Jubilee Cities Announced

[Ivo]

How about restricting city status to a top twenty/ fifty settlements? That way it would have to mean something.

As a suggestion:

* - Places with a population of over 250,000
* - Places with three/four digit telephone codes (e.g. 020 for London, 029 for Cardiff 0141 for Glasgow, 0113 for Leeds)
* - Places with single letter post codes (e.g. B for Birmingham, S for Sheffield)
Population of over

Forget cathedrals (so few people attend regular church services), forget things like Mayors, make being a city something meaningful or forget about it

There's something about "The Town of Bath" that doesn't sound right...

Anyhow, a series of serious responses to your suggestions:

Population of 250,000 or more: An obvious starting point, but how do you define settlements? Does Southampton have a population of 240,000 (local authority) or 300,000 (including suburbs outside the boundary)? When I was in high school, we were told (for some daft reason) that cities always had 250,000 or more - unless your proposal is introduced, bringing disappointment to roughly 50 settlements nationwide, this is wrong

Phone codes: Our system doesn't work. Places with five digit codes are (usually) identifiable by their third and fourth digits, e.g. 01225 for Bath (with 0 being used for zero in the latter case, hence Southend being 01702). Three- and four- digit codes don't follow this, which isn't a problem in itself - but the large number of five-digit locations that are "simmering" (Bournemouth is an obvious one) is alarming. I came with a replacement system once, but I don't know what happened to it - it was done on paper (If you're wondering, other places use an alternative identifier, such as 01256 Basingstoke and 01375 Braintree, Essex, usually because the set they would otherwise belong to is oversubscribed as is true of both of these two.)

Postcodes: Maybe I should let 4SRKT do this one (funnily enough I'm meeting him tomorrow). But what happens to Belfast, Leeds, Cardiff, Bristol, Newcastle and Nottingham? All of those have two-letter codes...

In all honesty I think the previous system works better. But the list needs to be reset, and religious importance withdrawn in all but the most extreme of cases (e.g. Canterbury). The modern method of naming cities has diluted the value of City Status somewhat, so why not?

My proposed list of 36 cities:

England: Bath, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Canterbury, Carlisle, Chester, Colchester, Coventry, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Milton Keynes, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Reading, Sheffield, Stoke, Westminster, Winchester, York
Northern Ireland: Belfast; Londonderry
Scotland: Aberdeen; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Inverness
Wales: Cardiff

So, as it turns out, Bath makes my list - JUST. It was the 36th and last addition to the list. It is based on size, historical/religious importance (including status as a "regional capital"), culture and economy. (You will also notice that several current towns are listed.)

And no Southend in sight

 

[Eagle]

England: Bath, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Canterbury, Carlisle, Chester, Colchester, Coventry, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Milton Keynes, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Reading, Sheffield, Stoke, Westminster, Winchester, York
Northern Ireland: Belfast; Londonderry
Scotland: Aberdeen; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Inverness
Wales: Cardiff

You've brought this on yourself, so I'll start the ball rolling...

Why Winchester and not Salisbury? Both historical cathedrals, both a similar size, both inhabited for over 2,000 years...

 

[Ivo]

You've brought this on yourself, so I'll start the ball rolling...

Why Winchester and not Salisbury? Both historical cathedrals, both a similar size, both inhabited for over 2,000 years...

I included Salisbury at first, but realistically I knew fitting both would be difficult, especially given their proximity to one-another. So I elected for Winchester on account of it having once been the country's capital (the same reason as Colchester).

Feel free to ask about as many others as you like If you want an idea, I nearly included Middlesbrough in the list.

 

[Eagle]

I included Salisbury at first, but realistically I knew fitting both would be difficult, especially given their proximity to one-another. So I elected for Winchester on account of it having once been the country's capital (the same reason as Colchester).

Winchester has never been the capital of England (it was, for many years, the capital of the kingdom of Wessex, though).

 

[Ivo]

Winchester has never been the capital of England (it was, for many years, the capital of the kingdom of Wessex, though).

I realise that. But Wessex covered quite a large area, and it is still a significant difference between Winchester and Salisbury. Even if you ignore this fact, Winchester has more claims to such status than Salisbury in my opinion anyway.

The list is just a five-minute job though; don't forget that. I could expand, but by the time we reach 100 the likes of Slough would have to be considered - and Hell will probably freeze over before it becomes a city.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

No Dundee or Derby?

 

[Badger]

As a world heritage site Bath will presumably always be known as "City of Bath".

Local pride, I know, but Wolverhampton is the 13th most populous city in England. But it also has one of the most clearly defined centres of any town with it's ring road (similar to Coventry). It is also definately seperated from Birmingham (the areas of Walsall, Sandwell, and Dudley stand between the two). Although it is still definately a part of the West Midlands Conurbation. I guess it depends on how these cities are defined. Is it based on continuous urban areas? Because then perhaps "The West Midlands" should be a "city" and not "Birmingham". I'd be sad to see the cities within it devolved in that way, for sure, but maybe it is fairer.

Maybe City should be used for settlements over a certain size (or another measure, such as GDP or population density), and another word used for places of historical or religious significance.

Or, City used for historical or religious significance, and a new word used for large settlements.

It's weird for example how London is a city of 7 million, but within it are the Cities of London and Westminster.

Top 50 I imagine would be a problem, as Stockport and Brighton are within 2000 of each other so given any amount of population shift they'd have to be redefined.

 

[Ivo]

No Dundee or Derby?

Any reason why they should be there? Derby would only really qualify on economic grounds - when the "regional capital" is only ten miles away. It doesn't even have a 250,000 population. Dundee on the other hand is a shadow of its former self.

In both cases, compare the exclusion of Bradford.

As a world heritage site Bath will presumably always be known as "City of Bath".

Bath almost missed out on my list. But ultimately, you can't ignore its historical and cultural importance - and its World Heritage status. It is after all the only settlement in the country to have World Heritage status; as long as that is the case, I feel this would qualify. But as soon as one other location gains such status, the claim becomes far weaker. I would still suggest that Bath would qualify anyway though. (Its proximity to Salisbury is another explanation of Salisbury's omission; it is far easier to proclaim Bath and Winchester from the three when only two would be likely to attain City Status.)

 

[bb21]

My proposed list of 36 cities:

England: Bath, Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Canterbury, Carlisle, Chester, Colchester, Coventry, Hull, Leeds, Leicester, Lincoln, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Milton Keynes, Newcastle, Norwich, Nottingham, Oxford, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Reading, Sheffield, Stoke, Westminster, Winchester, York
Northern Ireland: Belfast; Londonderry
Scotland: Aberdeen; Edinburgh; Glasgow; Inverness
Wales: Cardiff

So you're in clear defiance of tbtc's proposal?

What about Southampton then? Dialling code 023.

Come to think about it, that would mean that Southampton and Portsmouth will be merged and become one city on that basis? I bet they'll love it.

 

[Ivo]

So you're in clear defiance of tbtc's proposal?

What about Southampton then? Dialling code 023.

Come to think about it, that would mean that Southampton and Portsmouth will be merged and become one city on that basis? I bet they'll love it.

Welcome to the City of Portsampton* - the only City in the world that has is formed of two towns that have a large swathe of land between them.

I shall try to dig out my phone code thing. If I can find it I shall publish it on here. Oh, and in my list, Portsmouth wins on naval grounds. You can't reasonably consider both cities when choosing only 36 from the entire country.

Also, if I recall correctly, Fareham is *not* part of the 023 area - and calls between Portsmouth and Southampton are charged at National Rate.

* Sorry to those in Southampton - but this sounds far better than "Southmouth"!

 

[bb21]

Welcome to the City of Portsampton*

Portscumpton, or simply Port Scumpton

 

[Eagle]

...especially given their proximity to one-another...

Two of your cities are within walking distance of one another :P

 

[Ivo]

Two of your cities are within walking distance of one another :P

There's always going to be an exception to the rule One is the economic centre of the country, whereas the other is the administrative centre of the country! It would be easier if we could just redraw the boundary of the two as being roughly equivalent to the Circle line plus the South Bank area though. (Given this would allow a 36th city, Bradford would be elevated.)

 

[Eagle]

It would be easier if we could just redraw the boundary of the two as being roughly equivalent to the Circle line plus the South Bank area though.

Just use the Inner Circular instead, I say.

 

[Ivo]

Just use the Inner Circular instead, I say.

Or that.

Here is a map showing my cities...

 

[Tomonthetrain]

Personally i'm shocked Dudley didn't get in to become a city...how i would have loved to work for "The City of Dudley Council".

 

[Ivo]

Personally i'm shocked Dudley didn't get in to become a city...how i would have loved to work for "The City of Dudley Council".

You and approximately no-one else outside of Dudley

 

[Schnellzug]

Welcome to the City of Portsampton* - the only City in the world that has is formed of two towns that have a large swathe of land between them.

And would get on about as well as East and West Berlin.

 

[tbtc]

So you're in clear defiance of tbtc's proposal?

What about Southampton then? Dialling code 023.

Come to think about it, that would mean that Southampton and Portsmouth will be merged and become one city on that basis? I bet they'll love it.

Welcome to the City of Portsampton* - the only City in the world that has is formed of two towns that have a large swathe of land between them.

I shall try to dig out my phone code thing. If I can find it I shall publish it on here. Oh, and in my list, Portsmouth wins on naval grounds. You can't reasonably consider both cities when choosing only 36 from the entire country.

Also, if I recall correctly, Fareham is *not* part of the 023 area - and calls between Portsmouth and Southampton are charged at National Rate.

* Sorry to those in Southampton - but this sounds far better than "Southmouth"!

Then again, there is Stoke, which appears to be five separate towns cobbled together to qualify as a city (in the way that the Beano used to have cartoons where one kid would stand on another kid's shoulders, put on a long jacket and try to convince the Cinema that they were an adult...)

 

[Eagle]

Then again, there is Stoke, which appears to be five separate towns cobbled together to qualify as a city (in the way that the Beano used to have cartoons where one kid would stand on another kid's shoulders, put on a long jacket and try to convince the Cinema that they were an adult...)

But then again, that's what Milton Keynes is as well.

 

[Badger]

You and approximately no-one else outside of Dudley

Population of 200,000 (metro 300,000), prominent zoo and castle, history dating back to at least the 12th century, 5th largest shopping centre in the country (higher in the rankings after planned expansion), ruins of a former priory (grade I listed), largest Tesco in the country (:roll, market dating back to 1260, potential for an important rail hub in the future, successful further education college, massive hospital (since a hospital was said to be a reason for St Asaph :roll, massive list of important residents such as Abraham Darby, and twinned with Bremen (city) in Germany, and a population density of 8,130/sq mi. Oh, and two football clubs that have never advanced past the Southern premier league

 

[Ivo]

Population of 200,000 (metro 300,000), prominent zoo and castle, history dating back to at least the 12th century, 5th largest shopping centre in the country (higher in the rankings after planned expansion), ruins of a former priory (grade I listed), largest Tesco in the country (:roll, market dating back to 1260, potential for an important rail hub in the future, successful further education college, massive hospital (since a hospital was said to be a reason for St Asaph :roll, massive list of important residents such as Abraham Darby, and twinned with Bremen (city) in Germany, and a population density of 8,130/sq mi. Oh, and two football clubs that have never advanced past the Southern premier league

OK, almost no-one outside of Dudley and no-one outside of the West Midlands :roll:

WM have three cities as it is, and a fourth just outside the area at Lichfield. Is it really fair on other places, many of which have far better cases than Dudley (size isn't everything remember!), for WM to have four when entire 1.5M counties have none at all? Using this last note, it is perhaps fair that Essex finally has its very own city. (It's just that they chose the least suitable of the three in my opinion.)

 

[martinsh]

Population of 200,000 (metro 300,000), prominent zoo and castle, history dating back to at least the 12th century, 5th largest shopping centre in the country (higher in the rankings after planned expansion), ruins of a former priory (grade I listed), largest Tesco in the country (:roll, market dating back to 1260, potential for an important rail hub in the future, successful further education college, massive hospital (since a hospital was said to be a reason for St Asaph :roll, massive list of important residents such as Abraham Darby, and twinned with Bremen (city) in Germany, and a population density of 8,130/sq mi. Oh, and two football clubs that have never advanced past the Southern premier league

Not to mention a proper bus station - and some "bostin" good pubs (if you include Netherton & Brierley Hill as Dudley)

 

[Badger]

I don't think somewhere else being better means a place shouldn't be a city. No it's not fair that other places don't get them, but if this is a hypothetical situation where cities are being decided, then I'd give them both.

I'd actually go as far as making Walsall a city as well.

Coventry's weird as it's not in the West Midlands conurbation, but is in the West Midlands county. I'd say give it back to Warwickshire, but it would lose it's great transport ties with the WM.

 

[Chapeltom]

It's open to debate, but Preston is actually really big, a dedicated bus service, high-frequency trains, semi-religious, mixed-race, and at the time a top football team

Why do you refer to buses in most of your posts? And why does a 'dedicated bus service' make a place worth city material.

And most of the things you refer to, other towns/cities have.

 

[All Line Rover]

It's open to debate, but Preston is actually really big, a dedicated bus service, high-frequency trains, semi-religious, mixed-race, and at the time a top football team

I can't comment on the last part (don't know anything about football), but with regards to all the other points...

• As does Wigan
• Oh and Crewe!
• Mustn't forget Stafford
• Rugby too
• What about Northampton?
• Hemel Hempstead?
• And Watford!

I really don't understand the fascination regarding City status. If Wrexham became a city, it would remain like now - an average place, parts of which are quite nice, parts of which are a dump.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Crewe, Stafford and Rugby are mixed race? Not in comparison to No'ton, Watford or other major towns they aren't!

 

[Ivo]

I really don't understand the fascination regarding City status.

It's a means of showing to the country the importance of the settlement in shaping the country as it is now and bringing it forward into the future. You can't tell me that (for sake of argument) Cambridge and Oxford don't deserve anything for bringing a continued high standard of education to "learned" adults for centuries. City Status is a way of showcasing this to the country. Otherwise, if we followed the American method any old place could call themselves a city and ditto a town, which is silly.

Most cities have something about them that sets them apart from other large settlements in the country. The problem lies in the likes of Preston, Newport and Sunderland being awarded it for what is essentially no adequate reason.

 

[All Line Rover]

Crewe, Stafford and Rugby are mixed race? Not in comparison to No'ton, Watford or other major towns they aren't!

Well, maybe not in comparison to cities such as Birmingham, London and perhaps Stoke. But they're got far more foreign people than, say, Nantwich or Sandbach.

 

[Ivo]

Crewe, Stafford and Rugby are mixed race? Not in comparison to No'ton, Watford or other major towns they aren't!

Not helped by proximity to London of course :roll:

Well, maybe not in comparison to cities such as Birmingham, London and perhaps Stoke. But they're got far more foreign people than, say, Nantwich or Sandbach.

Not a fair comparison. The largest cities tend to be the most multicultural in this country; there are very few places that buck this trend.