Bristol to be first cycling city?

JNugent

Geoff Lane wrote:
> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in
> newsI2dnb60xL25G8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net:
>
>> I don't like Lancaster being referred to as a "town". It's a city.
>
> but one with a Town Hall, as even Lancaster City Council call it.
> http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/General...SX9452-A7806DA1

There's a Town Hall in Liverpool. And one in Manchester.

Ekul Namsob

Geoff Lane <geoff@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in
> news:43km549gn0hd2koed2gm13tb89p9ni48ij@4ax.com:

> > Perhaps the terms "town" and "city" sound more sexy than "city" and
> > "metropolis".
>
> So, the question is just what (in the eyes of Cycling England etc.) is the
> difference between a "town" and a "city"?
>
> I don't think it can be the usual requirement for a cathedral, because both
> Lancaster and Exeter have those. It can't be the denomination of the
> cathedral because AFAICT Lancaster's is Catholic while Exeter's is
> Anglican.

Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.

I'm intrigued about Cycling England's distinction.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

JNugent

JNugent wrote:
> Geoff Lane wrote:
>> JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in
>> newsI2dnb60xL25G8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net:
>>
>>> I don't like Lancaster being referred to as a "town". It's a city.
>>
>> but one with a Town Hall, as even Lancaster City Council call it.
>> http://www.lancaster.gov.uk/General...SX9452-A7806DA1
>
> There's a Town Hall in Liverpool. And one in Manchester.

The term "City Hall" (which at first glance appears more logical for the
town halls of England's big cities) has a distinctly un-British sound
about it.

The only "City Hall" in England of which I am aware is not the seat of
government of a proper city, but of an urban agglomeration (effectively
a metropolitan county) which contains two cities but is not one itself.

Martin

Ekul Namsob wrote:
> Geoff Lane <geoff@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> I don't think it can be the usual requirement for a cathedral, because both
>> Lancaster and Exeter have those. It can't be the denomination of the
>> cathedral because AFAICT Lancaster's is Catholic while Exeter's is
>> Anglican.
>
> Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
> Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.

The town of Rochester in Kent has a cathedral. ;-)

Geoff Lane

Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote in news:6CW6k.5748$Nn.5740
@newsfe09.ams2:

>> Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
>> Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.
>
> The town of Rochester in Kent has a cathedral. ;-)

But Rochester is a city (http://www.city-of-rochester.org.uk/) and I
suspect that Blackburn is too from Googling "blackburn city".

I have access to the on-line Oxford Reference, so I looked up the
"official" definition of "city". Here's what came back from the Concise
Oxford English Dictionary:

"a large town, in particular ( Brit. ) a town created a city by charter and
typically containing a cathedral. ~ N. Amer. a municipal centre
incorporated by the state or province."

The definition of a city used to be "a town that has a cathedral", and so
was somewhere a Bishop had his seat. I'm not sure when this changed, but
all that now seems required is a charter.

WRT what makes a cycling city, I have a feeling from Danny's comment about
population size that it's the scope of the project. So I'm watching what
happens in Bristol with interest.

Tom Crispin

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 03:14:44 -0500, Geoff Lane <geoff@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>WRT what makes a cycling city, I have a feeling from Danny's comment about
>population size that it's the scope of the project. So I'm watching what
>happens in Bristol with interest.

London didn't fit the criteria of being an English city and was
excluded from the bidding process.

JNugent

Geoff Lane wrote:

> Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote:

>>> Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
>>> Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.

>> The town of Rochester in Kent has a cathedral. ;-)

> But Rochester is a city (http://www.city-of-rochester.org.uk/) and I
> suspect that Blackburn is too from Googling "blackburn city".

> I have access to the on-line Oxford Reference, so I looked up the
> "official" definition of "city". Here's what came back from the Concise
> Oxford English Dictionary:

> "a large town, in particular ( Brit. ) a town created a city by charter and
> typically containing a cathedral. ~ N. Amer. a municipal centre
> incorporated by the state or province."

> The definition of a city used to be "a town that has a cathedral", and so
> was somewhere a Bishop had his seat. I'm not sure when this changed, but
> all that now seems required is a charter.

When Liverpool was granted its city charter (by Queen Victoria in 1880),
it didn't have a cathedral. While it now has two, neither of them
existed in 1880, which means that the requirement for a city to have a
cathedral has not been current for 130 years or more.

Mark McNeill

Response to JNugent
> The term "City Hall" (which at first glance appears more logical for the
> town halls of England's big cities) has a distinctly un-British sound
> about it.
>
> The only "City Hall" in England of which I am aware is not the seat of
> government of a proper city, but of an urban agglomeration (effectively
> a metropolitan county) which contains two cities but is not one itself.

City Hall in London, of course. I suspect that most City Halls in the
UK are concert venues.


Greater London is a ceremonial county, as is Bristol: perhaps we should
be speaking of Bristol as the first cycling county!


--
Mark, UK
"For business reasons, I must preserve the outward signs of sanity."

Geoff Lane

Tom Crispin <kije.remove@this.bit.freeuk.com.munge> wrote in
news:a9fp545afq2qov310pr8j488ir43tunie0@4ax.com:

>>WRT what makes a cycling city, I have a feeling from Danny's comment
>>about population size that it's the scope of the project. So I'm
>>watching what happens in Bristol with interest.
>
> London didn't fit the criteria of being an English city and was
> excluded from the bidding process.

I suspect the criteria might have included the absence of interference from
the likes of TfL.

Geoff Lane

JNugent <JN@NPPTG.com> wrote in
news:ifudnXM62MofXMHVnZ2dnUVZ8vydnZ2d@pipex.net:

> When Liverpool was granted its city charter (by Queen Victoria in 1880),
> it didn't have a cathedral. While it now has two, neither of them
> existed in 1880, which means that the requirement for a city to have a
> cathedral has not been current for 130 years or more.

Liverpool's charter was granted (AFAICT) in recognistion of the appointment
of John Charles Ryle as the first Bishop of Liverpool in that year. He was
installed in Saint Peter’s Church, which became a "Pro-Cathedral" in
consequence. Even though work on the present Anglican Cathedral wasn't
started until 1904, Liverpool did have a cathedral (at least in name) at
the time it became a city and it was the making of a Bishop (and hence the
establishment of a cathedral) that determined the change of status.

Ekul Namsob

Geoff Lane <geoff@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote in news:6CW6k.5748$Nn.5740
> @newsfe09.ams2:
>
> >> Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
> >> Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.
> >
> > The town of Rochester in Kent has a cathedral. ;-)
>
> But Rochester is a city (http://www.city-of-rochester.org.uk/) and I
> suspect that Blackburn is too from Googling "blackburn city".

From my position here, just a few miles from Blackburn, it most
definitely is not a city. I'm fairly sure that the Borough Council
agree. Some of the town's citizens have become a little jealous, and
perhaps over-zealous, ever since neighbouring Preston became a city.

It's true, by the way, about the holes. Some of them are a foot or more
deep.

Cheers,
Luke


--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Martin

Geoff Lane wrote:
> Martin <martin.dann@virgin.net> wrote in news:6CW6k.5748$Nn.5740
> @newsfe09.ams2:
>
>>> Citys haven't required cathedrals for some time. Both Wolverhampton and
>>> Preston are citys. Blackburn, which does have a cathedral, isn't.
>> The town of Rochester in Kent has a cathedral. ;-)
>
> But Rochester is a city (http://www.city-of-rochester.org.uk/) and I
> suspect that Blackburn is too from Googling "blackburn city".

Rochester is an interesting case because it lost it's city status about
10 years ago when the Medway towns became a unitary authority. AIUI it
will be difficult for Rochester to apply to become a city again.

http://www.medway.gov.uk/orc20030304r-5.pdf?file=10698