Talk:List of urban areas in the United Kingdom/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bristol

Are you sure that Bristol is a conurbation? Should Glasgow be listed? Edward 22:11, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

This needs context and explanations. These surely aren't all official. It looks like an attempt to produce as long a list as possible by stretching the definition to breaking point. Reading a conurbation!

Reading/Wokingham Urban Area

Is this an actual urban area? because the other urban areas mentioned are to my knowledge continuously built up whereas Reading and Wokingham are seperated, and Bracknell which is included in the Reading/Wokingham urban area is certainly very seperated from Reading. The Reading urban population is in other pages quoted as 232,000 not 300,000+. Is there a source that backs up this urban area, as it does not fit the "A conurbation is an urban area comprising a number of cities or towns which, through population growth and expansion, have physically merged to form one continuous built up area. It is thus a polycentric form of agglomeration.". definition. (BoroLad1982)

Also the non-continuation of reading/wokingham, then brighton and worthing (which i admit is very close together while not actually touching) is similar to teesside and hartelpool which potentially has a population of 450,000, and are the birkenhead/liverpool areas not one of the same as they are only seperated by the mersey?

Actually, Reading and Wokingham are not separate urban areas, as they are connected by Winnersh. Brighton/Worthing/Littlehampton is considered to be a conurbation by the ONS. Teeside's population according to the ONS is 365,323. The ONS considers Liverpool and Wirral to be separate Urban Areas. Take a look at [1] for what the ONS considers to be urban area populations, both conurbations and sub-areas within conurbations. Steven J 19:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok i see. "Teeside's population according to the ONS is 365,323" i know this - what i was saying though, i meant if you look at the close proximity of hartlepool and teesside (which is conncted by industry rather than residential area) it is no further away from each other than the brighton/worthing/littlehampton area. also i cannot understand why the villages of yarm and eaglescliffe and marske do not come under the teesside urban area as they are now connected, or at most a stone throw away. Maybe this will change in the next census.

Agreed

I agree. As far as I know, there are six to eight UK conurbations but definitely nowhere near the number that are suggested here. I might see if I can confirm the eight or so and give this page an edit.

Samluke777 19:35, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Conurbation means in this context "urban areas that stretch outside local government boundaries". Morwen - Talk 13:18, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

according to conurbation, "A conurbation is an urban area comprising a number of cities or towns which, through population growth and expansion, have physically merged to form one continuous built up area. It is thus a polycentric form of agglomeration.". This applies to pretty much all the cases here. Morwen - Talk 13:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've updated the article to explain what and why these these things are conurbations. Morwen - Talk 14:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

South Midlands?

Should the South Midlands be included on this list? David 13:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't think so. Milton Keynes doesn't include anything outside of Milton Keynes (borough). There might be a case for South Essex/North Kent coasts, which look rather similar to the Sussex coast. Morwen - Talk 14:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Greater Manchester / Merseyside / Warrington

Should a comment be placed somewhere on this page mentioning that it is possible to see the whole of this area as a single conurbation, given that it is pretty much possible to travel from say, Hazel Grove to the coast without really leaving a built-up area? It's not really generally considered to be a "true" conurbation, but it's not too far away either. Steven J 12:11, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll stick that at the bottom. Morwen - Talk 12:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

The same can be said about the Derby and Nottingham areas (BoroLad1982)

On the other hand, looking at the maps, there are several places affixed to Greater Manchester by little stringy corridors, which already makes its figure exaggerated compared to more tightly defined Urban Areas (most notably the West Midlands). 82.36.26.70 —Preceding comment was added at 13:26, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Scotland data

After much searching, can't find equivilant pop stats for Scottish conurbations. I guess only Edinburgh and Glasgow would get into the list at the moment - but want figures made with the same metholodolgy, not just random pop figures from web. Morwen - Talk 12:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right, the Scottish census does not record information on Scottish conurbations apart from Greater Glasgow so should probably not be included in this list. It could be worked out based on official data, but this could be subjective and probably not have the metholodolgy you are looking for. For example, I worked out that the Edinburgh/Lothains conurbation would total 607,162, I have not factored in Livingston, Bathgate, Bo’ness, Linlithgow which are commuter towns of Edinburgh but there is a rural gap between them and most people in Scotland would probably think of them as burghs in West Lothian rather than part of Edinburgh. I suspect that Aberdeen with suburbs (228,965) and Dundee with suburbs (195,552) would perhaps sneak onto the list at the bottom of the article around Northampton, Norwich and Milton Keynes but again this would not be an official figure so I say stick with the census Greater Glasgow Settlement Area and City of Edinburgh unitary council authority numbers. Benson85 20:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The General Register Office of Scotland (GRO) compiled a list using the density of each postcode as a building block in defining urban areas in Scotland. This was the same data the ONS currently use regarding Scottish 'Settlements' as urban areas are referred to North of the Border. A different method is used to define English and Welsh urban areas by the ONS.

The report can be found here: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/publications-and-data/settlements-and-localities/mid-2004-population-estimates-for-settlements-in-scotland.html#introduction Maps can be found here outlining the various Settlements in Scotland: http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/statistics/geography/scosett/settlement-mapping.html

Obviously a different methodology has been used to compile the Scottish data than that of the English data as Bradford, Leeds, Wakefield and Huddersfield are recognised as a single entity yet Glasgow, East Kilbride, Greenock, Hamilton, Cumbernauld and Kirkintilloch (all much more part of their urban area than the West Yorkshire towns are recognised as separate entities.

The GRO definition suggests that 'Greater Glasgow' is home to 1,171,390 people, but going by the ONS defintion as used to identify English settlements, that figure would be closer to 1,500,000. Infact, going by the ONS definition it looks like the entire Scottish central belt from the Clyde Coast to Southern Fife could be regarded as a single entity. Glasvegas3987 (talk) 16:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Leith

The Edinburgh entry suggested that the Edinburgh conurbations contains only Edinburgh and Musselburgh. It should probably mention Leith as well. Leith only became part of Edinburgh in 1920 Leith#History. --Drgs100 (talk) 08:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That may be true, but the dataset only shows Edinburgh and Musselburgh, so Leith is already counted within Edinburgh and is not recognised as a separate settlement. Fingerpuppet (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

S.E. Wales/Newport Conurbation

What is with the lack of interest for South Wales when it is clearly one of the most densely populated areas of the UK?

Newport is part of an urban area with the valley towns of Risca, Cross Keys and Machen. It is also very close to Cwmbran to the North, which is in turn connected to Pontypool. The Monmouthahire town of Risca is right on the border of the City. If this doesn't make Newport a major conurbation then how can Reading claim to be when it isn't even connected to Wokingham and is even more distant from Bracknell, which is also part of this conurbation?

Also worth a mention is the Cardiff-Newport/South East Wales 'conurbation'. This would be a rough built up area including the Newport conurbation as priviously mentioned, and Cardiff, Caerphilly and part of the vale of Glamorgan. This is very similar to the Southampton-Portsmouth area mentioned in the article.

Feel free to add it! It is true that you can drive from Langstone to Penarth east—west and Pill to Blaenavon north—south without leaving the built-up area. Similarly you can get all the way to Crosskeys before the built-up area ends. The problem is there is overlap with the Cardiff conurbation. Do we list separate Cardiff/Newport conurbations are split them up and have a separate Newport/Monmouthshire valleys conurbation? Owain (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

The only place I can see a Newport conurbation mentioned is Risca. I'll make a note of the Cardiff/Newport conurbations now. The trouble is the National Statistics Office doesn't list Newport as one of the 'official' conurbations, they should do something about that considering they are based in Newport.

Well it does on http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D8271.csv - it gives a total figure of 139,298, and breaks out Langstone and Risca separately as components. Unfortunately it also breaks out Caerleon, Marshfield and Underwood as NOT part of the Newport Urban Area! So I'm not sure what use that is, although it is the only official source we have. Owain (talk) 12:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly looking from a map there appears to be a large gap between Marshfield and the Newport Urban Area. The figures have absolutely nothing to do with the structure of local government, so it would seem sensible to me. Steven J 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

This data is very inconsistent. It seems like for some places they have got a compass and drawn a circle around a city centre, e.g. Bracknell part of Reading? Port Talbot part of Swansea? Yet Caerleon is within the built up area and city limits of Newport but not the urban area. They list the population of Cardiff City as 292,150, how do they work this one out? Also, they put Chepstow urban area in South West, when the main centre of population here is in Wales.

It is possible to go from Swansea to Port Talbot without leaving the urban area, so this makes sense as them being part of the same conurbation - it's not that Port Talbot is part of Swansea. It's the same with the Reading / Wokingham / Bracknell conurbation. The sub-areas of conurbations are based upon the pre-1974 authorities - which were actually based upon individual towns, and have little relevance with modern local government structures. Steven J 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear

I've brought this up on the England page, but I would also like to ask the same question here. Do you think that Tyne and Wear is really a conurbation? It's a metropolitan county, metropolitan areas can be seen as conurbations but, ultimately, they tend not to be as built up as conurbations (ie. there may be slight, but still clear, areas seperating different towns without and clear build up). Whilst Tyne and Wear certainly is one of the country's core urban areas it is possible to travel from Sunderland/Washington to a southern/central part of Gateshead and pass very few (if any) built up areas. It's two conurbations in one metropolis, there are still clear gaps between Tyneside and Wearside - just look at a map. Also, I'm sure not many geordies or mackems would like the thought of their respective areas being classed as one! The two cities are hardly united and both have entirely different identities, accents and dialect - Newcastle being typically Northumbrian, Sunderland Durham. Seriously though, I know this is briefly mentioned in the article (bordlering, multi-centred) but I would like some detailed feedback on what you think. hedpeguyuk 22:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Tyne and Wear is certainly a conurbation, they're fully connected, any gaps are tiny, they even have the same metro system. The only gaps it has are just as big as those of Glasgow. --90.216.117.119 (talk) 16:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

The ONS definitions - which are based on rigid, consistent and clearly set out criteria - are the ones used in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the rigid, consistant and clearly set out criteria of the ONS definitions Tyne and Wear is a single conurbation. Sunderland and Washington are linked by the Nissan car plant. Washington and Gateshead are linked by the Tyne marshaling yard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.57.0 (talk) 20:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Shown as Ranking 39th, this article shows only the population of Sunderland Borough and doesn't include the other parts of the conjoined City of Sunderland, which would give a total (2001 census) of 280,807.

The 2001 census gives Sunderland's Urban Area the figure used in the article (182,974) the population for the borough may be the one that is incorrect.Eopsid (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Article needs rethinking

This article covers an important topic of UK geography, but is a terribly confused mess.

The entire first section is completely uncited (in fact probably uncitable) and is riddled with such unencyclopedic gems as "There are gaps of countryside between towns on the way from Liverpool to Manchester, but not especially big ones." It has an apparently arbitrary list of conurbations that gives no indication of what qualifies a conurbation to be on the list, what point it considers a city to become a conurbation (bearing in mind that in a densely populated area like the UK almost any significant town or city will have swallowed up at a neighbouring village at some point), or what criteria are being used to determine what is inside a conurbation or outside it. Is Doncaster really part of a conurbation called "Greater Sheffield"? More importantly, without reliably sourced definitions and data, how are we supposed to tell?

If we're frank the first section is probably all original research based on wikipedians' opinions, local knowledge and experience of looking at blobs on maps.

On the basis that wikipedia articles should be based on verifiable information from reliable sources, that there is very little about the idea of a conurbation that is specific to the UK and that there is a perfectly good article about conurbations in general at conurbation, I propose...

a) The article is renamed "Urban Areas in the United Kingdom" or "Urban Areas (United Kingdom)"

b) It is based primarily on references to the most reliable definitions and data available on the subject - those available from the Office for National Statistics (though obviously it could include major criticisms of or alternatives to those definitions or data if they themselves could be referenced to other reliable sources).

c) It includes a section on the formal definitions of Urban Areas in Scotland and in England and Wales, including comparisons with UN recommendations, the US definition (United States urban area) and the French (Unité urbaine).

d) It includes a section describing the fact that some of the Urban Areas identified are strongly mono-centric cities, others are highly polycentric conurbations and many fall some way between the two.

e) It includes a table similar to the current one in the second section, with the major Urban Areas, their official populations, areas and densities, their correct names and linked to their articles (where users could go for more detailed breakdowns of individual urban areas' component parts).

Anyone agree?

Demograph 11:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is some serious work that needs doing to this article.

It seems quite odd that there are two separate lists within the article. As you say, the first one is a bit on the subjective side, whereas the second one is objective. I would recommend that the second table is used, but perhaps with an extra column listing the largest sub-areas within in a similar manner to the expansion in the first table. The first table also contains references to local authority areas such as City of Salford, Brighton & Hove and Ellesmere Port and Neston which, if transferred to the second column should be changed to the relevant town/city article with the same name as the Urban Sub-Area.

I think that a rename is unnecessary. "Conurbation" is the correct descriptive term. The ONS use the term "Urban Area" simply as some Urban Areas are not conurbations but individual towns and cities. Fingerpuppet 14:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why I think the article should be renamed though - some urban areas are conurbations but some aren't, and many are open to debate. Having "conurbations" as the subject of the article introduces this ambiguity and potential to mislead, but using "urban areas" makes it clear, unambiguous and verifiable.

For example, if the article is about conurbations, should the second table exclude Kingston upon Hull, the 24th largest urban area in the UK, on the basis that it isn't a conurbation because the ONS says that it isn't made up of any sub-areas? Or if, as is suggested further up this page, a conurbation is an urban area that crosses local authority boundaries while a town or city is one that doesn't, then we would have to exclude Plymouth instead and would also get perverse results such as suggesting that Cheltenham and Cambridge are conurbations, while the Medway Towns and Thanet are single cities.

In both cases we would end up with a list with the potential to confuse people who weren't intimately acquainted with the precise location of current and pre-1974 boundaries, and thus might not appreciate the very small details that meant that Leicester was on the list but Hull wasn't.

I agree that if there were links to sub-areas they should definitely go to articles for towns rather than local authorities though, with the possible exception of London Boroughs.

Demograph 18:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've replaced the first list and the population table with a single table showing the top 25 Urban Areas, their populations, the number of localities in each urban area and the names of the four largest localities, supported by references Demograph 20:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It's looking much better now, although I think there's still more work needed on the text below the table. One thing that does occur to me is that the new table (being made up of the ONS's Urban Areas and Urban Sub-Areas) has lost the link to Black Country within the West Midlands conurbation. The Black Country is unusual in being a conurbation within a conurbation - should it be mentioned here as a good example of a multi-centred conurbation? Fingerpuppet 09:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Article is largely original research and synthesis

Surely the only relevant data is what the ONS calls "urban areas". Anything else fails WP:Original research and WP:Synthesis. What is the independent source of data in this article? In what way does it have precedence over the ONS decision? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to Southampton Urban Area, for example, with an ONS defined population of nearly 443k, rather more than is being shown in the article. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not according to the source ONS documents given in the article. Both KS01 Usual resident population Census 2001, Key Statistics for urban areas and The UK’s major urban areas give a population for the Southampton Urban Area of 304,400. I note that your figure is the one listed in the Southampton Urban Area article, but there's no source given for that data. Where does it come from? Fingerpuppet (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

As I lay in bed last night, I said to myself - "your whole case collapses if the Southampton Urban Area figure is faked, you didn't check the ONS database". Sackcloth and ashes time for me then. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This is very similar to List of Primary Urban Areas in EnglandBlackwave...... (talk) 15:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Urban Areas

As I found out the ONS only do statistics, the Department for Communities and Local Government are the people to discuss the make up of the actual areas involved. They can be emailed on: contactus@communities.gov.uk. Dmcm2008 (talk) 21:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned on Talk:Greater Liverpool, I think you might be getting confused between Urban Areas and Primary Urban Areas, which are a statistical agglomeration of local authorities (or wards in some statistics) based upon the Urban Areas created solely for the purposes of the State of the English Cities and are not meant for use outside that Report. They are separate entities from Urban Areas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fingerpuppet (talk • contribs) 21:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what User:Fingerpuppet is going on about (responding to me) but the information I have supplied is from an email from ONS who are the ones behind the Liverpool Urban Area > who say they only do the statistics and they told me "ONS are responsible only for producing statistics for the Urban Areas as defined by the Department for Communities and Local Government. If you wish to comment on the boundaries you will need to contact them. Their email address is......." Dmcm2008 (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Dmcm2008. Readers should also look at the Notes tab on "KS01 Usual resident population: Census 2001, Key Statistics for urban areas" which states

The definition of urban areas
Census results are produced for urban areas to meet the widespread interest in information about towns and cities as such, and for comparisons between urban populations and with those living elsewhere. Similar information was published in reports from the 1981 and 1991 Censuses (1), and it is possible to see the dynamics of towns, cities and large urban agglomerations by comparing results from the three censuses.
The traditional concept of a town or city would be a free-standing built-up area with a sufficient number and variety of shops and services, including perhaps a market, to make it recognisably urban in character. It might have administrative, commercial, educational, entertainment and other social and civic functions, and, in many cases, have evidence of being historically well established. It would be a focus of a local network of transport, often a location for industries, and a place of employment for people from surrounding areas. It would be a place known beyond its immediate vicinity.
The current position in Britain is more complex. Free-standing towns have grown and coalesced into continuously built-up areas, and subsidiary centres have developed as suburbs and satellite towns. The process continues with the expansion of business and retail parks. Whilst some historic towns have stagnated and lost urban functions, many more settlements have expanded rapidly to the size of small towns, but without the range of traditional urban functions. In these circumstances no attempt has been made to define an urban area by the presence or absence of ‘urban’ functions.

Approaches to definition
An obvious way to define a town or city is in terms of an administrative boundary. This was possible in censuses in Britain up to and including 1971. In England and Wales, until reorganisation of local government in 1974, the division between boroughs, urban districts and rural districts provided an approximate urban/rural split. But there were serious disadvantages. The boundaries changed infrequently, and often did not reflect the expansion of urban areas.
The local government boundaries established after reorganisation in the mid 1970s, and generally remaining in England, are unsuited for the definition of urban areas because many districts were deliberately drawn up to bring together towns and the surrounding countryside into single administrative units. Although local government areas were reorganised again in Wales in the mid 1990s, the new Unitary Authorities continued the mix of town and countryside.
There are, however, other approaches to defining an urban area. It may be defined either in terms of the built-up area (‘bricks and mortar’) or by density as an indicator of urbanisation. Alternatively it may be defined in terms of the area for which services and facilities are provided - the functional area - including not only the built-up area but also surrounding countryside and settlements, although this approach is not straightforward in many parts of Britain where catchments merge and overlap.
The first attempt to define urban areas in a Census was made after 1951, when a limited range of statistics was published in the General Report (2) and conurbations were also defined (3). After the 1966 sample Census, the Ministry of Housing and Local Government produced an analysis of de facto urban areas (4). But neither of these approaches provided a suitable base for later censuses, and a new approach was introduced in the 1981 Census, following local government reorganisation, which has been carried forward to the current report.

and it goes on to describe various methodologies.

(My own opinion, for what it is worth, is that the "Settlements" article is irretrievably POV and this is the only authoritive definitiion that we can use). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with JMF, but shouldn't it be entitled "List of major urban areas..." as per ONS terminology? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

West Yorkshire

This is certainly not correct. It needs researching. London, Birmingham and Manchester are using the populations of the conurbation. West Yorkshire isn't though. This is definite because Leeds has a population of 750,200 (2006 estimate), while Bradford has a population of around 460,000. This adds up to over 1.2m for Leeds and Bradford alone. Huddersfield and Wakefield have populations together of around 400,000. Not to mention Calderdale. The population in total should be around 2.1m people for West Yorkshire. It is rightly placed on the list, but with the wrong population completely. I know this is using ONS, but ONS' definition of West Yorkshire's urban area is basically Leeds and Bradford, NOT Huddersfield and Wakefield. They do not believe that these settlements are part of the urban area. However, they are part of the conurbations. Basically, there is a conflict in the name of this article and the statistics. The West Yorkshire Conurbation is NOT the same as the ONS West Yorkshire Urban Area. I'm not going to change it at the moment, but it needs to be flagged up that there is an incorrect statistic on wikipedia. The most accurate way to work out the population is simply to add up the census populations. It is around 2.1m. There are about 2.5m people in West Yorkshire but 400,000 of these aren't in the conurbation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.254.252 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 July 2008

For consistency, and to overcome any arguments such as this about how to define the limits of any conurbation, the article uses the ONS definition of "urban areas". This may not be satisfactory to everyone but at least it is relatively consistent (although the ONS definition is itself far from perfect). In my view (see above) the article should be renamed "List of major urban areas...", but in the meantime I have attempted to improve the article by emphasising in the lead that the list is indeed derived from the ONS figures. Any attempts to change the table should in my view be reverted, but improvements to the commentary section are more than welcome. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The population figures mentioned by 90.212.254.252 are those of local authority districts, not those of built-up areas. The 750,000 figure for Leeds given is not for the urban core of Leeds, but also for those rural areas and separate towns within the City of Leeds local authority area; the same applies to Bradford, and Calderdale is not a settlement at all.

I think there may well be a confusion between the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County and the West Yorkshire Urban Area which are not the same; just as the Greater Manchester Metropolitan County (which includes Wigan) and the Greater Manchester Urban Area (which does not include Wigan, but does contain Wilmslow) are different; as are the West Midlands Metropolitan County (which includes Coventry) and West Midlands Urban Area (which does not include Coventry). Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

With regard to the following: "The entire Merseyside/Warrington/Greater Manchester area (2821sq km) is not much bigger than West Yorkshire (2029sq km) but has a population topping 4 million in comparison to the 2.5 million of West Yorkshire".

The Mersey/W'ton/Manchester area is approximately 40% larger than West Yorks - substantially bigger than is implied given the context that the population is around 60% greater. It wouldn't seem to me that there's a particularly great disparity between the two areas. Thisrain (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right - I'd say that entire paragraph can go. Fingerpuppet (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Settlement/Urban Area/Locality/Urban Subdivision mess

There's a confusing mess of articles, including this one, around urban areas, settlements, towns, cities and urban sub-divisions. As they probably need to be cleared up together, to make sense relative to each other as well as individually, I've brought the subject up here. JimmyGuano (talk) 16:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)