New Cities

[507020]

The disconnect between cathedral status and city status happened in the last 1700s/early 1800s when formerly small or otherwise provincial towns suddenly became very significant (like Manchester). From then, the tendency was towards awarding city status based on size, character and inherent prestige rather than just “it’s got a cathedral”. If Blackburn got its cathedral in 1695 it would certainly be a city, but alas.

Having visited the City of Ripon and Ripon Cathedral it’s impossible to see it as anything other than the cathedral city (although lacking a vitally important railway between Harrogate and Northallerton) that it is, but it’s even harder to imagine Manchester as being small or otherwise insignificant.

What we today think of as a city as in a sprawling metropolis is an incompatible definition from just having a cathedral so why did such large places insist on claiming the word cities and not allowing places with cathedrals to continue being cities while calling themselves something new and impressive to represent the industrial powerhouses that they were?

Blackburn is now the size of town being considered to become cities and since it has a cathedral it’s the perfect choice. People locally still won’t accept Preston as a city without a purpose built cathedral. Simply designating a pre-existing church without so much as an English language service as Preston Cathedral doesn’t seem to have cut it.

 

[adrock1976]

Why doesn’t Christchurch-Bournemouth-Poole use an all-encompassing description, rather than a name? Something like South Hants Is The Heart Of Lovely England. Although as that is a bit of a mouthful it might be better to abbreviate it.

The abbreviation would spell out two words to describe an anus.

Was that the intention?

 

[GusB]

Alternatively: Sunset over Dorset is terrific.

Don't those towns have relatively elderly populations? It'd be quite a fitting description!

 

[The Ham]

Personally, I think that every town with a population exceeding, say, 90-100,000 should be classed as a city.
At least it would avoid allegations of "favouritism" or "patronage".

(By town, I mean single entity, not the artificial creations of 1974 where places like Southport or Leigh were dragged into artificial combinations.)

A level of population level would make sense, parliament have looked at classifications for settlements:

City & Town Classification of Constituencies & Local Authorities - House of Commons Library

How do cities, large towns, small towns and villages differ from one another? Our new classification of constituencies and local authorities helps in understanding differences, trends and patterns of data across Great Britain.

commonslibrary.parliament.uk

How does the classification work?​

At its simplest, the classification categorises each constituency and local authority according to the type of settlement in which the largest proportion of its population lives. To achieve this, settlements are classified according to an adjusted version of the taxonomy recently developed by the Centre for Towns:

• 12 Core Cities: twelve major population and economic centres (e.g. London, Glasgow, Sheffield)
• 24 Other Cities: other settlements with a population of more than 175,000 (e.g. Leicester, Portsmouth, Aberdeen)
• 119 Large Towns: settlements with a population between 60,000 and 174,999 (e.g. Warrington, Hemel Hempstead, Farnborough)
• 270 Medium Towns: settlements with a population between 25,000 and 59,999 (e.g. Gravesend, Jarrow, Exmouth)
• 674 Small Towns: settlements with a population between 7,500 and 24,999 (e.g. Falmouth, New Romney, Holbeach)
• 6,116 Villages and small communities: settlements with a population of less than 7,500 (e.g. Chapel-en-le-Frith, Cottenham, Menai Bridge)

This classification isn’t intended to resolve long-standing disputes about which settlements deserve to be called ‘cities’, ‘towns’, or ‘villages’. In fact, it takes no account of the ceremonial definition of ‘city’, using the term only as a way to identify larger settlements. For instance, St Albans is identified as a ‘large town’ here because its population is 86,000 – even though it has city status. Luton, on the other hand, doesn’t have city status, but is classified here as an ‘Other City’ because its population is 225,000.

 

[DelW]

The abbreviation would spell out two words to describe an anus.

Was that the intention?

I think that was the (w)hole point of the post!

 

[Trackman]

Is it correct that a town that becomes a city receives no financial gain or any gain in fact?

 

[Gloster]

Is it correct that a town that becomes a city receives no financial gain or any gain in fact?

Probably the only advantage is that a place can give an impression of being more important and interesting than it is. This might have a few commercial advantages in getting interest for businesses or by potential tourists, but probably not much. Whether there is an advantage for councillors and senior council staff in being able to justify higher pay and allowances, as well as extra (paid) positions, is another matter.

 

[Typhoon]

Probably the only advantage is that a place can give an impression of being more important and interesting than it is. This might have a few commercial advantages in getting interest for businesses or by potential tourists, but probably not much. Whether there is an advantage for councillors and senior council staff in being able to justify higher pay and allowances, as well as extra (paid) positions, is another matter.

They will probably be able to justify employing a PR company to design a new logo, letterheads, website; having some inaugural event to which only select residents will be invited (although others might be able to see the fireworks); replace road signs ('Town Centre'); possibly new robes for the Mayor and the like. They might be able to get sponsors to cough up for some of this, otherwise it will be down to the Council Tax payer. They might also use it as an excuse to jack up car parking fees.

A question I don't know the answer to. Can towns apply to be UK City of Culture? If not, that might be a reason for some places (like Bournemouth and Poole) to apply).

 

[birchesgreen]

Do folks who live in other cities call their city centres "the city"? In Brum we always refer to it as "town".

 

[Typhoon]

Do folks who live in other cities call their city centres "the city"? In Brum we always refer to it as "town".

I'm old enough to remember when Birmingham buses had a 'To City'/ 'From City' indicator but you are right. I think it depends on the size (and, perhaps, history and layout), though. My nearest city is Canterbury, I don't think I have heard anyone refer to it as 'town' (relatives who lived in Canterbury certainly didn't - 'shops', 'High Street' maybe). I think 'town' is pretty generic, I live in a town and we go to 'town'.

 

[nr758123]

I feel like you're right about Middlesbrough, though. It seems like Middlesbrough's been on the verge of city status for a while now, and coupled with the ministerial input and the reasons you've set out, it's pretty likely IMO. In the past they'd have turned their noses up at it, but the wind's blowing the other way now.

In my experience, Middlesbrough is much improved when the wind is blowing the other way.

 

[75A]

In my experience, Middlesbrough is much improved when the wind is blowing the other way.

People round here say they're going to Lesta, never the City.
The only time you here City is when they're talking about the kick ball team.

 

[Gloster]

But going to the biggest city in Britain is ‘going up to town’. If you use the word city you are going to the commercial district. (Although I am more likely to call it The Smoke.)

 

[Jimini]

Round here, we just call London "town".

 

[Meerkat]

I'd say Guidford's like that as well.

Where do you think Guildford merges with?? Its surrounded by green belt.

Of the English contenders, personally Guildford seems the most deserving. It has a cathedral, a university, is the main hub for its county, and the local football team are even called Guildford City. The only thing which might count against it is proximity to London - but it's far enough out to have its own pull.

Guildford is a town. Whatever some of the residents might think, and whether or not it has a uni and (ugly) cathedral, its just a rather faded big town.

I think that we should add a bit of jeopardy to proceedings and remove city status from one of the "minor" places that currently has it - fair enough if you want to put Wrexham in it (largest place in north Wales, as the late merlodiilw proudly pointed out) then St Davids gets relegated out of the City league - otherwise we are getting so many cities that it no longer means so much

Definitely should be one in one out, and slowly leave only the big important places as cities

It doesn't help that significant parts of 'Reading' are in the West Berkshire and Wokingham authorities.

The boundaries of Reading are nearly as mad as Nottingham!

 

[DelayRepay]

When I lived in Sheffield, everyone would say they were going to 'town', despite it being a city. Despite being a city, the council are based in the Town Hall (the City Hall being a concert venue).

Now I live in Milton Keynes, which people refer to as 'the city', even though it's only a town.

 

[Typhoon]

When I lived in Sheffield, everyone would say they were going to 'town', despite it being a city. Despite being a city, the council are based in the Town Hall (the City Hall being a concert venue).

Now I live in Milton Keynes, which people refer to as 'the city', even though it's only a town.

Somewhere like Sheffield (and where I used to live, Birmingham) doesn't need to big themselves up, they know they are big, they know they are important, they know they pull their weight and have done so for years, Smaller places want the 'city' tag for the status.

I must admit I thought Milton Keynes was a city, ah well, you live and learn!

 

[tbtc]

In my experience, Middlesbrough is much improved when the wind is blowing the other way.

Definitely should be one in one out, and slowly leave only the big important places as cities

It'd make things much more relevant and add in a touch of drama - imagine if we had City Idol every five years, the two weakest places that currently qualified for "city" status go to a public vote to eliminate one, and only that way can a Preston/ Sunderland/Wolverhampton qualify to replace them

When I lived in Sheffield, everyone would say they were going to 'town', despite it being a city. Despite being a city, the council are based in the Town Hall (the City Hall being a concert venue)

Agreed

Somewhere like Sheffield (and where I used to live, Birmingham) doesn't need to big themselves up, they know they are big, they know they are important, they know they pull their weight and have done so for years, Smaller places want the 'city' tag for the status.

It feels significant that of the biggest urban areas in the UK (say Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, London....) only two of them have traditionally had football teams with "City" in the name (Manchester and Birmingham) - most of the teams with "City" in their name are from smaller places where they feel the need to boast about it (Elgin, Brechin, Stoke, Lincoln, Coventry, Leicester, Norwich, Swansea, Exeter...) - there's civic pride to the "city" status, whereas somewhere like Leeds knows it's big and important and doesn't need to shout about it

(to be pedantic, Edinburgh City joined the fourth tier of Scottish football in 2016 but are significantly smaller than the established Hibs/Hearts)

 

[AM9]

It'd make things much more relevant and add in a touch of drama - imagine if we had City Idol every five years, the two weakest places that currently qualified for "city" status go to a public vote to eliminate one, and only that way can a Preston/ Sunderland/Wolverhampton qualify to replace them



Agreed



It feels significant that of the biggest urban areas in the UK (say Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, London....) only two of them have traditionally had football teams with "City" in the name (Manchester and Birmingham) - most of the teams with "City" in their name are from smaller places where they feel the need to boast about it (Elgin, Brechin, Stoke, Lincoln, Coventry, Leicester, Norwich, Swansea, Exeter...) - there's civic pride to the "city" status, whereas somewhere like Leeds knows it's big and important and doesn't need to shout about it

(to be pedantic, Edinburgh City joined the fourth tier of Scottish football in 2016 but are significantly smaller than the established Hibs/Hearts)

That just goes to show that football is for football fans and has little influence over any city status of the places where it is located.

 

[Busaholic]

It feels significant that of the biggest urban areas in the UK (say Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, London....) only two of them have traditionally had football teams with "City" in the name (Manchester and Birmingham)

London City Airport can't be doing much business these days, and you'd probably fit a smallish football ground into the space. I propose Leyton Orient think big, rename themselves and move lock, stock and barrel. The adjacent DLR station would be useful, and the trains could probably cope with the 'crowds' without augmentation.

 

[johnnychips]

I think it’s to do with Shakespeare and the pillars of rhetoric. Think how easy it is to say

The city of Doncaster

rather than

The town (minute awkward pause, or unnecessary extension of last word, which also emphasises its lowly status) of Doncaster

Sorry, I’ve been drinking Leffe.

 

[Busaholic]

I think it’s to do with Shakespeare and the pillars of rhetoric. Think how easy it is to say

The city of Doncaster

rather than

The town (minute awkward pause, or unnecessary extension of last word, which also emphasises its lowly status) of Doncaster

Sorry, I’ve been drinking Leffe.

Drink enough Leffe and you'll come up with the city of Scunthorpe.

 

[johnnychips]

Drink enough Leffe and you'll come up with the city of Scunthorpe.

Jeesh, I thought it was a ****ty. You’re my besht mate, you are.

EDIT: Viva La Rail UK swearing filter - yet it let you get away with Scunthorpe!

 

[GrimsbyPacer]

When did this nonsense of places only being cities if they had a royal patent start?
It's inconsistent as some cities don't have any such patent and were recorded as cities in the past without any such paperwork.
In my mind, any town with a catholic or anglican cathedral, or any primary county town can call themselves a city without looking silly. Southwell is in no worse position than Ely, and my old books clearly call it a city, so it's only in recent decades that this imaginary rule that the Queen decides has come into existance.

That said, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Rochester (with Medway), Dorchester, Colchester, Guildford, Northampton, Warwick, and Reading are all warrented cities right now.
Doncaster, Milton Keynes, Bournemouth and Dudley are huge, but size doesn't matter, nothing wrong with being a town.
I have no interest in city status in other countries.

 

[Busaholic]

Jeesh, I thought it was a ****ty. You’re my besht mate, you are.

EDIT: Viva La Rail UK swearing filter - yet it let you get away with Scunthorpe!

I've spent my life getting away with things.

 

[Meerkat]

That said, Middlesbrough, Blackburn, Rochester (with Medway), Dorchester, Colchester, Guildford, Northampton, Warwick, and Reading are all warrented cities right now.

Guildford propaganda seems to have spread wide for so many to think it should be a City!
Of your list only Middlesbrough and Reading really count in my opinion, the rest are big towns.

 

[SJL2020]

It feels significant that of the biggest urban areas in the UK (say Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, London....) only two of them have traditionally had football teams with "City" in the name (Manchester and Birmingham) - most of the teams with "City" in their name are from smaller places where they feel the need to boast about it (Elgin, Brechin, Stoke, Lincoln, Coventry, Leicester, Norwich, Swansea, Exeter...) - there's civic pride to the "city" status, whereas somewhere like Leeds knows it's big and important and doesn't need to shout about it

(to be pedantic, Edinburgh City joined the fourth tier of Scottish football in 2016 but are significantly smaller than the established Hibs/Hearts)

Before Leeds United there was Leeds City. Leeds United was only formed in 1919 after Leeds City had been expelled from the League.

 

[THC]

It's significant that of the biggest urban areas in the UK (say Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, London....) only two of them have traditionally had football teams with "City" in the name (Manchester and Birmingham) - most of the teams with "City" in their name are from smaller places where they feel the need to boast about it (Elgin, Brechin, Stoke, Lincoln, Coventry, Leicester, Norwich, Swansea, Exeter...) - there's civic pride to the "city" status, whereas somewhere like Leeds knows it's big and important and doesn't need to shout about it

(to be pedantic, Edinburgh City joined the fourth tier of Scottish football in 2016 but are significantly smaller than the established Hibs/Hearts)

Birmingham City FC only gained its "City" in 1943. And "to be pedantic" Edinburgh City FC is the second club of that name to play in the Scottish (PF) League - the original club of that name were members from 1931 to 1949.

THC

 

[The Ham]

Guildford propaganda seems to have spread wide for so many to think it should be a City!
Of your list only Middlesbrough and Reading really count in my opinion, the rest are big towns.

Indeed, which is what the link in my post above confirms (population of >175,000 needed to be a city).

 

[JGurney]

It feels significant that of the biggest urban areas in the UK (say Glasgow, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, Sheffield, Nottingham, Birmingham, London....) only two of them have traditionally had football teams with "City" in the name (Manchester and Birmingham) - most of the teams with "City" in their name are from smaller places where they feel the need to boast about it (Elgin, Brechin, Stoke, Lincoln, Coventry, Leicester, Norwich, Swansea, Exeter...) - there's civic pride to the "city" status, whereas somewhere like Leeds knows it's big and important and doesn't need to shout about it

I may be wrong, but didn't some of those date back to amateur club days when 'city' indicated the team recruited from among the townsmen while a team recruited from all the surrounding villages (so a doughnut-shaped territory) had another name? While in really big settlements that often did not apply as even outlying districts like Everton, Milwall, Fulham or Aston were populous enough to raise their own teams.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Dec 2021 ==


In the cases of Middlesbrough and Bournemouth local sensibilities may be issues. Both have nearby rivals, formerly in different counties. Some patriotic burgers of Stockton would not like the upstart Middlesbrough being declared a city, with the implication that their older settlement was a mere suburb, and similarly some of the people of Poole would not like being seen as subordinate to Bournemouth.