daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > European Forums > UK & Ireland Architecture Forums > City Talk

City Talk Local talk, activities, websites, etc...



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 25th, 2006, 09:57 AM   #1
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

Just my opinion (this will no doubt turn into a long thread)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.c...e=25000&icon=x

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

Now compare this with this

http://www.multimap.com/map/browse.c...=200000&icon=x


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloa...UrbanAreas.pdf

(Some decent diagrams in the above link)

The raw data...

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

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

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

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

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

Whilst this may have been a long winded ramble, and nothing very important, it may be worth pointing out that when government organisations look at proposals by cities for investment - be it transport or something else, these are the figures that they use, not the number of people who pay tax to one specific council.
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
 
Old April 25th, 2006, 11:40 AM   #2
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

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

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

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

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

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

Taking all the population of Merseyside and passing that off as Liverpool’s population and the same with Greater Manchester, is ridiculous. It is like taking all the population of Lancashire and saying that is the size of Preston.
__________________
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 11:55 AM   #3
TheFly
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 6,279
Likes (Received): 0

Very true.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This does not disparage Bolton/Stockport/Bradford/Warrington etc ..but without their big city neighbours they would be dramitically less economic activity in these places.
TheFly no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 11:56 AM   #4
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

My reply...

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

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

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

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

John says...

Quote:
You can go from the Pennine foothills through south Manchester via the towns outside there, through Warrington, Widnes and into Liverpool, out and into Crosby right on Liverpool Bay and hardly see a field. Is that all one place? All one metropolis?
No - that is why I suggest using the ONS statistics, they use a consistent definition for all cities.

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

Quote:
A city is city within its own boundaries that is clear and definite, and the population inside is the city population – just count the people living there. Very simple. The towns abutting the city boundaries can be regarded as the same “conurbation”. That is “generally” the accepted method.
Maybe, but I'd suggest most of the people who attended Old Trafford on Saturday believe they visited Manchester, even though they went to Trafford.

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


Quote:
In London, Watford, a separate town, abuts London and is at times counted as London – to the protests of its population. Luton which has fields between it and Watford is never regarded as London, despite being in the south east commuter belt.
Agree, and in the London figures (using the urban method) neither Watford nor Luton are included in the London figure.

Quote:
Taking all the population of Merseyside and passing that off as Liverpool’s population and the same with Greater Manchester, is ridiculous.
Agreed, that's why I said not to.

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

John - if you want to descibe a 'city' as that of the people paying tax to a single council - do you agree that in doing so you give very little idea about the actual structure of that city, and as such is a bit misleading?
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 01:11 PM   #5
Insignia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 947
Likes (Received): 0

The capital, without a doubt is the largest in the UK. The 32 Boroughs and 2 Cities of Greater London make up what is known as London!
Insignia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 01:24 PM   #6
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

Yes.

I think some people are missing the point here.

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

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

For example, in http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...1&postcount=11

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

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

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

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

However, if that is to be the case, when people on these boards make comparisons between places, they shouldn't be comparing the cities, but rather the conurbations, since I'd suggest that the conurbation size is much more reflective of the infrastructure / importance (not sure what that actually means) of an area than the number of people who pay tax to any specific council.
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 01:37 PM   #7
Manc Guy
....
 
Manc Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 3,818
Likes (Received): 20

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

I remember when EB bombed on about this subject in nearly every possible thread and that was the only time i could agree with him. People are just stubborn i suppose...
Manc Guy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 01:39 PM   #8
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,420
Likes (Received): 364

oo crap wrong thread
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 01:49 PM   #9
Manchester Planner
Chief Bureaucrat
 
Manchester Planner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,834
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by Insignia
The capital, without a doubt is the largest in the UK. The 32 Boroughs and 2 Cities of Greater London make up what is known as London!
Actually it's 32 London Boroughs and the City of London. The City of Westminster is a London Borough.
Manchester Planner no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 02:02 PM   #10
di Livio
Registered User
 
di Livio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 9,421
Likes (Received): 470

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrolink
Whetherby residents pay council tax to Leeds City Council, despite having 10miles of countryside between it and the main urban part of Leeds.
I've said this enough times.
I used to live within those ten miles of so-called countryside, and I have to tell you, it constitutes a semi-rural area not what you could exactly call countryside (for that you have to go further out past Harewood). It forms a network of villages linked to the city by arterial roads and is home to a large percentage of the Leeds middle-classes. No-one ever questions Garforth;s place within the Leeds metro, which doesn't have the same power and influence as the North East of the city.

Personally, I don't care much about city boundaries. But I know more about that area than anyone on this forum, so i have to say something if i feel we're being misrepresented.
di Livio no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 02:08 PM   #11
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

di livio - that is the exact reason for using a consistent urban definition.
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 02:18 PM   #12
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

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

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

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

I'd suggest that the urban statistics are a much better measure of the true size of the influence of an area (call it what you like, be it a city, conurbation etc) than someone quoting the number of people who pay taxes to a certain council.
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 03:51 PM   #13
Mercian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK (Cologne/Hamburg)
Posts: 52
Likes (Received): 0

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Essentially, these are proto-large unitary authorities (which may become reality in the next 2 decades). If it's important(?) (not to me!), I reckon the population of the Birmingham City-Region just pips the Manchester City-Region ...
Mercian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 03:54 PM   #14
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

I agree Mercian, and the urban population figures show that too.
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 03:58 PM   #15
Accura4Matalan
Registered User
 
Accura4Matalan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 12,420
Likes (Received): 364

Heres another one:
'Central Lancashire' - Comprising City of Preston, Chorley, South Ribble + Longridge, Kirkham, Warton
Accura4Matalan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 04:04 PM   #16
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

Thing with city regions is there seems to be a view that everywhere is in a city region - most of the country is actually countryside and need not be included in any city region.
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 04:30 PM   #17
Mercian
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Birmingham, UK (Cologne/Hamburg)
Posts: 52
Likes (Received): 0

The city-regions I was thinking about above are the amalgamated urban heartlands of the existing metropolitan counties; but, yeah, City of Preston has a quasi-urban/rural hinterland. And there are plenty of other egs. - Bristol, Nottingham, Hull, Stoke-on Trent, etc some of which already function as Unitary Authorities (supposedly giving them greater, ie. single-level, local governance). But how should these lesser-populated/extensive 'city-regions' be termed? ... Does it matter?
Mercian no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 04:51 PM   #18
Metrolink
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 6,737
Likes (Received): 0

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

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

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

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

Ideally that bit connected would be treated as Manchester, but that bit in the countryside would not - this would be extremely difficult to do with politics as it is in this country though.
Metrolink no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 04:55 PM   #19
Insignia
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 947
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercian
The city-regions I was thinking about above are the amalgamated urban heartlands of the existing metropolitan counties; but, yeah, City of Preston has a quasi-urban/rural hinterland. And there are plenty of other egs. - Bristol, Nottingham, Hull, Stoke-on Trent, etc some of which already function as Unitary Authorities (supposedly giving them greater, ie. single-level, local governance). But how should these lesser-populated/extensive 'city-regions' be termed? ... Does it matter?
how is Nottingham urban area Rural? only 40% comprise in the City population...

I don't care anyway.. I'm not some population freak!
Insignia no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 25th, 2006, 05:41 PM   #20
Leeds No.1
Registered User
 
Leeds No.1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Leeds, EU
Posts: 24,884
Likes (Received): 625

Quote:
Originally Posted by Metrolink
and more to the point Di Livio - when people (not necessarily yourself) claim Leeds to be the 3rd largest city in the UK, what are they actually claiming?
That about 715,000 people live in Leeds, more than any other city except Birmingham or London.

And Wetherby can't be 10 miles from Leeds 'core' when Harrogate is 11. Its more like 8. Garforth is definetley Leeds there is no question over that; the only debate is over Wetherby and Otley which are linked to Leeds by villages and act as part of the city. The total population of the two townships is only about 35-40,000 so it doesn't make much difference to the 715,000 in terms of its position in the population league. Theres no point in complaining anyway, its not gonna change.
__________________
"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure, It is our light not our darkness, that frightens us"
Leeds No.1 está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 04:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like v3.2.5 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

Hosted by Blacksun, dedicated to this site too!
Forum server management by DaiTengu