PDA

View Full Version : Towns, cities, villages...


Scabrous Birdseed
06-12-2006, 16:47:18
I want a straight answers, you people. What, exactly, divides a town from a city or a village? You'd think it'd be population, fairly obvious really, but noooo. At least not in America, where you have "towns" and "cities" of population 50 or less, ie. tiny hamlets or even groupings of outlying farms.

At the other end of the spectrum is, in my experience, Hungary, where there are plenty of "villages" of population 15 000 or more. Then there are the weird ones, like England where some daft government beuraucrats (nominally, of course, "the queen") decide what's a city and what's a town, making places like Ripon (pop. 15 000) "cities" but Reading (pop. 150 000) "towns"). In Sweden it was all reformed out of existence in the seventies and now we haven't got any of them in a "place of some level of government" sense, just geographically.

I say, up to 2000 people is a village, up to 75 000 is a town and any bigger is a city.

Venom
06-12-2006, 16:50:04
It's all about the set up of the government combined with population. Or it has to do with the frequency of beastiality. More cow banging=hamlet. Less cow banging=city.

MOBIUS
06-12-2006, 16:57:55
Cathedrals.

Hence St David's (a village) is the UK's smallest 'city'.

Ripon has a cathedral - Reading does not.

Funko
06-12-2006, 17:02:34
Factually incorrect.

Cities in the UK are (and have always been) designated by royal appointment. There's no official requirement to have a cathedral. These days it's done in "city lotteries". Reading can earn city status without having a cathedral.

Wiki says:

City status in the United Kingdom is granted by the British monarch to a select group of communities. The status does not apply automatically on the basis of any particular criteria, although it was traditionally given to towns with diocesan cathedrals. This association between having a cathedral and being called a city was established in the early 1540s when Henry VIII founded dioceses (and therefore cathedrals) in six English towns and also granted them all city status by issuing Letters Patent.

Colon
06-12-2006, 17:03:58
Yeah well, you have people calling Machu Picchu a "city" even though it held a population of less than 1000.

I think it's impossible to objectively determine what defines a city. Even if you use a figure such as 75,000 habitants, which on its own is already arbitarily set figure, how do determine where exactly a city ends? Use arbitarily set administrative borders? Use definitions with arbitary numbers such as 1000 habitants/square kilometer?

Venom
06-12-2006, 17:05:33
More importantly...who really gives a fuck?

Funko
06-12-2006, 17:05:50
:lol:

Aredhran
06-12-2006, 17:06:11
In Switzerland:
hamlet = group of a few farms, no church
village = same with a church
then it's divided by population, but I'm not 100% on the numbers but I think
town = more than 10'000
city = ??? do we even have anything worth the term city - not sure.

Immortal Wombat
06-12-2006, 17:06:24
I usually distinguish towns from villages on the basis of whether more people commute to it than commute from it. Other than arbitary cathedralic requirements, cities are what happens when two or more towns bump into each other.

Funko
06-12-2006, 17:06:45
In fact - 32/66 British cities don't have cathedrals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom

Funko
06-12-2006, 17:07:35
I think a national capital has to be a city

Capital Town or Capital Village sounds stupid.

Immortal Wombat
06-12-2006, 17:21:42
Originally posted by Funko
In fact - 32/66 British cities don't have cathedrals.

That says for 32/66 British cities the cathedral was irrelevant in determining city status. At least ten more have since gained CoE cathedrals, a couple have gained RC cathedrals, and most of the Scottish cities have (former) CoS cathedrals. All the Welsh ones have churches that have been dubbed cathedrals.
more wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cathedrals_in_the_United_Kingdom)

MOBIUS
06-12-2006, 17:23:49
Originally posted by Funko
In fact - 32/66 British cities don't have cathedrals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom

But...

Are all 'population centres' that possess cathedrals cities?:hmm:

Hence why St David's is a city - FACT!

Funko
06-12-2006, 17:26:04
No, comparing my list with Wombats...

The first one with a cathedral that isn't a city is Chelmsford, then Guilford. Enough to prove that wrong, I can't be bothered to go through the list.

Immortal Wombat
06-12-2006, 17:26:15
Bury St. Edmunds

Funko
06-12-2006, 17:26:57
ok and Bury St Edmunds that I missed.

Immortal Wombat
06-12-2006, 17:27:13
x-post. but point made, I think:D

Funko
06-12-2006, 17:27:58
Wombat, I think we can consider that myth - BUSTED!

MOBIUS
06-12-2006, 17:29:16
St Asaph (pop 3,491) apparently got stripped of its city status...:(

More Wiki... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom)

Until the sixteenth century, a town was recognised as a city by the Crown if it had a diocesan cathedral within its limits. This means some cities today are very small, because they were unaffected by population growth during the industrial revolution notably Wells, which has a population of about 10,000 (see Smallest cities in the United Kingdom). After the sixteenth century, no new dioceses (and no new cities) were created until the nineteenth century, but the practice was revived with the creation of the diocese of Ripon in 1836. A string of new dioceses and cities followed. This process was changed in 1888 to allow Birmingham and other large settlements that did not have cathedrals to become cities (Birmingham's parish church later became a cathedral).

MOBIUS
06-12-2006, 17:32:07
So, not entirely a myth - rather a tradition that wasn't kept up to date...:cute:

Dyl Ulenspiegel
06-12-2006, 17:37:03
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
What, exactly, divides a town from a city or a village?

More or less arbitrarily made legal decisions.

MOBIUS
06-12-2006, 17:37:56
Pretenders

After its unsuccessful attempt to gain city status, the town of Reading, Berkshire started using the phrase "City Centre" on its buses and car park signs. In its planning, the government of the day intended Milton Keynes to be a "new city" in scale, it was referred to as such in contemporary supporting papers, but was gazetted in 1967 as a New Town. It has used the term "City Centre" on its buses and road signs for many years. Although it has been county town of Essex since the 13th century and has a cathedral, Chelmsford does not have city status: nevertheless its local football team calls itself Chelmsford City F.C..

Funko's just bitter...:p

MOBIUS
06-12-2006, 17:44:06
Large Towns

* Reading 232,662
* Dudley 194,919
* Northampton 189,474
* Luton 185,543
* Milton Keynes (urban area) 184,506
* Walsall 170,994
* Bournemouth 167,527
* Southend-on-Sea 160,257
* Swindon 155,432


Reading: Largest TOWN in the UK!

* Points and laughs...:p

C.G.B. Spender
06-12-2006, 18:00:19
Think of London, a small city
It's dark, dark in the daytime
The people sleep, sleep in the daytime
If they want to, if they want to

Walrus Feeder
06-12-2006, 18:03:28
About 2 years ago some of the buses in Reading had 'City Centre' lit up at the front of the bus. This was, and still is misleading as Reading is still a town. This was done i think when Reading put in a bid to gain city status.

Don't think Reading's a cool enough place to deserve this and doesn't have enough positive things going for it to be given city status. I was glad to leave it after living there most my life to move to Manchester - which has a hell of a lot going for it.

MattHiggs
06-12-2006, 18:27:06
Hmm, I dunno. I've lived in Manchester all my life. I've only been to Reading once, but from what I witnessed it looks like a really nice place. I dunno whether I could give up the nightlife of Manchester though. There is just so much choice!

RedFred
06-12-2006, 20:36:14
Where I live you need a civic government to be a city - mayor, councillors etc. Towns or villages regardless of how big they are by definition do not have a city gov't.

RedFred
06-12-2006, 20:37:33
...and for the big Spender:

"Do I smell home cooking? No, it is only the river."

Diss
06-12-2006, 21:40:26
all standards should conform to my definition.

A town becomes a city at 100,000 people. A village is less than 1000 people.

though this gets confused with cities such as mine that have small city boundaries and much of our populated ares is in county controlled land- including the Las Vegas strip.

But I think if people would realize that my standards are the best, the world would be a better place.

Lazarus and the Gimp
06-12-2006, 21:43:42
Originally posted by Immortal Wombat
I usually distinguish towns from villages on the basis of whether more people commute to it than commute from it.

That makes Slough a village. Probably Staines as well.

Scabrous Birdseed
07-12-2006, 08:02:47
And York! Oh no, that's a "City", not a "Town", my bad.

So, in england, does the "City" designation mean anything other than a fancy new name?

Immortal Wombat
07-12-2006, 09:06:47
It also means MOBIUS is less likely to mock you.

Funko
07-12-2006, 09:13:17
I speak for everyone in Reading when I say that MOBIUS' mocking is UTTERLY DEVASTATING! We cannot cope and are about to commit mass suicide by moving to Slough.

Funko
07-12-2006, 09:13:45
ps. Reading - Biggest town in England. :beer:

MOBIUS
07-12-2006, 09:17:51
Originally posted by Funko
I speak for everyone in Reading when I say that MOBIUS' mocking is UTTERLY DEVASTATING! We cannot cope and are about to commit mass suicide by moving to Slough.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

King_Ghidra
07-12-2006, 10:57:03
Are there any other premiership (or championship) teams based in towns rather than cities?

Funko
07-12-2006, 11:03:10
Non Cities in the Premiership and Championship (by league position)

Reading
Bolton
Wigan
Burnley
West Bromwich
Colchester
Ipswich
Luton (assuming that isn't London)
Barnsley
Southend

So biggest town and best footballing town.

MOBIUS
07-12-2006, 11:07:00
Just to add something else into the mix...

Apparently Fordwich (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fordwich) with a population of 300 is the smallest town in England and Wales.

However Ecclesfield (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecclesfield) with a pop of 31,609 is the largest 'village' as it is the largest civil parish in England not to be a town or city...

So 'official' UK definitions of Villages, Towns and Cities by population size is:

Village: Up to 31,609

Town: 300 - 232,662

City: 1,797+

All correct at the 2001 census...:p

King_Ghidra
07-12-2006, 11:11:41
Originally posted by Funko
Non Cities in the Premiership and Championship (by league position)

Reading
Bolton
Wigan
Burnley
West Bromwich
Colchester
Ipswich
Luton (assuming that isn't London)
Barnsley
Southend

So biggest town and best footballing town.

:beer:

I have a feeling The Knowledge might have covered this in some way, smallest population centre to host a top-flight team or suchlike.

Villareal had a good stab at it, i think their pop. is about 25000.

C.G.B. Spender
07-12-2006, 19:21:01
There's good points and bad points

Aredhran
07-12-2006, 19:42:39
what about check points ?

Gary
08-12-2006, 12:04:34
Villages with populations that large don't 'feel' much like villages to me. Seems the titles mean nothing these days.

Cities ought to have something, such as a cathedral, to identify them. It irritated me when I discovered the title was just being given out at seemingly random. Smacks of favouritism and the potential for corruption to me. So business as usual then.

Chris
08-12-2006, 12:13:15
I live in a town that is part of a village of...

King_Ghidra
08-12-2006, 13:41:08
Originally posted by Gary
Cities ought to have something, such as a cathedral, to identify them. It irritated me when I discovered the title was just being given out at seemingly random. Smacks of favouritism and the potential for corruption to me.

good to see gary is still smoking crack

fp
08-12-2006, 14:13:56
Indeed. Especially if he thinks that something being given out at random smacks of favouritism.

Drekkus
08-12-2006, 14:43:37
Originally posted by King_Ghidra
good to see gary is still smoking crack :lol:

A Village must have at least one construction worker, one indian, a black cop, a black military dude, a cowboy and a biker living there. Preferably gay.

mr_G
08-12-2006, 14:46:15
:lol:

Provost Harrison
08-12-2006, 18:00:20
Hull doesn't have a cathedral :p

C.G.B. Spender
08-12-2006, 20:44:13
Cathedrals have no hull

paiktis
08-12-2006, 21:17:07
it's the ladies with the elaborate hats with the feathers on them. if a place has them it most propably is a city.

Greg W
09-12-2006, 00:20:45
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
I want a straight answers, you people. What, exactly, divides a town from a city or a village?A border.

Dyl Ulenspiegel
09-12-2006, 10:41:28
What if there's an ocean between them?

Provost Harrison
09-12-2006, 11:13:31
Originally posted by paiktis
it's the ladies with the elaborate hats with the feathers on them. if a place has them it most propably is a city.

There's none of that in Hull, but many of the females have 'council house facelifts'. Does that count? ;)

Vincent
09-12-2006, 20:51:52
WTF is "Hull"?

paiktis
09-12-2006, 23:30:02
some kind of hat i think
what is "council house" facelifts?

Koshko
10-12-2006, 00:25:44
Don't look at me. The area I specifically live in is unincorporated. Basically it's considered Frankfort but it's not actually within the Frankfort boundardies. The strangest part is that the unincorporated area I live in now has a greater population than within Frankfort's boundaries itself.

Koshko
10-12-2006, 00:28:41
Also when we first moved into the Chicago area, I lived in an unincorporated area of Hinsdale, which is particularly strange given that it wasn't actually by the city of Hinsdale itself. It was actually like 8 miles away from the border, and there were corporated towns in between. :hmm:

Oerdin
10-12-2006, 05:27:05
Originally posted by Scabrous Birdseed
I want a straight answers, you people. What, exactly, divides a town from a city or a village? You'd think it'd be population, fairly obvious really, but noooo. At least not in America, where you have "towns" and "cities" of population 50 or less, ie. tiny hamlets or even groupings of outlying farms.

America's definition is screwed up due to each state having a different definition. Seriously, in California there legally aren't any villages so everything is either unincorpoarted or incorporated (this is entirely based upon basic services provided by the county or provided by a city government) while places like New York State have lots of places called villages. I don't know how each state defines a village, a town, or a city.

As a side note in California incorporated cities must provide citizens with basic services (schools for kids, police, fire departement, normally a municiple water utility, etc) without help from the county government. This acts as a break which prevents tiny places from declaring themselves cities since every county gets generous subsidies from the state to maintain basic services but, by and large, cities are expected to pay their own way. The reason for this is that cities are thought to be dense urban areas with a viable tax base where as unincorpated areas of the various counties are considered to rural or unpopulated to pay for their own basic services without subsidies from the state. Thus tiny places don't declare themselves to be city unless they are extremely wealthy enclaves.

In San Diego, Rancho Santa Fe is defacto a suburb of the city however it is something like the 2nd or 3rd wealthiest zip code in America. The people in Racho Santa Fe got tired of their property taxes being used to subsidized the less affluent parts of the city so they incorporated themselves as a seporate city. Personally, that pisses me off since the over all property tax rate has been frozen since the late 1970's due to state proposition 13 (California has a form of direct democracy where voters can directly enact laws even if the state house of representatives doesn't want to pass the law). That means the people in Rancho Santa Fe wouldn't pay any more in taxes if they remained part of the city, however, the money would have been spent to subsidize poorer areas.

The reality is they actually get fewer resources by declaring themselves an independent city. The flash point was the San Diego city council passed an ordinance that any student could attend any school in the city (local kids automatically go to their closest school unless they choose to go to a different one; if to many students wanted to go to one school then out of area students are prioritized by GPA; with the students with the highest GPA getting to pick which school they wanted to go to first). Before this you had to attend the school closest to your house but people in the poor parts of town got stuck in shitty schools. Anyway, the uber rich in Rancho Santa Fe thought that meant that loads of poor and/or criminal students from poor areas would flood into their schools. They then formed their own city to prevent those other kids from attending schools in the neighborhood (now city) of Rancho Santa Fe.

The irony is that people in Rancho Santa Fe now get less money to spend on students in the classroom. The reason is that California has a state equalization law; meaning local governments do not fund education and instead they pay a portion of their property taxes to the state and then the state refunds a set amount per student. This means poor and rich areas get the same amount of money per student no matter where in the state the school is (though the state does give extra construction and repair money to high cost areas). Since Rancho Santa Fe now has to duplicate all the over head they now actually get less money to spend on each student. ;)

Oerdin
10-12-2006, 05:49:11
Wow. That was a massive post. Almost Darkstarian in scope.

Oerdin
10-12-2006, 05:57:40
Originally posted by Venom
It's all about the set up of the government combined with population.

Basically. Places with a certain legal status recieve subsidies however they lose control over how to spend those subsidies. Different places decide they want more control so they do what it takes to get that control while other places (with much larger populations) decide they'd much rather have the subsidies then the control.

Vincent
10-12-2006, 07:44:13
It's not only darkstarian, it's also polyesque

Oerdin
10-12-2006, 17:09:25
I knew you loved poly so much that you'd be over joyed to see a bit of poly right here at CG.

C.G.B. Spender
10-12-2006, 18:29:27
You're right, but your task is done so you can die like anyone else here now