shambles Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Birmingham or Manchester. Go away, think about it, and come back and vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 Oh yeah, would you mind giving me arguments for and against each city as well if poss please? Ta. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Manchester isnt a city. Its a football team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Isn't Brum already the second city? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 Isn't Brum already the second city? Have a scout round t'internet and you will see Manchester marketing itself as the second city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 21, 2007 Moderator Share Posted September 21, 2007 It doesn't require much thought, its a fact - Birmingham The reason being, the city of Manchester ISN'T that big, Manchester appear to want to add, Salford and all the other council areas to get their population figures - real population of Manchester is under half a million. These other areas include Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham etc etc and these are all towns in their own right, Salford is in fact another city. If Manchester can add up all those areas population then Birmingham can add the whole of the West Midlands conurbation, Its a close run thing but the population of the West Mids is still Greater than Greater Manchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 21, 2007 Moderator Share Posted September 21, 2007 Isn't Brum already the second city? Have a scout round t'internet and you will see Manchester marketing itself as the second city. In fact they have a second city display in the urbis gallery discussing this, last time I checked it out the "debate" was being won by the brummies. It involved a load of post it notes on a wall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slowandlow Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 It doesn't require much thought, its a fact - Birmingham The reason being, the city of Manchester ISN'T that big, Manchester appear to want to add, Salford and all the other council areas to get their population figures - real population of Manchester is under half a million. These other areas include Bolton, Rochdale, Oldham etc etc and these are all towns in their own right, Salford is in fact another city. If Manchester can add up all those areas population then Birmingham can add the whole of the West Midlands conurbation, Its a close run thing but the population of the West Mids is still Greater than Greater Manchester If second city status refers specifically to size and size alone then you are bang on. The 2001 census shows that Manchester is actually about the 6th biggest city, some 600k people behind Birmingham. And as you say, even when refering to the the metropolitan areas/conurbations, "Greater" Birmingham (i.e. West Midlands) is still larger than Greater Manchester ( but only by approx 200k). I cant see that much has changed since the 2001 Census to change this all that much. However, there is an argument that suggests second city should take into account more than just population size, so it depends on criteria. Based on population, Birmingham definately is the second city, although other criteria may suggest differently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambles Posted September 21, 2007 Author Share Posted September 21, 2007 Who voted Manchester and why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjw63 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Who voted Manchester and why? Sir Alex Fergiescum ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenjos Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 The second City is Birmingham. Fact. If they want to throw in oldham, salford and those lot, we'll start adding Wolves, Walsall and Cov!!! (mkaybe Kiddy :wink:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amo69 Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Leeds is the third city so how can Manchester claim to be second from fourth? Dumb Mancs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annoyman Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 There isn't actually any official recognised Second City. Birmingham is the second largest by a long shot, but opinion polls generally point towards Manchester, based on the fact that more people like it and 40% of all good bands ever come from there. That said, I have a building sized chip on my shoulder about this and I will physically fight anybody who suggests it is Manchester. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djdabush Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 Isn't Brum already the second city? Have a scout round t'internet and you will see Manchester marketing itself as the second city. In fact they have a second city display in the urbis gallery discussing this, last time I checked it out the "debate" was being won by the brummies. It involved a load of post it notes on a wall Really? Interesting, shall have to go and make my point. Bicks is right in that, Manchester is surrounded by towns (Stockport, Bolton, Bury, Oldham etc) as well as the issue being confused with the Trafford area being run by a different council. More and more these towns are being associated with Manchester. If you look at the size of Manchester without these towns, it's really very small. I mean, Salford is almost part of Manchester city centre and Stockport must be about 4 miles away from it. The truth is even though I live in Manchester, Birmingham is by far the bigger and better city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted September 21, 2007 Moderator Share Posted September 21, 2007 I lived in Manchester for 4 years. It's an alright city but the people are arseholes. Birmingham is the Midlands' premier resort and as such should always be the UK's second city. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myb Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 You'll also hear villa v the shite referred to as the 2nd city derby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsonp Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 The second City is Birmingham. Fact. If they want to throw in oldham, salford and those lot, we'll start adding Wolves, Walsall and Cov!!! (mkaybe Kiddy :wink:) Could we do that if wolverhampton and coventry are cities in there own right EDIT: So is Salford so why the hell not Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted September 21, 2007 Moderator Share Posted September 21, 2007 The second City is Birmingham. Fact. If they want to throw in oldham, salford and those lot, we'll start adding Wolves, Walsall and Cov!!! (mkaybe Kiddy :wink:) Could we do that if wolverhampton and coventry are cities in there own right Salford is a city in its own right, its boundary also starts about a mile or less from Deansgate in Manchster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnsonp Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 The second City is Birmingham. Fact. If they want to throw in oldham, salford and those lot, we'll start adding Wolves, Walsall and Cov!!! (mkaybe Kiddy :wink:) Could we do that if wolverhampton and coventry are cities in there own right Salford is a city in its own right, its boundary also starts about a mile or less from Deansgate in Manchster Just realised after I submitted my response :oops: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lee_av Posted September 21, 2007 Share Posted September 21, 2007 The second City is Birmingham. Fact. If they want to throw in oldham, salford and those lot, we'll start adding Wolves, Walsall and Cov!!! (mkaybe Kiddy :wink:) Could we do that if wolverhampton and coventry are cities in there own right EDIT: So is Salford so why the hell not I'm quite sure that the residents of Wolves and Cov would be in uproar about being a part of Birmingham, in much the same case as those of Oldham, Stockport and Bolton would be as part of Manchester. Manchester is not as big as Leeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts