This is quite a simple idea. Please, though, no arguments about populations and the like, lets just try and reach some kind of concensus as to what constitutes a city. I don't want arguments and insults, just civil discussion and ideas.

My definition:
A contiguous urban area surrounding an urban centre, minus any other large urban centres within the urban area and the proportionate sub-division of the urban area surrounding those other urban centres. Adjacent urban centres would be considered as one for the purposes of the definition.

Simplified example:
Urban area of 1 million with two urban centres, one 50% of the size of the other, both equally central within their own proportion of the urban area. Urban centre one would have a population of 666,666 and urban centre two would have a population of 333,333.


How would you define a city and how would you limit the definition to include areas you consider to be within the city and exclude those you consider to be outside it?

I stay with old traditional way. An urban area with its own dedicated cathedral whose title is granted by the leading member of the monarchy and boundaries are determined by government.

Not all cities are diocesan.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom

Most "cities" are not, in fact, cities in the traditional sense of the word (that is, a large urban area) but are local government districts which have city status and which often encompass large rural areas. For example the City of Canterbury and City of Wakefield cover large rural areas. The largest "city" district in terms of area is the City of Carlisle, which covers some 400 square miles (1040 km²) of mostly rural landscape in the north of England, and is larger than smaller counties such as Merseyside or Rutland. The City of Sheffield contains part of the Peak District National Park. This is however merely a curiosity and has had no impact on the general usage of the word "city" in the UK, which has unambiguously retained its urban meaning in British English. Residents of the rural parts of the "City of Carlisle" and the like might be aware of the name of their local council, but would not consider themselves to be inhabitants of a city with a small "c".

Equally, there are some cities where the local government district is in fact smaller than the historical or natural boundaries of the city. Four examples of this are Manchester (where the traditional area associated includes areas of the neighbouring authorities of Trafford, Tameside, Oldham, Bury and the City of Salford), Glasgow (where suburban areas of the city are located in East Dunbartonshire, East Renfrewshire, North Lanarkshire and South Lanarkshire), Wolverhampton (areas of the neighbouring authorities of Walsall, Dudley and South Staffordshire) and most obviously, London (Greater London outside the City of London).

In the US or Australia (and many other places now) if you want to be a city then you can be one.... I think that is the best way. Why have some fucker in government or a cathedral telling you you can't be what you aspire to?

That's all well and good but where would you draw the boundary of what consitutes the city?

where the houses end...maybe a little further?

We are fortunate that most cities in the world do not bleed into each other, like the megalopolis that is washington/Baltimore/Boston.... or even, one day, Liverpool/Manc.... then I think culture and identity come into it... but then this changes all the time... so lets stay fluid on the point!

I get the feling this thread actually means something like the Manc/Salford issue, or the Liverpool/Sefton one?... again, I would say, continuous build up...mainly in a logical pattern from the centre, and most importantly cultural/civic identity! That last one means that for all the growth and government bias shown toward mancunia, Liverpool will always be bigger and better than 'Manchester' because there are more of us than youz!

it has a university

my definition.
A city that developes around a center peice for city life. A city has atleast 100'000 people in the central city. And a million in the metro. To me, a city must have a good central life, or it is just a toss of urban decay and suburbs.

Erm, not sure what you mean by that. 100,000 in the actual city (completely built up area), and 1m+ in the region?

I think a city must have a Cathederal (doesn't have to be big), a University, and a population of 200,000+.

^^If a city had to have a big cathedral, Birmingham will go back to being a town! Our cathedral is minuscule.

That's why I included that clause. Both Birmingham and Sheffield have tiny cathederals, and I'm sure there must be other cities that have, but I cant think of which (Leeds maybe?).

I think a city must have a Cathederal (doesn't have to be big)

That's silly, there could be huge settlements in non-christian countries without cathedrals. I don't think it should be left to the whim of the pope or archbishop of canterbury or whoever to define what is or isn't a city.

Hmm. Suppose actually. I was thinking more in terms of the UK.

That's why I included that clause. Both Birmingham and Sheffield have tiny cathederals, and I'm sure there must be other cities that have, but I cant think of which (Leeds maybe?).

I don't even know if Leeds has a cathedral, I guess it must.

It has a Roman Catholic cathedral, I know being as I am of that persuasion myself. But I don't think it has an Anglican one.

Surely when they decided that a city must have a cathedral to be a city, they will have stipulated it must be of the official denomination i.e. C of E?

Northampton has an RC cathedral but remains a town.

That's silly, there could be huge settlements in non-christian countries without cathedrals. I don't think it should be left to the whim of the pope or archbishop of canterbury...

...or a Metropolitan! Brum's also got a Greek Orthodox Cathedral - I'm sure Manchester's got one of those too. The strange thing about Manchester (I think I've mentioned this before) is that it has it's Anglican Cathedral but as far as Catholic ones go, Salford is the most 'central' but some other parts of GM come under the Shrewsbury diocese, for example. So Cathedrals aren't as reliable as some other markers are.

I think that city boundaries are the first and most important marker, unless it is made meaningless by other factors such as the size of the built-up area surrounding the 'centre' - 'central London' is so huge that it has expanded beyond its original boundaries - in addition, the other 'centres' are so insignificant in comparison to the centre of that conurbation. But I think it is a case on its own as far as the UK is concerned.

Leeds doesn't have a CofE cathedral, but it has an RC cathedral (Small)

It is in the diocese of Ripon and Leeds though.

Also, CofE isnt the official denomination, as someone said. There is no official denomination. Its just the national one.

I would personally say a city must have a Bishop, and it must have at least 200,000 peeople.

This is quite a simple idea. Please, though, no arguments about populations and the like, lets just try and reach some kind of concensus as to what constitutes a city. I don't want arguments and insults, just civil discussion and ideas.

My definition:
A contiguous urban area surrounding an urban centre, minus any other large urban centres within the urban area and the proportionate sub-division of the urban area surrounding those other urban centres. Adjacent urban centres would be considered as one for the purposes of the definition.

Simplified example:
Urban area of 1 million with two urban centres, one 50% of the size of the other, both equally central within their own proportion of the urban area. Urban centre one would have a population of 666,666 and urban centre two would have a population of 333,333.


How would you define a city and how would you limit the definition to include areas you consider to be within the city and exclude those you consider to be outside it?

Whats your definition of urban centre? CBD/retail core?

Broadly speaking, I would say a city has to have a centre and a physically related suburb, and the centre must be dominant insofar as no other local centre contains the same central facilities and amenities.

I'd say the word City has a different meaning from what it meant when it was first used. There are afew Cities in the UK that are tiny. Some only have populations of afew 1000. Now I'd say the word City means to have some importance in the local area and also have a certain size of urban area.

^^If a city had to have a big cathedral, Birmingham will go back to being a town! Our cathedral is minuscule.

and Liverpool would be the unasailable megalopolis! :cheers:

and Liverpool would be the unasailable megalopolis! :cheers:

So would Durham

Looking at this map, perhaps a better idea of what Manchester actually is, would be to collate all the M postcodes?

http://www.manchester2002-uk.com/maps/postcodes-large.jpg

Approximate population of M postcode I would put at 850 - 900K. Manchester
400K, Half of Bury, 90K, Half of Trafford, 100K, all Salford 200K, bits of Bolton, Wigan, Oldham, Tameside, Rochdale to round it up to 850 - 900K

Do you think that's about right then - and it'd be the simplest and most sensible way to impliment any boundary changes. It makes sense really.

I don't think it matters. Good housing, good public transport, health and education and a good mix of jobs. That's what matters.

Hmm. That might work for Manchester, but for Sheffield it would give a population of about 1.5 million :lol:. Now I'm not gonna complain about that, but some may. :-P

I don't think it matters. Good housing, good public transport, health and education and a good mix of jobs. That's what matters.

OK - good point. But that's what this thread is about - and it does hang on the idea that it does matter. Still, i'm sure the boundary's positioning affects those issues in some way. My mum, for example, couldn't (presuming she wanted to) send me to a school in Manchester - however i had freedom of access for all of salford - so i ended up in a school 5 miles away from my house in m6 - whilst there were better schools nearer in Manchester and trafford in what i'd consider my city.

I went to school in Walkden in m28, btw, which would be my exception to including all of salford into Manchester - as it's a pretty well defined town with countryside between it and the city. Probably more related to Bolton.

Broadly speaking, I would say a city has to have a centre and a physically related suburb, and the centre must be dominant insofar as no other local centre contains the same central facilities and amenities.

I'd say this is a fair description. To define it further I'd say that a city can include no urban subdivision (which the ONS bases on pre '74 municipality boundaries) with a population over 100,000, (as this figure seems a decent cut off for a town to be considered independent) or areas that are suburbs of the sub-city. Also areas included should be physically joined to the core city in a substantiative way.

In this case I'd say 'Manchester' is the M post codes, and some further peripheral areas with no other potential town/city aligment such as Altrincham and possibly some of the fraying edge of Stockport MBC (the four Heatons and Gatley) but not most of suburban Stockport, or Ashton, Hyde and S'bridge. This I'd imagine would cover those areas where people primarily describe themselves as Mancunian and give 'Manchester' a population of about 900-950K.

To my mind this is a transferable definition. It would include in London all of inner London and most of greater London out to towns like Croydon and Barking which seem to have some measure of independence. Birmingham would I imagine stay largely as it appears from its city boundaries (although would probably include a few nominally black country suburbs). Liverpool is an interesting case as Birkenhead would fall on the boundary of independence and is physically separate, which means that 'Liverpool' would be those areas of Knowsley and Sefton that are directly linked to the core city, but nothing south of the Mersey.

So would Durham


ah, the mighty twin cities of the northern hemisphere!

For freestanding towns, a popn of 100k simple. Conurbations though are so complex and linked its really difficult to draw a line and say on one side you belong to this city and on this side you live in this town despite using all the same facilities going to the same schools etc.
Having a cathedral does not a city make, there are many larger and more deserving towns than places like Lichfield and Hereford.

Hmm. That might work for Manchester, but for Sheffield it would give a population of about 1.5 million :lol:. Now I'm not gonna complain about that, but some may. :-P

You sure there are that many living in the 'S' postcode area?

Postcode map (http://www.direct-marketing-lists.co.uk/postcode_map.htm)

ah, the mighty twin cities of the northern hemisphere!

And Ripon

Coming from Australia, I percieve cities more in organic terms. That is, the urban belt and then the satellite towns around it if they are closely connected by transport and commuting. So, in my case I still see towns past the greenbelt and belonging to other councils as part of the core city.

In many cases, I would include the full metropolitan area (based by commuting patterns) but this depends on the physical size of the area and how much space is in between the urban cores.

It is simply impossible for me to limit a city to it’s council boundary’s. Politics has no meaning for me as far as cities go. And I can’t limit to just urban area’s as well, as many places outside the urban area still feels like a suburb or the core city.

An example of this for London as an example, is places like Hemel Hempstead, Slough, Maidenhead easily fit into what I consider London. Places further out like Reading also would make it.

You sure there are that many living in the 'S' postcode area?

Postcode map (http://www.direct-marketing-lists.co.uk/postcode_map.htm)

Well the "Sheffield City Region (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_City_Region)" has a population of either 1.7 or 1.8 million, all of which are under the 'S' postcode, bar DOncaster, which had a population of about 200,000, so that would give at least 1.5 million under the 'S' postcode.

However, I don't know how accurate I am with that seeing, so it's quite possible that i'm wrong. Although if you look at that postcode map, the 'S' postcode covers a much larger area than the 'M' one.

And Ripon


Feckin hell... the place is full of them!

Northampton has an RC cathedral but remains a town.

They don't count. Not the "official" religion of the UK - although the official religion has less than 1 million regular followers now. That doesn't make it particularly official.

Leeds doesn't have a CofE cathedral, but it has an RC cathedral (Small)

It is in the diocese of Ripon and Leeds though.

Also, CofE isnt the official denomination, as someone said. There is no official denomination. Its just the national one.

I would personally say a city must have a Bishop, and it must have at least 200,000 peeople.

Bishops are the most irrelevent, pointless people in the country - they most certainly are "official", as they get 12 seats in the house of Lords! Which means these nutters - who believe in the supernatural - actually get to take part and put their nutter driven views into politics. Their vote counts, and it's based on supersition and nutterdom. Get 'em out!!!!!!

unlike those famous humanist based orators, like Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

Looking at this map, perhaps a better idea of what Manchester actually is, would be to collate all the M postcodes?



I wouldn't disagree :)

They don't count. Not the "official" religion of the UK - although the official religion has less than 1 million regular followers now. That doesn't make it particularly official.

The funny thing is, I read sometime last year the CofE has fallen behind Catholicism and Islam in terms of number of regular worshippers now.

Still that probably means that in total 5 million or so people regularly worship, and the other 55 million don't...

unlike those famous humanist based orators, like Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

Oh yawn, this tired old one.

Hitler was actually a christian.

The funny thing is, I read sometime last year the CofE has fallen behind Catholicism and Islam in terms of number of regular worshippers now.

Still that probably means that in total 5 million or so people regularly worship, and the other 55 million don't...

Exactly, and major news item last night "The Bishop of Somewhere has said prayers for someone." Oh yes, that's newsworthy.

How about "Fairy worshipper dances around ring of mushrooms for someone." - about the same thing, except the 2nd case the person would be considered a nutter.

unlike those famous humanist based orators, like Stalin, Mao and Hitler?

Stalin trained to be a priest I think.

I don't know about Hitler but Himmler was big on Hinduism apparently.

I like Simon de Montforte and his words before commencing the albigensian Crusade "Kill em all, let God sort em out"

That was reputedly the pope's man, Arnaud Amaury. Same side; same war, however.

The Languedoc civilisation - all gone, all gone.

Stalin trained to be a priest I think.

I don't know about Hitler but Himmler was big on Hinduism apparently.

I like Simon de Montforte and his words before commencing the albigensian Crusade "Kill em all, let God sort em out"

The cults that people like Stalin and Mao setup are basically the same as religious cults, except the person takes the place of the God.

Oh yawn, this tired old one.

Hitler was actually a christian.


oh...er, right then. All those books an things must be wrong then!

Anyway you missed the point. Talking of tired old points, just take a look at your own unsophiasticated rhetoric. I am not a cult follower, but...just think it through!

oh...er, right then. All those books an things must be wrong then!

Anyway you missed the point. Talking of tired old points, just take a look at your own unsophiasticated rhetoric. I am not a cult follower, but...just think it through!

From Wikipedia:

"In later life, Hitler's religious beliefs present a discrepant picture: Publicly he often spoke positively of the Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) heritage of German culture and belief in Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ). Hitler’s private statements, reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but also critical of Christianity. "

Christians like to believe that all the nasty people of the 20th century were atheists or secular, and have almost managed to make it a widespread belief.

The fact that a religion is given 12 seats in government is not unsophisticated, but highly debatle given the beliefs of these people. Why should people be allowed into government purely because they believe in Sky Fairies.

That was reputedly the pope's man, Arnaud Amaury. Same side; same war, however.

The Languedoc civilisation - all gone, all gone.

I'm happy to be corrected,

There was a similar group of people in Bosnia called Bogomils, who believed in ascetism and dualism. They all converted to Islam when the Ottomans arrived.

Just going back to the cathedral thing.

Hull has been a city since 1897. It has a built up urban area of roughly 320,000, but it's unitary authority boundary is drawn prohibitively tightly around the inner city (245,000).

Although it doesn't have an official CofE cathedral, it has Holy Trinity - the largest parish church in the country, which is bigger than many city cathedrals (ie: Manchester).

Oh, and York doesn't have a cathedral. It's a Minster, so...what happens there?

Dunno what happens about minsters, but I know Rotherham has one, and that's not a city.

Far as I'm aware, a minster is a cathedral. It's just a cathedral that at some point has had monks living in it.

Far as I'm aware, a minster is a cathedral. It's just a cathedral that at some point has had monks living in it.

And straight from the horse's mouth....

'Minster Churches are basically churches that were established in the Anglo Saxon period as missionary teaching churches. York Minster is also the Church of the Archbishop of York. He is the most senior bishop in the North of England. It is where he has his seat, called a Cathedra, which makes York Minster a Cathedral as well.

'Not all Minsters are Cathedrals, and not all Cathedrals are Minsters, but York Minster is both. The present Minster is the largest Gothic Cathedral in northern Europe and was built over a period of 250 years'

http://www.yorkminster.org/general/faqs/#cat21q1

From Wikipedia:

"In later life, Hitler's religious beliefs present a discrepant picture: Publicly he often spoke positively of the Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) heritage of German culture and belief in Christ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ). Hitler’s private statements, reported by his intimates, are more mixed, showing Hitler as a religious man but also critical of Christianity. "

Christians like to believe that all the nasty people of the 20th century were atheists or secular, and have almost managed to make it a widespread belief.

The fact that a religion is given 12 seats in government is not unsophisticated, but highly debatle given the beliefs of these people. Why should people be allowed into government purely because they believe in Sky Fairies.


I never said that the issue was unsophisticated, just your simplistic and dumb headed notion of the influecnce of religion... or christianity, especially with regards to the development of liberal principles in the west... you obviously don't know and feel you can slag them off in the simplistic way you did because, like me, you presumably don't belive in God?

His main ambition (Hitler) was to undermine this fine and civilising christian influence and replace it with a series of cults based on ancient northern mythologies... the fact that he may have been baptised means nothing... I was baptised a catholic... measn nothing.

I think the initial question was asking how do you define what area is included in a city boundary, not whether an area is a city - if you see what I mean.

For example he was asking how do you define Manchester the city - there's loads of ways (much debated on here) - is it postcodes, telephone codes, council boundaires, continuous urban area etc.
He then asks about complications over allocating Salford as a separate city, or, since it is now merged in with Manchester whether it is part of Manchester?
Thats my take on it...

Just going back to the cathedral thing.

Hull has been a city since 1897. It has a built up urban area of roughly 320,000, but it's unitary authority boundary is drawn prohibitively tightly around the inner city (245,000).

Although it doesn't have an official CofE cathedral, it has Holy Trinity - the largest parish church in the country, which is bigger than many city cathedrals (ie: Manchester).

Oh, and York doesn't have a cathedral. It's a Minster, so...what happens there?

York Minster is a Cathedral; its official name is The Cathedral and Metropolitical Church of St Peter in York.

Its a Minster and Cathedral. (Minster for missionary value, the church has a metropolitcal primate based there, ie bishop (archbishop in this case), making it a Cathedral).

This is 2 Cities and 7 metropolitan boroughs unbelieveably, showing borders mean absolutely sod all! :cheers:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/124/321676373_1d0d819b51.jpg?v=0

great pic, where did you get it?

Actually, i think that's sheffield in the top right of that photo - not too sure. Tony, some guy uploads them onto flickr, you can see his stuff here >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/davealvers/sets/72157594449933074/

Here's another. Manchester | Liverpool |The sea

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/120/316411702_e1e2036ccb_b.jpg

Those pictures are so cool! Amazing how visible Trafford Park is, as much as the city centre. I think Trafford Park is great, you guys should mention it more. It got its own thread anywhere?

Thanks kids. I remember my mate saying that when he came back from Bulgaria.. he had been to a European cup game and was flying back in the middle of the night, he said the biggest impression was just how linked up it all was right from Hull all the way to Liverpool...and that was in the late 70s'!

The match couldn't have been that great if that was his best memory though!

Actually, i think that's sheffield in the top right of that photo - not too sure. Tony, some guy uploads them onto flickr, you can see his stuff here >> http://www.flickr.com/photos/davealvers/sets/72157594449933074/


Yeah apparently that's Sheffield/Chesterfield in the background.

They're great pics aswell. Can really see that it's built up all the way between Liverpool and Manchester.