Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why are you so focused on architecture anyway? Few cities in the world sell themselves solely on their architecture, nor does a city have to have very attractive or even iconic architecture to be worth visiting - just look at Berlin.
You proved my point. Those buildings are OK, but nothing special and that is the best Manchester can come up with. Architecture makes a city. Berlin is an attractive city in many ways with some superb architecture, that Manchester is not. Comparing Manchester, with a population of about 394,000, with Berlin is ludicrous. They are on totally different levels.
UK city populations inside city boundaries:
London 7,172,091
Birmingham 970,892
Glasgow 629,501
Liverpool 469,017
Leeds 443,247
Sheffield 439,866
Edinburgh 430,082
Bristol 420,556
Manchester 394,269
Leicester 330,574
Coventry 303,475
Kingston upon Hull 301,416
Quote:
Besides, Manchester is very close to being the third city in Britain to have more than 1 million international visits annually (other two being London and Edinburgh).
You are deluded. Tourists do not go to Manchester in great numbers, unless they are lost. They factor in people visiting the airport on overnight stays and the likes, which is actually in Stockport not Manchester. The airport is quite a way from Manchester city centre, unlike Liverpool's which is inside the city boundaries.
You proved my point. Those buildings are OK, but nothing special and that is the best Manchester can come up with. Architecture makes a city. Berlin is an attractive city in many ways with some superb architecture, that Manchester is not. Comparing Manchester, with a population of about 394,000, with Berlin is ludicrous. They are on totally different levels.
UK city populations inside city boundaries:
London 7,172,091
Birmingham 970,892
Glasgow 629,501
Liverpool 469,017
Leeds 443,247
Sheffield 439,866
Edinburgh 430,082
Bristol 420,556
Manchester 394,269
Leicester 330,574
Coventry 303,475
Kingston upon Hull 301,416
You are deluded. Tourists do not go to Manchester in great numbers, unless they are lost. They factor in people visiting the airport on overnight stays and the likes, which is actually in Stockport not Manchester. The airport is quite a way from Manchester city centre, unlike Liverpool's which is inside the city boundaries.
The buildings I posted are of architectural merit - but you claimed the opposite, rather foolishly, even though you appear to know nothing of Manchester. Manchester might not have stand-out iconic archtiecture like Liverpool's Three Graces, but it has no shortage of fine Victorian and Edwardian architecture in its city centre, usually above four storeys, creating a rather imposing and impressive big-city grandeur feel. Granted, you wouldn't go out of your way to see them, but I doubt many people go out of their way to see Liverpool's architecture either - it's mostly about The Beatles (which is, by far, Liverpool's largest selling point - I'm not sure where it would be without it!).
55 million visitors to the Liverpool City Region? Domestically, maybe. I am strictly talking about international visitors. Manchester Airport is also not in Stockport, but is in the City of Manchester metropolitan district, and also partly in Cheshire - so you are wrong, again!
As Rozenn mentioned above, those are for city limits - which are tightly drawn and not reflective of anything whatsoever. Manchester's urban area is much larger than that (see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a_2001.svg.png). Liverpool is also much larger than the above figures suggest. Leeds is definitely not larger than Manchester - I live in Leeds and visit Manchester occasionally, so I know what I'm talking about.
Your dislike for what appears to be most UK cities is rather typical of a self-contained Londoner. I suggest leaving your comfort zone - you might be surprised to discover that Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield and plenty of other places are not just bland and ugly northern cities with no redeeming qualities, but perfectly attractive and vibrant urban areas (more so than Liverpool, I might add, which, while aesthetically attractive, has underlying economic weaknesses which have hindered the city in the past and continue to do so, despite its recent resurgence). I wouldn't go out of my way to visit them as a tourist, but they're worth a visit if you have the time.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 03-21-2014 at 01:17 PM..
The buildings I posted are of architectural merit - but you claimed the opposite, rather foolishly, even though you appear to know nothing of Manchester. Manchester might not have stand-out iconic archtiecture like Liverpool's Three Graces, but it has no shortage of fine Victorian and Edwardian architecture in its city centre, usually above four storeys, creating a rather imposing and impressive big-city grandeur feel.
I have been to Manchester many, many times on business and the odd football game. I have experience of both Liverpool and Manchester. I speak from experience. The buildings you posted are fine buildings and as you noted they are not iconic - and they are the best the city can offer. Trying to big up Manchester is futile and it just cannot compare to Liverpool down the road. It is no Munich or Barcelona and never will be, while Liverpool does have potential to rival Munich and Barcelona. In Liverpool you get off the train at Lime St and before you is the world's first air-conditioned building, a copy of the Parthenon. It is very impressive with a chateaux fronting the station as well. The waterfront and docks are just splendid and they have not started on the World Heritage Central Docks yet. The city is getting the knack of blending in the old and the new. Liverpool is probably my favourite big British city after London.
People do go out of their way to see Liverpool's architecture. The world's first two metal framed glass curtain walled buildings are there. The city is the home of the modern skyscraper, not Chicago or NY. The Anglican cathedral is colossal. They have architectural tours. The Beatles, and the Merseysound history of the 1960s are a major attraction of course. But without that the city would still stand out. Its history is phenomenal. Most people who went to the New World went via Liverpool. It was the defacto home port of the Confederate fleet in The US Civil War, providing the ships and crews.
Quote:
55 million visitors to the Liverpool City Region? Domestically, maybe. I am strictly talking about international visitors.
A visitor is a visitor. Manchester's "international" victors figures are skewed by overnight stays in transferring planes and the likes. Liverpool has massive round Britain cruise liners berth in the centre that pour out tourists to see the city.
I do not dislike most UK cities, but some are very forgettable and not worth a visit. The odd one does stand out.
Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield are vibrant enough but little else to make anyone want to return. I find Liverpool the most vibrant city. The night life at the weekend is second to none. Liverpool has the highest growing economy outside London despite your skewed views on the city. It appears the sleeping giant is awakening as the city gets its act together. Manchester is an ex cotton mill town and it shows. Liverpool has so much going for it. It even has its own underground metro network, which I went to Chester on, which few people know about and is the second oldest in the world. Your prejudice against Liverpool is apparent.
I have no prejudice against Liverpool (only a person from Liverpool would accuse anyone of that - hmm) - I'm actually very fond of the city - but I am also very fond of Manchester, and think the city is definitely worth a visit if you're in the UK for an appreciable amount of time and want to see what it has to offer beyond the cliched tourist towns of York, Chester and Bath (all beautiful, of course, but too small to entertain people beyond a 24-hour visit IMO). Calling Manchester bland is unduly harsh - it's a perfectly attractive city and there is nothing wrong with it. Visiting on business doesn't make you an expert - you need to explore it properly before lambasting it as ugly or whatever else.
'Highest' growing economy outside London? I presume you mean fastest, but anyway, I would be interested in seeing a credible source to back up this claim. It might not be totally unfeasible - Liverpool is poorer than either Manchester or Leeds, and didn't start regenerating until L1 started construction in 2004, so has a lot more to do, compared to Manchester and Leeds, which started the regeneration process in the 90s. Liverpool still has structural economic weaknesses such as high unemployment, poorly-skilled population and larger public sector (this making it more susceptible to government cuts), compared to its northern neighbours (this might also interest you: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...your-area.html).
Liverpool might be a more attractive city, and more appealing to tourists, but Manchester has a better economic profile (right now), and probably the brightest future of any northern city - things can only get better for it once HS2 reaches Piccadilly (Liverpool will miss out, and will have to rely on captive services), plus countless other (largely private) investments that await the city. The future looks good for Liverpool as well, especially with its port now operating trans-Atlantic cruises, but Manchester has had a head start, and will probably always be stronger economically, while Liverpool will be more of a tourist-oriented city.
Liverpool doesn't really have an underground, either - part of its (very extensive) railway network is underground, but it is not, strictly speaking, an actual underground system, like in London or Glasgow. Manchester has trams anyway, and its own extensive railway network - probably the best transport infrastructure anywhere outside of London.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 03-22-2014 at 05:48 AM..
If Liverpool attracts 55 million visitors a year, I'm Vladimir Putin.
That would mean that some 95% of all Britons visit Liverpool every year. Ok, if a "visit" means crossing the city borders or working in the city from the neighboring municipality, then maybe.
"Liverpool in 2012 was the 5th most popular destination for international visitors with 550,000 staying visits up from 545,000 in 2011 (International Passenger Survey) and was 8th most popular destination for all domestic visitors (1.47m overnight visits). It is also 9th for pure holiday trips (646,000) and 9th for business tourism (202,000)"
I have no prejudice against Liverpool - I'm actually very fond of the city - but I am also very fond of Manchester, and think the city is definitely worth a visit if you're in the UK for an appreciable amount of time and want to see what it has to offer beyond the cliched tourist towns of York, Chester and Bath (all beautiful, of course, but too small to entertain people beyond a 24-hour visit IMO). Calling Manchester bland is unduly harsh - it's a perfectly attractive city and there is nothing wrong with it. Visiting on business doesn't make you an expert - you need to explore it properly before lambasting it as ugly or whatever else.
When in the North West Chester is worth a visit. The only big city worth visiting is Liverpool. Visiting Manchester? You may as well visit Bolton or Oldham.
Yes Liverpool has the fastest growing economy outside London, a Google will pick that up. Liverpool is not poorer than either Manchester or Leeds to any significant degree and any deficiencies are catching up fast. Liverpool has a lot more to do, and the projects are there to catapult the city forwards with the massive Liverpool Waters and Wirral Waters Dockland complex projects - the proposed Shanghai Tower will be one of the tallest in Europe. No provincial city has such large expansion projects. None.
Liverpool is a more attractive city, and more appealing to tourists, and Manchester does not have a better economic profile. Manchester has been artificially boosted by London to divide and rule. The city should have been allowed to shrink when manufacturing disappeared instead of London ensuring it stole commercial business from Liverpool. HS2 will unlikely reach Manchester as the Higgins report stated this week - it wanted a high-speed hub at Crewe and from this all HS2 trains can run onto classic compatible lines in 360 degrees of Crewe. The phase two of HS2 will most probably be cancelled as it will mean big bucks for little increase in rail times from London. Liverpool has a strong lobby, 20 Miles More, to get HS2 into the city if Manchester gets it - and quite right too as overt favouritism is not on. The Port of Liverpool wants the existing rail capacity for freight, so insists that HS2 is run into Liverpool, they predict 70% fright increases with the new container port expansion. It is more important to the UK economy to have HS2 run into Liverpool than Manchester.
Liverpool does have an underground metro. It is underground in the centre of Liverpool, and Birkenhead with underground stations. Liverpool Central underground station is one of the most used outside of London and there are call for massive expansion of this station. The Liverpool metro is the most used, and largest, outside of London, with about 5 miles of tunnel under the city awaiting reuse. The Liverpool network can be one third larger moving onto mothballed trackbed. http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/watercity...xtensions.html The metro has terminals in Southport and Chester and with the current electrification works it will reach St.Helens and Wigan. Manchester has a slow cumbersome tram system, which is no better than buses as it moves on surface streets mingling with traffic, but looks better than buses - which most cities got rid of over 50 years ago. The Liverpool metro system is fascinating being the world's second oldest and one of, or the deepest, underground station in the world. Big important cities have underground metros. Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester have none.
Oh for goodness sakes - more London divide and rule nonsense. Are you sure you're not really a Liverpudlian in disguise? I've only heard such paranoid ramblings from the denizens of Liverpool, who are desperate to lay the blame for the city's under-performance on some secret conspiracy against the city originating from London, when in actual fact the city has lagged be hind its peers because the population is poorly qualified and the city has failed to attract private companies in the same way Manchester, Leeds and Birmingham have (all have very bouyant and robust service sectors). In fact, I can't believe any Londoner would willingly admit anything like that - and I can't believe any Londoner would have such a strong connection to Liverpool while going under the guise that Manchester is nothing but an 'ex mill town' that should have been 'left to decline'
Only a deluded Scouse would post such nonsense, and believe it. Only a deluded and bitter Scouse would have such a disdain for Manchester, while having the cheek to accuse someone else of having prejduice against Liverpool (yet another symptom of Scouse paranoia).
And no, Liverpool does not have an underground network. It is underground only in Liverpool city centre and Birkenhead. That is not an underground. It isn't even considered a metro system - only three exist in the UK (London, Glasgow, Newcastle). It's all part of the same Merseyrail suburban railway network.
HS2 Phase 2 will largely depend on the success of Phase 1, but I see no reason why it won't go ahead given the political support behind it. HS2 won't exist to serve freight (or at least, that will not be its primary objective) - it's there to shuffle passengers from the provinces to London and vice versa, and to relieve capacity on the WCML and ECML. Manchester has more demand for London rail services, and a larger service economy. Ideally, both Liverpool and Manchester would be served by HS2, but only one of them is likely to be served by any Phase 2 of this project, and it isn't Liverpool.
Oh, and I'm aware of Liverpool Waters - which has been waiting in the wings for a long, long time.
Here is an overview of significant Manchester investments:
£600m Airport City
Media City
High Speed 2
Graphene
£1 billion Manchester University expansion
NOMA
Metrolink expansion
Northern Hub
Shale gas
Office developments - 1 St Peters, 2 St Peters, 1 Spinningfields and countless other speculative office developments recently approved (all of which will contribute heavily to Manchester's already large office market - more money for Mancunians).
^^ MOSTLY private sector investment, or investment via locally-raised funds (in the case of Metrolink). Manchester isn't a city that relies on public money. Liverpool relies heavily on public-sector money from Westminster and Brussels - the entire Merseyside county receives Objective 1 Funding because, well, it's economically poor - below the EU average, compared to Manchester and Leeds, which have economic output per person above the EU average, and receive no such funding.
Oh, and 20% popn growth vs 5% popn growth in Liverpool.
I saw Liverpool Waters described perfectly on another website - Liverpool City Council prostituting themselves to Peel Holdings in sheer desperation. It's funny because it's true, and Liverpool Waters will probably result in the loss of Liverpool's World Heritage Site status. All because they are so utterly desperate to catch up to the clearly superior city.
Last edited by dunno what to put here; 03-22-2014 at 07:03 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
