paulmac35
February 24th, 2006, 03:08 AM
I am new to this forum. i find many of the posts regarding the Liverpool region interesting. So much development occuring at long last. However, i am amazed that one thing is never considered either here on this forum or locally. That is:
Why is Liverpool so tiny (42 square miles!) when the its conurbation spreads far and wide!
Its boundary has virtually remained unchanged since Speke was the last settlement to be added in 1931. This despite the local government shake up in 1974 when many new councils were created/enlarged nationally.
To give you some idea on how big Liverpool once was. Consider these facts. At the start of the 20th century Liverpool was the 2nd city of the UK (closely followed by Glasgow). Before the second world war its population peaked at 878,000 (despite mass emigration and higher than average infant mortality rates ). This didnt include the county borough of Bootle (then 75,000), and the urban districts of Huyton-with-Roby, Litherland, Seaforth and Crosby which were well under way to being settled by Liverpool speaking people.
After the war there was a real need to re-house people and Liverpool suffered a real hefty loss in that respect. Virtually the whole of what is now Knowsley (150,000 people) were in effect Liverpool overspill people. eg. the estates of Kirkby, Huyton, Halewood, Cantril Farm, Whiston, etc. At the same time a mass middle class house building program gathered pace (in what is now mainly Sefton Borough) i.e. places like Aintree, Maghull, Lydiate, Crosby, Formby, etc swelled in size.
But Liverpool suffered where no other city did in terms of population loss in that it had not one, not two , not three but a whopping great four designated newtowns well away from the city to swallow yet more of its overspill. No other city had this amount. Newcastle/Sunderland had Washington. Birmingham had Telford. London had Basildon and Milton keynes. But Liverpool had Skelmersdale (1963 onwards), Runcorn (1967 onwards), Winsford (mid 1960s) and Warrington (1968 onwards). It is reckoned that as many as 100,000 scousers (mainly from within the city boundary but some from the outskirts) were shipped en-masse to these new town estates.
So when the local government act created Merseyside in 1974. A real kick in solar plexes was dealt to Liverpool. Instead of Liverpool being enlarged to say as far north as Formby and Lydiate in the north, Kirkby in the north-east, Prescot and Whiston in the east and Halewood in the south-east, its boundaries remained unchanged. Instead these new suburbs were merged into two new mind-bonglingly needless creations of Sefton (former Southport county borough included) and Knowsley!
I could go further and argue that Rainhill and Rainford (in St. Helens metropolitan borough) are largely settled by scousers. Hough Green and the western half of Widnes being another example. The list is endless really. Face it Liverpudlians get everywhere! (A recent visit to Perth, Western Australia comfirmed this!) But the line has to be drawn somewhere as to where the Liverpool city boundary should now lie.
The same fate and unjustice awaited Manchester (which amazingly enough is virtually the same size in area as Liverpool). Its boundaries remained virtually unchanged, in the shake up of local government, despite pocessing an even bigger conurbation than Liverpools. But at least it was compensated with a new found county of Greater Manchester of 2.5 millions people (though what some of the outlying parts of Bolton, Wigan, Rochdale and a few other towns have to do with Manchester is debatable).
Compare Liverpool and Manchester with other cities who didnt do too bad out of it and it begins to hit home why neither city can now even make the top 5 English cities!
Leeds swallowed up many surrounding towns (and vast countryside) such as Morley, Rothwell, Pudsey and even the market town of Wetherby (some 15 miles away!), increasing its size 5 fold and is now a whopping 220 square miles (Liverpool could fit into it more than 5 times!)
Sheffield tripled in size (much of it areas of the peak district)and is reckoned to be a huge 125 square miles.
Bradford gobbled up many towns such as Bingley, Keighley, Shipley, etc to attain a similar sized city to that of Sheffield. All three cities are now so vast in size and outstrip Liverpool in population despite Liverpool's conurbation having a much larger population.
I was wondering if any other members of the forum have considered these facts. I for one hate the way there are just so many needless councils in one city. Each one now building new housing trying to poach people from the their neighbours when we should all live under the one council name. i.e. Liverpool!
Why is Liverpool so tiny (42 square miles!) when the its conurbation spreads far and wide!
Its boundary has virtually remained unchanged since Speke was the last settlement to be added in 1931. This despite the local government shake up in 1974 when many new councils were created/enlarged nationally.
To give you some idea on how big Liverpool once was. Consider these facts. At the start of the 20th century Liverpool was the 2nd city of the UK (closely followed by Glasgow). Before the second world war its population peaked at 878,000 (despite mass emigration and higher than average infant mortality rates ). This didnt include the county borough of Bootle (then 75,000), and the urban districts of Huyton-with-Roby, Litherland, Seaforth and Crosby which were well under way to being settled by Liverpool speaking people.
After the war there was a real need to re-house people and Liverpool suffered a real hefty loss in that respect. Virtually the whole of what is now Knowsley (150,000 people) were in effect Liverpool overspill people. eg. the estates of Kirkby, Huyton, Halewood, Cantril Farm, Whiston, etc. At the same time a mass middle class house building program gathered pace (in what is now mainly Sefton Borough) i.e. places like Aintree, Maghull, Lydiate, Crosby, Formby, etc swelled in size.
But Liverpool suffered where no other city did in terms of population loss in that it had not one, not two , not three but a whopping great four designated newtowns well away from the city to swallow yet more of its overspill. No other city had this amount. Newcastle/Sunderland had Washington. Birmingham had Telford. London had Basildon and Milton keynes. But Liverpool had Skelmersdale (1963 onwards), Runcorn (1967 onwards), Winsford (mid 1960s) and Warrington (1968 onwards). It is reckoned that as many as 100,000 scousers (mainly from within the city boundary but some from the outskirts) were shipped en-masse to these new town estates.
So when the local government act created Merseyside in 1974. A real kick in solar plexes was dealt to Liverpool. Instead of Liverpool being enlarged to say as far north as Formby and Lydiate in the north, Kirkby in the north-east, Prescot and Whiston in the east and Halewood in the south-east, its boundaries remained unchanged. Instead these new suburbs were merged into two new mind-bonglingly needless creations of Sefton (former Southport county borough included) and Knowsley!
I could go further and argue that Rainhill and Rainford (in St. Helens metropolitan borough) are largely settled by scousers. Hough Green and the western half of Widnes being another example. The list is endless really. Face it Liverpudlians get everywhere! (A recent visit to Perth, Western Australia comfirmed this!) But the line has to be drawn somewhere as to where the Liverpool city boundary should now lie.
The same fate and unjustice awaited Manchester (which amazingly enough is virtually the same size in area as Liverpool). Its boundaries remained virtually unchanged, in the shake up of local government, despite pocessing an even bigger conurbation than Liverpools. But at least it was compensated with a new found county of Greater Manchester of 2.5 millions people (though what some of the outlying parts of Bolton, Wigan, Rochdale and a few other towns have to do with Manchester is debatable).
Compare Liverpool and Manchester with other cities who didnt do too bad out of it and it begins to hit home why neither city can now even make the top 5 English cities!
Leeds swallowed up many surrounding towns (and vast countryside) such as Morley, Rothwell, Pudsey and even the market town of Wetherby (some 15 miles away!), increasing its size 5 fold and is now a whopping 220 square miles (Liverpool could fit into it more than 5 times!)
Sheffield tripled in size (much of it areas of the peak district)and is reckoned to be a huge 125 square miles.
Bradford gobbled up many towns such as Bingley, Keighley, Shipley, etc to attain a similar sized city to that of Sheffield. All three cities are now so vast in size and outstrip Liverpool in population despite Liverpool's conurbation having a much larger population.
I was wondering if any other members of the forum have considered these facts. I for one hate the way there are just so many needless councils in one city. Each one now building new housing trying to poach people from the their neighbours when we should all live under the one council name. i.e. Liverpool!