fhain29 Posted November 14, 2004 Share Posted November 14, 2004 Originally posted by goat Birmingham is a classic example. If you take Birmingham as a local authority then you involve West Bromwich, Wolverhampton, Dudley etc and the population is nearing the 5 million mark! However Birmingham as a city includes Aston etc and this is city boundaries where Birmingham city council rules and not the LA of Birmingham. That should be the other way round.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bean55788 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by Johnboy Sheffield is the 4th largest city in England and 5th in the UK(Glasgow is larger than Sheffield) thats correct Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain_Scarlet Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by bean55788 thats correct I used to think that until I saw Sheffield's stats showing that it is the third after Birmingham... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goat Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 No Sheffield is smaller than Manchester, both in population and area. And Wolverhampton and Dudley are cities/towns in their right so therefore are no part of Birmingham when it comes to census's such as size, whereas Aston is declared a suburb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonMMUK Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 According to the German Government's City Population Database (which uses the 2001 Census data) and which seems to be completely reliable and unbiased, the following is true: POPULATION STATS FOR ENGLAND - ACTUAL CITY POPULATIONS 1. London - 7,172,091 2. Birmingham - 980,892 3. Liverpool - 469,017 4. Leeds - 443,247 5. SHEFFIELD - 439,866 6. Bristol - 420,556 7. Manchester - 394,269 8. Leicester - 330,547 9. Coventry - 303,475 10. Hull - 301,416 closely followed by Bradford, Stoke, Wolverhampton, Nottingham, Plymouth, Southampton, Reading, Derby, Dudley and Newcastle. POPULATION STATS FOR ENGLAND - INCLUDING URBAN AGGLOMORATIONS 1. London (Greater London) - 8,278,251 2. Birmingham (West Midlands) - 2,284,093 3. Manchester (Greater Manchester) - 2,244,931 4. Leeds - 1,499,465 5. Newcastle - 879,996 6. Liverpool - 816,216 7. Nottingham - 666,358 8. SHEFFIELD - 640,720 9. Bristol - 551,066 10. Brighton - 461,181 closely followed by Portsmouth, Leicester, Bournemouth, Reading, Middlesbrough, Stoke, Coventry, Birkenhead, Southampton and Hull. It seems that the Leeds listing for "urban agglomoration" includes sizeable places such as Bradford (294,000), Huddersfield (148,000), Dewsbury (50,000), Halifax (77,000) and Wakefield (75,000) - a bit of a cheat if you ask me. The Manchester "urban agglomoration" includes Bolton, Stockport, Salford, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Wigan and MANY others. The Birmingham "urban agglomoration" includes Wolverhampton, Walsall, Dudley, West Bromwich, Sutton Coldfield and Solihull, which all have over 100,000 inhabitants. The Newcastle "urban agglomoration" includes Gateshead and South Shields, but NOT Sunderland, which is listed separately. The Liverpool "urban agglomoration" includes St. Helens and Bootle, which are both pretty big; the Nottingham "urban agglomoration" includes Beeston, Clifton, Arnold and West Bridgford (also all pretty big). Sheffield, on the other hand, only manages to capture Rotherham and Chapeltown - with a measly 139,000 between them. Barnsley, Doncaster, Hatfield and all the others are listed on their own. I'd say we suffer because we are a standalone city! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by JonMMUK I'd say we suffer because we are a standalone city! I'd say it's good that we are surrounded by countryside instead of smaller towns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonMMUK Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by nick2 I'd say it's good that we are surrounded by countryside instead of smaller towns. Well, I agree in terms of how nice the actual city is... I was meaning more than we suffer in terms of our "league standing" in relation to our "larger" ahem ahem, neighbours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nick2 Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 Originally posted by JonMMUK Well, I agree in terms of how nice the actual city is... I was meaning more than we suffer in terms of our "league standing" in relation to our "larger" ahem ahem, neighbours. What does it matter, we could be a bigger city, but we could also end-up like Leeds, not a nice thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted November 15, 2004 Share Posted November 15, 2004 I agree .It doesnt really matter whether we are the 4th or 5th largest City. What happens here in Sheffield is the most important thing and the beauty of the surrounding countryside that is unique to us means that no other City can compete with that. The only thing that Sheffield lacks in terms of location is its proximity to the sea. Best seaside resort for beauty is maybe Filey, Whitby,Scarborough,Robin Hoods Bay or maybe north Wales, though it is a bit of a drive to get to them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickmiles85 Posted November 17, 2004 Share Posted November 17, 2004 Sorry but living in Wigan I wouldnt exactly say its nextdoor to Manchester. Its something like 20miles from the centre! Thats like going from Sheff to Barnsley and Donny easily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.