Worst towns in Britain?

[atomicdanny]

Its fair enough forum members saying places in particular are s*** h***s but do they actually live there?

I live in Lewisham in SE London, and I can say its a complete and utter sh*thole in some places and other parts are fine same with every other place... Than saying that, There have been countless murders, stabbings, shootings

I think Peckham is far worse though, ever since I worked one day at the netto store there. I've always called it "Rat Central" (Peckham in general, not just that store!)

(although for my own defence, I've worked in Dover and Canterbury, used to go to deal, the medway towns and sheerness a few times so I know how bad they are, well except for canterbury which has improved a lot - although I think the latter has a lot of similarities to york though!)

 

[Ivo]

Most of Southampton is pretty crap. According to my brother, it's redeeming feature is that it's not Portsmouth

!!!

I think both Soton and Pompey are quite nice actually. I wouldn't like to say which is better though; no other two settlements (well, possibly Manchester and either of Leeds/Liverpool) see each other in such a venomous manner. Trade, the Isle of Wight, city status, urban area, "southern capital city", and of course Harry Redknapp [i.e. football] all see the two vying with the other.

As much as I don't like to admit it, I would even say the same about Bournemouth and Brighton; i.e. they aren't too bad either...

On the other hand, one south coast (albeit only sort-of south coast!) place that I do not like is Folkestone.

@ Danny: Peckham is so obvious that to even mention it is giving it unnecessary publicity, and to mention amongst the likes of Southampton as though the two are in the same category...

 

[SouthEastern-465]

I think Peckham is far worse though, ever since I worked one day at the netto store there. I've always called it "Rat Central" (Peckham in general, not just that store!)

(although for my own defence, I've worked in Dover and Canterbury, used to go to deal, the medway towns and sheerness a few times so I know how bad they are, well except for canterbury which has improved a lot - although I think the latter has a lot of similarities to york though!)

I agree.

Peckhams a tad worse, I remeber how bad it was back in the 90s, not much has improved since than TBH!

As for the Medway, I travel there quite alot too, and compared to South London area I come from, it seems to be alot of chavs more than anything.

 

[atomicdanny]

On the other hand, one south coast (albeit only sort-of south coast!) place that I do not like is Folkestone.
@ Danny: Peckham is so obvious that to even mention it is giving it unnecessary publicity, and to mention amongst the likes of Southampton as though the two are in the same category...

No offence but I never said that Southampton was just as bad as Peckham though? I honestly think that Peckham is probably one of the worst places in the South if not the whole uk! Also Folkestone is far better than other parts of kent (e.g. Dover, Deal, Sheerness on Sea, Margate, Chatham...) but that is just my opinion (but then again I'm bound to defend my home town - it has improved a little bit recently though)

 

[Ivo]

Margate is probably the worst place in Kent, it's just that I personally do not like Folkestone. And regarding Peckham... it was just an example. You would have to be pretty stupid to suggest that they are as bad as one-another! So, in other words, I apologise if I caused you any offence!

Regarding Margate though, I saw something recently in a paper (I forget which, The Guardian perhaps?) implying a new claim to fame for it: Britain's highest proportion of empty shiop units, at roughly 3-in-8 for the central area. Sad isn't it...? Its main problem, in my opinion, is that it is a seaside resort trying to compete in a less prominent market than in its heyday with the more prominent likes of Clacton, Southend, Eastbourne and Brighton.

 

[atomicdanny]

Margate is probably the worst place in Kent, it's just that I personally do not like Folkestone. And regarding Peckham... it was just an example. You would have to be pretty stupid to suggest that they are as bad as one-another! So, in other words, I apologise if I caused you any offence!

Regarding Margate though, I saw something recently in a paper (I forget which, The Guardian perhaps?) implying a new claim to fame for it: Britain's highest proportion of empty shiop units, at roughly 3-in-8 for the central area. Sad isn't it...? Its main problem, in my opinion, is that it is a seaside resort trying to compete in a less prominent market than in its heyday with the more prominent likes of Clacton, Southend, Eastbourne and Brighton.

Fair enough (you didn't cause any offence though ), I apologise if it sounded like I was having a go, I wasn't , but I agree about Margate though it used to be a lot better with a popular amusement park, dreamland and lots of shops, now its has next to nothing!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I once heard a chap on a railtour describe Rochester as 'Chav Central'. Is this a fair reflection?

Add to list:
Telford
Rhyl
Rotherham

 

[Ivo]

Matt: It's not so much true of Rochester, more the entire Thames Gateway area. I would consider the river itself to be the "capital" (if ever there was one!).

And Danny: It didn't sount like you were having a go. I just wanted to clear it up. That's all

 

[atomicdanny]

I once heard a chap on a railtour describe Rochester as 'Chav Central'. Is this a fair reflection?

Strange, I always thought that Chatham was that!

 

[Daimler]

York, does anyone else find it really boring?

Sorrywhat?

It's one of the most beautifully-preserved towns in the country, with absolutely gorgeous mediaeval and Tudor streets, the largest Gothic cathedral in Britain and hundred of other very fine buildings (the railway station and adjoining hotel to name just two). Add to that its incredible history - both Roman and Viking, and it's really no wonder it's one of the most visited cities in the country.

Boring it ain't! (it also has the inestimable advantage of Bettys )

 

[4SRKT]

I don't really like these sorts of lists. The last thing anywhere that is on its uppers needs is people slating it further. These are places full of real people living real lives (and probably comparatively harder lives than people in more favoured places) who can be glibly dismissed due to nothing more where they live.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sorrywhat?

It's one of the most beautifully-preserved towns in the country, with absolutely gorgeous mediaeval and Tudor streets, the largest Gothic cathedral in Britain and hundred of other very fine buildings (the railway station and adjoining hotel to name just two). Add to that its incredible history - both Roman and Viking, and it's really no wonder it's one of the most visited cities in the country.

Boring it ain't! (it also has the inestimable advantage of Bettys )

York can be pretty dull TBF. Most of the reasons you list for not being so are hundreds of years out of date. Actually living there as I did for 24 years can be stultifying: only Harrogate is worse in my experience, and Harrogate would be a good place to retire to because there the transition from life to death would scarcely be noticeable. Re. Betty's, I don't know anyone who has ever been there.

Clearly York is not one of the worst towns in the country, but neither is it particularly interesting for its residents' day to day existance, unconcerned as they are about the dangers of imminent Viking invasion or Civil War politics, and not themselves finding streets such as The Shambles particularly handy for anything, preferring to frequent ghastly out of town shopping centres as the residents of any town do.

 

[MCR247]

I visited it, and although it looked nice, it wasn't particually interesting once you have done the wall etc

As I was on advance from Leeds, I even decided to cut my visit short by going to Leeds via Burley Park hock:

 

[Spaceflower]

Keep dreaming!

Can you think of a bigger one?

 

[TheWalrus]

Andover Derby Spalding Minehead

 

[Spaceflower]

Sunderland; 280,807
Newcastle; 259,536
Gateshead;191,151
Middlesbrough; 134,855
Darlington; 97,838
Durham;87,709

I rest my case.

 

[4SRKT]

That map was based on counties though, so gives a bit of a misleading impression. Hull appears better than Leeds if you look at it that way, but really it's saying Humberside is better than West Yorkshire. Clearer bonkers as Humberside contains places like Scunthorpe, Cleethorpes and the twin capitals of in-breeding, Pocklington and Market Weighton (Gimme six!), whereas West Yorks includes places like Wetherby, Otley, Ilkley, Hebden Bridge and the like. You can't do this sort of comedy deprivation index on a county basis.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Sunderland; 280,807
Newcastle; 259,536
Gateshead;191,151
Middlesbrough; 134,855
Darlington; 97,838
Durham;87,709

I rest my case.

Oooh, we can't get into the whole question of local authority population statistics. Large parts of Newcastle are actually in North Tyneside and Gateshead metropolitan boroughs, whereas Sunderland is wholly within Sunderland borough which also includes Washington.

The boundaries of these authorities have no consistency from one place to the next. Looking at them you would conclude that Bradford was a (much) bigger place than Manchester. In fact Manchester Council covers less than half of Manchester, the rest of it being in the boroughs of Salford (Swinton, Worsley), Bury (Whitefield, Prestwich), Rochdale (Middleton), Oldham (Failsworth), Tameside (Denton) and Trafford (Stretford, Urmston). Bradford Council covers most (but not all) of Bradford, and also includes the substantial settlements of Shipley, Bingley, Keighley and Ilkley.

 

[Spaceflower]

Not sure if your referring to my post here bud.
If you are, then you have not understood my reasons. It was merely to settle an argument with 'the pacer', who suggested Sunderland was an insignificant small County Durham town. I merely used the population statistics to prove otherwise. Its based on population statistics per local authority area, i.e. city area, not outlying towns but does include suburb villages and towns, which, imo, counts.
Well, where do you draw the line?

 

[142094]

What year are those figures from? Let's just see what this year's census tells us first.

 

[Spaceflower]

They are the most recent figures. I couldn't see them changing too much unless boundaries change.

Edit: 2004, taken from the Office for Nat. Stats.

Either way, I'm sure you can agree that Sunderland is hardly a small County Durham town. Yes probably less important than Teesside and Tyneside, but that's about it.

 

[4SRKT]

Well, obviously Sunderland is not insignificant, and I detect some Tyne vs Wear rivalry. I was merely posting to point out that population statistics by local authority area are meaningless to establish the size of a city. Newcastle is obviously bigger than Sunderland, yet the population of Newcastle MBC is smaller than Sunderland MBC, which says it all really.

 

[Daimler]

I don't really like these sorts of lists. The last thing anywhere that is on its uppers needs is people slating it further. These are places full of real people living real lives (and probably comparatively harder lives than people in more favoured places) who can be glibly dismissed due to nothing more where they live.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


York can be pretty dull TBF. Most of the reasons you list for not being so are hundreds of years out of date. Actually living there as I did for 24 years can be stultifying: only Harrogate is worse in my experience, and Harrogate would be a good place to retire to because there the transition from life to death would scarcely be noticeable. Re. Betty's, I don't know anyone who has ever been there.

Clearly York is not one of the worst towns in the country, but neither is it particularly interesting for its residents' day to day existance, unconcerned as they are about the dangers of imminent Viking invasion or Civil War politics, and not themselves finding streets such as The Shambles particularly handy for anything, preferring to frequent ghastly out of town shopping centres as the residents of any town do.

Mmm...I guess I've never lived there. That said, pretty much my two favourite towns in the country are Harrogate and York, so maybe I just like boring places!

I do concede that I've never lived in either, of course. But I do find them wonderful places to be...

 

[Spaceflower]

Well, obviously Sunderland is not insignificant, and I detect some Tyne vs Wear rivalry. I was merely posting to point out that population statistics by local authority area are meaningless to establish the size of a city. Newcastle is obviously bigger than Sunderland, yet the population of Newcastle MBC is smaller than Sunderland MBC, which says it all really.

So how do you measure a city? Where are the boundaries? Edge of CBD? Boundaries of local authority area? Or its hinterland? Very subjective the latter?
Postcode?

 

[4SRKT]

Mmm...I guess I've never lived there. That said, pretty much my two favourite towns in the country are Harrogate and York, so maybe I just like boring places!

I guess the criteria for whether a town is nice or not can be very different depending on whether you live there or are just visiting, and if you live there will be very subjective. My mother's family lived in Harrogate (all dead or moved away now), and the memories of deadly dull Sunday afternoons whether every minute seemed an hour are still crushing my spirit 25+ years on!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So how do you measure a city? Where are the boundaries? Edge of CBD? Boundaries of local authority area? Or its hinterland? Very subjective the latter?
Postcode?

It's very hard. But Local Authority boundary is not the way to do it. You can't use postcode either because 'Newcastle upon Tyne' stretches all the way to Rochester and beyond to the Scottish border in the shape of the long withered finger of NE19 stretching away to the North West.

 

[Spaceflower]

I guess the criteria for whether a town is nice or not can be very different depending on whether you live there or are just visiting, and if you live there will be very subjective. My mother's family lived in Harrogate (all dead or moved away now), and the memories of deadly dull Sunday afternoons whether every minute seemed an hour are still crushing my spirit 25+ years on!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---



It's very hard. But Local Authority boundary is not the way to do it. You can't use postcode either because 'Newcastle upon Tyne' stretches all the way to Rochester and beyond to the Scottish border in the shape of the long withered finger of NE19 stretching away to the North West.

TBH it would surely depend on what criteria you were attempting to assess? Population, economic importance, area and number of gay nightclubs, would, I'm sure, all provide different results.

 

[Ivo]

I have to agree that the definition of "worst" can be quite subjective, in the same way that about 101 other things can be. So it is probably best to just take the word for granted and leave it at that. Part of the thread is the banter between members trying to defend their home towns, right?

Elsewhere, I am still not convinced about that whole Sunderland thing. I seem to recall reading something which suggested that the Sunderland city area (by which I mean city and suburbs only) came to roughly 200,000, which is on a par with Newcastle and also the likes of Dudley further south. Sunderland only wins when, as 4SRKT says, you include the entire borough area; if you do that though, then surely Newcastle could claim the title [irrespective of city status] on urban area grounds?

Yarrr, this be Ivo's 2000th Post

 

[4SRKT]

TBH it would surely depend on what criteria you were attempting to assess? Population, economic importance, area and number of gay nightclubs, would, I'm sure, all provide different results.

Indeed. If you were looking at square mileage and decided to use postcode, then the largest town in the UK would be Lairg by quite a wide margin, a single postcode district (IV27), being about half the size of Northern Ireland. The largest town in England would be York, stretching as far as Market Weighton, Boroughbridge and Helmsley, with London quite a long way down the list!

Whatever tho, population of a city cannot be measured consistently by the population of the local authority associated with that city. Crazy, but unfortunately true.

 

[Drimnagh Road]

I've heard Corby is a bit of a rough area?

Holyhead is definitly my number one.

 

[scotsman]

Inverkeithing (Fraser Avenue.)

 

[Spaceflower]

Indeed. If you were looking at square mileage and decided to use postcode, then the largest town in the UK would be Lairg by quite a wide margin, a single postcode district (IV27), being about half the size of Northern Ireland. The largest town in England would be York, stretching as far as Market Weighton, Boroughbridge and Helmsley, with London quite a long way down the list!

Whatever tho, population of a city cannot be measured consistently by the population of the local authority associated with that city. Crazy, but unfortunately true.

OK. So we've settled on population as our criterion. We've agreed that population statistics calculated by using local authority area is not ideal. So surely we must first need to define city area to then ascertain the most ideal population statistics? How do you do this? This would also give us a figure for area too, which is a bit of a bonus. Hinterland would be another good indicator. Population of hinterland though. As you have pointed out, some rural towns may include a vast area of wilderness. On the other foot, some towns may share hinterlands with others.
When defining your boundary, I think the smallest possible units you could use would be parish boundaries, to enable easy access to population statistics, but I may be wrong about this.

 

[TukayAway]

My two cents:

Dunstable.
Kettering.
Great Yarmouth.
Weston-Super-Mare.
Hayes.
Macclesfield.
Doncaster.