Talk: Manchester
From open-encyclopedia.com - the free encyclopedia.
| Contents |
Second largest conurbation in the UK
I have this source:
http://www.cec.org.uk/info/pubs/regional/nw/chap1p4.htm
- The Greater Manchester conurbation has a population of 2.5 million, which
- represents almost two-fifths of the North West’s total population; it is
- the second largest conurbation in the UK.
Do you have anything more authoritative? - Khendon 08:25 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
- How about wikipedia! Birmingham... this would need to be corrected too if its wrong. "Greater Manchester" is a bit misleading, as there are several large cities in the Greater Manchester area that are technically seperate authorities. However the same applies to London in this sense, and getting a firm grip on population could be difficult. Greg Godwin 08:51 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
That's why it specifically talks about the "conurbation". The Birmingham article isn't wrong either, AFAIK - it talks about the city of Birmingham, rather than the conurbation around it. Greater Manchester is made up of two cities and a collection of towns that are *administratively* separate, but it's all part of one cohesive urban "sprawl". Talking about the population of just the city of Manchester would be (as you note) as misleading as talking about just the city of London. - Khendon 09:19 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC) conurbation
- But the Birmingham page says it it forms part of a large conurbation of over four million. This would easily exceed the 2.5 million quoted for Manchester. One of these pages must be wrong. -- Chris Q 09:33 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
- OK I am sure it is the third largest so I've decided to "be bold"
"Although the population of Manchester City is only 400,000 and of Greater Manchester, 2.5 million" from http://www.commonwealthgames.ca/eng/publication/cdm/cdm0400.htm.
"Birmingham is the second largest city in the UK and has a population of over 1 million" from http://www.locatebirmingham.org.uk/pages/images/pdf_files/Key_Fact_Pack_1_in_full_colour.pdf
Why not forget the whole "conurbation" thing altogether, and just state the facts. Birmingham is the second largest city in the UK. Greg Godwin 12:40 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
- Its OK with me if you want to do that ! -- Chris Q 12:44 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
The problem with removing the "conurbation" idea and just talking about the city of Manchester is it would give a misleading impression. - Khendon 12:53 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
- I cant see an issue though. The City of Manchester has a population of 400,000 - Greater Manchester has a population of 2.5 million, why don't we just put the 400,000 in Manchester and the conurbation size in Greater Manchester, it makes perfect sense - Greg Godwin
And would you support the same criteria being applied to London? - Khendon 12:59 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
- As a compromise, why not state the population of Manchester as 400,000 but in parathesis note that the conurbation is upwards of 2.5 million. As we have a page on Greater Manchester it shouldn't be a problem. I'm not sure on population of the City of London, but I suspect it is greater than Birmingham and certainly larger than Manchester.
Population of the City of London was 5200 in 1998, according to City of London - Khendon 13:06 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
- he-he I was a little bit off then! Birmingham is commonly recognised as the second largest city in the UK, at least from everything I've read. Although I think everybody is arguing the same point here, as we have two different definations (city/conurbation) and two matching results (400,000/2.5 million). Lets just mention both figures, I can't see why not. Greg Godwin 13:21 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Let me throw a cat amoung the pigeons, Manchester is the sixth largets city!
From [1] National Statistics:
- Birmingham (1,013,431)
- Leeds (727,389)
- Sheffield (531,141)
- Bradford (483,285)
- Liverpool (461,481)
- Manchester (429,812)
- Bristol (402,310)
- Croydon (338,217)
- Cardiff (320,940)
- Wakefield (318,804)
- Dudley (311,468)
- Wigan (310,491)
- Coventry (304,334)
So by city size Machester is sixth in England and Wales!
- Yes, but that's divided along arbitrary administrative divisions. Imagine
- you had a map of the country, colour-coded by urbanisation. There would
- be a distinct cohesive urban area around each "city proper". That's the
- most useful size to use when comparing cities. Anyway, I think the
- article is now clear and accurate enough for everyone, isn't it? - Khendon 14:01 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Making claims on city size/comparisons is always going to be controversial. To think that there are only 5200 people in London!... Greg Godwin
- Controversial, but too important to skip over, I think. - Khendon 15:27 Sep 26, 2002 (UTC)
Today's scores (from the 4 Wikipedia articles)
- Manchester 391,000
- Birmingham 1,013,431
- Birmingham conurbation "around 2.2 million"
- Manchester conurbation 2,438,000
- Greater Manchester "about 2.5 million"
- West Midlands 2,552,000
Andy G 23:29 13 Jul 2003 (UTC)
- Census of 29 April 2001:
- Manchester 392,819; Greater Manchester 2,482,352
- Birmingham 977,091; West Midlands (county) 2,555,596.
- That isn't really the point, though: for one thing, the counties in neither case represent the city even at its widest extent (Bolton and Wigan aren't in Manchester any more than Coventry or Wolverhampton are in Bormingham, though they're all in the respective metropolitan counties). The real issue is that Manchester is ludicrously underbounded in comparison with say Leeds, while Birmingham is about right. If Manchester had enjoyed the same kind of boundary extension that Birmingham experienced in 1891-1931 it would be approaching a similar size - and I'm not talking here about conurbations, which can often lump together independent urban areas of similar rank.
- I still think that leaves Birmingham securely Britain's second city, but it shows that we have to be careful in throwing out rankings - I'd put Liverpool and Manchester ahead of Leeds, Sheffield and Bradford in "real" terms, ie disregarding purely administrative boundaries: as for Wakefield, Dudley and Wigan (about 310,000 apiece for the administrative area, which in each case includes neighbouring towns), I doubt any would come close to 100,000 on a similar definition. Oh, and Newcastle should be up there too with about 450,000 once Gateshead is included.
- Graculus (how do you do that time thing?)
re the number of universities: it was announced last week that the University of Manchester and UMIST are to merge, so someone should be ready to make the appropriate changes when it actually happens! Arwel 15:16 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)
population
I have adjusted the population statistics upwards because the original cesus figures have been shown to be incorrect and have been revised upwards: see here [2] just in case anyone was wondering G-Man 19:09, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
ManU
The recent addition that Old Trafford (ManU's ground) is in Trafford, is of course right. However, to someone not familiar with M'cr this sounds as if it was out somewhere... how can we bring in that Trafford is part of Greater Manchester? Kokiri 09:35, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Grauniad
The article should probably make some mention of The Guardian, altho I am unsure where and how... -- Cimon Avaro on a pogostick 13:42, Feb 19, 2004 (UTC)
- The 'media' section seems the best place, as it already mentions the Guardian's sister publication, the Manchester Evening News. I added a sentence and link. --David Edgar 15:43, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Manchester; huge economy
I would say Manchester is the second largest city because you have to include everything that makes up a city. i.e, population, economy, culture, arhitecture and so on. Manchester's economy is far suppirior to Birmingham and it (apparently)it doesnt have as much population. In terms of culture, Manchester has one; Birmingham doesnt.
sorry,, this coment above was written by me Andy Lancashire..17:22 29/04/04
Merge with City Centre article
Since the Manchester page is really about the City of Manchester, I think it should be merged with Manchester City Centre. What do people think? Bornslippy 12:55, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
People who dont support Manchester United Football Club dont like Manchester United Football Club but thats no reason to downgrade Manchester. You've got to compare cities like for like. The world's major cities such as New York and Paris are metropolis conurbations like London and Manchester. This means they are big cities which contain towns and cities within them therefore London's 7.5 Million population and Manchester's 2.5 Million population means these are the two biggest cities in the UK. But size isn't everything (well in London's and Manchester's case size is everything) because in terms of economy, being a world class city, nightlife, bars, clubs, restaurants, takeaways, quality of city, buldings, arcitecture, facilities, what the city has, tourism, travel, cultural diversity, cosmoplitism, metropolism, professionalism, theatres, universities, events, popularism (I could go on), London and Manchester are the top two cities in The UK. Just beacuse in the old days you asked someone what the second biggest city in the UK is and their response was automatically Birmingham. Birmingham is a class city and is becoming more class as we speak along with London and Manchester. The top cities in the UK in order are London, Manchester and Birmingham in terms of size, population and the list of attributes mentioned on the above list. The thing is, we have so many quality and beautiful cities in England and the other UK countries and the English people have a habit of downgrading our major cities. London, Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, and the other major cities are all class cities and are continuing to improve as any other major world city. People haven't been to these cities and due to the old ideologies crticise these cities. Infact, foreigners in a lot of cases know more about how class our English cities are than a lot of people who are English, British or living in England or the UK. It is a shame but you dont see foreigners from the countries with bigger economies like the USA, France or Germany downgrading their cities. So please be more aware and alert of the 21st century and see England, the UK and the world as it really is. People throw figures around and a lot of these especially figures given above are either figures people have heard and are not true, are historical figures or are not complete and are inaccurate especially when you rank Manchester the seventh city in England instead of its rightful second city in the UK status. From DJ Moh Trance, in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, ENGLAND.
POV and Bomb
It it really POV to say that it's fortunate that civilians escaped injury from a bomb? No matter who placed it. Cutler 13:57, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)
Popular Music
I've completey rewritten the popular music section - I have a feeling that this may be too long for this kind of article.
- Maybe you should create a separate article - something like History of popular music in Manchester? Nick Smale
