Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 135 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The top 20 cities in order of predicted economic output growth from 2006-2020 are:

1. Reading
2. Inner London
3. Peterborough
4. Milton Keynes
5. Cardiff
6. Edinburgh
7. Newport
8. Outer London
9. Northampton
10. Bristol
11. Brighton & Hove
12. Swansea
13. Portsmouth
14. Leeds
15. Bradford
16. Nottingham
17. Chelmsford
18. Bath
19. Ipswich
20. Birmingham

This is according to Experian. As with much of Experian's data it is hard to find a comprehensive link from them (any ideas) attached however is a link from Newport Unlimited

http://www.newportunlimited.co.uk/newsandevents/index.html?newsId=10690

These things must be taken with a big pinch of salt, but my observations are:

1: The concentration of these cities is around London and the M4. Nothing new in many ways, but I have seen reports recently predicting that proximity to London will be even more important in future years than in the past

2: Inner London.**** me,this is growth remember, not total economic size, and this predicts Inner London is still going to grow at this rate. Remember 10,000 new jobs in inner London would still probably constitute a slower 'growth' than 500 jobs in Milton Keynes, so to see Inner London near the top is a very positive situation for 'the city' to find itself in.

3: Three cities from south Wales in the top 12! Anyone who knows Cardiff knows it is becoming an important regional city player in the UK and this is obviously impacting upon the other cities too (and vice versa to an extent also) I've been confident about the south Walian urban economies for a while now, and I believe we are increasingly providing an economic 'anchor' at the other end of the M4. With Wales also having more autonomy (to make economic decisions) than most of the rest of the UK I think these are exciting times.

Like I said, I take these figures with a pinch of salt (as I do all league tables except football ones!) but there is likely to be some truth in the trends predicted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
It's funny how Experian, a Nottingham based organisation by the way, always seem to shoe horn Nottingham in with any statistical data they produce ..... a load of rubbish!
 

·
Second Citizen
Joined
·
16,937 Posts
Well, I don't disagree with the figures, but have no knowledge of how they are formed.

I am assuming that it is percentage growth, in which case I am surprised any of the core regional cities are there (Brum, Leeds, Bristol) as although they may show healthy growth (say 5%), I would have thought the smaller and newer ones (Milton Keynes, Nottingham) would be 5-15%.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
What is your problem with Nottingham?

It's funny how Experian, a Nottingham based organisation by the way, always seem to shoe horn Nottingham in with any statistical data they produce ..... a load of rubbish!
They obviously must make up figures for Nottingham then :lol:

I am assuming that it is percentage growth, in which case I am surprised any of the core regional cities are there (Brum, Leeds, Bristol) as although they may show healthy growth (say 5%), I would have thought the smaller and newer ones (Milton Keynes, Nottingham) would be 5-15%.
Nottingham is a core city (and bigger than Bristol)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1307
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
Maybe Manchester and Liverpool are 21st and 22nd on the list!?!?

You can dismiss the data for various reasons, but not just because your city isn't on the list surely!?
 

·
wiggledypiggleypuddinghed
Joined
·
13,066 Posts
that sounds pretty much right. If you read the 'state of the english cities 2006' report it says pretty much the same thing. The core cites in general perform quite poorley on every indicator, with the exception of bristol and leeds which go against the grain, and manchester to a lesser extent on some indicators.

That said, you'd really need to find out when this experian report was made and how it came to making its ranking order because sometimes the criteria use can show how silly the list is.
 

·
Registered Abuser
Joined
·
2,834 Posts
If Derby and Leicester stop Nottingham from dominating its region, then surely the same goes for Liverpool stopping Manchester and Sheffield stopping Leeds. Not important anyways.

2006-2020 is a long time, it seems strange to miss out Liverpool and Manchester through. Liverpool has endless sites to develop with office/resi/hotel/retail/w/e space and our regeneration is literally at the beginning stage, I'm sure our economy would have grown at a faster rate than most in this time frame. Manchester has been redeveloping for years now but what about media city? That alone should make an impact on the cities growth (unless thats salford? in which case, where is salford on the list!).

Bath?!
 

·
wiggledypiggleypuddinghed
Joined
·
13,066 Posts
Its a measure of economic growth, more than likely GDP per capita growth.

This is directly affected by each locations abaility to attract new jobs, and specifically a diverse economy with more jobs in knowledge based business, computer business, and research and development, so that its economy and GVA grows. This is very diferent to private investment ploughing money into private apartment blocks lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
629 Posts
Surely that list is misleading slightly, those places on the list will probably see quite a large economic growth compared to what they already have which for some of those places like Peterbrough will be fairly low and so may experience a large economic growth for them, it doesn't mean that they will go on to have a larger econmy than other places, the same can be said for a lot of those places on that list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,810 Posts
..... doesn't mean that they will go on to have a larger econmy than other places, the same can be said for a lot of those places on that list.
Obviously!!!! I mean, come on ..... Chelmsford with a larger economy than Birmingham or indeed Manchester??!!! :nuts:
 

·
wiggledypiggleypuddinghed
Joined
·
13,066 Posts
Also, if you look, a lot of those places on that list are sattelite regions close to a large core city. So essentially it is just highlighting the fact that core cities are expanding outwards and their pull and power is casuing growth in commuter towns.

That said, to have nottingham, bristol, leeds, and cardiff in that list is very good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,182 Posts
Youve got to remember we're talking small percentage figures here, probably a difference of 0.1% growth per year between ten twenty positions as you drop down the list.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Surely that list is misleading slightly, those places on the list will probably see quite a large economic growth compared to what they already have which for some of those places like Peterbrough will be fairly low and so may experience a large economic growth for them, it doesn't mean that they will go on to have a larger econmy than other places, the same can be said for a lot of those places on that list.
I don't think it's misleading, but you are right that it doesnt represent size of economy, but it shows growth. It is obviously easier to grow in percentage terms from a smaller base, and thats why (with respect to the smaller places) you could take off Peterborough etc, and end up with a perhaps more interesting table of data....that would make Cardiff number 1 in predicted growth of the core regional cities in the UK...! Again, we are starting from a smaller base than Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield etc though.



I was more getting at the fact that Bristol dominates in its region, as does Brum, Manchester, Leeds, whereas Nottingham doesn't so much due to the presence of Derby & Leicester.
Well Bristol certainly dominates the south west, cos there's absolutely nothing else there for miles around! Presuming Cardiff is in a different region of course. And yeah, I can't see how Leeds 'dominates' the Yorkshire economy. It may be bigger than Sheffields, but surely dominates is a bit strong? Likewise Manchester surely doesnt 'dominate' Liverpool?
 

·
BAND
Joined
·
12,217 Posts
I'm not saying this "because my city isn't on the list", but I'm surprised the Sheffield and Liverpool aren't on the list (although as someone else has said, they could be just outside of it). Both cities are starting from a lower base than similar sized cities (I know Sheffield's growth has been above the national average, I'd guess Liverpool was similar) so presumably the percentage change would be bigger than in other cities.
 

·
wiggledypiggleypuddinghed
Joined
·
13,066 Posts
Youve got to remember we're talking small percentage figures here, probably a difference of 0.1% growth per year between ten twenty positions as you drop down the list.
I think it is more then 0.1%.

For example, Leeds economic growth using employment growth as an indicator is forecast to grow by 7% to 2015, whereas birmingham's is forecast to grow by 3.9%
 

·
wiggledypiggleypuddinghed
Joined
·
13,066 Posts
And yes im surprised Liverpool isnt on that list. Starting from such a low point (in terms of deprivation and economy) you would think it can only make drastic improvements and hence really be in the top 10 in terms of change in economic growth
 
1 - 20 of 135 Posts
Top