I came across some density figures for cities and here they are.

Hong Kong is the world's densest city, this is how UK cities compare.

Hong Kong is the world's densest city, this is how UK cities compare.

City / population / sqm / density

HK 6.1mill 53 115k
London 8.2 627 13k
Brighton
Pompey
Coventry
Liverpool 816k 72 11.3k
Preston
Leicester
Cardiff 328k 29 11.1k
Nottingham 666k 61 10.8k
Newcastle
Southampton
Leeds/Bradford 1.5m 143 10.49k
Manchester 2.2m 215 10.42k
Southend
Reading
Sheffield 641k 63 10.2
Blackpool
Bristol
Birmingham 2.2m 232 9.8

Even London doesn't compare to most European cities.

We're much more american density rather than european with our housing.

Problem liverpool has compared to the likes of manchester is, manchester has lots of small towns around it, ie traford, salford, stockport, bolton etc. that makes it look bigger than it is, as for liverpool and it being near the coast, all the towns near it are smaller than manchesters' and spread along the coast, so maybe if we had the towns as big as the ones near manchester then we would be huge, just imagines liverppol and manchester going as far out as warrington, then we would be joined and be the biggest area in the UK. about 40 miles x15

What does that mean, Metrolink?

Problem liverpool has compared to the likes of manchester is, manchester has lots of small towns around it, ie traford, salford, stockport, bolton etc. that makes it look bigger than it is, as for liverpool and it being near the coast, all the towns near it are smaller than manchesters' and spread along the coast, so maybe if we had the towns as big as the ones near manchester then we would be huge, just imagines liverppol and manchester going as far out as warrington, then we would be joined and be the biggest area in the UK. about 40 miles x15

Deary me.

What has population got to do with it? It's a list comparing density. I know it's Christmas, but do we need that old chestnut cropping up again?

Can't you be happy that Liverpool is denser? Manchester is practically Greenland in comparison to Liverpool.

Actually, the Manchester zealots often call Leeds semi rural.

misteree, half of Greater Manchester is totally unpopulated (for example the gap between 'Manchester' and Wigan town centre, equally there is plenty of Greater Manchester east of the urban area in the hills.

All this is being counted in the Manchester figures - from experience the West Yorkshire population is more evenly spread across the county, much less density than the urban area of Greater Manchester that many recognise as Manchester.

Have a look at the density of places like Wigan MBC if you want to see what I mean.

will this work...

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/d/d0/240px-Greater_Manchester_Boroughs_and_Conurbation.png

the vast majority of the people live in a small area in the middle.

Compare http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/image_gx.asp?cpx=-2.25907385&cpy=53.47887407&res=50&provider_id=345&t=pan&OL=Off

with

http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/image_gx.asp?cpx=-1.5515634&cpy=53.79504463&res=50&provider_id=345&t=pan&OL=Off

if you want to see how Manchester is concentrated on one small area, wheras rural West Yorkshire (DfT quote) is much more difusely spread across the county.

The population of Liverpool has halved over the last 50 years. Some 250,000 people were cleared out of the area around Scotland Road, and now that part of the city is pretty much barren.

out of interest misteree, have you mch experience of spending time in Manchester?

If so, are you on a wind up?

Metrolink pities the fool who winds him up.

What are you babbling about? You are going to tell me who pays their council tax where next!

Those figures are from the UN and, I believe, measure urban areas only. For example, the Leeds figure will miss out much of the city of Leeds but includes some of Bradford and Wakey. I think they call them "Municipalities". The Leeds and Manchester figures are pretty equal and account for the mix of high density urban areas aswell as lower density suburbs.

Interestingly, the site (www.demographia.com) lists the world's 300 largest "cities" (according to the same criteria as above):

Rank / City / Pop
130 Birmingham 2,300,000
223 Leeds 1,400,000
25 London 7,600,000
136 Manchester 2,200,000

well the Manchester figure must be including many semi rural areas around the edges then.

I don't personally consider Manchester to have 2.2m people tbh, I think plenty of countryside is being counted as city in those figures.

Some of my neighbours do seem a bit thick, if that's what you're asking...

Interesting to see that Cardiff's apparently denser than the likes of Birmingham and Manchester, though.

oh and misteree, those terraserver maps don't have anything to do with boundaries, they do however show Manchester to be one heavily populated urban core gently becoming less populated.

WY is two cores with general lower density spread across much of the county.

Still, Manchester being more than 50% bigger than Leeds and Bradford combined sounds about right.

I still find it ludicrous that Birkenhead/The Wirral is listed as a separate city to Liverpool.

misteree - I only acuse Leeds of being very rural when you start counting the MBC boundaries - if this is the urban area (something totally different) then of course it'll be very similar to other cities in the UK.

So long as you lot from Leeds have a consistent way of describing Leeds (i.e. the urban bit) and treat other places equally, that I will have no problem, it's just you seem to pick and choose when you you want to prove a specific point.

Here you go Metrolink. They have done a density thingy for "core cities" too.

City / Sqm / Pop / Pop per Sqm

Birmingham 79.9 966,000 12,088

Bristol 41.2 370,000 8,987

Cardiff 23.6 273,000 11,582

Coventry 29.9 293,000 9,797

Edinburgh 100.7 435,000 4,319

Glasgow 67.3 681,000 10,123

Leeds 63.5 445,000 7,012

Liverpool 43.5 461,000 10,609

London 621.7 7,187,000 11,560

Manchester 42.6 403,000 9,463

Newcastle 42.4 276,000 6,504

Sheffield 61.9 431,607 6,978

Still not as dense as Liverpool tho!

misteree - I only acuse Leeds of being very rural when you start counting the MBC boundaries - if this is the urban area (something totally different) then of course it'll be very similar to other cities in the UK.

So long as you lot from Leeds have a consistent way of describing Leeds (i.e. the urban bit) and treat other places equally, that I will have no problem, it's just you seem to pick and choose when you you want to prove a specific point.

You are doing my nut in!

It's you lot who are inconsistent. I'm very normal about the whole thing, Leeds and Manchester are different and each area/city/municipality can be defined differently.

How can you come up with a definition of a city which suits both cities (or indeed all the other UK cities?), you can't.

The boundaries are written for bureaucratic reasons. Wetherby isn't in Leeds, but it makes sense for it to be governed by Leeds just as it makes sense for certain areas of Manchester to govern themselves.

Wakefield isn't "in" Leeds but most folk from that way work and socialise in Leeds. Have you ever been to Huddersfield? It's shit, Leeds is only 15 mins away. People in Hudds have better access to Leeds than many people in Leeds do. You dig?

Anyway, this isn't about population.

From what Ive heard from people living in Leeds, its easier for me to get into town than it is for them.

Unless you live near a train station it's a nightmare.

I used to work at Ventura and commute from Horsforth. The easiest way was to get a bus to Horsforth train station, get a train to Leeds and walk to Ventura. It took more than an hour.

Regarding those figures, the website defines an Urban Area as an area of "continuous development." Whatever that means.

the vast majority of the people live in a small area in the middle.

Compare http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/image_gx.asp?cpx=-2.25907385&cpy=53.47887407&res=50&provider_id=345&t=pan&OL=Off

with

http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/image_gx.asp?cpx=-1.5515634&cpy=53.79504463&res=50&provider_id=345&t=pan&OL=Off

if you want to see how Manchester is concentrated on one small area, wheras rural West Yorkshire (DfT quote) is much more difusely spread across the county.

That's because a lot of Greater Manchester is un-inhabitable because it is either heathland or low lying marsh land.

The population density of the inner London boroughs, i.e. the old County of London is about 23,000 per square mile which is about 9,000 per square km.

misteree, if you pretend Leeds is the area covered by Leeds city council (as many on here do) then yes Leeds is very very rural.

If you only count the urban bit in the south of the area as the city then yes, Leeds is comparable to Manchester in it's urabn density.

You will need to make yourself clear as to which version of Leeds you mean.

Either way, I'm glad you seem to be accepting that the two cities of Leeds and Bradford, combined, are so much smaller than Manchester - at last, somone from Leeds opening their eyes.

misteree, if you pretend Leeds is the area covered by Leeds city council (as many on here do) then yes Leeds is very very rural.

If you only count the urban bit in the south of the area as the city then yes, Leeds is comparable to Manchester in it's urabn density.

You will need to make yourself clear as to which version of Leeds you mean.

Either way, I'm glad you seem to be accepting that the two cities of Leeds and Bradford, combined, are so much smaller than Manchester - at last, somone from Leeds opening their eyes.

Leeds IS the area covered by Leeds City Council. There is no pretence about it.

I imagine Leeds' inner-city areas are just as dense as Manchester's and its suburbs just as sparse. The same will be true of every city, Cardiff, Manchester, Leeds, Middlesbrough. Why are you so bothered about this? LOL You do get your knickers in a knot over some daft things.

The "area of continuous urban development" or "municipality" of Leeds/Bratfud has 1.4 million people living in it, the equivalent in Manchester has 2.2 and Brum 2.3. It's not a question of "admitting" anything. The facts are there, courtesy of the United Nations, I posted them!

You are strangely obsessed with this population thing. As I said yesterday, there are any number of ways of defining a city, all of which will yield different results.

The combined population of Leeds and Bradford is 700k + 500k = 1.3 million. The population of Manchester is 400k, that's the official figures.

The population of Manchester's county, Gtr Manchester is 2.6 mill? And W Yorks, Leeds' county is 2.4 mill? (there or thereabouts anyway)

The "core city" of Leeds, again defined by the UN is 450k, Manchester's "core" is 400k

If all of Gtr Manchester is Manchester, if Bolton, Wigan and Oldham are Manchester, then Wakefield, Batley and Dewsbury can be considered Leeds.

You see what I mean (I said all this yesterday)?

You need to adequately define "a city" before you can start comparing them, and I don't think ANY comparison is reasonable. Different definitions will yield different results and certain people like you will favour the definition that puts "your" city at the top.

That is why this is one of those perennial and pointless arguments.

I start a thread to show some data regarding density I got from the UN and YOU have turned it into another population battle all because I made a quip to an unhappy mickey-mouser that Manchester is "Greenland in comparison to Liverpool." It was a joke, Metrolink. Grow up and stop boring everybody with population figures.

whatever

*lol* coz hes obsessed with meaningless statistics that really no-one cares about. What does density mean anyway: for the most part it will mean crowded deprived inner city areas; not gleaming glass skyscrapers full of wealth. Nothing to boast about.

I don't know why he was so bothered? The figures showed Manchester's "core" to be a bit denser than Leeds and it's "area of continuous development" to be only ever so slightly less dense.

We can all interpret population figures differently to suit our own desires!

But cities don't end where some elected body decides to draw a boundary. For example, the enormous (and continuous) urban area to the south of Florida which most of us refer to as Miami, has a population of over 5 million. But the official population of Miami is only about 380,000, or roughly the same as Manchester! Similarly, Washington DC has an official population of about 500,000, or about the same as Sheffield, and San Francisco about 700,000, on a par with Leeds! yet both of these cities are at the centre conurbations of over 5 million people.

I have always judged the size of a city by the size of the dark coloured blob on a map, even when I was a kid, not by the number of people within a local authority area. Its quite clear when you look at a map of The UK which are the biggest urban areas. London way out in front, followed by Manchester and Birmingham, then Glasgow and Liverpool, then probably Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle all about equal.

I find the following definition from Wikipedia quite useful:

A conurbation is an urban area comprising a number of cities, towns and villages which, through population growth and expansion, have physically merged to form one continuous built up area. It is thus a polycentric form of agglomeration.

It is quite clear that Manchester (also London and Birmingham) is a perfect example of a conurbation, as it is a continuous built-up area. I have never thought of West Yorkshire as a continuous urban area or conurbation, which it isn't of course, as it is made up of a number of seperate, clearly defined towns and cities, as well as large rural areas in between.

I have always judged the size of a city by the size of the dark coloured blob on a map, even when I was a kid, not by the number of people within a local authority area. Its quite clear when you look at a map of The UK which are the biggest urban areas. London way out in front, followed by Manchester and Birmingham, then Glasgow and Liverpool, then probably Leeds, Sheffield and Newcastle all about equal.

As I say, people will childishly define a city according to which definition puts their city at the top. Your "method" is the one used by the UN and the inspiration for this thread, rather than guessing why not just look at the official figures?


It is quite clear that Manchester (also London and Birmingham) is a perfect example of a conurbation, as it is a continuous built-up area. I have never thought of West Yorkshire as a continuous urban area or conurbation, which it isn't of course, as it is made up of a number of seperate, clearly defined towns and cities, as well as large rural areas in between.

There is an area of W Yorks which is an "area of continuous development" that is home to 1.4 million people. By definition, this will have no rural areas.

Isn't Gtr Manchester similarly made up of "clearly defined towns and cities"? I've had the fortune to visit Rochdale, Oldham, Bury and Wigan and they are small towns with similar facilities to the small towns around Leeds, Sheffield etc. They are ok if you live there and you need something from Woolies but you have to go to "the city" to do some serious clubbing, shopping or working. They have regional Town Halls and regional customs and form, in my opinion, the wider city.

The "wide rural areas" in between some of Leeds' suburbs are in my opinion an asset. Leeds' rich folk tend to move into the north of the city, into the green, high class commuter belt areas of Collingham and Linton, that there's a few smallholdings in between the city's core and it's affluent outer areas is probably the reason they chose to live there.

I agree about the rural areas between the towns centres (not the entire council areas) of Rochdale, Wigan and Bolton with Manchester, but where exactly is the gap between Oldham and Manchester???

http://www.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=oldham&ie=UTF8&z=12&ll=53.546224,-2.117615&spn=0.092001,0.344009&om=1

The A62 goes from Oldham town centre into Manchester city centre - at which point is it rural???

I don't know? Did anybody say it was rural in between? Where's the gap between Leeds and Bradford? Leeds and Wakey? Sheffield and Rotherham? There isn't one, but it doesn't make it the same place.

Why are rural areas so important?

oh, and if you want a couple of examples of how the Manchester 'satalitte towns' are different...

Manchester dominates all the sorrounding area, so much so that 'Manchester' has infrastructure in neighbourghing boroughs, for example, the Manchester docks are in Salford, Manchester United play in Trafford, Manchester Phoenix ice hockey club are builing an ice rink in Altrincham.

BBC Manchester are likely to be moving to Salford, infact the CEO of Manchester Council is fighting on behalf of Salford for the BBC North move.

Compare this to Leeds / Bradford, have a look at the thread about the arena, there is hardly the opinion that it doesn't matter if it's in Bradford or Leeds - as there would be if both cities were to be treated as the same city - as is the case in Manchester.

rural areas are important as they mark the edge of a city, most people associate urban areas with cities, not fields.

If rural is not important, please explain why Blackburn is not in Manchester?

(Blackburn is dead centre of this map)...

http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/image_gx.asp?cpx=-2.47&cpy=53.7499&res=100&provider_id=345&t=pan&dat=&OL=Off

It is as close to the northern urban area of Manchester as some parts of Leeds are to the urban area in Leeds

'Leeds'...

http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/image_gx.asp?cpx=-1.52230609&cpy=53.86211136&res=100&provider_id=345&t=pan&dat=&OL=Off

oh - and the main reason why 'rural' is important is because it marks a change in practically all urban planning.

Whether it be transport, utilities, health and education provision, once you move into rural areas (the countryside) they are all dealt with very differently compared to in urban areas (cities or towns).

This forum tends to be about the latter, i.e. the infrastructure of towns and cities, a city (urban area concentrated on one hub) tends to have more infrastructure compared to smaller ones.

This explains why Manchester, with a very small council area has so much greater infrastructure compared to supposed larger 'cities'.

Taking your 1.3m for Bradford and Leeds, say that breaks down 800k for Leeds and 500k for Bradford - that is a polycentric urban area, where the infrastructure is split across the pair of them.

Now compare this to Manchester, using the same criteria, a population of about 2.2m, very much concentrated on the one centre (see Metrolink plans of all lines going into Manchester) - this explains how Manchester, and not Leeds can bid for the Olympic, get the CommonWealth games, get the BBC to move up north, have a higher profile than other cities, in reality the urban area focused on Manchester (call it a city if you so desire) is far far larger than the urban area focused upon Leeds.

But the people of Otley would consider themselves living in the City of Leeds in spite of the rural areas around it. It's much more complex than you make out, each city is different and has different relationships with its surrounding towns. The Xscape complex in Castleford is marketed as Castleford, Leeds, despite falling within a different administrative centre.

Nobody has suggested Bradford is considered the same city as Leeds. That said, where the boundaries merge, the population does also. I have lived on the western edge of Leeds and as a result have used Bradford amenities like cinemas (the Leeds/Bradford Odeon) and restaraunts.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I see the composition of Manchester. It includes Manchester proper and those areas you mentioned that were carved up.

It's influence extends to other towns in the Gtr Manchester area, such as Bolton and Wigan, it being the dominant city in the area. But those places retain their independence. Phoenix Nights was set in Gtr Manchester was it not, but would you say it was set in the city?

Leeds incorporates Leeds' core area and the wider metropolitan area. Places like Guiseley come under the wider metro area and could hardly be considered a town on account of them having no CBD.

Leeds' influence, like Manchester's, extends beyond these boundaries, with the city of Wakefield and such towns as Osset, Cas, Fev, Knott, Dewsbury all served by excellent road links into Leeds. These places are fiercely independent but most residents would describe their town as X, near Leeds.

yes, I would say Phoenix nights represents a culture still found in many parts of the north of the city.

Compare Manchester, with it's very dominated surrounding towns to London.

You claim that the culture of the areas being different means the that they are not cities.

Is Brixton the same as Knightsbridge?

Is Croydon, with it's major town centre, it's own tram system and the focal point of that part of the world in the same city as Brick Lane or Barnet?

I really do think you over play the importance of Leeds, look at the Morley Independence Party - holding 6 out of 6 seats in Morley on Leeds City council - their only policy is to break from Leeds.

I'd suggest the link between a place like Leeds and Wakefield is similar to that between Manchester and Blackburn (Blackburn are associate members of the Association of Greater Manchester Authorities - suggesting they want to join the city, rather unlike the situation in Morley).

Don't get me wrong, I personally don't see places like Bolton town centre, Wigan town centre and Blackburn as being in Manchester (note some people in Wigan MBC and Bolton MBC probably are) - but then again, I don't see Leeds being anything as big as you lot seem to.

Then you don't know anything about Leeds. You do know that places that are separated by rurality are just housing areas don't you? There's maybe a supermarket, but there's no cinemas or big shops like they have in Oldham and Rochdale.

Anyway, you're boring. I said it before, any comparison is useless and the relationships between a city and it's suburbs and satellite towns is down to complex economic, administrative, cultural and generational factors that vary wildly even within the city of Leeds, let alone as a comparison between Leeds and other cities.

And Peter Kay has never once referred to himself as being from Manchester and Phoenix Nights is in no way a Manchester show! They never even mention Manchester, they have their own radio station for one!

Id say Leeds-Bradford (1.4m) is a conurbation. West Yorkshire as a whole is an agglomeration. There arent really rural areas in WY- semi-rural at the most. Villages and small towns are so close together. And yes, most people in Otley/Wetherby will say they live in Leeds- particularly young people. Considering that theyve grown up when theyve always been part of Leeds its generally accepted they are. And Morley- well. Thats no even a debate. Its just as connected as Horsforth or Pudsey.

I'll have a look at Gtr Manchester's different councils webpages and see if they consider themselves part of a city known as Manchester.

Rochdale:
Makes no mention of Manchester other than to state Rochdale is 10 miles north of Manchester and to refer to it as a "neighbour." Talks of its "town centre" and "commercial" activities. Appears to have quite a big town centre with lots of shops, restaurants and a cinema

Sounds like a town to me, rather than a part of a city.

Manchester:
No need to look, the webpage probably consists of the word Manchester being repeated over and over again anyway.

Oldham:
No mention of Manchester. It's town centre appears to have a thriving nightlife aswell as cinemas etc. A typical webpage for a small independent town.

I can't be bothered going on. Why do you make out these places are part of Manchester? Rochdale sounds like New York compared with Castleford, a town dependent on Leeds.

Then you don't know anything about Leeds.

My mother lives in Morley.

but there's no cinemas or big shops like they have in Oldham and Rochdale.


That's because they are large suburbs, see Ealing, or Croydon, or Uxbridge...

And Peter Kay has never once referred to himself as being from Manchester and Phoenix Nights is in no way a Manchester show!

Two of the characters are football fans, one a United fan, one a city fan, in one of the programs in the first series they both are wearing their kits in the Phoenix club.

They never even mention Manchester, they have their own radio station for one!

We have different radio stations broadcasting across different areas of the city - just like other large cities like London - some specifically south Manchester radio and some specifically for North Manchester.


I'll have a look at Gtr Manchester's different councils webpages and see if they consider themselves part of a city known as Manchester.

Have a look at www.visitmanchester.com (http://www.visitmanchester.com) - the official tourism web site for ALL 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester, including Rochdale, Bolton etc

Quoting from that web site...

'Chose your Manchester experience'

'The official web site for Greater Manchester'

Also, www.investinmanchester.com (http://www.investinmanchester.com) - the official development web site for ALL of Greater Manchester, including Rochdale, Bolton etc

Both of the above examples (there are many more) have come about because ALL boroughs have started to work together under the umbrella name of Manchester.

Does the www.visitleeds.com (http://www.visitleeds.com) include ALL of West Yorks, or even Bradford?

Does www.investinleeds.com (http://www.investinleeds.com) include ALL of West Yorks or even Bradford?

Have a look at the www.agma.gov.uk (http://www.agma.gov.uk) for an example of how the 10 boroughs work together, the ONLY example outside of the UK - you will find examples of official documentation on that web site of ALL the Greater Manchester area being described as Manchester - ALL 10 boroughs CHOOSE to take part in the AGMA.

Tbh, I'd probably wouldn't include Rochdale town centre, in Manchester, but would places like Middleton.

Talking about seperate areas and towns, please explain http://www.morley.gov.uk/

http://www.leeds.gov.uk/Council_and_democracy/Councillors_democracy_and_elections/Elections__publishing_results/page.aspx?path=%2fcouncil_and_democracy%2fcouncillors_democracy_and_elections%2felections__publishing_results%2f&pageID=be09fa48-7197-4260-83a0-454064020f2f

See the winner of that seat? There are 5 others just the same, all 6 seats in Morley are (or certainly were last time I was updated) held by Morley Independents.

There is loads of information on them...

http://www.morleytoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=378&ArticleID=1407390

A further example of how the cities are different, compare how the government treat the two cities, on the ONS web site you will not be able to find the GVA for Manchester (city of) since it's lumped in with Tameside, Trafford, Salford and Stockport as Greater Manchester south, with Wigan, Rochdale, Bolton, Bury and Oldham being Greater Manchester north.

Have a look at those figure to see how much the south area totally dominates the north economically (since the core of the economy is there), compare this to West Yorks where Leeds has less than 40% of the economic output of the region - hardly dominating it.

Couple of other questions, if the arena proposed for Leeds was to be built in Wakefield or Bradford would everyone be happy since it's still in 'Leeds'?

The new ice rink for Manchester Phoenix being built in Altrincham is being universally accepted as a good thing (was nearly built in Oldham which people were equally happy about).

It has often been stated on the Leeds forums that Leeds is the largest city in Europe without a mass transit system - do you not see that as being a totally false arguement? This gets to the core of my arguement, for a city to be suitable for such infrastructure it has to be urban (in some cases very urban).

You cannot compare the number of people in the urban area focused on Manchester to that in the urban area focused on Leeds - there simply is no comparision, as such, it is much much easier to find examples of where transport infrastructure is better suited in the 'smaller' Manchester compared to Leeds. The same goes for many other forms of infrastructure - if more people are easily connected to Manchester - see last point about local transport, then it's much easier to justify building major infrastructure in your core - for example the MEN arena, built on top of a train / tram station that will be easier to access by public transport for the people of Manchester, and large proportions of West Yorks than an arena built over in Leeds that is built out at somewhere like Elland road.

LOL Manchester's not London!

Just cos some nearby towns try and horn in on the government handouts given to Manchester, it doesn't make them part of the city.

Phoenix Nights never once refers to Manchester.

If Match of the Day covered any London team they would say, "here we are in London for QPR Vs whoever" they would never say, "Here we are in Manchester for Rochdale Vs whoever, Oldham Vs whoever, Bolton Vs whoever"

London is the collective name for all those places. If it were analogous with Manchester there wouldn't be a city known as Manchester would there, as is the case with London (apart from The City which is a different thing altogether)

But if you want to believe that Manchester is a city of 2million plus people and composed in the same way as London, even if the country at large doesn't recognise it as so, even if the towns that you are claiming don't recognise it as so, who am I to piss on your party?

I said I dn't consider Rochdale town centre as being in Manchester.

You're right though, never heard anyone say welcome to Old Trafford, Manchester for either the cricket or the football.

Or even, welcome to the Lowry Theatre, in Manchester.

Never ever heard that.

You're right though, never heard anyone say welcome to Old Trafford, Manchester for either the cricket or the football.

What are you talking about, divvy? They say that all the time.

But Old Trafford isn't in 'Manchester'!!!!

I simply point out that Manchester goes much further beyond the city council boundaries.

Having an arguement with where they end with someone who quite obviously doesn't know the area very well seems to be quite pointless.

Why should Old Trafford be treated as Manchester yet Failsworth not?

I know Manchester goes beyond the council boundaries.

But it doesn't extend to Rochdale, Wigan, Bolton, Oldham etc. They are self contained towns which appear to have more facilities than towns around Leeds and only nomenclature leads you to believe they are part of Manchester.

I agree places like Wigan town centre, Bolton town centre, Rochdale town centre are not in Manchester (we'll have to agree to disagree on Oldham town centre).

However, of the 300k people who live in Wigan MBC, only 80k live in the town, the others scattered, mostly around the countryside, but many in the urban Manchester area focused on Manchester. this is the same for all the 'northern' boroughs, none are totally in Manchester, nor are they totally outside Manchester. Middleton and Heywood for example would be considered Manchester, yet Rochdale town centre would not. similarly I would consider Oldham town centre to be in Manchester, but Saddleworth not.

I have never ever claimed Manchester to be a city of over 2m people (in this thread I am simply using your figures) personally I reckon somewhere in the region of 1.5m to 1.75 would be much more acurate - a similar figure for Brum with Leeds' true figure being around 600k to 750k.

Only my personal view of my quite extensive experiences of both cities.

I rarely get personal with anyone but I will gladly make an exception with mistertee. mistertee, you are one fucking boring dull cunt.

No reply necessary, because we all know it will only be more monotonous drivel.

which by the way equates to about two thirds of Greater Manchester and a tiny part of North Cheshire (down to Handforth).

So in your experience, Leeds is half the size of Manchester. Fair enough, but the city centre employs more people? Leeds has way more London stock exchange listed companies headquartered in the city?

You need to understand that the composition of a city is entirely unique to that city.

And if Manchester is a city of over a million people it is bigger than Birmingham. Why then is Birmingham the second city? Why is Birmingham the only provincial city with a proper skyline?

LOL @ Platting! You've been waiting over a week to get your little dig in! You could have come up with something better couldn't you?

How can the written word be monotonous?

Oldham Town Centre is not in Manchester, it's in the urban region but it's another world.

I wish Mancunians would stop trying to increase the population of the city by stealing it from other places. Manchester has a population of around 400,000 and if you included it's obvious suburbs outside the municipal boundaries and added the original City of Salford, you would knock the poulation up to between 800,000 - 900,000.

About as big as Valencia or Marseille, but with a much bigger surrounding urban area.

I said Brum was very similar to Manchester, or certainly intended to so as much.

Yep, Leeds has a very successful city centre for a city of it's size, it attracts large business very successfully, but that does not change the fact compared to other cities it's still a medium sized city.

have you ever been to Zug in Switzerland? tiny town of about 50k people, but many many major international businesses have their HQ there.

we have not been discusing that though have we? why not start a different thread if that is what you want to talk about?

so, have we finally come to some sort of agreement?

This thread drifted from its original purpose when YOU started talking about population so don't pretend you want to protect its integrity now!

We are not in any agreement because you still insist on making like for like comparisons and I've always maintained that there are any number of definitions of a city. You make ridiculous comparisons between London and Manchester and constantly contradict yourself. That attracts numskulls like Platting who take it as a personal insult when you suggest Bolton is a town.

The best was when you said rural areas mark the edge of a city.

And no, I've never been to "Zug".

You're such a hypocrite; why do you expect or want to come to an agreement over a thread that you started that was only ever looking for everyone to say "My city isnt very dense at all, but Manchester must be the densest city in Europe".

I'm confused - is this argument an example of population density or another type of being dense?

And why do you keep saying Rochdale, Wigan and Oldham's town centres are not in Manchester? Are you implying that the rest of the towns are in Manchester? That would make these places unique in that they would be towns without suburbs, without populations, towns composed solely of a town centre.

And why do you keep saying Rochdale, Wigan and Oldham's town centres are not in Manchester? Are you implying that the rest of the towns are in Manchester? That would make these places unique in that they would be towns without suburbs, without populations, towns composed solely of a town centre.

http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/maps/oldham.jpg

Here is a map of the metropolitan borough of Oldham. One of the 10 boroughs which make up Greater Manchester. As you can see if covers a large area which includes many towns - the largest of which is the town of Oldham, after which the borough gets its name.

All metro is saying is that some of the towns closest to Manchester city centre, such as Chadderton or Failsworth have closer ties to Manchester city centre than to Oldham town centre.

Same goes for towns near to Wigan and Rochdale which fall under the local authoroties of the same name.

Yep, Leeds has a very successful city centre for a city of it's size, it attracts large business very successfully, but that does not change the fact compared to other cities it's still a medium sized city.


Another thing, do you genuinely think that Leeds classes as a medium sized city, but Manchester doesn't?

Subliving.

Failsworth definitely has closers ties to Manchester than Oldham even though it was a seperate town to both. It's children are still educated in Oldham Schools.

Chadderton though has always had closer ties to Oldham due possibly to it's location. In the days of the municipal bus operators you would see more cream and maroon (Oldham) than red and white (Manchester) in Chadderton.

Another thing, do you genuinely think that Leeds classes as a medium sized city, but Manchester doesn't?

Subliving.

Both cities are small cities in the great scheme of things.

In UK terms, both Leeds and Manchester are large cities.
In international terms they are both medium sized cities.
Manchester is usually perceived (rightly or wrongly I don't care) as being the larger of the two.

It feels bigger when you're on the ground, but unfortunately like all UK provincial cities, the centres of Manchester and leeds take about 15 minutes to walk across.

Manchester centre is definitely expanding outwards with bigger bulkier buildings landing where workshops used to stand.

In UK terms, both Leeds and Manchester are large cities.
In international terms they are both medium sized cities.
Manchester is usually perceived (rightly or wrongly I don't care) as being the larger of the two.

There's no denying that Manchester is larger!

I think we shouldn't overrate them internationally though, as they are very small size. I do however think they punch well above their weight in terms of influence compared to their population.

Subliving.

LOL @ Platting! You've been waiting over a week to get your little dig in! You could have come up with something better couldn't you?

How can the written word be monotonous?
You just couldn't resist replying to you hero could you?:)

Somehow you've actually managed to make the 'written word' monotonous....

Why do you have to bring your "humour" to threads, Platting? You are not a funny person, so stop trying to be.

Some of your gaffes are quite amusing though

It's strange how it seems that the populations of Bury, Wigan, Sale etc etc seem quite happy to state they're from Manchester. If you asked someone from Morley or Otley if they were from Leeds you'd get your head stoved in quicker than Platting (as he shall now be always known) could call Mistertee a twat!

Failsworth definitely has closers ties to Manchester than Oldham even though it was a seperate town to both. It's children are still educated in Oldham Schools.

Chadderton though has always had closer ties to Oldham due possibly to it's location. In the days of the municipal bus operators you would see more cream and maroon (Oldham) than red and white (Manchester) in Chadderton.

Failsworth was actually part of Manchester until 1974 when it was of the Manchester suburbs carved up and given to one of the other 10 Manchester Metropolitan boroughs, to help equal up populations amongst the boroughs. Other examples being Denton, Droylsden etc. which were given to Tameside and Stretford, which became part of Trafford Borough.

Before then, of course, in the 1960's, Manchester moved thousands of people out to very large over-spill housing estates, built, run, and managed by Manchester city council, to enable slum clearance. Many of these estates are now in other boroughs, for example, Langley (Rochdale), Hattersley (Tameside) and Liitlle Hulton (Salford).

Earlier still, Salford once formed part of the parish of Manchester....

Like it or not, it's all one city which has grown around one large dominating centre, all linked by one big city infrastructure network. Without Manchester, places like Oldham and Stockport would not have developed any where near as much (as independent towns) as they are now the suburbs of a much bigger city. New housing estates are built in these boroughs for poeple to commute to central Manchester....although some will no doubt work in the suburban centres, of which Oldham is one!

Failsworth definately feels more Manchester than Oldham. I know a few people up Failsworth, none of them put Oldham on their address, all put Manchester.

It was never part of Manchester though. Neither were all of the other places (Denton, Droylsden). They were all seperate towns/urban districts under Lancs county council. They were put into their respective boroughs upon the formation of Gtr Manchester in 1974 without ever having been in the City of Manchester.

Most of the estates you mention were built and managed by Manchester City council, but have now been transferred. Little Hulton, though, was always a Salford overspill, as was Irlam/Cadishead, Swinton/Valley. Swinton, Little Hulton, Worsley, were also seperate towns, never part of Manchester, before being absorbed into Salford in 1974.

It's hard to explaing how (Greater) Manchester works. Each part feels different to the other, i.e. Rochdale, Oldham, Bolton, Sale, etc all feel quite big in their own right, but form with the Manchester/Salford central area and are dependent on the big city. I imagine this to be like Romford, Croydon, Harrow and the other outer London boroughs.

I don't agree with your point that Stockport + Oldham would have not developed as much had it not been for Manchester. I think their town centres would have been larger and would have had more shops. Stockport is the same size (population) as Hull, yet Hull has a bigger city centre, as the Hullites don't have the big city next door to go shopping in instead.

The parishes of Manchester/Salford is a strange one. Salford is in the protestant diocese of Manchester, Manchester in the catholic dioces of Salford. Both used to form the "Salford Hundred" in days of yore.

I don't agree with your point that Stockport + Oldham would have not developed as much had it not been for Manchester. I think their town centres would have been larger and would have had more shops. Stockport is the same size (population) as Hull, yet Hull has a bigger city centre, as the Hullites don't have the big city next door to go shopping in instead.

I really don't think the likes of Stockport would have such large populations in the first place if it wasn't for the near-by influence of Manchester. Stockport has some sprawling suburbs, with quality, high value housing, which would not have been there in the first place if it wasn't for the presence of Manchester. If anything, Stockport's town centre would not have been as big if it wasn't supported by such large suburbs, Manchester's suburbs.

Hull, a stand-alone city, has some very nice suburbs too, just like Stockport. But its all ifs/buts/whatevers and academic about how big/what services would be in Stockport if it weren't for Manchester anyway.

Aye. It's like 'how would Birkenhead be if it wasn't anywhere near Liverpool?'

Why do you have to bring your "humour" to threads, Platting? You are not a funny person, so stop trying to be.

Some of your gaffes are quite amusing though
Stop lying through your teeth mistertee, gaffes or not, you know I make you laugh your silly little cock off!

Whether you think I'm funny or not, it doesn't change the fact that you are my bitch!

Now run along lad like a good little tyke....:cool:

Sore Piles, NO!!!! Leave Accy's missus alone. He'll bugger you into the middle of next week when he reads this....

Failsworth was actually part of Manchester until 1974 when it was of the Manchester suburbs carved up and given to one of the other 10 Manchester Metropolitan boroughs, to help equal up populations amongst the boroughs. Other examples being Denton, Droylsden etc. which were given to Tameside and Stretford, which became part of Trafford Borough.


http://ubn17.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/failsworthtownhall-21.07.1988.jpg

Failsworth Town Hall, one of the hallmarks of being a seperate entity.

There's a bigger one in Stretford. Another seperate town.

Oldham is not a Suburb of Manchester, it is a town with suburbs of it's own

The towns around Manchester developed because they had access originally to fast running water and then coal.

There is no developed suburban railway network north of the city centre, Manchester spread southwards whilst the industrial towns to the north spread out themselves and just about connect with Manchester along the main roads.

Manchester is a small city at the centre of a medium size conurbation. The future may see it develop into a single entity as local identities merge or disappear but that is in the future. At the moment Manchester centres a conurbation of small towns that have themselves been merged into larger boroughs. Manchester hasn't lost any population through boundary changes, just good old fashioned inner city decline.

Walton Town Hall was demolished for the Rice Lane flyover on Queens Drive. They mean precisely Dick.

Sore Piles, NO!!!! Leave Accy's missus alone. He'll bugger you into the middle of next week when he reads this....
Whatever it is you're on Bunny, I'll have some of that....:cheers:

http://ubn17.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/failsworthtownhall-21.07.1988.jpg

Failsworth Town Hall, one of the hallmarks of being a seperate entity.

There's a bigger one in Stretford. Another seperate town.

Oldham is not a Suburb of Manchester, it is a town with suburbs of it's own

The towns around Manchester developed because they had access originally to fast running water and then coal.

There is no developed suburban railway network north of the city centre, Manchester spread southwards whilst the industrial towns to the north spread out themselves and just about connect with Manchester along the main roads.

Manchester is a small city at the centre of a medium size conurbation. The future may see it develop into a single entity as local identities merge or disappear but that is in the future. At the moment Manchester centres a conurbation of small towns that have themselves been merged into larger boroughs. Manchester hasn't lost any population through boundary changes, just good old fashioned inner city decline.

And nice town halls they are too! There's probably 20 or 30 similar buildings throughout London!

And nice town halls they are too! There's probably 20 or 30 similar buildings throughout London!

There are much more, the Metropolitan Boroughs such as Holborn and St Pancras which were part of the County of London and the motley collection of Urban Districts and County Boroughs such as West Ham, East Ham, Hendon and Hornsey covered the urban area outside the county. They got merged into Greater London. Before,they were still seperate entities but served by London Transport and the Metroplitan Police.


Falisworth was never part of Manchester and Manchester never lost Failsworth to anyone.

Manchester and London grew in different ways and cannot be compared with each other. Greater Manchester is a conurbation centred on Manchester.
London is a unified city.

If London was a conurbation like Greater Manchester it would include places like Watford and Dartford.

The parishes of Manchester/Salford is a strange one. Salford is in the protestant diocese of Manchester, Manchester in the catholic dioces of Salford.

...in addition, Glossop is in the Catholic Diocese of Nottingham while other parts of Greater Manchester are in the Catholic Diocese of Shrewsbury.

Freakish! :nuts:

Earlier still, Salford once formed part of the parish of Manchester....

And Manchester, in turn, was in the Salford Hundred! :lol:

Gtr Manchester North of the Mersey is Salford really, accept it.