Jubilee Cities Announced

[tbtc]

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.

This is the problem.

Should we judge on population alone? Or culture? Is religious history significant enough qualify a place? And should that matter so much in 2012?

For me, population is a big consideration, but I'd also add "gravity". There are some places that have a large area/ large number of people in satelite towns - look at how many towns/ villages are linked to somewhere like Cardiff. Its a "hub" in its own right.

However you then get places of a broadly similar population like Dudley which is economically/ socially more of a sattelite of a bigger place (Birmingham) than an independant place.

I also think that there should be some kind of limit on numbers, otherwise the whole pride of being a city is easily devalued by seeing somewhere like Doncaster getting the same merit.

A top twenty/ fifty is the way forwards

 

[Ivo]

A top twenty/ fifty is the way forwards

OK, let's give it a try. On size grounds alone:

London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Leeds, Sheffield, Edinburgh, Bristol, Manchester, Leicester, Coventry, Hull, Bradford, Cardiff, Belfast, Stoke, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Plymouth, Southampton, Reading, Derby, Dudley, Newcastle, Northampton, Portsmouth, Luton, Preston, Aberdeen, MK, Sunderland, Norwich, Walsall, Swansea, Bournemouth, Southend, Swindon, Dundee, Huddersfield, Poole, Oxford, Middlesbrough, Blackpool, Bolton, Ipswich, Telford, York, West Bromwich, Peterborough, Stockport

(Next few: Brighton, Slough, Gloucester, Watford, Rotherham, Newport, Cambridge, Exeter, Eastbourne, Sutton Coldfield)

Sorry but this doesn't work. This list is painfully misleading. Such data is only useful when the town/city area and the local authority area are (roughly) identical, or if the same measure is used for every location. To give some extremes, Reading "town" is ~70% larger than Reading LA and London "town" is ~100,000% larger than London LA (both of which are shown on account of the "town") - whereas most other large areas, e.g. Manchester, are not. Why should London include Westminster but Manchester not include Salford?

 

[Captain Chaos]

How about making one town in each county a city and have done with it?

Using a combination of factors such as population, economic importance etc. Although population CAN be a factor just make it one of many. That way it's not settled on how big a place is but how important it is?

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Trouble is is when you get into the West Midlands for example, does that mean Coventry and Wolves are no longer cities as Birmingham takes it? Or do you go back to traditional counties, in which case Coventry and Brum are in Warks and Wolverhampton in Staffordshire? In that case, which is a city in Lancs - Liverpool or Manchester? In West Riding is it Sheffield or Leeds or Bradford?

Edit - I can see where you are coming from though, I know it would potentially make these things easier.

 

[LE Greys]

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.

That's just a little bit of colonial quirkiness, started by settlers who had more ambition than sense. Be careful about saying you're going "into the village to get something". It's a town! Even if it's smaller than Graveley (maximum 500 people) it's still a "small town".

As for whether a place is a town or a city, I couldn't care less. It just means its too big to be comfortable.

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

Basically I think there should be set criteria and the top 20(?) scorers all around should be the cities and it be renewed every year, on the anniversary of the coronation of the current monarch or some system of the sort. It would be controversial, and may fault but if things go right it could become a successful system.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

However you then get places of a broadly similar population like Dudley which is economically/ socially more of a sattelite of a bigger place (Birmingham) than an independant place.

No No No! Dudley is not, has not and will not ever be a satellite of Birmingham. A satalitte of Wolverhampton in worst case thoughts, but not Birmingham.

 

[Badger]

Speaking of Dudley, I've never really paid much attention to it, but the amount of department stores it used to have and such is pretty amazing. Marks and Spencer, C&A, BHS, Beatties, Littlewoods.

All of them now gone, if you only count the High Street and not Merry Hill.

And maybe that's part of the reason it wasn't made a city. Wolverhampton has managed to retain Marks, BHS and Beatties, never had Littlewoods, although lost C&A, TJ Hughes, and Rackhams.

Dudley town centre / high street etc is certainly a shadow of it's former self. These big department stores over many floors have been replaced by frankly idiotic stores - Beatties, 3 floors, is now a single floor Iceland, in what was the anchor of the shopping centre. (The same thing happened when Rackhams in Wolverhampton became a Netto.)

Major offices are lost and being replaced with smaller things - Cavendish House is becoming a supermarket. That is a massive landmark.

http://commercialsearch.knightfrank.co.uk/dynamic/image/1063685?x=300

The former music hall / Odeon / Mecca Bingo should become a theatre or a music venue. It's in such a prominent location and important listed building.

There are at least three former railway lines converging in Dudley town centre which are all gone. Potential for the future is good.

But I can't help but feel, hell even looking at a Google maps birds eye view, that there is so much derelict land directly in the centre that could and should be used. The town centre strikes me as big bunches of stuff seperated by huge car parks, derelict land, etc. Just look at the area around Constitution Hill.

Dig up this land, and erect (right word?) a massive underground multistorey car park and make it free. On top of it build a town centre worthy of being called a city. Maybe then it can be.

The bus station is great and a "proper" one too, but it's in a bad place. It splits up that part of town and makes it difficult to walk around.

 

[Tomonthetrain]

Dig up this land, and erect (right word?) a massive underground multistorey car park and make it free. On top of it build a town centre worthy of being called a city. Maybe then it can be.

No...make it pay and display municipal owned...I've gotta make some revenue against these private car parks!

 

[Ivo]

Maybe the two of you should coordinate Dudley's next bid

 

[junglejames]

Anyone OUTSIDE Preston agree with this summary?

Yes. Both Lancaster and Preston are very important and historic places, both locally and nationally, and both are rightfully cities. No doubting whatsoever that Preston is a deserving city, and thats from an outsider. Never lived in the place, and probably never will.

As for the latest cities. To claim it is a charade (as someone did) because St Asaph has won city status is rediculous. As has been pointed out, historically it always was a city. So if anywhere is deserving, it is St Asaph. So how is that a charade? Dont make the mistake of letting history pass you by. Its one of the good things about the UK. History isnt forgotten.

If anywhere doesnt make sense, it is Chelmsford. The place that does make sense, but because of the stupid local councils, will probably never be in the running anymore, is Rochester. Medway should never be a city. Its an area made up of 3 or 4 towns. Its not even a town or village itself.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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

Well as your willing to put your neck on the block
No Lancaster, but you have places like MK (a boring new town), Leicester and Stoke (thanks, I needed a laugh today)
Lancaster itself should be in a top 10 list in England.

I myself never could understand Westminster, as to me its basically London, but as ive already mentioned history, id better shut up there

 

[bb21]

No Lancaster, but you have places like MK (a boring new town), Leicester and Stoke (thanks, I needed a laugh today)

What's wrong with Leicester? Lancaster's history doesn't go back nearly as long as Leicester's.

Leicester is one of the oldest cities in England, with a history going back at least 2,000 years.

 

[junglejames]

What's wrong with Leicester? Lancaster's history doesn't go back nearly as long as Leicester's.

Nothing wrong with Leicester. Nothing compared to Lancaster in my opinion though.

 

[bb21]

The thing is though, if in your eyes a place is worthy of its city status on account of it being a city historically, as in the case of St Asaph, then surely Leicester is more deserving of city status than Lancaster, seeing that it was already a city 2000 years ago, before Lancaster was even recognised as a settlement.

 

[Deerfold]

In that case, which is a city in Lancs - Liverpool or Manchester? In West Riding is it Sheffield or Leeds or Bradford?

[/QUOTE]

Or Wakefield? Or Harrogate? Or Ripon?

I think the West Riding just liked collecting cities...

 

[Ivo]

Or Harrogate?

Harrogate isn't a city though

 

[Tomonthetrain]

Maybe the two of you should coordinate Dudley's next bid

I've already worked it out (I'll happily present it...soon as I can borrow what the council supplied!)

 

[Deerfold]

Harrogate isn't a city though

Oops - I must have been thinking of Harrogate, Tennessee.

Still, we've almost as many as Wales.

 

[tbtc]

As for the latest cities. To claim it is a charade (as someone did) because St Asaph has won city status is rediculous. As has been pointed out, historically it always was a city. So if anywhere is deserving, it is St Asaph. So how is that a charade? Dont make the mistake of letting history pass you by. Its one of the good things about the UK. History isnt forgotten.

If anywhere doesnt make sense, it is Chelmsford

I'm a bit confused by you here...

You think that St Asaph has "history", but a former capital of England doesn't deserve city status?

History. Chelmsford has it...

 

[Mutant Lemming]

I think everyone knows what the real cities are. You may have the City of Rockhampton in Queensland but hardly anyone's heard of it and Brisbane is THE city.

Albany may be a city and the state capital but New York is the city.

Ask someone in foreign climes where Wolverhampton is or Gateshead or Birkenhead (one a city the other with large enough populations) and they are unlikely to know until you mention the large city they are near to.

 

[Badger]

I dunno, I've done a fairly good job of shoving Wolverhampton down the throat of any American I see :roll:

 

[Smethwickian]

History. Chelmsford has it...

Boudicca's got a lot to answer for, though....

 

[VTPreston_Tez]

Chelmsford was the capital? Well it deserves city status then, Reading can wait a bit longer...

 

[Deerfold]

Chelmsford was the capital?

For nearly a week according to Wikipedia...

 

[Tomonthetrain]

IMO these should be city status:

England
Bath
Birmingham
Brighton (minus Hove)
Bristol
Cambridge
Canterbury
Carlisle
Chester
Coventry
Derby
Dudley
Durham
Ely
Exeter
Gloucester
Hereford
Kingston upon Hull
Lancaster
Leanington Spa
Leeds
Leicester
Lichfield
Lincoln
Liverpool
London
Manchester
Newcastle upon Tyne
Norwich
Nottingham
Oxford
Peterborough
Plymouth
Portsmouth
Preston
St Albans
Salisbury
Sheffield
Southampton
Stratford-Upon-Avon
Sunderland
Truro
Warwick
Welwyn GC
Westminster
Wolverhampton
Worcester
York


Scotland
Aberdeen
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Inverness
Perth
Stirling

Wales
Bangor
Cardiff
Newport
St Davids
Swansea

 

[MidnightFlyer]

So no Bradford or Dundee but Stratford-upon-Avon and Welwyn Garden City? I'd like to know the case for WGC to be a city!

 

[Deerfold]

IMO these should be city status:

England
Lichfield

Really?

What criteria did you use for this list?

 

[Ivo]

@ Deerfold: Lichfield is a city and has been for centuries, so there is a historical precedence.

I too would like to know the criteria for this list. I mean, how can he possibly justify Dudley (ahead of Bradford and Reading among others)?

So no Bradford or Dundee but Stratford-upon-Avon and Welwyn Garden City? I'd like to know the case for WGC to be a city!

You mean besides it having "City" in its name? On that basis Letchworth should be a city :roll:

This list almost looks like a random assortment of locations that are mostly cities already. No mention of Northern Ireland though.

 

[Deerfold]

@ Deerfold: Lichfield is a city and has been for centuries, so there is a historical precedence.

Indeed - but I wondered why it had made the cut compared with others that have gone - as you say Bradford is a surprising ommission (despite it being a dump these days - and I speak as someone with a BD postcode who spent 7 years at school in Bradford. Albeit a dump littered with pretty buildings in amongst horrendous ones)

 

[junglejames]

The thing is though, if in your eyes a place is worthy of its city status on account of it being a city historically, as in the case of St Asaph, then surely Leicester is more deserving of city status than Lancaster, seeing that it was already a city 2000 years ago, before Lancaster was even recognised as a settlement.

If what you say is correct (I dont know) then yes it is deserving.I never said Leicester wasnt deserving though.
As for more deserving? Well they are both historically cities. Just one is older than the other. So wouldnt say more deserving no.

I have to admit, I never knew Leicester was even a city until you mentioned it! Ive always gone round calling it a town
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm a bit confused by you here...

You think that St Asaph has "history", but a former capital of England doesn't deserve city status?

History. Chelmsford has it...

History as far as city status goes. St Asaph is historically a city. Is Chelmsford? I may be wrong, but i never thought it had been a city.