Towns Which Should Be Cities in Your Opinion

[D6130]

I suppose the most extreme example is Scotch Corner, population 0

I would think that some of the staff working at the large hotel and restaurant there may well live-in....therefore the population may be slightly more than zero. However they may be included in the population figures for the parish of Middleton Tyas.

 

[johncrossley]

Does it matter whether a locality is called a town or a city then?

If significant towns that aren't cities lose out economically or for other reasons then it could matter. There's an argument that it should be up to the local authority whether it calls itself a city or not. Milton Keynes pretended it was a city for years and many if not most people believed them. It was clear to most sensible people that it was a city in all but name. Leaving it up the local authority would probably lead to most towns becoming cities and that would probably end discussion about cities. If that happened, you could then argue that the only "true" cities are those ones created before that ruling. But they said a similar thing about the renaming of polytechnics to universities and most people nowadays wouldn't know which universities used to be polytechnics and therefore weren't "true" universities.

 

[nw1]

Think back (or imagine) to the A1 in pre-M1, pre-M6 days. Scotch Corner was (as its name implies), where coming from the south you turned off the A1 to take the A66 over Stainmore to get to southwestern Scotland (Glasgow in particular). And it's still an important waymark. And the A1 didn't (and still doesn't) go through anywhere bigger than Wetherby and Boroughbridge between Doncaster and Scotch Corner. (Sorry - Castleford should have a mention there). Mostly the signs these days say "The North" and then the name of the next town or waymark, which makes sense to me.

PS - Scotch Corner must have some residents, even if only the caretaker of the Holiday Inn - and the Vintage Inn next door - oh, and the owner of the Scotch Corner Caravan Park!

Perhaps you don't even have to go back that far. For whatever reason, on one occasion we travelled from Sussex up to Galloway in August 1987 and rather than taking the usual route up the M6, we went up the M1-M62-A1 before turning off down the A66 and heading over the Pennines to the M6 and thence to Galloway.

Presumably it was just to see a different route. My overwhelming impression of the M1 route was of current industry (large power stations such as Ratcliffe and Ferrybridge), and (sadly) decaying industry and abandoned coal mining areas.

 

[Shimbleshanks]

I’m just wondering if there are any London Boroughs that could pass as cities in their own right if they were administratively separate from the capital. Croydon and Kingston spring to mind.

Croydon had a go at becoming a city about 20 years ago but was given the brush-off. I think the official reason given was that it's contiguous with the rest of London though I suspect the real reason was its perceived lack of glamour and excitement...

 

[J-2739]

Croydon had a go at becoming a city about 20 years ago but was given the brush-off. I think the official reason given was that it's contiguous with the rest of London though I suspect the real reason was its perceived lack of glamour and excitement...

I passed through Croydon for the first time last December, and I have to say that it really does have the 'feel' and vitality of a city. A respectable-sized cluster of tall towers surrounds you as you step off the tram, with several more under construction. Almost reminded me of the area around St Peter's Square in Manchester.

Indeed, one could say that Croydon is almost like a postponed Manchester, development-wise. Whilst Manchester had a tough period in the 80s and 90s and has been undergoing a skyscraper renaissance since about 2006 (with the opening of Beetham), Croydon's bad times of the 2000s have followed into its own renaissance right now.

I know it is contiguous with the London metropolitan area, but it has some sort of independence and weight that is lacking in comparable outer London towns (such as Uxbridge and Hounslow, which still feel quite small town).

I wouldn't be too fast in dismissing Croydon's efforts yet (not aimed at you, mind!).

 

[maniacmartin]

Croydon had a go at becoming a city about 20 years ago but was given the brush-off.

They applied in 1951, 1954, 1955, 1958, 1965, 1977, 1992, 2000, 2002 and 2012. You'd think they'd get the hint by now.

Croydon's heyday was the 1960s - 1980s where it was ahead of the curve in London with all its futuristic office block towers. Sadly, Canary Wharf then got developed and any companies wanting a skyscraper office block could move there instead. The "renaissance" isn't going too well. The council recently issued its third S114 notice in 3 years (local government equivalent to bankrupcy), due to financial mismanagement

 

[J-2739]

The council recently issued its third S114 notice in 3 years (local government equivalent to bankrupcy), due to financial mismanagement

Wow! I did not know that.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think every town with at least 70,000 to 100,000 population should become a city.
(Defining town as the traditional boundaries, not the lumped-together artificial conglomerations created in, or after 1974. )

 

[Grecian 1998]

Bournemouth - the cultural and commercial centre of Dorset

Whilst I agree Bournemouth has a reasonable claim to be a city, it was part of Hampshire until 1974. Then again, the largest place in Dorset outside the BCP conurbation is Weymouth with around 50,000, so not much competition. Dorchester would probably claim to be the cultural capital, but it only has around 20,000 people, so cultural hotspots are limited.

I've always found it interesting that Bournemouth itself seems to have far more clout and renown than Poole despite the fact the towns are a similar size. The University is actually in Poole so in the part which always has been part of Dorset, but has always called itself Bournemouth University, presumably for profile reasons. That said, there seem plenty of people in Poole (like much of Dorset and the Westcountry generally) who prefer the place to be a quiet backwater.

Back on topic, I tend to the view that if city status is no longer based on religious buildings, then you may as well massively expand it to just about any large town.

There are the same size discrepancies between towns and villages. Axbridge is a town in Somerset, yet nearby the much larger and better known Cheddar is still a village. Braunton is a village in Devon which is bigger than a considerable number of towns such as Chulmleigh and Holsworthy. Kingsteignton was even larger before it finally became a town under threat of being submerged into Newton Abbot.

 

[AM9]

If significant towns that aren't cities lose out economically or for other reasons then it could matter. There's an argument that it should be up to the local authority whether it calls itself a city or not. Milton Keynes pretended it was a city for years and many if not most people believed them. It was clear to most sensible people that it was a city in all but name. Leaving it up the local authority would probably lead to most towns becoming cities and that would probably end discussion about cities. If that happened, you could then argue that the only "true" cities are those ones created before that ruling. But they said a similar thing about the renaming of polytechnics to universities and most people nowadays wouldn't know which universities used to be polytechnics and therefore weren't "true" universities.

None of that answers the question I posed, i.e. "does it really matter?". There are settlements that are successful and those that are really lacklustre. Being called a 'city' makes little actual difference, and I say that as a resident of a town that has been a city since 1877. Of course there is snob value in the award, but if it was still called a town, its success probably would be much the same.

 

[johncrossley]

None of that answers the question I posed, i.e. "does it really matter?". There are settlements that are successful and those that are really lacklustre. Being called a 'city' makes little actual difference

But how can you tell? The only way to know for sure is if you live in two parallel universes where a town is a city in one and not in another. Towns that fail to become cities seem to get upset about it.

 

[AM9]

But how can you tell? The only way to know for sure is if you live in two parallel universes where a town is a city in one and not in another. Towns that fail to become cities seem to get upset about it.

I did actually ask a question as to whether it mattered, to which you have replied with another.
It's clear that the snobbery value of city status often fires up much of the arguments, but other than a minor impact on branding of certain visitor services, most of the ire seems to come from the self-importance that civic officers desire personally. I am yet to be convinced that just annointing a settlement with the 'city' tag justifies the racour it attracts.

 

[johncrossley]

I did actually ask a question as to whether it mattered, to which you have replied with another.

The point is you can't tell whether it matters. So there could be an adverse effect on a big town that fails to acquire city status.

 

[nw1]

I passed through Croydon for the first time last December, and I have to say that it really does have the 'feel' and vitality of a city. A respectable-sized cluster of tall towers surrounds you as you step off the tram, with several more under construction. Almost reminded me of the area around St Peter's Square in Manchester.

Indeed, one could say that Croydon is almost like a postponed Manchester, development-wise. Whilst Manchester had a tough period in the 80s and 90s and has been undergoing a skyscraper renaissance since about 2006 (with the opening of Beetham), Croydon's bad times of the 2000s have followed into its own renaissance right now.

I know it is contiguous with the London metropolitan area, but it has some sort of independence and weight that is lacking in comparable outer London towns (such as Uxbridge and Hounslow, which still feel quite small town).

I wouldn't be too fast in dismissing Croydon's efforts yet (not aimed at you, mind!).

Croydon is a bit of a strange place.

My only exposure to it for many years was East Croydon station, which I visited for rail enthusiast purposes in 1986 (twice), 1987 and 1988. The perception was of a large urban centre within Greater London, with a lot of office blocks. The station was also busy and there seemed to be a lot of local commuters.

I probably imagined that it was a key shopping and (though I wasn't old enough for that) nightlife centre too.

I finally set foot in Croydon town in 2013, by which time I'd heard that relatively little went on there. Something to do with engineering works; there was nothing from East Croydon to Gipsy Hill (which I needed to reach) at all, so I walked to West Croydon to catch a rail replacement bus.

The main road linking the two was decidedly deserted and not a lot was going on. This was early November, early evening so it was dark, but not that late. It was actually a little un-nerving.

I've had the same kind of impression, but even more so, in the USA. Firstly downtown LA; lots of office blocks but little happening - and even more so, downtown Colorado Springs, loads of office blocks but literally no life at all! I was staying in the area to do some walking in the Rockies and needed to buy some things in the city, and it was a struggle finding shops let alone anything else.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Croydon is very economically disparate, having some big, expensive houses, but the sort of town centre you'd expect in a run down mostly Council town. I've always assumed the owners of those houses shop at Waitrose for their daily stuff but otherwise consider London their town/city centre, not Croydon.

To be fair Bletchley is not dissimilar, the centre is very run down but most of us never go there bar for the station (which is slightly outside anyway).

 

[Magdalia]

Croydon is a bit of a strange place.

Croydon is a 1960s invention. The Whitgift Centre dates from the late 1960s as did the big office blocks Lunar House and Apollo House (a clue in the names there).

The Fairfield Halls are a bit older but only early 1960s.

Does anyone here remember what it was like 60 years ago?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Rather than which places without city status should get it, how about removing it from places that don't justify it?

Wakefield is just a market town with a big church that by pure fluke is on a main line railway. Ripon is a similar but more extreme example, and without even the railway.

Wells is basically just a village, and should have its city status transferred to Taunton which is the administrative centre of Somerset.

 

[AM9]

The point is you can't tell whether it matters. So there could be an adverse effect on a big town that fails to acquire city status.

Would you like to suggest any that might fit what you say.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would you like to suggest any that might fit what you say.

FWIW there has been no practical effect I've noticed on Milton Keynes since we gained city status. It's just ceremonial.

 

[MikeWM]

Rather than which places without city status should get it, how about removing it from places that don't justify it?

At least you didn't mention Ely there

 

[AlterEgo]

FWIW there has been no practical effect I've noticed on Milton Keynes since we gained city status. It's just ceremonial.

In any case the city has called itself a city and acted as one for decades.

 

[AM9]

FWIW there has been no practical effect I've noticed on Milton Keynes since we gained city status. It's just ceremonial.

Probably true for Southend, although it will likely take a few years before anybody admits it. Then as @61653 HTAFC says there are some that have made little impact that may qualify for status removal.

 

[johncrossley]

Would you like to suggest any that might fit what you say.

It is impossible to say. For example, it could be said that Reading has done well economically despite not being a city. But it might have done even better had it been a city. Conversely, Bradford is considered to be quite a poor performer economically. But it might have done even worse if it wasn't a city. That is just talking about the economics. There are other factors to be considered, for example civic pride.

 

[dangie]

…… Towns that fail to become cities seem to get upset about it.

I think it’s the Town Councillors who are more likely to be upset. I’m sure most residents wouldn’t give a toss.

 

[johncrossley]

I’m sure most residents wouldn’t give a toss.

Even if most don't care, some will be at least mildly disappointed. When towns acquire city status, I'd be very surprised if more residents are sad about it than happy. I'm sure that some celebrations have occurred when towns achieve city status attended by people who aren't just going for the free party.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Shrewsbury strikes me as the most obvious candidate in England.

Wales & Northern Ireland have more than their fair share already as every time an English town gets promoted, towns in the other three home nations also get elevated. I can't think of anywhere less like a city than Wrexham which was canonized in 2022.

 

[Strathclyder]

Could Motherwell become a city? Decent transport links and has it's own postcode area.

True, it has the WCML running right through it, but Motherwell has a 'local' population of 32,840 (as of the last ceneus). Though I think it, Hamilton & Bellshill are all part of their own postcode settlement seperate from the Glasgow one nowadays; it's combined population clocks in at around 124,000.

If any town(s) in Glasgow's environs were to be granted 'city' status based purely on population numbers and nothing else, Paisley (77k) & East Kilbride (75k) would be at the top of the list.

 

[Ianigsy]

Coming from Birkenhead, I always find the question slightly difficult because a lot of large towns in the former metropolitan counties were subsumed into blandly-named metropolitan boroughs so places like Birkenhead, Oldham, Huddersfield and Halifax lost part of their civic identity. Local politics mean that there are obstacles in getting, say, Wirral Council to back city status for Birkenhead, because it doesn’t really fit with how the area as a whole sees itself. So I‘d probably let all the metropolitan boroughs have a city status and decide whether to apply it to the main settlement or the area as a whole.

Huddersfield is probably as deserving as Bradford and Wakefield in my opinion. Equally, if Douglas can have city status, why not Kirkwall? Similarly there’s probably an argument for giving it to Conwy but with the acceptance that it’s for the whole of the borough including Llandudno and the Junction.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Along those lines it does seem odd that what most people would call Manchester is made up of Manchester, Salford and a load of towns and boroughs, and London is similarly two cities and a load of boroughs.

In reality, people see London (the bit within the M25) as a city, and similarly see the contiguous built up area within the M60 (ish) as Manchester.

Milton Keynes actually fixes this, because the whole unitary authority area has city status, not just one bit of it.

 

[maniacmartin]

I'll bite with an example of somewhere that should lose city status, the "City of Brighton and Hove" (granted in 2001). A city should be a single named place. I get that, for example, Brighton and Hove are one conurbation so make sense to be governed together, but naming a city with the "and" in the name just sounds silly, especially since Hove is not the cultural or economic centre on the scale that Brighton is. The city should be Brighton, only.

What next, the City of Bath & North East Somerset?