City status in the UK - why do so many towns want to become cities?

Posted by crabtreerabbit_97@reddit | AskABrit | View on Reddit | 57 comments

At one time the word "city" meant something, either somewhere very big or somewhere with a cathedral, and in many cases both. But having a cathedral hasn't been a requirement for a long time now and whenever there's a royal occasion, any large town or borough can put a city status bid in.

But the places that have been given city status in recent years and decades just look and feel like towns. Does being given the title of city in the 21st century really achieve anything? Wolverhampton was made a city in 2000 and I live on the edge of the borough, but it hasn't really changed or improved Wolverhampton as the centre is mainly run down, while other towns and districts they took over like Bilston and part of Coseley (my area) are neglected.

Still, Wolverhampton's got a premier league football team, a university and a theatre. I couldn't believe it though when I heard Southend on Sea had been made a city. From what I saw on Google maps it just looks like an ordinary town (and not a pleasant seaside-type town, but a very urban looking place) with a long sea front full of amusement arcades like Blackpool.

[-]

UnableAd457@reddit

St Davids in Wales. Now thats taking the piddle.

[-]

laneyboy101@reddit

Also from Wolverhampton and it still feels like a big town to me rather than a proper city. It hasn't really changed or expanded since becoming a city apart from taking over other areas like Bilston which I suppose is technically part of Wolves these days, but still feels separate.

Southend being a city is ridiculous, the place is tiny. It takes about 5 minutes to drive through it to the seafront.

[-]

crabtreerabbit_97@reddit (OP)

It only become a city in 2000, it took over Bilston and other places in 1966 and I agree it still feels like a big town. What I dislike is how decades before Wolves became a city they promoted the borough as "one town" which was arrogant as they were deliberately ignoring the separate identities of Bilston, Wednesfield etc. Before city status it was another Black Country borough like Dudley and Walsall boroughs

[-]

laneyboy101@reddit

Crazy how Bilston etc. became part of Wolverhampton that long ago. Nobody from those places describes themselves as coming from Wolverhampton, they'll say they're from Bilston, Wednesfield etc.

[-]

crabtreerabbit_97@reddit (OP)

And I agree about Southend as well

[-]

crabtreerabbit_97@reddit (OP)

Since Wolverhampton became a city the station platform signs say "city of Wolverhampton", I remember when I went to Durham (a city for centuries) and my train went through Derby, Sheffield, Leeds and York and none of these places or Durham have "city of" on their station signs. It's almost like Wolverhampton want to show off that they're officially a city.

[-]

OkTadpole2920@reddit

It used to be the case that a city was only a city, if it had a cathedral.

[-]

crabtreerabbit_97@reddit (OP)

That was what I mentioned as well

[-]

HaggisPope@reddit

At one point back in around the 1740s the Queen was keen on removing Edinburgh’s city status because an angry mob killed the captain of the city watch that she’d pardoned for ordering the police to fire on a crowd. Back then it had some potential impact on the city’s right to maintain walls, which was more like a toll system than anything. We got to keep them then removed them voluntarily 15 years or so later as they were no longer considered necessary.

[-]

Panceltic@reddit

Oh yes, George II, the famous Queen of the 1740s

[-]

HaggisPope@reddit

From what I’ve read, his wife was one of the main drivers of this proposal

[-]

Panceltic@reddit

That is correct!

[-]

Dennyisthepisslord@reddit

It's going to be like America when almost every large town is a city so much so it loses all meaning

[-]

mrggy@reddit

"City" "town" "villiage" etc are just aesthetic labels in the US. They're not official designations and their use isn't regulated. Legally, they're all considered municipalities. Municipalities all have the same basic functions regardless of size

[-]

Panceltic@reddit

I think a city is actually the default option for an incorporated settlement there, especially in the west. Welcome to the City of Mechanicsville (pop. 630)

[-]

crabtreerabbit_97@reddit (OP)

I agree totally

[-]

sailors_jerry@reddit

I'm a Brummie and I can see the point of Wolves being made a city for the reasons you stated and because it's got its own Local Authority.

To answer the question I think it's commercial bragging rights that's behind the drive for city status.

[-]

Panceltic@reddit

They want to become cities purely because they then get to call themselves cities. That’s all there is to it in modern times.

[-]

Icy_Wolverine_8236@reddit

Cities are larger hubs for commercial gains.

[-]

Oldham_athletic@reddit

Oldham should be made into a city

[-]

First-Lengthiness-16@reddit

Isn’t it just a down market part of Rochdale?

[-]

Oldham_athletic@reddit

Ha no Rochdale has a Oldham post code mate pretty much the opposite

[-]

Panceltic@reddit

Taking postcodes into account makes no sense at all. Wrexham has a Llandudno postcode.

[-]

UnluckyConstruction9@reddit

It’s not just Wrexham. It’s all of North Wales. But the Mail Centre for the LL postcode is in Chester.

[-]

Panceltic@reddit

I know, I was justs saying that postcode areas don’t mean anything

[-]

Sad_Firefighter_8407@reddit

https://youtu.be/Whqs8v1svyo

[-]

Winston_Carbuncle@reddit

Haven't clicked - map men men?

[-]

Winston_Carbuncle@reddit

Clicked. It's map men men men

[-]

s_l_a_c_k@reddit

Men

[-]

MinimumCut140@reddit

Man men

[-]

Sad_Firefighter_8407@reddit

Hahah you didn’t even give me a minute to say yes.

[-]

Winston_Carbuncle@reddit

The anticipation got the better of me

[-]

Sad_Firefighter_8407@reddit

You gotta know just how to lead.

You’re lucky it wasn’t a Rick roll ;)

[-]

MonkeyBoy697@reddit

City status should be given when a place hits a specified population really - like London (9.9m), Manchester (2.8m), Birmingham (2.7m) and Glasgow (1.7m) make sense as they’re all over 1m population

Leeds, Bournemouth, Edinburgh, Leicester, Brighton, Belfast, Bristol, Sheffield, Nottingham, Newcastle, Liverpool and Southampton also make sense as they’re all 500k-just under 1m

So just pulling a number out of my arse here, but if a town goes above a population of, say, 250k it should be a City… and anything from, say, 5k-250k should be a Town, and below 5k it’s a Village - codify and simplify that shit

[-]

Panceltic@reddit

London is not a city technically. There are two cities in the territory of Greater London: the City of London (population 15k) and the City of Westminster (population 209k).

Similarly, the City of Manchester has a population of 589k. Greater Manchester has a population of 3m and it includes another city in its own right (Salford, 294k).

[-]

terryjuicelawson@reddit

Think about it, if you were in charge of a town of a reasonable size. and there came an option to be put forward to be formally called a city, why wouldn't you. It is just kinda nice, it doesn't mean the place will be instantly transformed.

[-]

BuncleCar@reddit

Jay Forman explains in his humorous way

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Whqs8v1svyo

[-]

Vast_Cup_7534@reddit

It's mainly about prestige, though there may be some potential economic benefits, with a city probably more likely to attract tourism and outside investment than a town.

[-]