A often discussed point on these forums is the size of the relevant cities where we live, which I suppose if fair enough.

However, this often starts long debates (as this post will no doubt do) about what a city actually is.

Some people quite understandable quote the figures for the people who live within the boundaries of a particular authority, that happens to have a cathederal, or has been granted city status by a monarch as the population of a city.

This is fair enough, SOME dictionaries use this definition, the numbers are easy to come by, and they do in some way represent how many people in that area contribute towards tax for refuse collection etc over a certain plot of land.

There are however flaws in this system, for example, explaining how London has a population of 7m is not easy to explain logically, since the city of London is home to less than 10k people, the GLA (Greater London assembley) could be compared to similar - unelected quangos / organisations in the larger metropolitan areas.

For the discussions we have on the whole on this forum, which tend to be about a cities infrastructure, and development, you do have to wonder in what way the number people who pay council tax to a certain council has an effect on the requirments for a city infrastructure.

For example, when discussion the requirements of a cities infrastucture - e.g. requirements for transport infrastructure (trams), and for how a city feels you surely have to be a bit more sophisticated in your analysis of the information at hand.

An example, in the image (you have to click on the link) below everywhere south of St Georges is Trafford, and West is Salford, to the North is the centre of Manchester.

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=53.4793&lon=-2.2479&scale=25000&icon=x

Now, you cannot tell me that the people who live just south of St Georges (and pay council tax to Trafford), or just to the west (and pay council tax to Salford) don't use the infrastructure (be it transport, or entertainment etc) in Manchester city centre.

Now compare this with this

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.cgi?lat=53.8547&lon=-1.3934&scale=200000&icon=x


Whetherby residents pay council tax to Leeds City Council, despite having 10miles of countryside between it and the main urban part of Leeds.

Now using the council tax paying way of deciding who lives in a city will give you some idea of that cities ability to raise revenue through council taxes, but I'd suggest it does nothing to tell us about how that cities infrastructure has developed, or is likely to be required to develop over the next few years.

Personally, I find a much better way of describing how large a city is (or even feels) is to look at the number of people in the urban part around the city.

Don't get me wrong - there are still plenty of flaws in this 'system' of ranking cities, for example, how do you decide if an urban mass is actually centred around one centre, or many centres? Surely, if it's centred around two seperate centres then the infrastructure / development generated by the urban population around those two (or more) centres is split.

A further worry people bring up is the names we give to these areas, for example, should an urban area around Brum, that includes Wolverhampton (a city in it's own right) be called Birmingham, what about Manchester / Salford?

Now if you want to call the lump of urban area as 'Greater Manchester urban area' or 'South Lancs / North Cheshire, with a tiny bit of Derbyshire' then fair enough.

If you don't want to call these places cities the fair enough, however, for convieniences sake I will call these areas by their main cities name, i.e. Birmingham or Manchester since most people in the country actually associate the areas being described as these places (did the Chelsea and Liverpool fans tell their friends they were going to Manchester or Trafford when they set off for the football on Saturday???).

Although it is far from a perfect way of describing the size of a city, I'd suggest that using an urban population as a much better way of judging the size of a city - thankfully the ONS provide some information on this - however, again, I'd suggest we're a little bit more sophisticated with the data than justy using it to create a league table, for example, Birkenhead and Liverpool appear of seperate urabn areas due to the width of the Mersey, whereas Leeds and Bradford - two quite obvious cities with independent centres are classed as one.

This method however is more sophisticated in the manner in which it will differentiate parts of authorities that are in a 'city' and bits that aren't. For example, some people have claimed that all of Greater Manchester was in 'Manchester', this has quite rightly been questioned, specifically Wigan (town) being so seperate from the urban area. Therefore do you take all of the 'Wigan' inhabitants out of the 'Manchester' figures? What about those that do actually live well inside the urban sprawl that surrounds 'Manchester' (e.g. Tyldesly).

Now, finally to those figures from the ONS...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/03_FOPM_UrbanAreas.pdf

(Some decent diagrams in the above link)

The raw data...

(population / area in km/sq / population density )

1 Greater London Urban Area 8,278,251 1,623.37 5,099.4
2 West Midlands Urban Area 2,284,093 599.72 3,808.6
3 Greater Manchester Urban Area 2,240,230 556.72 4,024.0
4 West Yorkshire Urban Area 1,499,465 370.02 4,052.4
5 Greater Glasgow 1,168,270 368.47 3,171.0
6 Tyneside 879,996 210.91 4,172.4
7 Liverpool Urban Area 816,216 186.17 4,384.3
8 Nottingham Urban Area 666,358 158.52 4,203.6
9 Sheffield Urban Area 640,720 162.24 3,949.2
10 Bristol Urban Area 551,066 139.78 3,942.4
11 Urban area of Belfast and connected settlements 483,418 161.67 2,990.2
12 Brighton/Worthing/Littlehampton 461,181 94.09 4,901.5
13 Edinburgh 452,194 120.11 3,765.0
14 Portsmouth Urban Area 442,252 94.52 4,678.9
15 Leicester Urban Area 441,213 101.64 4,340.9
16 Bournemouth Urban Area 383,713 108.15 3,548.0
17 Reading/Wokingham 369,804 93.17 3,969.1
18 Teesside 365,323 113.99 3,204.9
19 The Potteries 362,403 96.62 3,750.8
20 Coventry/Bedworth 336,452 75.56 4,452.8
21 Cardiff Urban Area 327,706 75.72 4,328.0
22 Birkenhead Urban Area 319,675 89.11 3,587.4
23 Southampton Urban Area 304,400 72.80 4,181.3
24 Kingston upon Hull 301,416 80.44 3,747.1
25 Swansea Urban Area 270,506 79.81 3,389.0

Personally I would add Liverpool and Birkenhead together to get this though

1 Greater London Urban Area 8,278,251
2 West Midlands Urban Area 2,284,093
3 Greater Manchester Urban Area 2,240,230
4 West Yorkshire Urban Area 1,499,465
5 Greater Glasgow 1,168,270
6 Liverpool Urban Area (plus Birkenhead) 1,135,891
7 Tyneside 879,996
......

I - personally - am still not happy with the 'smallness' of London, and, in my opinion, the over inflated figure for Leeds / Bradford.

Whilst this may have been a long winded ramble, and nothing very important, it may be worth pointing out that when government organisations look at proposals by cities for investment - be it transport or something else, these are the figures that they use, not the number of people who pay tax to one specific council.

Posted by John M-K in the Liverpool thread...

Nice try, however unconvinced. What constitutes a city is silly. The smallest city in the UK is nearly a village because it has a cathedral. Preston was given city status with about a pop'n of 135,000 because Queenie said so – more have been inside Odsal stadium. A city should be determined by size and size only, say 300,000, or whatever.

You can go from the Pennine foothills through south Manchester via the towns outside there, through Warrington, Widnes and into Liverpool, out and into Crosby right on Liverpool Bay and hardly see a field. Is that all one place? All one metropolis?

A city is city within its own boundaries that is clear and definite, and the population inside is the city population – just count the people living there. Very simple. The towns abutting the city boundaries can be regarded as the same “conurbation”. That is “generally” the accepted method.

In London, Watford, a separate town, abuts London and is at times counted as London – to the protests of its population. Luton which has fields between it and Watford is never regarded as London, despite being in the south east commuter belt.

Taking all the population of Merseyside and passing that off as Liverpool’s population and the same with Greater Manchester, is ridiculous. It is like taking all the population of Lancashire and saying that is the size of Preston.
__________________

Very true.

Macclesfield & Wilmslow would not be classed as Manchester...but when Wilmslow borders Manchester Airport and hosts thousands of airport workers then it is part of Manchester.

Macclesfield is more separate but none the less, the folk from there are most definately on the commuter rail line, shop in town, shop at the Trafford Centre, fly from the airport and enjoy high-income spending from Manchester working commuters.

When people put aside their asinine comments (Bolton being separate, when economically it is very much dependant on Manchester just like Stockport, Oldham, Rochdale, Bury etc etc) the debate runs more truely.

Leeds/Bradford is in my eyes linked in a similar way as Manchester/Liverpool are to Warrington. Almost a 50/50 split on economic activity?

Liverpool/Birkenhead are one and the same, otherwise it would be North/South London!

Glasgow seems a bit low figure wise, is the sq km area too small, it should be expanded.

Newcastle has a Leeds/Bradford or Manchester/Warrington or Liverpool/Warrington relationship with Sunderland...is that included?

If people kept to the same measuring stick as the government/ businesses/ airports etc then more fairer city definitions would be is usage.

This does not disparage Bolton/Stockport/Bradford/Warrington etc ..but without their big city neighbours they would be dramitically less economic activity in these places.

My reply...

The smallest city in the UK is nearly a village because it has a cathedral. Preston was given city status with about a pop'n of 135,000 because Queenie said so – more have been inside Odsal stadium. A city should be determined by size and size only, say 300,000, or whatever.


Agree totally, is what I said in...

Some people quite understandable quote the figures for the people who live within the boundaries of a particular authority, that happens to have a cathederal, or has been granted city status by a monarch as the population of a city.

This is fair enough, SOME dictionaries use this definition, the numbers are easy to come by, and they do in some way represent how many people in that area contribute towards tax for refuse collection etc over a certain plot of land.

There are however flaws in this system, for example, explaining how London has a population of 7m is not easy to explain logically, since the city of London is home to less than 10k people, the GLA (Greater London assembley) could be compared to similar - unelected quangos / organisations in the larger metropolitan areas.



John says...

You can go from the Pennine foothills through south Manchester via the towns outside there, through Warrington, Widnes and into Liverpool, out and into Crosby right on Liverpool Bay and hardly see a field. Is that all one place? All one metropolis?

No - that is why I suggest using the ONS statistics, they use a consistent definition for all cities.

I think they have decided it there is a 200m gap between urban areas then that urban area ends.

A city is city within its own boundaries that is clear and definite, and the population inside is the city population – just count the people living there. Very simple. The towns abutting the city boundaries can be regarded as the same “conurbation”. That is “generally” the accepted method.

Maybe, but I'd suggest most of the people who attended Old Trafford on Saturday believe they visited Manchester, even though they went to Trafford.

Anyway, that's not the point, my question is, in what way does the number of people who pay council tax to any one council represent the size of the infrastructure around that city - I'd say it's very loose at best.


In London, Watford, a separate town, abuts London and is at times counted as London – to the protests of its population. Luton which has fields between it and Watford is never regarded as London, despite being in the south east commuter belt.

Agree, and in the London figures (using the urban method) neither Watford nor Luton are included in the London figure.

Taking all the population of Merseyside and passing that off as Liverpool’s population and the same with Greater Manchester, is ridiculous.

Agreed, that's why I said not to.

The problem I have with the boundary way of defining a city is because statements like Sheffield is a bigger city than Manchester is equally as ludicrous as saying London has a population of 10k people.

John - if you want to descibe a 'city' as that of the people paying tax to a single council - do you agree that in doing so you give very little idea about the actual structure of that city, and as such is a bit misleading?

The capital, without a doubt is the largest in the UK. The 32 Boroughs and 2 Cities of Greater London make up what is known as London!

Yes.

I think some people are missing the point here.

I don't mind people describing Manchester as being the 8th, 9th, 10 or whatever largest city in the country - by some definitions of a city that is perfectly correct.

However, the mistake is to use that fact to actually mean anything.

For example, in http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=8176211&postcount=11

John talks about the claim for 'second city' in the UK - he totally misses the point.

If you count simply the people within the city boundaries then yes, only 390k people live in that set area.

However, when people like Tony Blair and John Prescott talk about Manchester being the second city, and when the DfT describe Manchester as the second city (bare with me Brummies - I'm just making a point) they are not talking about the small area that pay taxes to a specific council, they are talking about the whole - the urban area, they are not talking about the part that makes up the '9th largest city in the UK' [sic].

Maybe what I (and others) should start saying is Manchester is the third largest conurbation in the UK (after London and Brum), and Manchester is claiming 2nd conurbation status (as opposed to 2nd city status).

However, if that is to be the case, when people on these boards make comparisons between places, they shouldn't be comparing the cities, but rather the conurbations, since I'd suggest that the conurbation size is much more reflective of the infrastructure / importance (not sure what that actually means) of an area than the number of people who pay tax to any specific council.

John-MK doesn't miss the point, he ignores it...

I remember when EB bombed on about this subject in nearly every possible thread and that was the only time i could agree with him. People are just stubborn i suppose...

oo crap wrong thread

The capital, without a doubt is the largest in the UK. The 32 Boroughs and 2 Cities of Greater London make up what is known as London!

Actually it's 32 London Boroughs and the City of London. The City of Westminster is a London Borough.

Whetherby residents pay council tax to Leeds City Council, despite having 10miles of countryside between it and the main urban part of Leeds.


I've said this enough times.
I used to live within those ten miles of so-called countryside, and I have to tell you, it constitutes a semi-rural area not what you could exactly call countryside (for that you have to go further out past Harewood). It forms a network of villages linked to the city by arterial roads and is home to a large percentage of the Leeds middle-classes. No-one ever questions Garforth;s place within the Leeds metro, which doesn't have the same power and influence as the North East of the city.

Personally, I don't care much about city boundaries. But I know more about that area than anyone on this forum, so i have to say something if i feel we're being misrepresented.

di livio - that is the exact reason for using a consistent urban definition.

and more to the point Di Livio - when people (not necessarily yourself) claim Leeds to be the 3rd largest city in the UK, what are they actually claiming?

The problem is they make the statement as if it means more than it actually does.

For example, what makes Garforth or Wetherby more imprtant to the conurbation / city (call it what you like) of Leeds, than say Wilmslow / Rochdale are to 'Manchester'.

I'd suggest that the urban statistics are a much better measure of the true size of the influence of an area (call it what you like, be it a city, conurbation etc) than someone quoting the number of people who pay taxes to a certain council.

Isn't the fashion these days is to talk about City-Regions (the ODPM et al have been researching the concept for a couple of years)? The idea being to reinvigorate the investment in/marketing of the provincial cities with a stronger identity than the sprawling former metropolitan counties had. Hence such proposed city regions are the 'core' city councils plus adjoining urban metropolitan borough councils (ie. conurbations in the strict sense), but now excluding some of the essentially separate boroughs and large rural areas (to their relief or annoyance?):

'Birmingham' comprising - City of Birmingham, City of Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull; not City of Coventry. (All 7 = West Midlands)

'Manchester' comprising - City of Manchester, City of Salford, Trafford, Stockport, Oldham, Tameside; not Bury, Wigan, Bolton, Rochdale. (All 10 = Greater Manchester)

'Liverpool' comprising - City of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, Wirral; not St Helens. (All 5 = Merseyside)

'Leeds/Bradford' comprising - conurbation of Cities of Leeds & Bradford, but excluding their rural areas + Wakefield, Kirklees & Calderdale (together = West Yorks)

'Sheffield' comprising - conurbation of City of Sheffield and Rotherham borough, but excluding their rural areas + Barnsley & Doncaster (together = South Yorks)

'Newcastle' comprising - City of Newcastle, Gateshead, North Tyneside, South Tyneside; not City of Sunderland (together = Tyne & Wear)

Essentially, these are proto-large unitary authorities (which may become reality in the next 2 decades). If it's important(?) (not to me!), I reckon the population of the Birmingham City-Region just pips the Manchester City-Region ...

I agree Mercian, and the urban population figures show that too.

Heres another one:
'Central Lancashire' - Comprising City of Preston, Chorley, South Ribble + Longridge, Kirkham, Warton

Thing with city regions is there seems to be a view that everywhere is in a city region - most of the country is actually countryside and need not be included in any city region.

The city-regions I was thinking about above are the amalgamated urban heartlands of the existing metropolitan counties; but, yeah, City of Preston has a quasi-urban/rural hinterland. And there are plenty of other egs. - Bristol, Nottingham, Hull, Stoke-on Trent, etc some of which already function as Unitary Authorities (supposedly giving them greater, ie. single-level, local governance). But how should these lesser-populated/extensive 'city-regions' be termed? ... Does it matter?

In my opinion these lesser populated areas should come to a concensus amongst themselves about how they are to be managed in my opinion.

However, whilst that is happening the cities should not be held back.

The slight problem I have with the city region way of describing cities is the fact i follows existing authority boundaries.

There is plenty of 'Macclesfield' that is hanging off the southern end of the Manchester urban sprawl, however, there is plenty of Macclesfield that is not.

Ideally that bit connected would be treated as Manchester, but that bit in the countryside would not - this would be extremely difficult to do with politics as it is in this country though.

The city-regions I was thinking about above are the amalgamated urban heartlands of the existing metropolitan counties; but, yeah, City of Preston has a quasi-urban/rural hinterland. And there are plenty of other egs. - Bristol, Nottingham, Hull, Stoke-on Trent, etc some of which already function as Unitary Authorities (supposedly giving them greater, ie. single-level, local governance). But how should these lesser-populated/extensive 'city-regions' be termed? ... Does it matter?

how is Nottingham urban area Rural? only 40% comprise in the City population...

I don't care anyway.. I'm not some population freak!

and more to the point Di Livio - when people (not necessarily yourself) claim Leeds to be the 3rd largest city in the UK, what are they actually claiming?


That about 715,000 people live in Leeds, more than any other city except Birmingham or London.

And Wetherby can't be 10 miles from Leeds 'core' when Harrogate is 11. Its more like 8. Garforth is definetley Leeds there is no question over that; the only debate is over Wetherby and Otley which are linked to Leeds by villages and act as part of the city. The total population of the two townships is only about 35-40,000 so it doesn't make much difference to the 715,000 in terms of its position in the population league. Theres no point in complaining anyway, its not gonna change.

No - you miss my point totally.

My question to you is what does that number of 715,000 actually signify apart from the number of people who pay taxes to a certain council?

Do you not acknowledge that maybe describing the conurbation rather than the number of people who pay council tax to a council is a more accurate method of giving an idea of the influence of the location?

Also, I am not asking for it to change, all I am asking for is people (like yourself) to stop using the fact as if it actually means more than it does.

I was indicating that many 'stand alone' cities/towns (= urban, yes!) also have extensive hinterlands surrounding their built-up areas, such that there is a concept of, for eg, 'Greater Nottingham', although the administrative area of the City itself is smaller.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Nottingham
So, Nottingham city-region? ...

For example, I'd suggest the fact that the Manchester conurbation is in the region of 2.2m people is of much more interest to potential investors rather than the fact that 400k of those people pay tax to a certain town hall.

Similarly, when it is said that Leeds is the largest city in Europe without a tram / underground, the poster is missing the point - in what way does who I pay council tax affect my requirement for decent public transport?

No because the conurbation draws in Bradford definetley and possibly Wakefield and Huddersfield although if they are added it is more liekly to be an agglomeration.

People in Wetherby and Otley consider themselves to live in Leeds, seeing as alot of these people work in Leeds and go shopping in Leeds etc. I think people in those places would rather consider themselves as Leeds anyway seeing as Leeds shows importance compared to the rather low reputations of Wetherby and Otley. A bit like would you rather say you lived in Mosside or Manchester.

And the supertram thing is basically it doesn't matter, but if you're trying to market something and get something you're obviously going to want as many reasons to get it as possible. So thats not hard to work out- just common sense. It isnt a lie and the supertram was to be built for an extra 30,000 people commuting from outside the city into Central Leeds. (Aka York, Harrogate, Bradford, Wakefield, Selby... etc- the city region).

No1 - have a look at the data I got from the ONS (post 1) - it puts the Leeds conurbation at about 1.5m people, i.e. it does include the places you've mentioned.

The advantage of using this method is that each place is treated equally, so where Leeds includes places like Garfoth, Manchester equally includes places like Handforth and Wilmslow.

That 1.5m figure is definetley 100% wrong. Because if you add up the 5 West Yorkshire metropolitans it is about 2.1m. That doesn't include Skipton, Harrogate, York, Selby.

There are large rural areas in the Leeds boundary unlike Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham and they too have Tram / Underground.

2003 estimates:
Leeds 715,200
Bradford 477,800
Calderdale 193,200
Kirklees 391,400
Wakefield 318,300
TOTAL 2,095,900
1.5 is like missign the whole of Bradford and Calderdale out.

No1 - are you deliberately being hard today?

The 1.5m figure represents the number of people in the urban area around Leeds, i.e. not all of West Yorks, this number is calculated using exactly the same methods as for the other parts of the country, it gives London about 8m, Brum and Manc 2.3 and 2.3m respectively and so on.

The figure is nothing to do with the city region.

Your last few posts show exactly my problem with people like yourself - total lack of consistency.

In you first post you quote the 715,000 figure - yet give no reasoning for this figure, i.e. what it can be used to signify other than the number of people who pay tax to one council.

You fail to respond to the question put to you about how this figure is in anyway relevant to an underground / tram network in Leeds.

I'll ask the question again, how does who I pay council tax to affect the requirement for infrastructure in a region?

With regards the city regions, I think since each 'city region' comes up with different manners of deciding what a city region is, it'd be very difficult to compare.

However, in the longer term, I suspect to some extent we'll start to recognise our cities more along the city region lines rather than as we do now.

No1 - read http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_compendia/fom2005/03_FOPM_UrbanAreas.pdf

Forget city regions, the figures are NOTHING to do with city regions.

If you want us to measure our cities by city region population I suggest you put an arguement forwrd as I have done for using urban areas.

What is an urban area?
An area that is described as urban has a minimum population
density and number of people. Such spaces are normally
relatively built-up, with housing and industrial buildings or
both. The people who live in urban areas also tend to be
regarded as town or city dwellers. Outside the boundaries,
housing, offices or factories become more thinly distributed
and open spaces more common. Some houses or industrial
buildings might be in areas not classified as urban.
Urban areas do not adhere to administrative boundaries; for
example Greater Manchester Urban Area is 4.8 times larger
than the local authority district of Manchester and the urban
area’s boundaries do not follow those of the former
metropolitan county of Greater Manchester. Because
boundaries are not static, the land area and urban population
may change over time. Changes in land use can lead to a
boundary change of an urban area. New houses built at the
edge, changing the land use from non-urban to urban, would
increase the size of that urban area. But an urban area can
decrease in size if housing or industrial buildings at the edge of
the area fall into disuse.
The definition of an urban area depends on the circumstance
and experience of the wider area in which it is set. It is
perfectly reasonable for different countries to have differing
definitions of what makes an area urban and this is the case in
the UK. The latest definition in England and Wales3 is an area
with 10,000 people or more; in Scotland4 this is 3,000 people
or more; while in Northern Ireland5 it is 4,500 people or more.
These apparent differences do not prevent comparisons
between the largest urban areas across the countries of the
UK. But definitional issues need to be considered when
discussing all the UK’s urban areas.

Actually the government defines city regions, you should know that. And if I wasn't to use 715,000, what would I use? 680,000? But who can be sure if the populations are recorded as part of Leeds.

ONS Census Data 2001:
West Yorks Urban Area (= the metropolitan county) population: 1,499,465
See: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=8271&More=Y

No1 - couple of quick questions...

Do you accept the ONS figures for the urban areas?

What do you NOT accept about my post 1?

PLEASE DO NOT GO OFF AT A TANGENT - WE ARE NOT TALKING CITY REGIONS HERE, SIMPLY MY ARGUEMENT THAT URBAN AREAS ARE MORE ACURATE THE COUNCIL BOUNDARIES FOR GIVING A REPRESENTATION OF THE INFLUENCE OF A REGION.

No I think city regions give msot indication. Not urban areas or city boundaries.

Ok, thanks.

So why do you repeatedly quote the 715,000 figure as if it had some importance then, as you did in post 20.

As I understand, the Leeds/Bradford 'city region' would not include the surrounding boroughs of Kirklees, Wakefield and Calderdale since the concept attempts to be a new definition of large conurbations (with minimal rural area & not including neighbouring outlying towns). (also see my post #13)

Not really. Its not Leeds/Bradford city region, its Leeds. Leeds is the centre not Bradford too. The city region has already been set out. 715,000 has importance as the population of Leeds; the people who are not commuting into Leeds because they obviously already live there. If people ask the population of Leeds it is 715,000- not 1.5m or 2.1m.

I agree with pretty much everything you suggest metrolink. The ONS urban area figures are probably the fairest and most reliable available for measuring the size of a city. I also know the Government produce figures for "Travel to Work Areas" . This would also seem to give a good indication of a cities size and influence. Does anyone know where these can be found?

That's a totally different and maybe valid point Mercian.

However, please don't let No1 go off at a tangent as is his usual pattern when asked a question he feels unable to answer.

I presume by his answer in post 35, where he has said, as far as he is concerned city region size is the best indicator of influence of a city (a fair enough view to be held) he'll no longer be quoting the 715,000 figure when arguing Leeds to be the region with the third largest influence in the country.

No1 - do you accept that figure of 715,000 signifies nothing more than the number of people who pay council tax to one specific council though, and in reality it doesn't actually demonstrate anything more?

If not, what else does it signify?

Now i'm confused as to the general definition of a 'city region' - sources anyone? ( ... i'd been reading the ODPM stuff)

I said 3rd largest city not 'influence'. Who uses that word when stating facts.

Ok, so why do you use that fact to make other claims.

You haven't answered the second half of the question - does it signify anything more than the number of people who pay their council tax to Leeds council is the thrid highest in the country [sic]?

City size comes down to perception a lot of the time. I don't think that the creation of the Greater Manchester county and the perception of it having over 2m is a coincidence. Compare this to every over metropoliton county West Midlands, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, Merseyside, Tyneside. There largest cities are all still seen as the size of the council area. People don't have much imagination and Greater Manchester and Manchester quickly got confused while the other counties got left clearly seperate. This is probably the reason for the promotion of these 'city regions'. However it won't work until they are prepared to go all the way and rename the metropoliton counties after their main cities.

The ONS 200 metre rule is over simplistic IMO. Theres a difference between a 200m gap between villages and one between towns/cities where its seen as insignificant. Chains of houses which have 150-200m between them can also develop, connecting two urban areas that would normally be seen as seperate. A system based on building density over a square mile (less for smaller urban areas) would probably be more accurate.

'Liverpool' comprising - City of Liverpool, Sefton, Knowsley, Wirral; not St Helens. (All 5 = Merseyside)


Wirral is in Cheshire.

'Tis confusing - was Wirral not included in the Merseyside metropolitan county area in 1974?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseyside
Maybe addresses on the peninsular still use Cheshire? ... As people in Solihull (near Birmingham) still say Warwickshire, although administratively it is in the West Midlands.

It signifies the city population. I don't see whats so hard to understand; 715,000 people live in Leeds. End

And the ONS 200 metre rule is rubbish- in Harrogate, The Stray (a belt of grass surrounding the centre) is over 200m wide, just like a park but not really because its more like a common or a green. Just a very big one.

^but it's the definition of "Leeds" here that is confusing. 715,000 people live in the area governed by Leeds City Council. Are they all unquestionably in Leeds? or is it just a political boundary with little or no geographical significance?

as a comparison, i live in Nottingham, surrounded by urban sprawl for at least several miles in every direction. Officially tho, i live in Broxtowe borough, which is mostly built-up and urban (indeed there is no green between where i live and the outskirts on the opposite side of the city) - but outside the official city council boundary a mile or so away. without doubt everyone here is from Nottingham.

i think Leeds may be the most difficult one.

No1 - again you miss the point.

See the original post in this thread...

For the discussions we have on the whole on this forum, which tend to be about a cities infrastructure, and development, you do have to wonder in what way the number people who pay council tax to a certain council has an effect on the requirments for a city infrastructure.

For example, when discussion the requirements of a cities infrastucture - e.g. requirements for transport infrastructure (trams), and for how a city feels you surely have to be a bit more sophisticated in your analysis of the information at hand.

The question you are still failing to answer (and suspect you never will) is what significance there is in more people paying council tax in say Sheffield than in Liverpool?

For example, I contend that having a larger conurbation / urban area around your main centre is a relatively good sign of a few things, for example...

1) That conurbation would tend to have superior transport infrastructure to the smaller conurbations

2) That conurbation would tend to have more entertainment / retail establishments in the centre of the conurbation compared to smaller conurbations

3) That conurbation would tend to have a more significant business centre compared to a smaller conurbation

4) That conurbation would tend to have more influence in the media that a smaller conurbation

5) That conurbation would tend to have more national / international recognition than a smaller conurbation

6) That conurbation would find it easier to draw government grants for infrastructure upgrades compared to smaller conurbation

... etc etc

Now my question to you (and has been right from the start) is what is the relevance of having more people paying council tax to one council than another?

Does it have any more relevance than if Leeds had more dogs called Rover living within the plot of land the council control?

I'd suggest very little, if you do not agree with me, here is your oppurtunity to show the significance of your claim that Leeds has a city of 715,000.

The 715,000 people who live in Leeds refer to Leeds city centre as "town". When people in Otley, Garforth, Morley etc say, "Mam! I'm off into town to score some smack" they are referring to Leeds city centre. What better definition of a city is there?

Although people in Castleford (Cas Vegas), Pontefract (Ponte Carlo), Batley, Dewsbury, Wakefield and Osset etc probably refer to Leeds as town too, they don't count, on account of having their own town centres.

Th

Ok - but in other parts of the country people from outside the political boundaries consider town to be the major city up the road.

For example, I live in Trafford, in Sale. Town for me is central Manchester - apart from the shopping mall, Trafford does not have a 'centre', as such, Trafford is centred on central Manchester - similarly with practically all of Greater Manchester and some of north Cheshire.

The same is the case over in Liverpool (a place I am much less familiar with), Bootle people consider central Liverpool as 'town' yet are not paying council tax to Liverpool city council.

However, that is not the point - as my post 50 says, what does the 715,000 actually represent, if anything, other than the number of people who pay council tax to a specific council.

As with the six examples I've given above, I'd actually expect as the urban area increases so does the number of people who associate themselves with that centre as being their 'town', I cannot see the link here with paying council tax to a specific council and people associating themselves with the location.

Who cares. The smaller the council the better. What's this obsession with knocking up the population of our conurbations. You could say that London stretches from Southend to Reading and Brighton to Luton. I have worked with people who regulary commute from the Medway towns, from the south coast and from Milton Keynes etc. The whole county of Hertfordshire may as well be another London borough.

It's a pointless exercise expanding a city. If you make the council tax too high, the rich move out and the poor are left with the bill.

Make cities smaller and leaner. Pay for the big projects through central government. Greater Manchester's council tax revenues wouldn't build you a horse drawn bus unless you shut all the schools of course.

Maybe Isaac, going off topic slightly, GM GDP is about to finally catch up with the national average in the next couple of years, will be above it by 2011 - we're not as dependent on our generous southern cousins as you'd imagine any more.

But I agree about the idea for more local democracy, that isn't the point of this thread though.

There have been several people recently stating certain facts about the size of the city that they live in - by posting this thread I'm hoping that some people actually step back and consider what they've just said - and if it actually has any relevance in the real world and the point they were trying to make, for example, No1 often states that Leeds is the largest city in Europe that doesn't have a mass transit system.

I hope that one day he'll actually consider what he's saying there, and realise the number of people paying tax to a specific council is not the determining factor as to whether a mass transit system is required in that specific area (so far I've failed miserably).

The term 'town' is not used here as people are confused. I live in Harrogate but I never say Im going to town; I say Im going to Harrogate. So does everyone else, because town usually means Im going shopping and shopping in Harrogate sucks so everyone goes to Leeds so shopping is Leeds so town is interchangeable between Leeds or Harrogate.

715,000 people has no relevance. Its just stating the population of Leeds. Just a figure.

So Tram Transit / Underground... and other commuter transports have no relevance then… so Leeds is the largest City (in No.1's head) yet it has shitty Transport in its conurbation. :lol:

what are you on about? I said 3rd largest. Thats the one after 1 (one) and 2 (two).

No1 - if the population of Leeds has no relevance to the requirement for a mass transit system, why have you previously linked the two things on many occassions?

Im asking metrolinks question. How much do you consider Leeds size by the number of people paying tax to a specific council? So if Leeds is the 3rd Largest City and it has shitty transportation infrastructure for its conurbation. There’s something mistaken here!

If Leeds is the third largest city in Britain so be it. What's the problem with that. Population of a cityis meaningless on it's own.

Here's a picture of the 41st largest city in the USA.
http://im1.shutterfly.com/procserv/47b4d923b3127cceb13ee43171f80000001610

You answered your own question, which isn't yours because its tramboy's which has already been answered.

I haven't linked them, I have quoted it from Leeds Supertram that has used it as a reason to 'shock' the governmetn into giving the green light. Its called marketing.

Your sentence doesnt make sense about Leeds' transport.

You answered your own question, which isn't yours because its tramboy's which has already been answered.

:okay:

Which city is the 41st largest? I bet you were waiting for that question so you could show off your comprehensive knowledge of US Cities...

That's Atlanta.

The city boundaries definitely need changing. I couldn't care less about the potential new population figures. People who spend their time boasting about such things ("My city's bigger than yours, nah nah nah nah nah! :baeh3:", etc.) are sad in my opinion.

'Tis confusing - was Wirral not included in the Merseyside metropolitan county area in 1974?
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseyside
Maybe addresses on the peninsular still use Cheshire? ... As people in Solihull (near Birmingham) still say Warwickshire, although administratively it is in the West Midlands.

No, it isn't. The West Midlands doesn't administer anything, as it doesn't exist except as a ceremonial county. Solihull is a Metropilitan Borough. It administers itself.

Yep, Thatcher got rid of GLC & Metro County Councils in 86 - but the counties do still exist ceremonially as well as in terms of some 'administration' ie. police forces, fire services, local transport executives &, dare I suggest for some, identity-wise - come on admit it MartinN, you're a West Midlander at heart!

Yep, Thatcher got rid of GLC & Metro County Councils in 86 - but the counties do still exist ceremonially as well as in terms of some 'administration' ie. police forces, fire services, local transport executives &, dare I suggest for some, identity-wise - come on admit it MartinN, you're a West Midlander at heart!

I'm not actually from the Midlands - I ended up here after University. I'm originally from Surrey. To be honest, if it wasn't for the Wife, I'd be in London, Leeds or Manchester. There's something mildly depressing about the West Midlands cities. I think they lack water features and have too many dual carriageways.

come and visit TEXAS....wild wild west yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaah