I got this idea of one on the Manc forum (thanks ThomH :okay: Hope you don't mind be using the format :) ).

My question is this - To an overseas visitor who is due to visit Leeds and who asks how big the city is - what do I tell him to allow them to allow them to benchmark against cities from their home country?

Ok, the latest population estimates put Leeds at about 760,200ish. However, is this a true reflection of our great cities population? I said before that I think Leeds is over bounded to the NE, and under bounded to the south. I'm sure most Loiners and other local people think that areas around Birstall and alike are more part of Leeds than Wetherby. Wetherby should have been put into Harrogate district with Ripon and Knaresborough. If we take away the populations of Wetherby and the extreme east of the city boundary, that reduces the 760k to around 720-730k. But what about the areas along the M62, such as around Birstall, which certainly feel and look like parts of south Leeds? Taking this into consideration, I think that the 760k figure is not that far off the mark (it may be a bit under 800k).

However, I think that in the next few decades this may change significantly. I’ve discussed this with LN1 in the past that, with the amount of development going on up the A58, villages joining to one another and a 30mph speed limit up most of it due to the linear layout and distribution of the villages, (just look at what is now Bardsey cum Rigton!) it's probably not long until there is continuous development all the way up through Wellington Hill, east of Shadwell, Scarcroft, Bardsey cum Rigton to at least Collingham. This along with the development on the A65 route and to a lesser extent, the A58 southwest. I expect there will be some major development in terms of offices parks and housing estates along the new A63 to the M1.

For the record, in terms of the larger metropolitan area, I think we’d all agree that Greater Leeds doesn’t include the extreme western limits of West Yorkshire. I’d probably say Greater Leeds has a population of around 1.8m.

I understand that this is not an exact science and I expect a lot of debate as to what does or doesn't fall within the influence of Leeds city centre. I know all of WY does to a degree but an important city is always going to influence areas beyond it's borders.

If we said 800k people for example to an impending overseas visitor who travelled a lot and had a good feel for different cities would the size and nature of the city centre fit their expectations as they walked around it? I know at the minute if I told them it was either 460k, 760k or 1.8m they would be a bit puzzled on arrival.

Leeds doesn't have to be a completely urban district. Why shouldn't Wetherby be part of Leeds MD. There are plenty of people who'd say Pudsey or Morley shouldn't be considered 'Leeds', as they're seen as towns in their own right.

^^I agree! I just think Wetherby is too far out, but not Garforth or Otley. I don't want some city of urban sprawl. One of Leeds' and West Yorkshires qualities is that it has areas/corridors of Greenbelt running throughout the conurbation.

Interesting points. If a Greater Leeds authority had been created, then Bradford and Wakefield and parts of Kirklees would be in it. This would have been fiercely resisted for obvious reasons, though you'd be hard pressed to find a lot of open space between them. Driving by night from the A1 towards Leeds via the M62 gives a good impression of the urban agglomeration in what is not Leeds but is contiguous with it. Your estimate of actual population is about right I would think. Certainly the catchment for work, shopping and entertainment would put the population up to a couple of million.

seen as towns in their own right
London is made of many "towns in their own right" but they are still part of London. I agree that towns like Birstall should be classed as within the Leeds boundary.

In my opinion it's all about conurbations. Basically where there is little space between towns. Granted, many towns around Leeds do tend to have some sort of dividing space but many of these spaces are filling up fast.

You mention the A65 corridor. Kirkstall, Horsforth, Rawdon, Yeadon, Guiseley and Menston are all separate towns along the route but they are all very much gluing together these days. There's very little to distinguish one town from the next as the borders slowly close in. Otley is like a spur from the Menston area but even there the little space bewteen the towns is being built on and the only main stumblng block would be the Chevin Hill itself.

I have some friends who live in Bradford who say that they are from Bradford in Leeds when asked where they are from when they go abroad.

I'd say Leeds' population figure of 760k is about right. Leeds feels like a uk city of 760k. Although by international standards (like all uk cities) leeds is more befitting of a smaller city.

In terms of urban build up, Leeds is smaller than nottingham even, with an urban population of around 600k. However, what makes leeds city centre feel more befitting of a lslightly arger city is the fact that leeds is the hub of the west yorkshire area, in terms of retail, commerce, finance, universities, leisure etc.

Well places like Wetherby are part of Leeds in pretty much all aspects but physical. The way people move around Leeds in their life reflects this; e.g children live with their families in the suburbs, when they become students they move into accommodation in the centre/inner city (perhaps of another city), then might buy a house in the inner city, as they get wealthier move out to the suburbs, then as they get older and wealthier move out to the towns and villages in North Leeds. In order to encompass all of this, it should be recognised that cities don't suddenly stop because of a field or two.

Also, if the greenbelt hadn't been implemented, would Leeds' urban sprawl have kept expanding to cover Wetherby and Otley? I think probably yes.

Birstall definitely feels part of Leeds; more so than some places in North Leeds. Indeed, most stores at the retail park advertise themselves as being 'Leeds'. Even Glasshoughton feels like the edge of Leeds I think; Xscape advertises itself as Xscape Castleford- Leeds, as in Castleford in Leeds.

I've always thought Birstall seems much more similar to other neighbouring towns in the heavy woollen district than it does to Leeds, even Morley does too to some extent. A lot of the stone built towns and villages up the Aire and round Pudsey also feel different, though (certainly in the case of Pudsey) less distinct, maybe due to their smaller/less popular town centres.

The Greater Nottingham 600k figure includes a lot of distant towns, some being way into Derbyshire, that are connected with each other only by patchy ribbon developments. Leeds also has places like this as we have mentioned, but in these statistics always seem to be counted as seperate urban areas.

If you count Birstall as Leeds though, where do you definitely draw the line? Batley? Cleckheaton? Dewsbury? I reckon the motorway is a good dividing line to the south...

If you count Birstall as Leeds though, where do you definitely draw the line? Batley? Cleckheaton? Dewsbury? I reckon the motorway is a good dividing line to the south...

Much of Greater Manchester is beyond the orbital motorway and those places still 'feel' like they are within Manchester. The road layout in Leeds seem to segregate the city so much especially the whole of the Northern part of Leeds in particular. If you imagine an M60 or and M25 style orbital around the whole of Leeds and Bradford, I think the whole of that area would probably 'feel' like one city. If you look at the existing Motorway network part of this 'orbital' motorway is already in place. The M62 in the South and the M1 to the East.

http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k145/airportsuk/a-map-leeds.png

In all honesty i reckon to someone from overseas would find it small.

I know that sheffield is bigger the leeds and the whole of shefield can just about fit in central Auckland where im living, i think thats pretty impressive.

BTW please dont go into a debate of which is bigger leeds or sheffield my quote is based on land area rather then population lol

In all honesty i reckon to someone from overseas would find it small.

I know that sheffield is bigger the leeds and the whole of shefield can just about fit in central Auckland where im living, i think thats pretty impressive.

BTW please dont go into a debate of which is bigger leeds or sheffield my quote is based on land area rather then population lol

Sorry eighty4 you are wrong.

Official city council boundaries which is the accepted government statistical measurement are as follows:

Leeds 551.72 Km2 pop 715,000
Sheffield 367.94 Km2 pop 530,000

Sorry eighty4 you are wrong.

Official city council boundaries which is the accepted government statistical measurement are as follows:

Leeds 551.72 Km pop 715,000
Sheffield 367.94 Km pop 530,000

i just said it wasnt based on population but on land area :)

i just said it wasnt based on population but on land area :)

I have showed you official city land area in my last post.


Leeds 551.72 Km2
Sheffield 367.94 Km2

^^ oops well i beg to differ lol

how did i only see population :bash:

either way leeds and sheffield are tiny in comparrison to auckland and its not even an international city lol

Greater Auckland : 6059km²
population 1,414,800 lol

^^ oops well i beg to differ lol

how did i only see population :bash:

either way leeds and sheffield are tiny in comparrison to auckland and its not even an international city lol

Greater Auckland : 6059km²
population 1,414,800 lol

Well neither Leeds/Sheffield have a quarter of the UK's ENTIRE population in them though!

Well neither Leeds/Sheffield have a quarter of the UK's ENTIRE population in them though!

I know its crazy init ? lol but the whole point of this thread is how BIG somewhere is not how many people live there.

Plus London is the only city that people consider world class and that has a huge % of our population living there and is smaller that Auckland , know what i mean ?

So yes leeds/sheffield and infact every other UK city except london will feel small to jonny foreigners

Surely it depends where they're from, or do all "foreigners" think the same?

Someone from Leeds (or Auckland for that matter) would think Madrid was absolutely huge, but someone from Mexico City would find it "small"

By the same token, someone from a village in the jungle somewhere would find even a modest town to be big

Relativity. It applies to "foreigners" too

People who I have taken to Leeds from Sri Lanka and France thought Leeds was massive; I expect this was really down to the amount of shops more than anything.

Clearly there is room for all sorts of interpretations and one such is given below. In Leeds's case the key thing is whether you include Bradford on the grounds that it is a continuous urban area or whether you would exclude it on the grounds that it has a sperate identity, history, city centre etc. In my opinion, a visitor to Leeds would not feel he is in a city of 1.5 million, the centre does not feel like a city that big and the city's cultural, political and economic influence is not that big. If that population had developed around a single city centre, or as a series of smaller towns (like Greater Manchester) around a single large centre, things would probably be different.

Here is something from Wikipedia (usual warnings apply) covering some research by an outfit called Demohraphia. The definition is given below. The area is called Leeds-Bradford and gives a population of some 1.5 million.

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

This is a list of urban areas, not a list of metropolitan areas. Urban areas are contiguous built-up areas where houses are typically not more than 200 metres apart (discounting rivers, parks, roads, industrial fields, etc.). A metropolitan area is an urban area plus the satellite cities around the urban area and the agricultural land in between.

Urban areas over 750,000 inhabitants
Rank Urban Area State Population (2008 est.) Density (per km²)

1 Paris France 10,660,000 3,400
2 London United Kingdom 8,320,000 5,100
3 Ruhr area (Ruhrgebiet) Germany 7,250,000 2,750
4 Madrid Spain 4,990,000 5,200
5 Milan Italy 4,150,000 1,750
6 Barcelona Spain 3,930,000 4,850
7 Athens Greece 3,760,000 5,400
8 Berlin Germany 3,680,000 3,750
9 Naples Italy 2,970,000 3,850
10 Rome Italy 2,720,000 3,200
11 Katowice-Gliwice-Tychy Poland 2,620,000 3,400
12 Frankfurt Germany 2,340,000 3,350
13 Lisbon Portugal 2,310,000 2,550
14 Birmingham United Kingdom 2,280,000 3,800
15 Manchester United Kingdom 2,240,000 4,000
16 Rotterdam-The Hague Netherlands 2,100,000 2,450
17 Budapest Hungary 2,090,000 2,350
18 Cologne-Bonn Germany 2,030,000 2,100
19 Warsaw Poland 2,010,000 3,700
20 Bucharest Romania 2,000,000 (2003) 7,000
21 Hamburg Germany 1,925,000 (2001) 2,700
22 Munich Germany 1,675,000 (2001) 3,600
23 Brussels Belgium 1,625,000 (2005) 2,150
24 Vienna Austria 1,550,000 (2001) 3,400
25 Copenhagen Denmark 1,525,000 (2003) 2,350
26 Leeds-Bradford United Kingdom 1,499,000 (2001) 4,050
27 Stockholm Sweden 1,400,000 (2000) 2,700
28 Marseille--Aix-en-Provence France 1,350,000 (1999) 1,100
29 Turin Italy 1,350,000 (2000) 2,750
30 Lyon France 1,349,000 (1999) 1,400
31 Stuttgart Germany 1,250,000 (2001)
32 Dublin Ireland 1,230,000 (2006) 2,800
33 Prague Czech Republic 1,200,000 (2003) 4,200
34 Glasgow United Kingdom 1,200,000 (2001) 3,250
35 Valencia Spain 1,175,000 (2001) 4,300
36 Amsterdam Netherlands 1,100,000 (2005) 2,650
37 Helsinki Finland 1,100,000 (2000) 2,250
38 Lille--Kortrijk France, Belgium 1,050,000 (1999) 2,200
39 Sofia Bulgaria 1,050,000 (2001) 5,050
40 Porto Portugal 1,035,000 (2001) 2,650
41 Nuremberg Germany 1,020,000 (2001) 3,050
42 Lodz Poland 950,000 (2002) 5,250
43 Antwerp Belgium 915,000 (2003) 1,400
44 Nice France 889,000 (1999) 1,250
45 Newcastle upon Tyne United Kingdom 880,000 (2001) 4,150
46 Liverpool United Kingdom 816,000 (2001) 4,400
47 Thessaloniki Greece 800,000 (2001) 4,100
48 Gdansk Poland 775,000 (2002) 5,000
49 Toulouse France 761,000 (1999) 950
50 Bordeaux France 754,000 (1999) 700
51 Florence Italy 750,000 (2001) 2,750
52 Palermo Italy 750,000 (2001) 5,150
53 Riga Latvia 750,000 (2005) 2,900
54 Bilbao Spain 750,000 (2001) 5,800
55 Seville Spain 750,000 (2001) 5,550

In my opinion, a visitor to Leeds would not feel he is in a city of 1.5 million, the centre does not feel like a city that big and the city's cultural, political and economic influence is not that big. If that population had developed around a single city centre, or as a series of smaller towns (like Greater Manchester) around a single large centre, things would probably be different.

If the urban area wants to develop the influence and facilities of a truly big city over the next century, then the urban area must develop around a clear concept that Leeds is its core city. I can see why the proud citizens of Bradford wouldn't like that idea though!

Like I said before all UK cities are made of smaller towns with a core town that is that largest. This includes Manchester and the Greater Manchester area. The number crunching figures have raged for years here on SSC but nobody is right or wrong, people simply twist the figures and move the boundaries to suit there personal belief. For me at least, Leeds and Bradford feel like one. and it is my opinion that they should be treated as one, for economic and social reasons.

Surely it depends where they're from, or do all "foreigners" think the same?

Someone from Leeds (or Auckland for that matter) would think Madrid was absolutely huge, but someone from Mexico City would find it "small"

By the same token, someone from a village in the jungle somewhere would find even a modest town to be big

Relativity. It applies to "foreigners" too

yeah obviously it would depend where the "foreigners" are from in the 1st place lol but i in terms of world stats it would be a lot lower down the list than 26 like in Bradley Hardacre's post

If someone could find a list of the biggest cites in the world based on land area and not population then it would be more helpful (please as i cant be bothered :) )

Surely Mt Isa in Australia is still the biggest city in the world lol

"in terms of world stats it would be a lot lower down the list than 26 like in Bradley Hardacre's post "

Well, duh! It drops to 213

Incidentally, Sheffield is at position 532 with a pop. of 641k and the mighty Auckland is at 298 with a PUA of 1.1m

In terms of the size of the footprint of the urban areas, the usual New Yorks and Tokyos occupy the greatest square mileage with pissy cities like Leeds, Sheffield and Auckland not making the top 150

"in terms of world stats it would be a lot lower down the list than 26 like in Bradley Hardacre's post "

Well, duh! It drops to 213

Incidentally, Sheffield is at position 532 with a pop. of 641k and the mighty Auckland is at 298 with a PUA of 1.1m

In terms of the size of the footprint of the urban areas, the usual New Yorks and Tokyos occupy the greatest square mileage with pissy cities like Leeds, Sheffield and Auckland not making the top 150

Well duh ? I was making an obvious comment but not that obvious that it deserves a "duh"

Auckland would be up in there in terms of square mileage, so i dont know what you are talking about and calling it mighty Auckland makes you look like a dick, Its not like im in love with the place or anything lol

Yeah, it's 'right up there' in 177th place. Just after Tashkent in Uzbekistan

And you deserved your duh

:lol: some people

Where's this list you talk of ?

Like I said before all UK cities are made of smaller towns with a core town that is that largest. This includes Manchester and the Greater Manchester area. The number crunching figures have raged for years here on SSC but nobody is right or wrong, people simply twist the figures and move the boundaries to suit there personal belief. For me at least, Leeds and Bradford feel like one. and it is my opinion that they should be treated as one, for economic and social reasons.



Bradford is not part of the city of Leeds, to claim so is daft. The cities have distinctive differences and histories. They are of course part of the same conurbation

As for the original question, Leeds as a city has a population of about 500,000. To say it has population of 1.5m is ludicrous compared to other cities that have this population size.

People seem to be confusing conurbation size with the size of a city.

For example this summer I spent a week in Sofia which has a population of just over 1m (on that list) and when I travelled around it it was clear it was far bigger than Leeds.

As for the original question, Leeds as a city has a population of about 500,000. To say it has population of 1.5m is ludicrous compared to other cities that have this population size.

Hold on a minute. Just think about what you just wrote for a second. 500,000 in Leeds in a conurbation of 1.5m means that Bradford has a population of 1m? Don't think so.

Hold on a minute. Just think about what you just wrote for a second. 500,000 in Leeds in a conurbation of 1.5m means that Bradford has a population of 1m? Don't think so.


No it doesn't, it means parts of Leeds MDC ( i.e places like Otley and Wetherby are not part of the city) + the other 4 mdc's of West Yorkshire are not part of the 'city'.

I live in Normanton, 10 miles from Leeds CBD but is doesn't feel like part of Leeds, much less X-Scape at Glassoughton where I socialise sometimes.

Part of the Leeds region yes, but not part of the city.

As for the original question, Leeds as a city has a population of about 500,000. .

but leeds' urban area is greater than this (at around 650,000), so to suggest leeds' population is 500,000 is an oxymoron.

The only way you could get as low as 500,000 is to disclude places in leeds such as morley or pudsey or rothwell, but even then its still more than 500,000. :dunno:

everything in this urban area pictured below amounts to roughly 650-700k

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/leeds.jpg


ie excluding garforth, otley, wetherbey, and even the guiseley conurbation

everything in this urban area pictured below amounts to roughly 650-700k

http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/hh78/danlad/buildings/leeds.jpg


ie excluding garforth, otley, wetherbey, and even the guiseley conurbation


I'll bet my life that pop is nearer 0.5m that 0.7m.


Why does it matter anyway? Leeds is a great city, I just don't see the need to boast it up to something it isn't..............

I'll bet my life that pop is nearer 0.5m that 0.7m.


remember leeds population is now 761,000

garforth and swillington area 24,000
barwick in elmet and scholes 5,000
guiseley urban area 21,000
ilkley 13,000
otley 14,000
wtherby urban area 22,000

thats 100k there bringing it down from 761000, to 661,000

Given that ive missed some of the smaller remaining villages etc, it could bring it down 600,000 :dunno:

infact the only other places i could think of was:

bramhope 3,000
new farnley (about 2,000)

so i'd hazzard a guess and say the population is about 640,000.

What about all the towns/villages to south and south-east of Leeds?

Fella , does it matter? 600k, 500k? so what!


Seriously though, the population of Leeds has always been around 0.5mmillion...

if it doesn't matter why are you so insistant that is 500k?! :dunno:

Simon22

Bradford is not part of the city of Leeds, to claim so is daft.

Simon, this is what I said "For me at least, Leeds and Bradford feel like one. and it is my opinion that they should be treated as one, for economic and social reasons."

Now where is my claim that Bradford is part of Leeds?

I do think that Bradford should be classed as part of Leeds, in the same way that Oldham is part of the Greater Manchester area. Bradford will always be Bradford, but it should be part of a Greater Leeds for the reasons I previously mentioned which are the social and economic reasons. As for claiming that Bradford is already part of Leeds? In your dreams sunshine!

remember leeds population is now 761,000

garforth and swillington area 24,000
barwick in elmet and scholes 5,000
guiseley urban area 21,000
ilkley 13,000
otley 14,000
wtherby urban area 22,000

thats 100k there bringing it down from 761000, to 661,000

Given that ive missed some of the smaller remaining villages etc, it could bring it down 600,000 :dunno:

Ilkley's in Bradford MD.

Simon22



Simon, this is what I said "For me at least, Leeds and Bradford feel like one. and it is my opinion that they should be treated as one, for economic and social reasons."

Now where is my claim that Bradford is part of Leeds?

I do think that Bradford should be classed as part of Leeds, in the same way that Oldham is part of the Greater Manchester area. Bradford will always be Bradford, but it should be part of a Greater Leeds for the reasons I previously mentioned which are the social and economic reasons. As for claiming that Bradford is already part of Leeds? In your dreams sunshine!

Ok I misunderstood what you meant.

You were stating that Bradford is part of the West Yorkshire conurbation of which Leeds is the primary centre.

if it doesn't matter why are you so insistant that is 500k?! :dunno:


Because, by any objective analysis (which involves not beating your chest through myopic glasses!) it is that size.

Large parts of Leeds MDC cannot be classed as being part of the city, they were lumped in together in 1974 for the ease of providing local services.

Large parts of Leeds MDC cannot be classed as being part of the city, they were lumped in together in 1974 for the ease of providing local services.

Large parts, yes, but not really large populations. Of the larger settlements, yes Wetherby was placed in Leeds due to ease of providing services but Pudsey, Horsforth, Morley are very much Leeds although all 3 were outside of the pre 1974 county borough of Leeds.

Because, by any objective analysis (which involves not beating your chest through myopic glasses!) it is that size.

Large parts of Leeds MDC cannot be classed as being part of the city, they were lumped in together in 1974 for the ease of providing local services.

As you say, in 1974. Now i'm not being funny, but we're not in 74 anymore. The fact that they were all grouped together in 74 means that they have had to integrate with each other to become part of the city, which I feel they have. All cities have towns which over time join to become part of the city. Look at Manchester, with Oldham, Bury and Salford which no one discredits as being in Manchester. I'm sure that Wetherby is more apart of Leeds now than it was in 1974, as is Morley etc. I don't personally see why we should discount the smaller towns, because without them how do you expect a city to grow??

I personally consider Wetherby, Morley, Castleford, Birstall etc firmly in Leeds, and even the ones further out. As for Bradford Yes it is its own city, but I know alot of people that refer to it as Bradford in Leeds. Yes it is a different city, but I think it is only a matter of time before it turns into one. Already you can drive to Bradford and not know the point where you leave Leeds/enter Bradford, and eventually the developments will start overlapping each other (a la Leeds-Bradford Odeon) and it becomes one.

Anyway, ever since I can remember Leeds has been around the 700k mark, and I definatly think it is correct. I think most of the arguments are down to different generations. I'm of a younger generation and have grown up knowing that these towns/villages are part of Leeds, so for me its absurd to consider them otherwise. Where as i'm guessing your from an older generation (apologies if I am wrong here), and have therefore grown up knowing them to be out of Leeds, therefore for you to think otherwise is absurd.

Large parts of Leeds MDC cannot be classed as being part of the city, they were lumped in together in 1974 for the ease of providing local services.

Yeah, and Manchester United don't play in Manchester, the White Rose Centre isn't in Leeds and so on

But, realistically, these ancient boundaries mean very little. In order for Leeds to have a population of 500k you have to count the houses on the right of the tracks in the following pic as in Leeds and those on the left as not

http://i37.tinypic.com/b519cm.jpg

Because the (hidden) beck was used as a boundary to mark out rich men's land in feudal times, there has to be two distinct towns in the above pic? Really? Someone should tell the locals

As for Bradford Yes it is its own city, but I know alot of people that refer to it as Bradford in Leeds. Yes it is a different city, but I think it is only a matter of time before it turns into one. Already you can drive to Bradford and not know the point where you leave Leeds/enter Bradford, and eventually the developments will start overlapping each other (a la Leeds-Bradford Odeon) and it becomes one.

I agree with you. I don't want to sound disrespectful to Bradford, but if Solihull is classed as a Satellite town/Suburb of B'ham, then given the factors mentioned, i think Bradford can be classed as one of Leeds, especially given the large number of people from Bradford that use Leeds city centre for jobs, leisure, retail etc. As someone who lived in Solihull for 8 years i can say that there is certainly, in my experience more going on within the town centre than there is in city centre of Bradford. Solihull has its own CDB that, although pretty small is very well served (touchwood centre which includes John Lewis etc.) and it has plenty going on at night - in fact it attracts a lot of business from the population of SE Birmingham - Yardley, Sheldon, Hall Green, Acocks Green. :)

What about all the towns/villages to south and south-east of Leeds?

allerton bywater 3,000
mickletown & methley 2,000
kippax & great preston 6,000

I cant find anywhere else to include. Thats 11k there, which is negated by the fact that ilkley (13k) is counted as being in bradford MC.

So really, by including what appeas to be all these little villages, the final total population i 663,000.

Fella , does it matter? 600k, 500k? so what!

You are suggesting 500k, yet it appears to be 660k.

That is a sizeable diference of significance.

Seriously though, the population of Leeds has always been around 0.5mmillion...

errm, well its not now, we've just added it all up and just the direct urban area is 660k ;)

And yes, leeds is a small urban area - around the same size as nottingham (both aroung 660k), however to try and assert that it is even smaller than it really is - is as silly as those who try to assert that leeds is a big city of nearer 800k and includes wakefield.

And with reference to comments about Bradford being Leeds or part of Leeds etc etc. - you have to distinguish between

a city region (where Leeds is the core central hub and driver for finance, lesiure, and retail for the west yorkshire region, where indeed places like bradord are intrinsicly linked with leeds economically etc), 2.5 million

leeds proper (all of urban leeds excluding sattelite towns and villages) 660,000

leeds metro area (all of urban leeds, including all the sattelite towns around leeds. - Also known as City Of Leeds Metropolitan Borough) 760,000


Leeds city centre feels and looks like a city centre that matches "leeds proper" ie 660k in its architecture, size of historic buildings, civic buildings, streetscapes etc, very similar to nottingham.

However, in terms of being a financial centre, a centre for business, retail, shopping, leisure. leeds "feels" larger than this 660k leeds proper, this is because all these things are dependent on the "city region" which is over 2million, whereas nottingham's city region is still 660k (thats to say there is no extended urban region, nottingham sits on its own).

However, in terms of infrastructure that depends on population density and urban areas, leeds falls back to its 660k leeds proper, and not city region, or even leeds metro area (760k), which explains why leeds fairs so badly in terms of things like an arena, or trams, because despite being "a big city" that can feel it when considering certain factors such as finance, retail, etc - it is still essentially only an urban area of 660k. The rest of the city region is too spaced out without any consistent density to be considered in any infrastructure provision.

As for bradford being part of leeds, obviously this is untrue in every sense, apart from the fact that leeds and bradford are part of a wider urban area, that is essentially west yorkshire. That doesnt mean Bradford is part of leeds in anyway however. Bradford has its own history, civic buildings, and a large city centre. Just because two areas are linked by urbanity doesnt make them the same city. Leeds merges more so with bradford, than parts of leeds *itself* such as morley, horsforth, or rothwell. However, These areas are clearly Leeds. This highlights how urban merging doesnt mean owt.

I've never heard people say oldham is manchester, or oldham is a suburb of manchester. What people *do* say is that parts of oldham are considered to be in manchester. Oldham is its own town with its own civic centre, similar to what bradford is, albet a smaller version. This town centre, and its associated inner town dewllings and suburban dwelling will never be part of manchester. However, in betwen this town centre, and manchester centre has been the housing growth that has been manchester growth, but it falls within Oldham MD. This is what makes people describe "parts of oldham as being in manchester" is that a lot of the growth of MD Oldham inbetween manchester town centre and oldham town centre is actually manchester growth. This differs from Bradford and Leeds, because if you look at the border of bradford and leeds where both urban areas merge, they have met due to the equal urban growth of both centres.

When I was in Gelsenkirchen recently it reminded me of Leeds, very similar, other than the underground and tram network.

No idea how many people live there (don't bother checking any official stats as they won't be very acurate given the mad boundaries there), but I guess if any of you lot have been with the football, or any other reason you may agree???

When I was in Gelsenkirchen recently it reminded me of Leeds, very similar, other than the underground and tram network.

No idea how many people live there (don't bother checking any official stats as they won't be very acurate given the mad boundaries there), but I guess if any of you lot have been with the football, or any other reason you may agree???


Can't speak for Gelsenkirchen but I think Cologne, which is also in North Rhineland Westphalia is a similar size to Leeds. Maybe wrong though as I was there for the World Cup and I'd had a few scoops! :cheers::cheers::cheers:

Cologne is a hard one, I'll give you the city centres are similar, I think from the Hauptpbahnhof to the Servierbrucke (spelling up the spout) i.e. across the centre of Cologne is further than across the longest part across the centre of Leeds (someone get on Google Earth to check), and you also have the confusion of Leverkusen, and the other cities that are well and truly part of Cologne.

I chose Gelsenkirchen as it is quite a stand alone area (although more than one borough), that stand alone area reminded me a lot of Leeds, very similar sized centre, and similar sized suburbs.

I'm on a train, and I don't have google earth on my (work) laptop, so I cannot compare.

Maybe someone can take a look and tell me if I am talking crap.

Lets get the facts right here. When you look at a city's population, you have to look at it in terms of City Council coverage. i.e the boundaries to which the council has jurisdiction.

FACT Leeds population within its city boundaries was 715,404 as stated in the 2001 census.

FACT the next census in 2011 will define its new population. There are no new official statistical figures until then.

FACT Look at the great big boundary signs all over Leeds and you will realise just where the city starts and where it ends.

715.404 thats the figure!!

Well 761,100 is usually taken as the figure at the moment from the 2007 estimates. While it's not going to be fully accurate, it's quite a gain on 715,404 in 2001 which can't be ignored.

http://i37.tinypic.com/b519cm.jpg

Because the (hidden) beck was used as a boundary to mark out rich men's land in feudal times, there has to be two distinct towns in the above pic? Really? Someone should tell the locals


I dunno... each little bit of Leeds has its own identity. A lot of people will make a point of saying they live in Whitkirk rather than Crossgates, Gledhow rather than Roundhay. I'm pretty sure the people who've lived all their lives in that map will know whether they're in Horsforth or Cookridge (or is it Tinshill?)

Well 761,100 is usually taken as the figure at the moment from the 2007 estimates. While it's not going to be fully accurate, it's quite a gain on 715,404 in 2001 which can't be ignored.

As much as it welcome news Leeds population may have risen to over 760,000
we have to wait for official statistics in the next census before being able to quote them as "official Government statistics." These are the only ones which count.

I agree with you. I don't want to sound disrespectful to Bradford, but if Solihull is classed as a Satellite town/Suburb of B'ham, then given the factors mentioned, i think Bradford can be classed as one of Leeds, especially given the large number of people from Bradford that use Leeds city centre for jobs, leisure, retail etc. As someone who lived in Solihull for 8 years i can say that there is certainly, in my experience more going on within the town centre than there is in city centre of Bradford. Solihull has its own CDB that, although pretty small is very well served (touchwood centre which includes John Lewis etc.) and it has plenty going on at night - in fact it attracts a lot of business from the population of SE Birmingham - Yardley, Sheldon, Hall Green, Acocks Green. :)


Solihull, where I was born, does have a lot going for it - but the suburbs of Solihull grew because of it's close proximity to Birmingham - wheras the Cities of Leeds & Bradford both grew independantly of each other historically, & were both important centres in their own right.

The affluent population of Solihull; the accountants, lawyers, surgeons, chief constables that live in Solihull all work in Birmingham city centre or suburban Birmingham. :)

Cologne is a hard one, I'll give you the city centres are similar, I think from the Hauptpbahnhof to the Servierbrucke (spelling up the spout) i.e. across the centre of Cologne is further than across the longest part across the centre of Leeds (someone get on Google Earth to check), and you also have the confusion of Leverkusen, and the other cities that are well and truly part of Cologne.

I chose Gelsenkirchen as it is quite a stand alone area (although more than one borough), that stand alone area reminded me a lot of Leeds, very similar sized centre, and similar sized suburbs.

I'm on a train, and I don't have google earth on my (work) laptop, so I cannot compare.

Maybe someone can take a look and tell me if I am talking crap.

I know Cologne really well - my wife lived there, & London aside, Cologne city centre is far bigger than any regional British city. Anyone who has walked from Koeln Hbf / Dom along Koenigsalle to Neumarkt will know what I am talking about.

The City of Cologne has a population similar to Birmingham, & has a metro population of 1.8 million people - & trust me, it feels a whole lot bigger than Leeds, Manchester or Birmingham - take a flight there & see what I mean. :)

I forgot to add, Cologne is also beautiful - it's Cathedral has 2 towers both as tall as Beetham Manchester!!

http://i.pbase.com/o6/00/738000/1/75271993.hu6MCawQ.KoelnDomKoelnDomShoot43070001.jpg

Solihull, where I was born, does have a lot going for it - but the suburbs of Solihull grew because of it's close proximity to Birmingham - wheras the Cities of Leeds & Bradford both grew independantly of each other historically, & were both important centres in their own right.

The affluent population of Solihull; the accountants, lawyers, surgeons, chief constables that live in Solihull all work in Birmingham city centre or suburban Birmingham. :)

you mean like harrogate and the golden triangle do to leeds? ;)

I dunno... each little bit of Leeds has its own identity. A lot of people will make a point of saying they live in Whitkirk rather than Crossgates, Gledhow rather than Roundhay. I'm pretty sure the people who've lived all their lives in that map will know whether they're in Horsforth or Cookridge (or is it Tinshill?)

True, but the majority don't know that there's someone on the internet somewhere dictating that those on the left don't even live in Leeds!

The right hand side is a bit of both Cookridge and Tinshill, the Fox and Hounds being the apex of the 3 mighty 'burbs

Solihull, where I was born, does have a lot going for it - but the suburbs of Solihull grew because of it's close proximity to Birmingham - wheras the Cities of Leeds & Bradford both grew independantly of each other historically, & were both important centres in their own right.

The affluent population of Solihull; the accountants, lawyers, surgeons, chief constables that live in Solihull all work in Birmingham city centre or suburban Birmingham. :)

I was born in Solihull too (by accident I must add)! I'm a Yorkshireman though!! Lived Down there between 1996 and 2003 - went to secondary school there and I went to Solihull Sixth Form college. Got family from there as my mum and my partner are from there.

Must be something out the men in my family and Solihull women as i've followed my dad in picking one. :lol:

allerton bywater 3,000
mickletown & methley 2,000
kippax & great preston 6,000

I cant find anywhere else to include. Thats 11k there, which is negated by the fact that ilkley (13k) is counted as being in bradford MC.

So really, by including what appeas to be all these little villages, the final total population i 663,000.



You are suggesting 500k, yet it appears to be 660k.

That is a sizeable diference of significance.



errm, well its not now, we've just added it all up and just the direct urban area is 660k ;)

And yes, leeds is a small urban area - around the same size as nottingham (both aroung 660k), however to try and assert that it is even smaller than it really is - is as silly as those who try to assert that leeds is a big city of nearer 800k and includes wakefield.

And with reference to comments about Bradford being Leeds or part of Leeds etc etc. - you have to distinguish between

a city region (where Leeds is the core central hub and driver for finance, lesiure, and retail for the west yorkshire region, where indeed places like bradord are intrinsicly linked with leeds economically etc), 2.5 million

leeds proper (all of urban leeds excluding sattelite towns and villages) 660,000

leeds metro area (all of urban leeds, including all the sattelite towns around leeds. - Also known as City Of Leeds Metropolitan Borough) 760,000


Leeds city centre feels and looks like a city centre that matches "leeds proper" ie 660k in its architecture, size of historic buildings, civic buildings, streetscapes etc, very similar to nottingham.

However, in terms of being a financial centre, a centre for business, retail, shopping, leisure. leeds "feels" larger than this 660k leeds proper, this is because all these things are dependent on the "city region" which is over 2million, whereas nottingham's city region is still 660k (thats to say there is no extended urban region, nottingham sits on its own).

However, in terms of infrastructure that depends on population density and urban areas, leeds falls back to its 660k leeds proper, and not city region, or even leeds metro area (760k), which explains why leeds fairs so badly in terms of things like an arena, or trams, because despite being "a big city" that can feel it when considering certain factors such as finance, retail, etc - it is still essentially only an urban area of 660k. The rest of the city region is too spaced out without any consistent density to be considered in any infrastructure provision.

As for bradford being part of leeds, obviously this is untrue in every sense, apart from the fact that leeds and bradford are part of a wider urban area, that is essentially west yorkshire. That doesnt mean Bradford is part of leeds in anyway however. Bradford has its own history, civic buildings, and a large city centre. Just because two areas are linked by urbanity doesnt make them the same city. Leeds merges more so with bradford, than parts of leeds *itself* such as morley, horsforth, or rothwell. However, These areas are clearly Leeds. This highlights how urban merging doesnt mean owt.

I've never heard people say oldham is manchester, or oldham is a suburb of manchester. What people *do* say is that parts of oldham are considered to be in manchester. Oldham is its own town with its own civic centre, similar to what bradford is, albet a smaller version. This town centre, and its associated inner town dewllings and suburban dwelling will never be part of manchester. However, in betwen this town centre, and manchester centre has been the housing growth that has been manchester growth, but it falls within Oldham MD. This is what makes people describe "parts of oldham as being in manchester" is that a lot of the growth of MD Oldham inbetween manchester town centre and oldham town centre is actually manchester growth. This differs from Bradford and Leeds, because if you look at the border of bradford and leeds where both urban areas merge, they have met due to the equal urban growth of both centres.



I can respect your view but you don't seem to applying the same criteria to Leeds and Manchester considering your post on the Manchester size thread. In your 660k figure you must be including the likes of Morley, Garforth, Rothwell, Rawdon, Yeadon, Guiseley etc (these are sattelite towns) etc as being part of the city of Leeds. Fair play but if so then I think you need to re-think your analysis of Manchester's population being less than 1 million.

FWIW (and I'd applied the same criteria to Manchester when doing my dissertation on the city in 1996. There were other criteria but I will not bore you with the detail. That put the pop of Manchester at about 1.2m) I would exclude anywhere outside/seperate from the main urban area as not being part of the city population. So this would mean historically independant areas from Leeds, like Pudsey and Horsforth were included but not all the towns/villages that are seperate and got lumped in to the MDC in 1974.

If you use your criteria for the size of Leeds (forget MDC bounderies as they tell you little in terms of urban geography and hierarchy) and then applied it to Manchester then the latter would have a population probably well in excess of 1.5m.

Leeds is slightly odd in this country in that it is part of the 4th largest conurbation in the UK but the conurbation is quite disfragmented compared to the the other major agglomerations, a bit like a smaller version of the Rhine-Ruhr conurbation in Germany.

The majority of people that live closer to town seem to feel that places such as Yeadon and Guiseley are far removed from Leeds and they don't seem to consider it as part of Leeds. On the otherhand I would say the opposite for people living in those places and other similar so-called satellite towns. I'd say people do consider themselves as living in Leeds and are quite happy to use the term when ask "Where are you from?".

all the towns/villages that are separate and got lumped in to the MDC in 1974.

Is that not the same as the way the Greater Manchester area was made. After all, this is how cities grow. They slowly take-up the towns on the outskirts of the city as the greenbelt between the towns and the city slowly disapear.

I find most people in Bramhope and that sort of area say they're from Leeds. Less so in Wetherby and Otley though, although there are still a substantial amount of people who classify themselves as from Leeds in those areas.

Suprisingly, there are still people who don't consider Horsforth or Pudsey part of Leeds, let alone Morley. I have never considered Pudsey or Horsforth seperate from Leeds- infact I don't think I even knew they were once seperate until a few years back- just thought they grew as suburbs like Alwoodley or Seacroft :S

I find most people in Bramhope and that sort of area say they're from Leeds. Less so in Wetherby and Otley though, although there are still a substantial amount of people who classify themselves as from Leeds in those areas.

Suprisingly, there are still people who don't consider Horsforth or Pudsey part of Leeds, let alone Morley. I have never considered Pudsey or Horsforth seperate from Leeds- infact I don't think I even knew they were once seperate until a few years back- just thought they grew as suburbs like Alwoodley or Seacroft :S

My mother lived in Yeadon and always said it was Leeds.

Does anyone know where I could get hold of a map which shows the Primary Urban Area of Leeds? I found a list of the areas which come under that definition but it would be difficult for me to make a map myself.

I dunno... each little bit of Leeds has its own identity. A lot of people will make a point of saying they live in Whitkirk rather than Crossgates, Gledhow rather than Roundhay. I'm pretty sure the people who've lived all their lives in that map will know whether they're in Horsforth or Cookridge (or is it Tinshill?)

The boundary here is actually the Parish boundary,between Adel (which includes Cookridge) and Guiseley,which Horsforth was in.

I agree that all these places do definitely feel like Leeds,but i also believe that they should be able to maintain their own seperate identity,celebrate their individual histories and development.

If we start to eradicate these basic town/village individual identities then where will it stop?

I got this idea of one on the Manc forum (thanks ThomH :okay: Hope you don't mind be using the format :) ).

My question is this - To an overseas visitor who is due to visit Leeds and who asks how big the city is - what do I tell him to allow them to allow them to benchmark against cities from their home country?

Ok, the latest population estimates put Leeds at about 760,200ish. However, is this a true reflection of our great cities population? I said before that I think Leeds is over bounded to the NE, and under bounded to the south. I'm sure most Loiners and other local people think that areas around Birstall and alike are more part of Leeds than Wetherby. Wetherby should have been put into Harrogate district with Ripon and Knaresborough. If we take away the populations of Wetherby and the extreme east of the city boundary, that reduces the 760k to around 720-730k. But what about the areas along the M62, such as around Birstall, which certainly feel and look like parts of south Leeds? Taking this into consideration, I think that the 760k figure is not that far off the mark (it may be a bit under 800k).

However, I think that in the next few decades this may change significantly. I’ve discussed this with LN1 in the past that, with the amount of development going on up the A58, villages joining to one another and a 30mph speed limit up most of it due to the linear layout and distribution of the villages, (just look at what is now Bardsey cum Rigton!) it's probably not long until there is continuous development all the way up through Wellington Hill, east of Shadwell, Scarcroft, Bardsey cum Rigton to at least Collingham. This along with the development on the A65 route and to a lesser extent, the A58 southwest. I expect there will be some major development in terms of offices parks and housing estates along the new A63 to the M1.

For the record, in terms of the larger metropolitan area, I think we’d all agree that Greater Leeds doesn’t include the extreme western limits of West Yorkshire. I’d probably say Greater Leeds has a population of around 1.8m.

I understand that this is not an exact science and I expect a lot of debate as to what does or doesn't fall within the influence of Leeds city centre. I know all of WY does to a degree but an important city is always going to influence areas beyond it's borders.

If we said 800k people for example to an impending overseas visitor who travelled a lot and had a good feel for different cities would the size and nature of the city centre fit their expectations as they walked around it? I know at the minute if I told them it was either 460k, 760k or 1.8m they would be a bit puzzled on arrival.

Although I am from overseas,I lived in Leeds between the years 1975-1979 .Leeds,then was still a big city(naturally I will not compare it with megacities).When I lived there,I think it had a population of 400-500.000 people spread over a very large area.Since the density is low per sqkm,the city of Leeds is quite spread!As a ''core city'' I think Leeds comes fourth in England,after London,Birmingham and Manchester.Cities are too closeto each other in England and as you will know better,when you travel from Leeds to Bradford,it looks like you are still travelling in the same city.

Briefly,populationwise,it may not be too big,but landwise,it is a very large city.İn my opinion ,larger than Brussels and Barcelona.

Regards