Baffled by the assumption that the only choice for an undeveloped plot in a city is a skyscraper. Check out “gedempte zuiderdokken” in Antwerp. That’s adding to quality of life, not creating a monstrosity that leads to wind nuisance, heat stress and massive shadows.
Why does the rest of the world outside of western Europe do it? Western europe and canada are the only 2 places where they dont follow the traditional skyscrapers in city centers model
That weird tall building is nicknamed the Dale (named after the Dr Who villains). It creates huge downdrafts on the roads underneath jr. I used to work in an office opposite it and my previous colleagues talked about how they once saw a lorry getting overturned by the window and I think the driver didn't survive. It's an eyesore and a menace.
This is a pretty old photo though and its a strange angle, the city centre is out of shot. It's had a lot more development since. It's a dense but low city, but it has a lot of charm.
Yeah Bridgewater place, pretty sure it's now the 2nd tallest building in Leeds after one of the giant student accom skyscrapers near the city centre
A few years ago they installed massive steel "diffusers" over the roads below to reduce the effect of the vortices which cost absolutely loads, did a case study on it for a fluids dynamics class
I have a question for any English folks who might be reading this. Most of England’s large cities are well-known for their cultures even outside of the UK—Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester are somewhat ugly industrial northern cities where everyone talks like Sean Bean, Bristol’s the great city of the West Country, Liverpool’s got its own unique slightly more nautical culture, etc.
But Birmingham—England’s second largest city—I could tell you nothing about. I would describe myself as an Anglophile in the sense that I’m low-key-obsessed with UK culture, and I feel pretty well equipped to tell people the basics of any of the UK’s top ten population centers except the second largest one. Is this purely because of ignorance? What is Birmingham known for within the UK? What are the people there like compared to everyone else?
Birmingham's just very bland. Lots of it destroyed in the war and some more destroyed to make way for roads. It was an industrial city back in the day as well but not close to other large cities. Nowadays it has a lot of satellite towns and cities nearby with it being the heart of the West Midlands. Manchester and others absorbed most of their surrounding towns. Birmingham football has been a bit poor as well in the last 30 years unlike Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds. Manchester just has more soft power in media as well compared to brum hence brum feels like nothing.
Tell me the cities Birmingham was closest to? Leicester? Derby? Nottingham?
Compare that to Manchester being a stones throw from Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds which are all much larger than the east mids cities. Brum was just a bit isolated. And don't say Coventry or Wolverhampton are large. They were big in medieval times like Norwich, not in the victorian era.
There’s basically nothing to say about Birmingham. It’s huge but it’s pretty bleak and industrial, and there’s not loads to see in terms of tourism. There’s a big food scene surrounding South Asian culture, some of the best curry in the UK apparently, and somewhat of a music scene (but still pails in comparison to London, Manchester or Liverpool).
The birthplace of Cadbury’s Chocolate. One of the greenest Cities in the UK (contrary to it being bleak), Tolkien, a diverse music scene that contains legends like Black Sabbath and UB40 as well as being the birthplace of Bhangra. Peaky Blinders was based on the City’s past etc, etc, etc…
B I R M I N G H A M : Much more than meets the eye.
Not heard of the Beetles? Can’t say I listen much to their stuff but they’re one of the most famous bands of all time and basically influenced most modern mainstream music.
Birmingham has quite a few artists from different genres and niches, but nothing uber-mainstream apart from maybe The Streets.
Maybe not, they are responsible for metal existing the way it does though so I'd say they're not far behind acts like the Beatles in terms of importance to music
You don’t think so? I don’t think Karl Pilkington sounds very different from him. Perhaps it’s because I’m a dirty American, whose ears aren’t trained to notice inflection differences.
I’m from Manchester so I can tell the difference between different parts of Manchester, never mind between Lancashire and Yorkshire!
That said, everyone in south east England either sounds posh or like a cockney to me.
Similarly, last time I was in the US a fella asked if I liked his Tennessee accent, to me it sounded similar to Texas or Carolina. You don’t notice the difference if you’re not from there.
I’d compare it to somewhere like Houston, Dallas or Phoenix. They’re huge cities and they all feature in the top 15 for population, but as a Brit I could tell you very little about them apart from they have a lot of suburbs and car parks, whereas I could think of something a tourist from abroad might want to do in most of the rest of the top 15. Birmingham is much the same. There’s not huge amounts going on.
I can certainly think of things I would want to do in Phoenix and especially Houston, but navigating those cities would almost certainly be a nightmare.
That’s too bad. Usually a country’s Second City has a lot of other things going for it, so to hear Birmingham’s so boring kind of saddens me.
I would argue that Manchester is now the second largest population centre on most measures. It was very close at the last census in 2021 but Manchester is growing faster. Pretty sure it will be ahead at the next census in 2031 and probably is already.
Nah, post said city not "Urban areas" or "metropolitan boroughs". I think it's actually the 3rd largest in terms of population, maybe even 2nd depending on how you class London
Seems you're right but it is so surprising to me. Liverpool has such a distinct culture and history and seems to have stayed really relevant, whilst Leeds just seems so irrelevant. I never hear of anything interesting coming out of Leeds. No hate it's just surprising.
As I mentioned to someone else, the city of Manchester is a lot bigger than the official council border. Archaic and irrelevant “city proper” borders made well over half a century ago or before should not be used to accurately measure somewheres population.
Parts of Salford and Trafford make up clear parts of the inner city of Manchester despite being different council areas. The same thing exists for London, Bristol, Reading, Newcastle and loads more (even Leeds to a certain extent). Just because the official city limits that were drawn up a long time ago differ in scope, does not make Leeds bigger than Manchester as a modern functioning city.
Leeds is generally considered bigger than Liverpool in terms of population within its city boundaries, often ranking as the second or third largest in the UK after Birmingham and Manchester, while Liverpool is usually further down the list, though the Liverpool City Region is massive.
Population Comparison (City Proper)
Leeds: Around 800,000+ people.
Liverpool: Around 490,000+ people.
I’ve made various other comments about this same topic, but again it’s based on outdated and frankly irrelevant “city proper” boundaries. They just aren’t a reliable and modern way of working out the population or size of a city.
Fair enough. But what about cities like San Jose, that is technically bigger than San Francisco, but people would consider it to be part of the metro area.
San Jose is officially a separate metro area to San Francisco.
But in practice most people recognize the Bay Area as one giant metro and I don’t know anyone from there who objects to a generic Bay Area or SF label.
I suppose that is probably what they would call the main place to go shopping, but it would surprise me if they actually do consider themselves Manchester, considering they have their own town centre and council. I can see more of an argument for them being part of Manchester than say, Wigan or Bolton though.
Yeah but London is made up of 32 different councils, that doesn’t mean that only Westminster or City of London are the only parts that are actually London.
The Leeds boundary includes parts that are really far out of the city and some bits of literal countryside. ‘City Proper’ borders don’t really mean much anymore.
I get your point, and I probably would consider places like Salford more Manchester than Wetherby or Otley is Leeds, but I still would never call places like Wigan, Bolton or Rochdale Manchester. They are way too far out to even be considered as Manchester imo. There isn't even a direct bus from Manchester to Wigan. Even Warrington has one and that's in Cheshire.
There are plenty of direct buses from Rochdale and Bolton into central Manchester, I’m talking like multiple routes each. All of which are local stopping and serve as suburban feeders into the centre. Rochdale also has the Manchester tram network.
Salford, Trafford, Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton and Bury are just as much parts of Manchester as Bramley, Kirkstall and Horsforth are to Leeds. Wetherby and Otley are completely separated by countryside, all the Manchester boroughs seamlessly blend into the city’s urban sprawl. The border between Manchester and Salford is directly in the city centre. If the historic irrelevant boundary of Leeds excluded everything south of the river Aire, you wouldn’t consider the inner city areas just next to the train station as “not Leeds”.
Wigan isn’t really part of “the city of Manchester” though.
I know there's plenty of bus routes from Bolton and Rochdale into Manchester, but my point was about Wigan not them 2 which people still try and lump it into Manchester. Rochdale does have the tram network into Central Manchester, yes you're right, but Chester, Southport, Ormskirk and Ellesmere Port also have the Merseyrail linked to Liverpool for them and they are way too far out to be considered Liverpool. Same with Sunderland being linked to the Newcastle metro, and Reading being linked on the London Underground. So I don't think that's the best argument to make when trying to call Rochdale Manchester. As for considering them Manchester, again with Bury, I can see arguments being made to consider it Manchester (even though I don't consider it Manchester), but Rochdale and Bolton are too far out. They have enough countryside as well to separate themselves from the city. It's not a lot of countryside, but it's enough. If your logic was correct about Rochdale and Bolton being part of Manchester, then by that logic, Dewsbury, Wakefield, Huddersfield, Halifax and Bradford would also be part of Leeds which they definitely aren't. Bradford is more connected with Leeds than Rochdale and Bolton are to Manchester but no one would regard Bradford as Leeds. It's same for regarding Rotherham as Sheffield as well and Birkenhead and St Helens as Liverpool.
It would look the same because all the plans and programs would be opposed by local people and councils and blocked by protestors demanding nothing ever be built near them. At least until planning reforms come in to play.
There’s no consistency in how city populations in the UK are counted. The lists that have Leeds 3rd count all the London boroughs separately, count Manchester as just the historic bit of the city, yet have Leeds sprawling all the way from Birstal to the outskirts of Harrogate. Some lists also bizarrely put Bradford like fifth because they include places as far flung as Settle.
Maybe not today or maybe not tomorrow, maybe not even next month, but one day Leeds will might get metro or have the project downgraded to a fucking tram.
I don’t have high hopes especially given recent announcements. Which is a real shame.
I you like really really like to see and listen too a touching moments and you know Chopin...Go on Youtube and watch the poor blind girl with double 16 chromosomes play Chopin at the Leeds Station. The video is commented by Lang Lang and Miky.
If you don't cry as her playing is pure piano voice playing....I don't know what to tell you...
So you don't see much of Leeds, but its my way of putting people to see her.
Youtube : Type ....Lucy blind girl Leeds station London.....The video with Lang Lang face on it with Lucy....Must listen to the 8min25sec one.
Mery Christmass....You will pass a Wonderfull moment of human communion..
Unfortunately this city has been held back by zero investment in local city rail transport, despite its near 500k population and an airport nearby. British politicians don’t care about the North
It still is a fairly 'short' city, even though this picture is at least five-years out of date and things have gotten noticeably taller since.
The UK and Europe generally don't build tall. There's Frankfurt, London, Istanbul, and Moscow all with a decent amount, a few in places like Warsaw, La Défense in Paris, Rotterdam, and Manchester, and then that's kind of it as far as I'm aware.
I'm assuming the OP meant urban areas with Greater London (centred around the cities of London and Westminster), then Greater Manchester (centred around the cities of Salford and Manchester), then West Midlands (centred around Birmingham), 4th is the West Yorkshire (centred around the cities of Bradford and Leeds).
If you look at cities proper then it would be Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, and Sheffield 4th (the city of London is actually tiny and Manchester is 5th biggest).
What a strange remark to make. The UK isn’t alone in over-reliance on its capital. The same can be said for the majority of countries around the world.
Significant efforts have been made to diversify wealth and growth across the country, but one could hardly say that the rest of the UK is a backwater. Rather, having one of, if not the most globally economic cities as its capital, the over-reliance is to an extent, understandable and arguably even, a good strategy for a small island nation.
One of your examples, Madrid, accounts for almost as great a share of Spain’s economic output as London.
Slightly old source but you’re trying to suggest the UK is uniquely reliant on London, which isn’t even true amongst developed countries, a distinction which you didn’t make (amongst all countries, heavy reliance on one city is very much the norm).
Most of your other examples are from much younger countries (Italy, Germany) countries where the capital has frequently moved (China) and countries like the US where the capital was purpose built to avoid the most powerful city also being the centre of government (amongst other reasons in that case).
Thanks for the source very interesting! And my mistake about Madrid.
But nowhere did I suggest that London and the UK are unique, just that they are quite reliant compared to many other countries.
And the reason behind the differences is not relevant for the point I was making though. There are good reasons why the UK relies so much on London, but those reasons don't magically make the reliance less.
I believe you are looking at this in an overly simplistic manner. Most people do, especially Londoners themselves, but as someone from elsewhere in the UK it is frustrating to be told constantly about how much we rely on London without the reverse case being considered.
I will hunt out the studies if you are interested, but people vastly underestimate the growth dampening effect of London on the rest of the country through factors like the national brain-drain (the most highly skilled and educated from across the country love to London for the higher wages etc.) and other factors.
Every initiative to boost the economies of other parts of the UK is portrayed as a generous handout, when in reality London benefits enormously from the rest of the country at the expense of it.
Fascinating argument and really like your last paragraph. As somebody from a deprived coastal city, who ended up working in London, it really resonates with me.
I think you're over interpreting what I said, from a personal insecurity/frustation.
All I'm talking about with 'reliance' is how big the gdp of a city is compared to a countries.
Of course there are countless stories behind why that is the case and how it affects the rest of the country, but I said nothing about it. I do recognize it though from the Netherlands as well, where he government invests way more in the west (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag) and there is a drain of the rest of the country too.
But that stands completely separate from my point I made earlier.
What I should have been clearer about was that I am trying to push back against “reliance” being a fair term, I don’t think a raw share of GDP necessarily belays a reliance as the huge economic growth of London is itself built on some level of reliance on the rest of the country. I realise I failed to directly link back to your original point though, and also would like to add that it’s nice to have a debate online where neither side is rude!
London contributes less to UK gdp and gdp per capita than Paris does for France.
What's unique about the UK is not it's over-relience on the wealth of London. It's the wealth of small cities like Cambridge whilst large cities like Birmingham underperform compared to the national average
Wrong. You are right to point out several countries that are not as reliant on their capital. There are (by most rankings) 197 countries in the world. Unless you can provide evidence that at least 99 other countries are less economically reliant on their capital then you can’t disagree with my statement.
If we were talking most economically developed countries, then you would be correct. That’s not what I said though.
UK government won't invest outside of London. Leeds is the biggest city in Europe without a mass rapid transit system. Labor pulled the plug on Trams in early 2000s and has done it again now. Go to Ethiopia they have Trams but not here.
Thatchers Tories are more to blame for our abysmal transport infrastructure than labour is. You can't privatise rail and infrastructure easily as they're static lines you cannot easily increase supply or demand for.
They're public services and they should be run as such.
They are all shit, I have given up on anyone giving a shit about it, Leeds will be the biggest city in Europe without a mass transit system until the late 2030s which just goes to show how shit the UK is. You can't even get on an express bus between Leeds and Bradford at rush hour.
Lots of empty plots/ low rise stuff that I'm sure will make way for taller developments in the future
There already are lots of high rises going up, this image looks quite outdated
About 7-10 years out of date
Most of emty lots are just parking now with some NR land mixed in
Why?
Why what? Why would empty plots be developed in a city that is seeing huge investment over recent years?
Why would they just build tall buildings in the middle of a city?
guy on a skyscraper subreddit baffled by the concept of tall buildings in a city centre
Baffled by the assumption that the only choice for an undeveloped plot in a city is a skyscraper. Check out “gedempte zuiderdokken” in Antwerp. That’s adding to quality of life, not creating a monstrosity that leads to wind nuisance, heat stress and massive shadows.
Why are you in this sub in the first place ? Looking for attention ?
Where should they build them, the edge?
Nowhere
Why are you here?
Yea everyone should be forced to live in a mid rise apartment, the European way!
?????
good question, u/grok ?
Why does the rest of the world outside of western Europe do it? Western europe and canada are the only 2 places where they dont follow the traditional skyscrapers in city centers model
This is pretty out of date. Looks like 2017 or something
An Alamy pic? Really? At least post something that isn't obscured by watermarks
That weird tall building is nicknamed the Dale (named after the Dr Who villains). It creates huge downdrafts on the roads underneath jr. I used to work in an office opposite it and my previous colleagues talked about how they once saw a lorry getting overturned by the window and I think the driver didn't survive. It's an eyesore and a menace.
This is a pretty old photo though and its a strange angle, the city centre is out of shot. It's had a lot more development since. It's a dense but low city, but it has a lot of charm.
Yeah Bridgewater place, pretty sure it's now the 2nd tallest building in Leeds after one of the giant student accom skyscrapers near the city centre
A few years ago they installed massive steel "diffusers" over the roads below to reduce the effect of the vortices which cost absolutely loads, did a case study on it for a fluids dynamics class
This is an old pic. Today, leeds has a rapidly rising skyline
https://preview.redd.it/0u0b8pkzvr8g1.jpeg?width=1938&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b65c27ac246ff4ba9a908487e399e45a23eacb89
Fifth biggest city in England, behind London, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool (even if you count urban areas).
I have a question for any English folks who might be reading this. Most of England’s large cities are well-known for their cultures even outside of the UK—Sheffield, Leeds and Manchester are somewhat ugly industrial northern cities where everyone talks like Sean Bean, Bristol’s the great city of the West Country, Liverpool’s got its own unique slightly more nautical culture, etc.
But Birmingham—England’s second largest city—I could tell you nothing about. I would describe myself as an Anglophile in the sense that I’m low-key-obsessed with UK culture, and I feel pretty well equipped to tell people the basics of any of the UK’s top ten population centers except the second largest one. Is this purely because of ignorance? What is Birmingham known for within the UK? What are the people there like compared to everyone else?
Birmingham started the whole music genre of Metal.
And gangs with razors in their caps
Birmingham's just very bland. Lots of it destroyed in the war and some more destroyed to make way for roads. It was an industrial city back in the day as well but not close to other large cities. Nowadays it has a lot of satellite towns and cities nearby with it being the heart of the West Midlands. Manchester and others absorbed most of their surrounding towns. Birmingham football has been a bit poor as well in the last 30 years unlike Manchester, Liverpool and Leeds. Manchester just has more soft power in media as well compared to brum hence brum feels like nothing.
Not close to other large cities 🤣🤣🤣 Birmingham was Britain's largest city during most of the Industrial Revolution (after London, obvs).
Tell me the cities Birmingham was closest to? Leicester? Derby? Nottingham?
Compare that to Manchester being a stones throw from Liverpool, Sheffield and Leeds which are all much larger than the east mids cities. Brum was just a bit isolated. And don't say Coventry or Wolverhampton are large. They were big in medieval times like Norwich, not in the victorian era.
You know that the Black Country was called the Black Country for a reason, right?
There’s basically nothing to say about Birmingham. It’s huge but it’s pretty bleak and industrial, and there’s not loads to see in terms of tourism. There’s a big food scene surrounding South Asian culture, some of the best curry in the UK apparently, and somewhat of a music scene (but still pails in comparison to London, Manchester or Liverpool).
The birthplace of Cadbury’s Chocolate. One of the greenest Cities in the UK (contrary to it being bleak), Tolkien, a diverse music scene that contains legends like Black Sabbath and UB40 as well as being the birthplace of Bhangra. Peaky Blinders was based on the City’s past etc, etc, etc…
B I R M I N G H A M : Much more than meets the eye.
Liverpool is in no way better than Brum for music what are you talking about
Not heard of the Beetles? Can’t say I listen much to their stuff but they’re one of the most famous bands of all time and basically influenced most modern mainstream music.
Birmingham has quite a few artists from different genres and niches, but nothing uber-mainstream apart from maybe The Streets.
Black Sabbath are surely more mainstream than the Streets no?
I’d say more people have heard of them but I wouldn’t say they’re exactly more mainstream if you’re not specifically into metal.
Maybe not, they are responsible for metal existing the way it does though so I'd say they're not far behind acts like the Beatles in terms of importance to music
Inventing a whole music genre. Game’s gone.
Beatles without a "double e"
People in Manchester sound nowt like Sean Bean
You don’t think so? I don’t think Karl Pilkington sounds very different from him. Perhaps it’s because I’m a dirty American, whose ears aren’t trained to notice inflection differences.
I’m from Manchester so I can tell the difference between different parts of Manchester, never mind between Lancashire and Yorkshire!
That said, everyone in south east England either sounds posh or like a cockney to me.
Similarly, last time I was in the US a fella asked if I liked his Tennessee accent, to me it sounded similar to Texas or Carolina. You don’t notice the difference if you’re not from there.
I'm a Yorkshireman and trust me we don't sound anything like people from Manchester
From your profile I assume you’re from the US,
I’d compare it to somewhere like Houston, Dallas or Phoenix. They’re huge cities and they all feature in the top 15 for population, but as a Brit I could tell you very little about them apart from they have a lot of suburbs and car parks, whereas I could think of something a tourist from abroad might want to do in most of the rest of the top 15. Birmingham is much the same. There’s not huge amounts going on.
I see.
I can certainly think of things I would want to do in Phoenix and especially Houston, but navigating those cities would almost certainly be a nightmare.
That’s too bad. Usually a country’s Second City has a lot of other things going for it, so to hear Birmingham’s so boring kind of saddens me.
Heavy Metal!
I would argue that Manchester is now the second largest population centre on most measures. It was very close at the last census in 2021 but Manchester is growing faster. Pretty sure it will be ahead at the next census in 2031 and probably is already.
Led Zeppelin
Duran Duran
ELO
Slade
Moody Blues
Spencer Davis Group
Steve Winwood
Black Sabbath
UB40
Judas Priest
The steam engine, Peaky Blinders, The Two Towers, Ozzie Osborne/Black Sabbath, Edgbaston, Muslims
Nah, post said city not "Urban areas" or "metropolitan boroughs". I think it's actually the 3rd largest in terms of population, maybe even 2nd depending on how you class London
Kind of a toss-up between Leeds and Liverpool it seems. I had always been under the impression Leeds was the more populated, but maybe not.
Seems you're right but it is so surprising to me. Liverpool has such a distinct culture and history and seems to have stayed really relevant, whilst Leeds just seems so irrelevant. I never hear of anything interesting coming out of Leeds. No hate it's just surprising.
Leeds has massive legal, financial and education sectors. It is very relevant.
It's GVA is at least a third higher than Liverpool
I thought Leeds was bigger than Liverpool, but behind those other three. Perhaps I was wrong.
It's bigger than both Manchester, the city, not the county and Liverpool.
As I mentioned to someone else, the city of Manchester is a lot bigger than the official council border. Archaic and irrelevant “city proper” borders made well over half a century ago or before should not be used to accurately measure somewheres population.
Parts of Salford and Trafford make up clear parts of the inner city of Manchester despite being different council areas. The same thing exists for London, Bristol, Reading, Newcastle and loads more (even Leeds to a certain extent). Just because the official city limits that were drawn up a long time ago differ in scope, does not make Leeds bigger than Manchester as a modern functioning city.
Leeds is generally considered bigger than Liverpool in terms of population within its city boundaries, often ranking as the second or third largest in the UK after Birmingham and Manchester, while Liverpool is usually further down the list, though the Liverpool City Region is massive. Population Comparison (City Proper) Leeds: Around 800,000+ people. Liverpool: Around 490,000+ people.
I’ve made various other comments about this same topic, but again it’s based on outdated and frankly irrelevant “city proper” boundaries. They just aren’t a reliable and modern way of working out the population or size of a city.
Leeds is definitely bigger than Liverpool
Leeds is bigger than Manchester and Liverpool.
In terms of archaic city limits, the “city of Leeds” may be bigger than the “city of Manchester” but in terms of reality, it’s very much smaller.
Yes but Stockport, Oldham, Salford etc. aren't technically Manchester. They don't even share the same councils.
Metro areas are the best method to compare population.
Greater Manchester is significantly bigger than Greater Leeds.
And sharing a council means very little. Most metro areas around the world are a combination of numerous councils/municipal bodies.
I'm aware that metro areas cover different councils, but if you were to say someone from Long Beach is from LA, they probably wouldn't be very happy.
They really wouldn’t care. I promise you. They know they are very much part of the LA metro area.
I now live 60 miles from Denver.
I’m not even in the Denver metro area, but most of us around here would describe ourselves that way when introducing ourselves.
Fair enough. But what about cities like San Jose, that is technically bigger than San Francisco, but people would consider it to be part of the metro area.
San Jose is officially a separate metro area to San Francisco.
But in practice most people recognize the Bay Area as one giant metro and I don’t know anyone from there who objects to a generic Bay Area or SF label.
Someone from Long Beach is from LA.
Salford is another city in itself, never mind a council
I live in Stockport, when people say they’re going into town they are usually referring to Manchester.
I suppose that is probably what they would call the main place to go shopping, but it would surprise me if they actually do consider themselves Manchester, considering they have their own town centre and council. I can see more of an argument for them being part of Manchester than say, Wigan or Bolton though.
Yeah but London is made up of 32 different councils, that doesn’t mean that only Westminster or City of London are the only parts that are actually London.
The Leeds boundary includes parts that are really far out of the city and some bits of literal countryside. ‘City Proper’ borders don’t really mean much anymore.
I get your point, and I probably would consider places like Salford more Manchester than Wetherby or Otley is Leeds, but I still would never call places like Wigan, Bolton or Rochdale Manchester. They are way too far out to even be considered as Manchester imo. There isn't even a direct bus from Manchester to Wigan. Even Warrington has one and that's in Cheshire.
There are plenty of direct buses from Rochdale and Bolton into central Manchester, I’m talking like multiple routes each. All of which are local stopping and serve as suburban feeders into the centre. Rochdale also has the Manchester tram network.
Salford, Trafford, Tameside, Oldham, Rochdale, Bolton and Bury are just as much parts of Manchester as Bramley, Kirkstall and Horsforth are to Leeds. Wetherby and Otley are completely separated by countryside, all the Manchester boroughs seamlessly blend into the city’s urban sprawl. The border between Manchester and Salford is directly in the city centre. If the historic irrelevant boundary of Leeds excluded everything south of the river Aire, you wouldn’t consider the inner city areas just next to the train station as “not Leeds”.
Wigan isn’t really part of “the city of Manchester” though.
I know there's plenty of bus routes from Bolton and Rochdale into Manchester, but my point was about Wigan not them 2 which people still try and lump it into Manchester. Rochdale does have the tram network into Central Manchester, yes you're right, but Chester, Southport, Ormskirk and Ellesmere Port also have the Merseyrail linked to Liverpool for them and they are way too far out to be considered Liverpool. Same with Sunderland being linked to the Newcastle metro, and Reading being linked on the London Underground. So I don't think that's the best argument to make when trying to call Rochdale Manchester. As for considering them Manchester, again with Bury, I can see arguments being made to consider it Manchester (even though I don't consider it Manchester), but Rochdale and Bolton are too far out. They have enough countryside as well to separate themselves from the city. It's not a lot of countryside, but it's enough. If your logic was correct about Rochdale and Bolton being part of Manchester, then by that logic, Dewsbury, Wakefield, Huddersfield, Halifax and Bradford would also be part of Leeds which they definitely aren't. Bradford is more connected with Leeds than Rochdale and Bolton are to Manchester but no one would regard Bradford as Leeds. It's same for regarding Rotherham as Sheffield as well and Birkenhead and St Helens as Liverpool.
Let’s agree to completely disagree, couldn’t disagree more.
I'm married to a Brit and go to England once or twice a year, and I've barely heard of that place
Wonder how the city would look with lots of investment from the government. It is still the largest city in Europe without a tram.
It would look the same because all the plans and programs would be opposed by local people and councils and blocked by protestors demanding nothing ever be built near them. At least until planning reforms come in to play.
Planning and Infrastructure is law now. Gov wants to go further with it tho.
I always thought Sheffield was the 4th.
There’s no consistency in how city populations in the UK are counted. The lists that have Leeds 3rd count all the London boroughs separately, count Manchester as just the historic bit of the city, yet have Leeds sprawling all the way from Birstal to the outskirts of Harrogate. Some lists also bizarrely put Bradford like fifth because they include places as far flung as Settle.
Leeds, Bradford & Wakefield are both a City and Metropolitan District with City Status.
Just depends which you choose to count for the population list. Personally I go with the district.
It is. Leeds is 3rd not 4th.
There's a lot of skyscrapers in both Leeds and Manchester now.
So it follows
This is an old pic, there is way more to Leeds' skyline today. Bit of a low effort post.
Maybe not today or maybe not tomorrow, maybe not even next month, but one day Leeds
willmight get metro or have the project downgraded to a fucking tram.I don’t have high hopes especially given recent announcements. Which is a real shame.
Very nice. I assume it is the 4th largest skyline in UK, after London, Manchester and Birmingham, but correct me if I am wrong.
Drop off from the top 2 is crazy!
At Leeds station...
I you like really really like to see and listen too a touching moments and you know Chopin...Go on Youtube and watch the poor blind girl with double 16 chromosomes play Chopin at the Leeds Station. The video is commented by Lang Lang and Miky.
If you don't cry as her playing is pure piano voice playing....I don't know what to tell you...
So you don't see much of Leeds, but its my way of putting people to see her.
Youtube : Type ....Lucy blind girl Leeds station London.....The video with Lang Lang face on it with Lucy....Must listen to the 8min25sec one.
Mery Christmass....You will pass a Wonderfull moment of human communion..
Make that listen to people around you...
Here is the link...I forgot...
https://youtu.be/94wGs8KhJho?si=RqyK4oOPk9QG96h6
I absolutely love how that looks
Unfortunately this city has been held back by zero investment in local city rail transport, despite its near 500k population and an airport nearby. British politicians don’t care about the North
One Club City.
.... Are the skyscrapers in the room with us?
It still is a fairly 'short' city, even though this picture is at least five-years out of date and things have gotten noticeably taller since.
The UK and Europe generally don't build tall. There's Frankfurt, London, Istanbul, and Moscow all with a decent amount, a few in places like Warsaw, La Défense in Paris, Rotterdam, and Manchester, and then that's kind of it as far as I'm aware.
There's been a hell of a lot of development since the photo was taken, albeit nothing over 150m yet.
Lots of 100m+ though, which is encouraging. It's a very dense mid rise city at the minute.
Tired trope
The 4th biggest city in the country looks like a random suburb in London?
No but when the kid who constantly gets F's gets a C, you gotta praise a little
Only 60 million people in the UK you have to remember
It’s just about to hit 70 million.
There's more than just the picture like Wetherby, Harewood, Pudsey and Morley
Quick question what is England third biggest city. It goes 1. London 2. Birmingham 3.??? 4. Leeds.
Manchester
Thank you!
Manchester is smaller than Leeds.
Looks pretty small
It's not
Out of interest, which 3 cities are you considering bigger than Leeds?
I’d imagine London, Birmingham and Manchester.
I've done some googling...
I'm assuming the OP meant urban areas with Greater London (centred around the cities of London and Westminster), then Greater Manchester (centred around the cities of Salford and Manchester), then West Midlands (centred around Birmingham), 4th is the West Yorkshire (centred around the cities of Bradford and Leeds).
If you look at cities proper then it would be Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, and Sheffield 4th (the city of London is actually tiny and Manchester is 5th biggest).
London, Birmingham and there is no 3rd tbh.
Once the most polluted city in the world!
Without London England would be a backwater. Crazy.
What a strange remark to make. The UK isn’t alone in over-reliance on its capital. The same can be said for the majority of countries around the world.
Significant efforts have been made to diversify wealth and growth across the country, but one could hardly say that the rest of the UK is a backwater. Rather, having one of, if not the most globally economic cities as its capital, the over-reliance is to an extent, understandable and arguably even, a good strategy for a small island nation.
[deleted]
One of your examples, Madrid, accounts for almost as great a share of Spain’s economic output as London.
Slightly old source but you’re trying to suggest the UK is uniquely reliant on London, which isn’t even true amongst developed countries, a distinction which you didn’t make (amongst all countries, heavy reliance on one city is very much the norm).
Most of your other examples are from much younger countries (Italy, Germany) countries where the capital has frequently moved (China) and countries like the US where the capital was purpose built to avoid the most powerful city also being the centre of government (amongst other reasons in that case).
Thanks for the source very interesting! And my mistake about Madrid.
But nowhere did I suggest that London and the UK are unique, just that they are quite reliant compared to many other countries.
And the reason behind the differences is not relevant for the point I was making though. There are good reasons why the UK relies so much on London, but those reasons don't magically make the reliance less.
I believe you are looking at this in an overly simplistic manner. Most people do, especially Londoners themselves, but as someone from elsewhere in the UK it is frustrating to be told constantly about how much we rely on London without the reverse case being considered.
I will hunt out the studies if you are interested, but people vastly underestimate the growth dampening effect of London on the rest of the country through factors like the national brain-drain (the most highly skilled and educated from across the country love to London for the higher wages etc.) and other factors.
Every initiative to boost the economies of other parts of the UK is portrayed as a generous handout, when in reality London benefits enormously from the rest of the country at the expense of it.
Fascinating argument and really like your last paragraph. As somebody from a deprived coastal city, who ended up working in London, it really resonates with me.
I think you're over interpreting what I said, from a personal insecurity/frustation.
All I'm talking about with 'reliance' is how big the gdp of a city is compared to a countries.
Of course there are countless stories behind why that is the case and how it affects the rest of the country, but I said nothing about it. I do recognize it though from the Netherlands as well, where he government invests way more in the west (Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Den Haag) and there is a drain of the rest of the country too.
But that stands completely separate from my point I made earlier.
What I should have been clearer about was that I am trying to push back against “reliance” being a fair term, I don’t think a raw share of GDP necessarily belays a reliance as the huge economic growth of London is itself built on some level of reliance on the rest of the country. I realise I failed to directly link back to your original point though, and also would like to add that it’s nice to have a debate online where neither side is rude!
Now I get your point better, that the term reliance def has more connotations that I didn't mean.
Good to keep in mind in the future:)
London contributes less to UK gdp and gdp per capita than Paris does for France.
What's unique about the UK is not it's over-relience on the wealth of London. It's the wealth of small cities like Cambridge whilst large cities like Birmingham underperform compared to the national average
Wrong. You are right to point out several countries that are not as reliant on their capital. There are (by most rankings) 197 countries in the world. Unless you can provide evidence that at least 99 other countries are less economically reliant on their capital then you can’t disagree with my statement.
If we were talking most economically developed countries, then you would be correct. That’s not what I said though.
Lol, and unless you can come up with evidence you can't disagree with my statemant.
Rules for thee, not for me. Don't be so hypocritical. If you ask evidence for my claim, lets first see the evidence to support your own.
Leeds is actually a really nice city, much better than this aerial photo would suggest. Likely a better place to live than wherever you are
a backwater with the Cotswolds, fine by me
UK government won't invest outside of London. Leeds is the biggest city in Europe without a mass rapid transit system. Labor pulled the plug on Trams in early 2000s and has done it again now. Go to Ethiopia they have Trams but not here.
Labour*.
Thatchers Tories are more to blame for our abysmal transport infrastructure than labour is. You can't privatise rail and infrastructure easily as they're static lines you cannot easily increase supply or demand for.
They're public services and they should be run as such.
They are all shit, I have given up on anyone giving a shit about it, Leeds will be the biggest city in Europe without a mass transit system until the late 2030s which just goes to show how shit the UK is. You can't even get on an express bus between Leeds and Bradford at rush hour.
That’s what you get from 1000 years of centralised government
What a load of shit
Where are you from?
Bullshit