Manchester pulling away or Birmingham just teasing?

[feltip]

I think you can argue backwards and forwards between Manchester and Birmingham all you like, the two have very different structures, topography, political administration, greater urban areas, design strategies, planning, history, urban legacy, etc.

In some indicators Birmingham can outrump Manchester, in others Manchester has the lead. It is very difficult to compete when there are such underlying difficulties. Think of the Greater Birmingham plans and the suspicion and derision shown by other authorities in the planned area for example.

What I would hope for, in my bird's singing blue sky world, is a move by ODPM and council's and regional bodies to work together on supporting urban regeneration and to harness each cities differing potential and opportunities. Birmingham's fixation with being second city does it no favours; second city to London, we cant possibly compete with such a global city. In Germany Frankfurt is regarded as a financial centre while Berlin is the capital and other cities are sporting or cultural centres.

Simply looking at a map of the UK shows the proximity of Birmingham to Manchester and to London. There are opportunities with this proximity for economic development, transport enhancement and a move to make cities for people. Sadly without planning and genuine passion, mixed with a bit of natural competition, we are likely to experience further problems we need to redress in the future.

[birminghamculture]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird

A metro area has mothing to do with size or how conurbated it is. A metro area is to do with areas of population where a certain percentage commute. Manchester's MSA is 3.2 million compared to 2.8 million for Birmingham.

How did we get onto metro size?

[Soul_13]

The West Midlands area traditionaly is an area of higher production and GDP magnitude than the north. When the focus of Birmingham redevelopment shift from basic reconstruction projects such as EastSide to highrises it's going to leave miles behind Manchester and the rest. That's the one and only reality. If earlyBird wants to have illusions its his problem.


BirminghamCulture the guy apparently is a wacko, just tell him to f... off and go back to Manchester Metro Area.

[Accura4Matalan]

People often forget that with Manchesters huge landmark highrise proposals, there are also a hell of a lot of midrise proposals from 12-20-storeys. And some of these (like the Green Quarter) cover massive areas.

[birminghamculture]

Originally Posted by Accura_Preston

People often forget that with Manchesters huge landmark highrise proposals, there are also a hell of a lot of midrise proposals from 12-20-storeys. And some of these (like the Green Quarter) cover massive areas.

Oh no doubt about it, Manchester have numerous midrise proposals, but its hard to get a concept of what they would achieve on the skyline, mainly because us brummies have very little idea of where the hell there being built

[Soul_13]

This thread is for people of BIRMINGHAM is not a City VS City thread. Citizens of BIRMINGHAM discussing about their city in comparison with another one. I'm reading the last 30 posts and 20 of them are EarlyBird's. No one asked you you twat go back to Manchester or City VS City Forum.

[Soul_13]

[MIDGEBLACKANDWHITE]

Originally Posted by EarlyBird

That's a load of rubbish really, seeing as Manchester's urban area is exactly the same size as Birmingham's, Manchester's metro area is larger than Birmingham's and the urban area and metro area of Manchester are growing faster.

...It is not rubbish. Birmingham as a city has more suburbs than Manchester as a city. I am not concerning myself with urban areas, I am discussing cities. Then again, it is obvious why Birmingham should have more suburbs. It is a bigger city. Glad we got that sorted.

Originally Posted by Soul_13

The West Midlands area traditionaly is an area of higher production and GDP magnitude than the north. When the focus of Birmingham redevelopment shift from basic reconstruction projects such as EastSide to highrises it's going to leave miles behind Manchester and the rest. That's the one and only reality. If earlyBird wants to have illusions its his problem.


BirminghamCulture the guy apparently is a wacko, just tell him to f... off and go back to Manchester Metro Area.

Do you forget that the richest area in the UK is in Manchester's metro? And that the second richest area in the UK outside London is also in Manchester? You act like Eastside is some major, massive reconstruction project. I concede, it's quite big, but it's no bigger than the Southern Gateway masterplan in Manchester for example. The simple fact of the matter is that RIGHT NOW there are £12 billion of ongoing construction projects in Manchester compared to £8 billion in Birmingham (that's things that are actually being built right now) and has an extra £14 billion in planning, excluding the parts of developments we've not been given details of yet.

The simple fact of the matter is that Manchester's got a higher GDP and a higher GVA than Birmingham, has a faster growing city, passed Birmingham for population late 2002/early 2003 and now has the distinction of being nominated the UK's best city!

Soul_13, you really do have a problem with Manchester. The simple fact of the matter is that it's the best the UK has to offer.

Originally Posted by Soul_13

This thread is for people of BIRMINGHAM is not a City VS City thread. Citizens of BIRMINGHAM discussing about their city in comparison with another one. I'm reading the last 30 posts and 20 of them are EarlyBird's. No one asked you you twat go back to Manchester or City VS City Forum.

I'm going nowhere. If you don't want to read it then go read a different thread.

Originally Posted by MIDGEBLACKANDWHITE

...It is not rubbish. Birmingham as a city has more suburbs than Manchester as a city. I am not concerning myself with urban areas, I am discussing cities. Then again, it is obvious why Birmingham should have more suburbs. It is a bigger city. Glad we got that sorted.

The urban area IS the city. That is what a city is.

city

n: a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts; "Ancient Troy was a great city" [syn: metropolis, urban center]

In terms of urban area, Manchester has been the larger city since late 2002/early 2003. It's not like Manchester's skyline stops at the Irwell just because some politician decided to draw a boundary there.

[caw123]

Originally Posted by Soul_13

This thread is for people of BIRMINGHAM is not a City VS City thread. Citizens of BIRMINGHAM discussing about their city in comparison with another one.

How is it just for BIRMINGHAM people? What kind of attitude is that? People who aren't from Birmingham aren't allowed to post in this subforum are they?

[Accura4Matalan]

Originally Posted by Soul_13

This thread is for people of BIRMINGHAM is not a City VS City thread. Citizens of BIRMINGHAM discussing about their city in comparison with another one. I'm reading the last 30 posts and 20 of them are EarlyBird's. No one asked you you twat go back to Manchester or City VS City Forum.

All forums except the staff forum are public. You cant expect to start a thread as provocative as this and then no one from Manchester to respond. This thread shouldnt even be here. Its a city v city thread in all but name and should be in the City Talk forum.

[MIDGEBLACKANDWHITE]

Quite right. I want people from all over the place to be able to discuss issues in each and every forum. I'm not gonna get into another urban/administrative area debate. I believe a city ends at the city boundary and you dont thats all. Birmingham has more suburbs within its city boundary than Manchester. Manchester has not overtaken Birmingham in terms of population. City boundaries my friend..remember.

[Awayo]

OK lads, can we just agree on one thing then: that EarlyBird is a twazzock?

Originally Posted by MIDGEBLACKANDWHITE

City boundaries my friend..remember.

city

n: a large and densely populated urban area; may include several independent administrative districts; "Ancient Troy was a great city" [syn: metropolis, urban center]

As you can see, an urban area is a city so the city boundary is where the urban area ends. Unless of course you wish to count London as a city of 8,000 people. Simple fact: Manchester is the second largest city in the UK by an estimated 5,000 people in 2004.

[Accura4Matalan]

Dictionaries dont lie

[Blunther]

Originally Posted by Awayo

OK lads, can we just agree on one thing then: that EarlyBird is a twazzock?

This thread were alreet till he got here!!

[Soul_13]

Thats for the City

City GDP/Capita

London £29,090
Edinburgh £24,052
Glasgow £21,905
Bristol £20,219
Leeds £17,592
Birmingham £15,155
Manchester £14,489
Newcastle £14,077
Liverpool £11,307

And thats for the Metropolitan County




And because I know what's gonna be your answer there are not complete GVA GVP statistics concerning the Metropolitan Areas because there are not both of them measured yet.


So as I said The West Midlands area traditionaly is an area of higher production and GDP magnitude than the north. When the focus of Birmingham redevelopment shift from basic reconstruction projects such as EastSide to highrises it's going to leave miles behind Manchester and the rest. That's the one and only reality. If earlyBird wants to have illusions its his problem.

Originally Posted by Soul_13

Thats for the City

City GDP/Capita

London £29,090
Edinburgh £24,052
Glasgow £21,905
Bristol £20,219
Leeds £17,592
Birmingham £15,155
Manchester £14,489
Newcastle £14,077
Liverpool £11,307

No, that's for a single local authority, not for the city. The city is the urban area. As you've been told before. Manchester City Council's local authority doesn't include half of the city centre, it doesn't include Salford Quays and it doesn't include Trafford Park (Europe's largest industrial park). If you go off the entire urban area (rather than an arbitrary political boundary) Manchester has a GDP higher than that of Birmingham. I showed you the figures in another thread and I'm not wasting my time posting them again for you to just not bother reading the sources it cites again.

Originally Posted by Soul_13

And thats for the Metropolitan County




And because I know what's gonna be your answer there are not complete GVA GVP statistics concerning the Metropolitan Areas because there are not both of them measured yet.

Once again, as I said metropolitan counties are arbitrary political boundaries. If you go off Manchester's metro area compared to Birmingham's you'll see that Manchester's metro includes the Cheshire belt which is the richest place in the whole of the UK. Your political boundary excludes this. Once again, based on metro area Manchester has a higher GDP.

Also, GVA for both metropolitan counties and cities has been measured (by ONS no less) and Manchester came out higher in both. It also comes out higher for GVA in terms of urban area and metro area. Again, I showed you the figures for this too, but you choose not to look at the actual sources so I'm not wasting my time again.

Stop quoting meaningless boundaries to make yourself feel better. The people that live in and around both cities don't concern themselves with these boundaries so why should you base the statistics on them?

Originally Posted by Soul_13

So as I said The West Midlands area traditionaly is an area of higher production and GDP magnitude than the north. When the focus of Birmingham redevelopment shift from basic reconstruction projects such as EastSide to highrises it's going to leave miles behind Manchester and the rest. That's the one and only reality. If earlyBird wants to have illusions its his problem.

And as I said, the West Midlands urban area and Birmingham metro have lower GDP and GVA figures. Manchester has more money, more construction, more new jobs, more new facilities... the list is endless. Why do you think Manchester gets a decent tram network and Birmingham gets screwed over? You think it's because Birmingham's such a good city it doesn't need one? No, it's because the Government is investing in the cities they want to take the UK forward into the next century.

Birmingham is being left on the sidelines.