalists?

The only real links between the two cities I see is the extreme limits of Merseyrail into Chester.

Apart from its relative proximity to Liverpool, what tangible links are there that suggests Chester should be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Liverpool region, rather than being recognised as an independent city in its own right?"

Question:
In what way is the City of Salford not an independent city in its own right?should it be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Manchester region?

http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/yourcom/salfordlife/aboutsalford.htm
Quote:

"Where is Salford?

Salford is about 200 miles north west of London. With excellent road and public transport links to all parts of the UK, the city is well placed as a visitor and commercial centre."

Question:
Stockport (town) as above, Oldham (town) as above, etc

Question:
The only real links between Manchester Airport I see is the extreme limits of ......

Have a nice day.

I`m off down the pub.

:) :cheers:
1. Salford is actually part of the Manchester urban area. Chester is not part of Liverpool's.
2. The majority of people in Salford consider themselves Mancunians. People in Chester dont consider themselves part of Liverpool.
3. Salford has no distinguishable city centre. Its city centre is Manchester city centre.
4. Salford is right next to Manchester. Chester is nowhere near Liverpool.
5. Salford is actually in the same county as Manchester.

In the context of your argument above I take it that Preston, Manchestershire is ironic?

Chester is a part of Liverpool city region by any of the standards and criteria generally used to define them. It is also a proud and important centre in its own right. A city region is not a conurbation, and can have more than one centre. Some argue that Manchester and Leeds are effectively one city region these days, rather than two. I don't agree with them on that point, but it's a view I've heard expressed by serious people.

I'm proud when I travel on an airbus to know the wings have been made in Liverpool city region. As is also the case for Bristol city region, aerospace is important to the economy of the Liverpool city region.

JDN21,

"In what way is Chester in Liverpool's 'sphere of influence'? Is this just a pipe dream by city regionalists?

The only real links between the two cities I see is the extreme limits of Merseyrail into Chester.

Apart from its relative proximity to Liverpool, what tangible links are there that suggests Chester should be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Liverpool region, rather than being recognised as an independent city in its own right?"

Question:
In what way is the City of Salford not an independent city in its own right?should it be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Manchester region?

http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/yourcom/salfordlife/aboutsalford.htm
Quote:

"Where is Salford?

Salford is about 200 miles north west of London. With excellent road and public transport links to all parts of the UK, the city is well placed as a visitor and commercial centre."

Question:
Stockport (town) as above, Oldham (town) as above, etc

Question:
The only real links between Manchester Airport I see is the extreme limits of ......

Have a nice day.

I`m off down the pub.

:) :cheers:

What is your point? Salford and Manchester neighbour eachother. Liverpool and Chester aren't even in the same conurbation.

No matter what technicalities about definitions and irrelevant examples like you just suggested, Chester simply isn't influenced by Liverpool in such a way as to suggest they have any formal civic relationship with eachother. To say that Chester is influenced enough by Liverpool is wishful thinking.

I would suggest that Liverpool's influence to the west, outside Merseyside travels no further than Ellesmere Port.

In the context of your argument above I take it that Preston, Manchestershire is ironic?
Its called being overly excited about Manchester. Cant beat em, join em!

Question:
In what way is the City of Salford not an independent city in its own right?should it be relegated (for want of a better term) to a part of a Manchester region?

http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/yo...boutsalford.htm
Quote:

"Where is Salford?

Salford is about 200 miles north west of London. With excellent road and public transport links to all parts of the UK, the city is well placed as a visitor and commercial centre."

Pietari my excuse for being up all night and going to bed in the afternoon is in the name of sex, drugs and some clubbing hole but whats your excuse??

Your dedicated i'll give you that!

Bless you CM!

Better to burn out than fade away!

:) :cheers:

Can't argue with that i'll drink to it :cheers:

Pietari - I think you are too concerned by names.

You are right, Salford is a city in it's own right, just as Manchester is. However, they both (along with many other areas) work together as a whole.

You may not call this 'whole' 'Manchester', you may not even call it a city, however, that doesn't matter, call it what you like, but there is a lump of urban sprawl at the east end of the East Lancs that is very monocentric where the local authorities work together very well.

That place, has a common name of Manchester, if you want to seperate them out as Salford, Trafford etc then fair enough, that is your perogative, however, to deny there is something there (call it what you like), that is vastly different from the situation between say Liverpool and Chester is naive and blinkered to say the least, but you most probably already know it.

Salford and Trafford are pretty much unambiguously Manchester, just as Bootle (Liverpool's Salford) is Liverpool.

The problem of extremists like EarlyBird ("Manchester is a city with a population of 2.2 million", witness the now worthless and illogical Wiki entry for Manchester) is that they cause an overreaction and push people into the similarly ill-thought out "Manchester has a population of 400,000 people" camp.

Manchester obviously extends beyond its terrribly underbounded local authority boundaries. Salford does not even really have a city centre nowadays and is a inner district of central Manchester, Trafford is a mixture of industrial Manchester and its residential suburbs.

However, Manchester is also the centre of a conubation of distinct industrial (or formerly industrial) towns. Increasingly Manchester is dominant within these towns and perhaps more and more the seperate indentities of these towns is in decline.

However, most people fair minded people would recognise that they are ways in which Bolton, for example is not part of Manchester - it's a large town in its own right, with its own accent and atmosphere. A city and a conurbation of seperate towns, even one dominated by a large central city is not the same thing, whatever EB and other fruitbats might think.

Agree Awayo, totally.

However, just as a place like Rochdale (the town) may not be connected to Manchester, it doesn't mean that no one who pays their council tax to Rochdale is within the urban area surrounding the place commonly known as Manchester for example places like Middleton.

So, until someone comes up with a better name for the area that I have described than the one I currently use, it will remain as Manchester in my mind, since that is the dominant player in the area.

Actually Metrolink you may not be too surprised that I mostly agree with you on the subject.

However let me make some points.

You may find that not every one in Salford actually likes being called Manchester.

I`m sure that Chester wouldn`t like being called Liverpool.

However it didn`t stop Chester hotels for example jumping on the band wagon and advertising thier proximity to the "1984 Liverpool International Garden Festival" any more than it stops Chester, Manchester or Birmingham hotels etc advertising the "Liverpool Grand National Steeple chase" .... nor will it or should it stop them getting a slice of "Liverpool European Capital of Culture 2008".

I suppose at the end of the day there is no such thing as a free lunch.

My original rather toungue in cheek (it usually is) remark about the "Holly Oaks Factor" is that as a currently very popular television program (only part of which) is shot in Chester is made by "Mersey Television" and has given Chester a bit of a make over in terms of perception....more youthful.

Conversly in "Granada Land" we are mostly all tared with the same "Coronation Street" brush and whilst I watch it (and Emerdale and Eastenders) I`d hate to think that peoples perception out side of our region was based on it - but it is.

For those who can`t find their way north past Watford.

I absolutely cringe at the idea that the City of Liverpool has given the `Freedom of the City` to Granada TV given the very many years of biased reporting....which has done little for the North West in general or even in total.

As they say you make your bed and you lie in it.

It has taken people by surprise (including some in the city) that Liverpool won the "European Capital of Culture" tag for 2008 and even horrified others that parts of the City are designated a "World Heritage Site."

It`s Liverpools responsibility to get on with it and make a sucess of it hopefully without the snide comments of others who will still be looking for a free meal.

Did Manchester holding the `Commonwealth Games` help Liverpool or any areas outside of Manchester?

Weren`t the majority of venues all within the boundary of the `City of Manchester` itself?

Please correct me if I`m wrong it`s not a problem.

But once again don`t be too surprised if places like the `City of Salford` want to be called just that and not `Manchester` even if you both share the same bed so to speak?

After all Salfords Quays is your Quays and we`ve given Granada ours.

Nevertheless people and places will align for their own best benefit.

I remember Stellios asking if Liverpool Airport should/could be renamed Manchester / Liverpool and Manchester Airport refused point blank.

Anyway "Liverpool John Lennon Airport - above us only sky" has a nice sound to it and it`s very kind of Manchester to pay for Liverpool runways two and three at ringway for the time being.

In the meantime can you ask Granada to come and give the back door a paint - they`ve got the keys (oh damn I`ve made that point already....lol)

:cheers:

Couple of things, the commonwealth games were all over Greater Manchester, racket sports were in Bolton, and other sports dotted around other boroughs.

By the way, 'The Quays' (as it is now know - the sign posts direct you to The Quays and not Salford Quays) is actually in Trafford and Salford - they have their own web site.

http://www.thequays.org.uk/

Oh, and you'll see the irony when you go to the quay's web site, (a piece of joint work between Trafford and Salford), on the home page it proclaims that the winner of the 'Manchester Tourism Awards for Best Website' as being itself, yet doesn't cover 'Manchester'.

you'll also note that Manchester United won Manchester tourism location of the year for the museum (in Trafford) and they describe the Red Cinema as being the Manchester Red Cinema, despite being over the canal in Salford.

I`m sure that Chester wouldn`t like being called Liverpool.


Excellent post Pietari. As for people liking and not liking, it's complicated. Cities as a form of living go in and out of fashion. They were, as you know, incredibly fashionable and regarded as the apex of all that is civilised and civilising in, for example, the Edwardian era. By the time local government reorganisation created metropolitan authorities in the mid 1970s cities were very much out of fashion. Those who could had spent good dosh radiating out in those famous concentric circles, leaping past the green belt where it stopped them laying foundations for their house.

If you look at attitudes in the Wirral, they are quite telling. Now there is no way towns like Wallasey or West Kirby or Hoylake would be anything more than tiny villages without their role as part of Liverpool. They have no independent existence outside that of the city they serve as dormitary for. And yet, and yet, there was a voiciferous "Wirral ouf of Merseyside" campaign throughout the life of Merseyside County Council. This was based in part on the kind of silly parochialism that makes one end of a street believe it is better than the other end of the same street, but also I think a form of anti-urbanism. Those people fancied the idea of "Cheshire": cheese, cows, Chester, jags gleaming in leafy private lanes, the whole deal. At that time, cities were perceived as dirty, dangerous and declining. In the case of Liverpool, multiply that by two because of the special issues being faced (and over-reported) at that time.

Now? Well I think it's changed, I think that people are increasingly recognising the better cities as being places to go to, and also to identify with.

It will change over time, and as Liverpool centre is rebuilt and rediscovered I've no doubt personally that people from places such as Preston and Wigan will start to regard it as being as much their nearest big centre as they do currently the centre of Manchester.

As for wanting or not wanting, well I don't think it's really about that at the moment. City regions currently seem to exist in the mist between reality and the imagination of policy makers. But a Liverpool Bay city region should, to my mind, not be conceived as uni-polar and based on a model of Liverpool and its suburbs. I prefer to perceive it as a networked multi-noded urban region, with centres like Chester and Warrington and Wrexham each having an important role and identity within the broader city region.

Of course, it's important to have specialisms within that city region - eg for the city region to support the development of its airport (LJLA), and to strive for artistic excellence (Liverpool needs to invest more in live classical music, opera and performing arts, and that is something the wider city region benefits from and should contribute towards). Personally I would like to see the Government establish a Liverpool Bay City Region office, to replace GO North West (and parts of the Welsh Office) as its eyes, ears and hands in the city region.

Oh, and you'll see the irony when you go to the quay's web site, (a piece of joint work between Trafford and Salford), on the home page it proclaims that the winner of the 'Manchester Tourism Awards for Best Website' as being itself, yet doesn't cover 'Manchester'.

Irony indeed, the web site says `Salford Quays` and `Greater Manchester`s Waterfront`.

and local government in Salford says:

http://www.salford.gov.uk/living/yo...boutsalford.htm
Quote:

"Where is Salford?

Salford is about 200 miles north west of London.

(Not fifteen minutes from Manchester City Centre.)

Salford is a city in transformation, moving into an exciting future as a thriving cultural, economic and residential location.

The Quays, Salford

Imagine London’s Docklands… only better.

(Goodness me!)

By the way their nearest airport isn`t ....

Kurt has a point in that the fact the the tourist prizes for Greater Manchester have been named the Manchester Tourism Awards reflects the slow creep into common usage of using "Manchester" to describe Greater Manchester - a process that seems to be ongoing but is as yet far from complete, as the info that Pieman has found on the Salford city council site reflects.

Something similar is happened elsewhere, the Merseyside Partnership now refers to its patch as the "Liverpool City Region" more often than it does "Merseyside". Cities are back in favour, as Poli states ^^.

I fail to understand the point about Salford being 200miles north of London - don't most places in the country describe their location relevant to London, since most people know where London is?

As I said previously, if you don't want to call that urban area Manchester then fine, call it whatever you like, call it Salford it that floats your boat, it really doesn't matter, what does matter is there is a large urban area, that works together, and the combination of the entire area is what is currently driving the economy in that area.

You could compare the basic economies of 'Manchester', 'Salford' etc, 'Liverpool', 'Leeds' etc, however, that would not give anyone a true idea of the situation in those urban areas (no matter what you decide to call them), to do so, you need to look at the whole, and not just a small part of the whole.

Pietari - since you mention the airport, Manchester city council own 55% of the airport (since it is on their land) whilst the other 9 councils own 5% each, and yet it is not called the Manchester/Trafford/Salford/Wigan/Bolton/Rochdale/Bury/Oldham/Tameside/Stockport airport as is the case with the one in West Yorks that has a similar ownership structure.

Metro,

"I fail to understand the point about Salford being 200miles north of London - don't most places in the country describe their location relevant to London, since most people know where London is?"

No not really - I see it as a seperate city wanting to have a seperate identity - just because the M62 goes from Liverpool to Hull hasn`t made us `Liverhull` or them `Hullerpool`.

You might have more luck with `Mancunia`.

Incidentally I saw the proposed new courts for Manchester.

I like modern architecture but that building is one grave mistake that Mancunia will regret IMO.

And I`m honestly and truelly not having a sideways dig.

Maybe it`s just not a good rendition - do you like it?

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to their opionion - my wife hates it, as she does Beetham.

The difference between Salford / Manchester, and any other combination you care to mention is huge, they share the same city centre, all their infrastructure is combined, a good proportion of Salford markets itself as Manchester, e.g. http://www.thelowryhotel.com/ - The Lowry Hotel and http://www.premiertravelinn.com/pti/localInformation.do?hotelId=24125 the Manchester City Centre Premier Travel Inn Hotel - sell themselves as being in Manchester.

Internationally, through the British council, they are both sold to other international business as 'Manchester' (have recently seen poster adverts on the Barcelona underground advertising 'Manchester' when it actually meant GM - the councils do this together.)

Salford Central train station, is in Manchester city centre.

A challenge for you - try and find a bus route (www.gmpte.com) that goes to Salford City Centre.

I bet I could find bus routes that go to Chester, and Hull city centres - you cannot with Salford since it's entire infrastructure is shared with Manchester (and several other places).

Have posted this previously in other threads, you can see the boarder between Salford, Trafford and Manchester going near St Georges

http://mc.multimap.com/cs/os50k//X15/Y15/X1532Y1588S25W700H400.gif

How on earth would the people just the Trafford or the Manchester side not be using the exact same infrastructure to those people in Salford?

I presume you are able to post a similar image for the Chester / Liverpool shared infrastructure???

:)

In London there are ongoing debates about whether places like Bromley, Croydon etc are part of London. As far as I'm concerned if they have their own town hall they are largely independent entities! Londoners do not claim places such as Watford, Dartford, Romford etc. as part of their urban area (the opposite is true!). Might the territorialism that seems rampant in the North West be a measure of a city's lack of confidence?

Fitzroy - I agree with you partially, when you get to areas that are polycentric, then yes they are definately different cities, e.g. Bradford / Leeds (not sure if they are really joined by urban area anyway), but, I'd suggest, the link between Manchester and Salford is the same as the one between Westminster and city of London, i.e. part of the same monocentric city.

I challenge you to show me the centre of Salford, Tameside and Trafford that is not Manchester city centre. Similarly, large parts of the other boroughs are also centred on Manchester. I'd use examples like Ealing and Hammersmith more than Watford and Dartford.

It is worth noting though, that both Croydon and Bromley are actually counted as being in 'London', they are 2 of the 32 boroughs.

It will change over time, and as Liverpool centre is rebuilt and rediscovered I've no doubt personally that people from places such as Preston and Wigan will start to regard it as being as much their nearest big centre as they do currently the centre of Manchester.
Erm... no...
The only way that could happen is if Manchester stopped growing for about 2 decades and Liverpool grew very fast (which isnt going to happen because what happens in one city, has a somewhat similar effect on the other when Liverpool and Manchester are so close). At the moment both cities are growing pretty fast, but Manchester is still growing much faster, and the way things are going, it doesnt look like that will change.
You also have to consider transport links. Preston has only just recently got a direct rail link to Liverpool (before you had to change at Ormskirk, now they just go through I assume, but still stopping), and its not that frequent. Also the road links are very poor between the two cities. The fastest route is the A59 which is nothing more than a country lane at some points. The M59 was never built, and I cant see it happening in the future. Also believe it or not, there is no direct bus route from Preston to Liverpool. If you want to go, you have to go to Southport and change there.
Now lets compare...
Preston has a direct and frequent rail link to a lot of the Manchester stations including 3 city centre ones, which I use very often, and continues to the airport. Very handy indeed! :)
Preston has a direct motorway link to Manchester in the form of the M61.
We also have several bus routes to Manchester by several different operators, the most popular being the X61 run by Stagecoach. Even the the corporation buses, Preston Bus run special weekend services to Manchester, via Salford Quays. There is no such service to Liverpool... Gutted :cry:

Do those 'Witch Way' buses go to Preston? There are all of a sudden loads of them appearing at the moment in town, coming from all over the central Lancs area.

The balck and whote ones with pictures of Witches on the sides.

However it didn`t stop Chester hotels for example jumping on the band wagon and advertising thier proximity to the "1984 Liverpool International Garden Festival" any more than it stops Chester, Manchester or Birmingham hotels etc advertising the "Liverpool Grand National Steeple chase" .... nor will it or should it stop them getting a slice of "Liverpool European Capital of Culture 2008".
Nor British Airways from a purchasing full page add aimed at Beatles fans, earlier this year, in the St. Petersburgh Times of flights from Tampa International Airport (TPA) to "Liverpool" to visit the haunts of thier idols. However, and upon reading the small print, it was found that the flights included a change of aircraft at Gatwick (LGW) with the onward flight arriving, not at Liverpool John Lennon Airport (LPL) but Manchester (MAN). Quite a bit disingenious I would say.

To backup Accura...

Preston to Manchester, from nationalrail.co.uk

Depart 15:37 15:41 16:07 16:20 16:20 16:37 16:39 16:46
Arrive 16:20 16:36 16:57 17:19 17:12 17:24 17:35 17:49
Duration 0:43 0:55 0:50 0:59 0:52 0:47 0:56 1:03

Preston to Liverpool, from nationalrail.co.uk

Depart 15:45 15:50 16:28 16:50 17:05
Arrive 16:50 16:54 17:50 17:53 18:20
Duration 1:05 1:04 1:22 1:03 1:15


8 trains will get you to Manchester before the 3rd one gets to Liverpool

Do those 'Witch Way' buses go to Preston? There are all of a sudden loads of them appearing at the moment in town, coming from all over the central Lancs area.

The balck and whote ones with pictures of Witches on the sides.
I dont know, I've never seen these buses. There does seem to be a lot of funny little new ones operating recently though.

Erm... no...
The only way that could happen is if Manchester stopped growing for about 2 decades and Liverpool grew very fast (which isnt going to happen because what happens in one city, has a somewhat similar effect on the other when Liverpool and Manchester are so close). At the moment both cities are growing pretty fast, but Manchester is still growing much faster, and the way things are going, it doesnt look like that will change.
You also have to consider transport links. Preston has only just recently got a direct rail link to Liverpool (before you had to change at Ormskirk, now they just go through I assume, but still stopping), and its not that frequent. Also the road links are very poor between the two cities. The fastest route is the A59 which is nothing more than a country lane at some points. The M59 was never built, and I cant see it happening in the future. Also believe it or not, there is no direct bus route from Preston to Liverpool. If you want to go, you have to go to Southport and change there.
Now lets compare...
Preston has a direct and frequent rail link to a lot of the Manchester stations including 3 city centre ones, which I use very often, and continues to the airport. Very handy indeed! :)
Preston has a direct motorway link to Manchester in the form of the M61.
We also have several bus routes to Manchester by several different operators, the most popular being the X61 run by Stagecoach. Even the the corporation buses, Preston Bus run special weekend services to Manchester, via Salford Quays. There is no such service to Liverpool... Gutted :cry:

Glad we are still talking after recent exchanges on the Preston thread. I think you are not entirely understanding my point, probably because I am not expressing it well.

There are a lot of issues here, and I know my posts are often too long for most people to read, so I will try to be more succinct if I can. Will probably fail though.

I think that you are confusing size with function; also confusing static with dynamic analysis. You make some of the same errors as metrolink, so I can address the points of both of you in this one post.

Population size, and economic size, are important factors in the hierarchy of cities. They allow for specialisation, and generally speaking the larger the centre the more it is capable of providing specialist services. Specialist services are one important means whereby regional centres differentiate each other, and also whereby they profile and position themselves and become accepted as providing functions to a wider area.

However, the relationship between population size and functional specialisation is not linear, it's only a general relationship and one that seems to have quite significant areas of non-linearity. After all, Europe only really has two world cities, London first and then Paris, and the only possible aspirant to one day join them will be Berlin or Moscow, and both are a long long way away. In the league table of world cities, even Paris may struggle to retain its ranking within 20 years, as Chinese cities crowd out non-Chinese cities from the listing.

It seems to me that amongst smaller cities there is a 'massing' effect that seems to occur once a metropolitan area (loosely defined) reaches around one million people. At around this size, a small airport can be sustained, regular rail services are sustainable to other centres, the teaching hospital will have specialisms of note, more than one university is likely to exist, enough clubs to suit an assortment of tastes can survive, and while retail choice will be limited it will be good. This is a notional cut-off point, but it is made to illustrate the non-linearity of population size and function, as urban centres with a metropolitan hinterland of two million (eg Liverpool) dont' necessarily provide a lot more services from their central business district than either one million sized centres, nor indeed many fewer than three million population centres (eg Birmingham).

It takes very large increases to move much further. Consular services from other countries, inter-continental flights from the local airport, specialist merchant banking and business broking services, specialist clubs and leisure activities of the sort that can appeal to minority tastes and opinions, medical specialities that are of national importance........these things can be provided in larger urban centres that also serve broader regional and even national significance. They seem to occur once a centre has hit the two million mark, but are more likely once a centre reaches 3 million. But it's not a simple, "at two million you provide x, at three million you provide y, and four million you would provide z".

Broadly speaking, Liverpool seems to meet the general standards of the 'two million' plus urban centres, for example its medical, entertainment and cultural services are comparable to those of larger cities with national/interational importance. And yet it doesn't have some of the facets Manchester or Birmingham or even smaller centres like Edinburgh have: intercontinental air connections, a significant broadcasting and print journalism role, or a rounded range of 'producer services' and the critical mass required in those. And yet all our regional centres, all of them, struggle to consistently maintain the standards of continental centres such as Munich, Barcelona or Milan: all the angst and competitiveness we witness here from our friends in Manchester is in reality a sign that they are striving, reaching, aspiring, to be something they want to be but aren't quite there yet. No British city is, because we are all in the shadow of a gigantic world city that is very close to all of us. It is a shadowing effect.

The additional problem for both major Lancashire cities is their close proximity, and in case of Manchester the huge success of Leeds in some sectors, such as financial services. It's just bloody hard to decisively pull ahead, and while people in the policy bubble get carried away with things and sometimes believe their own rhetoric, I'm afraid Manchester just isn't going to succeed in that, given the vitality of Leeds and Liverpool. That's just reality. It can only ever be one step ahead, not two.

In terms of hinterland centres, such as Preston, Wigan, Warrington, Crewe, the issues are complex. People do not simply identify with the largest nearest city, and that is especially not the case where they have a choice of two large centres. So it's not a simple matter of saying Manchester is bigger than Liverpool so everyone in Preston will regard Manchester as it's only big city provider or services. There is choice. This comes back to non-linearity. Remember, centres like Reading, Winchester, Brighton, York and Chester are small in population terms but provide regional roles and enjoy regional catchments for many of their services.

So in terms of size versus function, I think your analysis is too simple. Plainly as Liverpool recovers, there are a wealth of economic, social and travel opportunities to be enjoyed there by the people of Preston that they cannot obtain in their own city. Yes, some very similar services (eg choice of specialist shops, specialist clubs, specialist dentists, choice of airlines) may well also be available in Manchester. Choice is the word. And that gets me to the next point.

Train and other transport services (and roads) to an extent enable but they also constrain choice. If a Preston to Liverpool service is slow and infrequent, it is unlikely to be as popular as a faster and more frequent alternative route to big-city attractions is. But that is where static versus dynamic analysis is important. You are looking at things as they are. Things are changing. It actually doesn't matter if Manchester grows faster, has more people, more GVA, is building more towers: remember that function and mass are non-linear. Liverpool only needs to complete PDSA and tidy itself up in preparation for City of Culture to become a magnet for people from an extended region. So in three years time I think the trains from Preston will be full. Frequencies will be improved. Some of those will be journeys that would otherwise have been made to Manchester, and there we will see a decrease in services. It will establish a different equilibrium. These things are always moving, always changing.

A lot of this is about image and perception accy. People affiliate and associate with places that are attractive, important, interesting. Hence a centre like Chester (tiny in population terms) competes with the centre of Liverpool for some trips by shoppers from Runcorn. If you just look at population size and train timetables, you are missing the point. And the point is highly subjective. Earlybird cannot measure it. He cannot even describe it. It is the perception of people about the urban system they live in. My belief is that Liverpool is on a more rapid trajectory than any other regional centre in this country, and will continue to be for some years. Yes, it started from a very low base (so it's easier in some ways to show progress), but I see it continuing and gaining strength.

Sorry it did end up being long. But in summary I believe I have shown that it is an error to assume that affiliation to a regional node by people in secondary centres is based purely on population size of urban centres or currrent transport links.

you've made an art out of saying fuck all in a thousand words or more.

So basically Liverpool is not as actractive a place to go as Manchester at the moment, but have a feeling it will catch up would have done.

So basically Liverpool is not as actractive a place to go as Manchester at the moment, but have a feeling it will catch up would have done.

I haven't said that. Read it again please, more carefully.

No, I really cannot be arsed.

If you cannot make your point much clearer and in simpler english then I really cannot be arsed.

Are you really that bad at written english you are unable to get your point over simply and clearly?

Great post Poli. Metrolink, remove your skull from your anus and read properly before commenting.

In simple Engish: Manc Troll um bash clever un with a big brain who uses smart words in sentences.' :rant:

Poli - why not enter http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/summer.htm I'm sure you'll win.

Ok, Bunnyman, humur me, translate in less than 50 words.

No, I really cannot be arsed.

If you cannot make your point much clearer and in simpler english then I really cannot be arsed.

Are you really that bad at written english you are unable to get your point over simply and clearly?

Sorry Metrolink. I was actually trying to write a comprehensive response to accy, who raises lots of issues, and also address your more simple post, but it's a complicated area. I don't think I am using academic or technical terms or concepts, am I? If you can be specific about problem areas I can try to clarify any points that are not clear. Which bits are not clear?

Going to bed, early start.

Talk amongst yourselves for the next 24hours.

Fuck off. I took the time, and had the patience to read War & Peace before rubbishing Tolstoy, and I suggest you do the same for Liverpolitans post. Though it may be a touch strenuous to compare the two, 'Poli is too easily dismissed as a 'Whacko' without proper analysis. It's only a few paragraphs long Metro, surely you don't need my 'humur' to spoon feed you information? :? I don't always agree with everything he says, but since he takes the time and effort to put what he thinks up on this forum, the least he deserves is a reader. :)

I think Metrolink has a valid point about the substantive part of Liverpolitans's narrative being reducible to:

'So basically Liverpool is not as actractive a place to go as Manchester at the moment, but have a feeling it will catch up would have done.'

Personally I take issue with:

'... even Paris may struggle to retain its ranking within 20 years, as Chinese cities crowd out non-Chinese cities from the listing.'

A list compiled according to what criteria?

As for Liverpool, I agree that it is the only city apart from London in this country that has found its way into the world's consciousness. However, in terms of English consciousness, Manchester is, in my opinion currently more prominent.

I know which one I'd prefer to be.

As an aside, the rail-link from Liverpool to Preston via Leyland is not recent. I used to stay in Liverpool overnight in the late nineties prior to visiting a friend serving time in HMP Garth. There was an hourly service back then. It occurs to me that it's natural for people in Preston to choose Manchester over Liverpool. They have a similar 'feel' to them. 'Lancastrian' for want of a better word.

It occurs to me that it's natural for people in Preston to choose Manchester over Liverpool. They have a similar 'feel' to them. 'Lancastrian' for want of a better word.
I agree and, would go even further by saying that most northern English cities have a very similar feel to them, to a "foreign visitor", except for Liverpool. It would seem to me that someone from Preston, Huddersfield, Sheffield etc would feel more of a kinship with, and at home, in Manchester than in Liverpool. The latter city having a very distinctive "Non English" feel to it. More continental or pan Atlantic, I don't know but I do know it's "culture" and accent has a totally different feel to it than any other English city. It feels cosmopolitan in a way that no other English city, except London, does. One author described Liverpool as having a "Sense of place" . It just feels, well, different.

Good post Poli.

Maybe you should bullet point it next time for those with a limited attention span.

poli, I tried my best to read through all that, and I think I get what your saying.

Glad we are still talking after recent exchanges on the Preston thread.
This is a forum, where people can express their opinions. And I agreed that the pictures were crap.

I understand and partly agree with what you are saying. I agree that 'hinterland centres' cannot completely function on their own (ie: most companies in Preston have their head offices in Preston, no airport etc). However, I think you slightly overstate how often people need... awww jeez... its too late, my head feels numb, I'll give you a sensible answer in the morning...

But while its on my mind, yes, I know Liverpool is recovering and growing. But I cant possibly see how it could be enough to replace Manchester as Prestons 'mother city', not for a VERY long time anyway. Also, dont forget that Preston isnt standing still, its one of the fastest growing city's in the UK. Its already got its own city region (albeit only a fraction of the size of that of Manchester and Liverpool) and has its own catchment area.

Sorry if all this seems a little vague. I'll probably read through this tomorrow, delete the whole thing and start over. I'm very tired :sleepy:

Sorry if all this seems a little vague. I'll probably read through this tomorrow, delete the whole thing and start over. I'm very tired :sleepy:

Edited: a very lame post on my part, I think it's past my bedtime too.

Accura, do you reckon there's any truth in this?

It occurs to me that it's natural for people in Preston to choose Manchester over Liverpool. They have a similar 'feel' to them. 'Lancastrian' for want of a better word.

Accura, do you reckon there's any truth in this?
Not for anybody under the age of 50. People go to whichever city they like better, or whichever is the easiest to get to.

I agree and, would go even further by saying that most northern English cities have a very similar feel to them, to a "foreign visitor", except for Liverpool. It would seem to me that someone from Preston, Huddersfield, Sheffield etc would feel more of a kinship with, and at home, in Manchester than in Liverpool. The latter city having a very distinctive "Non English" feel to it. More continental or pan Atlantic, I don't know but I do know it's "culture" and accent has a totally different feel to it than any other English city. It feels cosmopolitan in a way that no other English city, except London, does. One author described Liverpool as having a "Sense of place" . It just feels, well, different.

Liverpool is very uniqe for an English city. It has a very unique sense of place in comparison to the rest of 'the north' for sure. There is the trans atlantic element as well as the CELTIC element- the Welsh and Irish connection.
1/3 English, 1/3 Celt, 1/3 international in terms of culture and consciousness.

Just listen to the accent- it is so uniqe. In terms of accent and grammatical features it is half way between the north (Manchester, Lancashire, Yorkshire, all very similar) and the south east. With a dash of the musical Welsh and Irish factors.

Liverpool's unique brand of Englishness (it's culture)could potentially be a MASSIVE source of income and attraction to visitors. It should be emphasised more to capitalise on it. Why not have a Celtic museum?

So what about the Preston train links. Does Chester not have better links with Liverpool than it does Manchester?
It doesn't mean much at all really.

It's interesting to note that the Chester Northgate Development is a project funded by the private sector, pushed by the City Council, who fear that Chester is loosing it's status as a major regional shopping centre. Cheshire Oaks, Broughton Retail centre (in Flintshire), Trafford Centre and Manchester City Centre are all competitors but the one which seems to have caused more attention is the Liverpool One development. In part this is because Grosvenor (an old Chester noble family who still own a large part of the city) have sold the Grosvenor Shopping Centre in Chester and are now developing Liverpool instead.

The Duke of Westminster has raised more than eyebrows with comments he made that it is safer to spend a night out in Liverpool than it is in Chester. Chester maybe branded as a sub-regional centre but it has grown up in the last twenty years because Liverpool was in decline. If Liverpool continues to reassert itself then Chester will be nudged out.

Thought useful to post link to the consultation on the next iteration of the Chester Northgate Development.

http://www.cheshirewestandchester.gov.uk/microsites/chester_renaissance/a_changing_city/the_northgate_development.aspx