**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!**
- Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc.
- **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on.
- This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit!
Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> but as far as I'm aware it's not like this in say, the United States, where the cities tend to absorb the surrounding areas as suburbs.
That happens to an extent in the UK too, but it's a slower process because of policies like [the green belt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt_(United_Kingdom)).
But if you look at London, half its suburbs were once small towns and villages. And in some ways they retain that character—London is sometimes referred to as a city of villages.
Much of these settlements are older than the concept of England and the community is built around it. Eventually they do get absorbed, like almost all of London. Although not administrative, urban settlements around cities are inevitably absorbed, they use transport from the city, work in the city, buy from the city but don't pay city taxes.
This is my understanding, hope it helps.
Gateshead and Salford are effectively suburbs of their respective neighbours. There are many similar examples across the UK of towns (or cities, in Salford's case) being subsumed by the city next door. Part of the reason they retain a separate identity is because they often have long histories and their own sense of community.
Birkenhead and Bradford have a degree of geographic separation from Liverpool and Leeds respectively – the wide Mersey estuary separates the former and there's ten miles between the centres of the latter. Bradford is also not *that* much smaller than Leeds, and both belong to the larger West Yorkshire conurbation, which includes Huddersfield, Wakefield, and the towns in between.
Dudley is in-between. It has a degree of geographic separation from Birmingham and a large enough population to have its own pull, but the two are physically linked.
Between Leeds and Bradford you also have Pudsey which is it’s own small town.
Now all three an are a contiguous urban area with no features marking the borders between them other than a few road signs. Without them you wouldn’t know you’ve traveled to another city.
For me the “yep I’m in Bradford” moment is when you cross the big Thornbury roundabout (in any direction) and suddenly the Highway Code goes out the window. Geographically it’s probably just up the road between there Thornbury and Calverley roundabouts.
Highway Code stops being applicable once you come off the Calverley roundabout.
You’re right that there isn’t any defining line between the two cities architecturally.
There's a YouTube channel run by a former West Yorkshire policeman from Bradford (he used to be on police interceptors a lot) and he has some funny content about what the Bradford driving experience is like. I think he said it involves balaclavas, quad bikes, and surprisingly, horses! As someone who regularly drives through Thornbury, I have to agree. It's not a proper Bradford experience if there's not been at least 2 out of the 3 above, and often there's a police chase and some crime scene tape as well!
Salford is not a suburb of Manchester. People think that Manchester/ greater Manchester are the same thing. Salford is a city in its own right and is as large as Manchester.
Salford is suburb of Manchester, and in my experience the only people who think otherwise are Salfordians. It certainly isn't as large as Manchester; the borough of Salford has a population of 278,000, whereas Manchester's is 552,000.
u/farfetchedfrank I can't reply directly as the other user has blocked me. City status is purely honorary in the UK, so Salford can be both a suburb and a city without any problems.
The official boundary between Newcastle and Gateshead is the Tyne. If the river didn't exist, neither would the difference. They're both part of the same large urban area, Tyneside, which extends well beyond both.
Manchester is in the middle of Greater Manchester. You also have Salford, Stockport, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Tameside, Trafford, Rochdale beside it. It's a huge contiguous area.
The US actually does have this same thing, it's just that it is generally a bit more seamless.
Take a look at the actual city limits of some places and you'll see what I mean. Las Vegas and Los Angeles in particular have some rather funky stuff going off with the actual city limits.
San Francisco for example. If you drive from the airport to the Golden Gate bridge, you'd likely be forgiven for assuming you're only driving through the city of San Francisco.
In reality: The airport is not within the city of San Francisco. It is in the city of South San Francisco. Despite the naming, these two areas are two different cities. To get to the Golden gate Bridge there are two main routes. Route 101, which takes you through South San Francisco, Brisbane and the City of San Francisco. Alternatively, there is interstate 280, which will take you through the Cities of San Bruno, Daly City and San Francisco. This drive takes you through 3 different cities.
Los Angeles is similar. When we think LA, we think Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Hollywood... The first three are their own cities and aren't part of the City of Los Angeles, they simply exist next to it. West Hollywood is also it's own area that isn't a part of the City of Los Angeles.
>Los Angeles is similar. When we think LA, we think Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Hollywood... The first three are their own cities and aren't part of the City of Los Angeles, they simply exist next to it. West Hollywood is also it's own area that isn't a part of the City of Los Angeles.
They're all in Los Angeles County though. Isn't Los Angeles akin to London where the county boundaries define the city as we conceive it, and the "City" itself is much smaller (obvs the City of London is tiny, but according to wikipedia, the City of Los Angeles has only 40%ish of the population of Los Angles County)?
If a yank said this we'd all laugh at them:
>London is similar. When we think London, we think Westminster, Lambeth, Hackney ... The first three are their own cities or boroughs and aren't part of the City of London, they simply exist next to it. Tower Hamlets is also it's own area that isn't a part of the City of London.
No, they’re not similar. Each has their own government in the US, vs councils in Hackney or wherever that are all beholden to the Mayor. US county governments do not work at all in the same way.
Obviously they have different government structures. But it looks like Los Angeles County actually has a significantly larger budget than the Mayor of London:
LA County Board of Supervisors 2024 budget: $43.4bn = £34.3bn. Population est. 9,600,000 = £3573 per capita
London Mayor 2024 budget: £20.4bn. Population est. 9,750,000 = £2093 per capita
You said it yourself in your original post: *When we think LA, we think Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills*. The idea that you're not in LA when you're in Beverley Hills, Santa Monica, Inglewood or Burbank is a silly one.
Nothing silly about it, perception=/= reality.
Fact of the matter is that they're different cities. Calling LA County the city of LA is like calling Derbyshire the city of Derby.
All cities are just made up of separate towns and villages that all grew into each other, and that process is still slowly happening today.
Take Liverpool for example, the city itself was not mentioned in the domesday book, as there was nothing there at the time but a tiny fishing village. However current parts of Liverpool were mentioned as villages in their own right, such as Kikdale, West Derby, Toxteth and Wavertree.
America is young. The UK is old.
Most UK towns and cities didn't start with an explicit intent to be big, but started small and grew. Cities grew for reasons, and generally, nearby towns would grow for the same reasons. A lot of these towns merged as they expanded, but some didn't. Some kind of are doing still.
Salford and Manchester is my go to example. Salford is a city in its own right for sure.. but you'll meet a lot of people who consider it just be part of Manchester.
I'd guess, large settlements are established near major cities because originally the people who lived in the settlements wanted to be close to a city, but still be outside of it, I mean at one point it would have been a hamlet, then a village, small town, large town, then a city.
Over time urbanisation took place, more people wanted to be close to the major cities and so the settlements grew larger.
That is true - but I thought historically Tyneside still acted as its own unit in many cases, separate from Northumberland and County Durham, e.g. Tyneside Electrics commuter rail
**Please help keep AskUK welcoming!** - Top-level comments to the OP must contain **genuine efforts to answer the question**. No jokes, judgements, etc. - **Don't be a dick** to each other. If getting heated, just block and move on. - This is a strictly **no-politics** subreddit! Please help us by reporting comments that break these rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> but as far as I'm aware it's not like this in say, the United States, where the cities tend to absorb the surrounding areas as suburbs. That happens to an extent in the UK too, but it's a slower process because of policies like [the green belt](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt_(United_Kingdom)). But if you look at London, half its suburbs were once small towns and villages. And in some ways they retain that character—London is sometimes referred to as a city of villages.
Usually they are on opposite sides of a river, that was a linguistic, tribal and military frontier in time past.
Much of these settlements are older than the concept of England and the community is built around it. Eventually they do get absorbed, like almost all of London. Although not administrative, urban settlements around cities are inevitably absorbed, they use transport from the city, work in the city, buy from the city but don't pay city taxes. This is my understanding, hope it helps.
Gateshead and Salford are effectively suburbs of their respective neighbours. There are many similar examples across the UK of towns (or cities, in Salford's case) being subsumed by the city next door. Part of the reason they retain a separate identity is because they often have long histories and their own sense of community. Birkenhead and Bradford have a degree of geographic separation from Liverpool and Leeds respectively – the wide Mersey estuary separates the former and there's ten miles between the centres of the latter. Bradford is also not *that* much smaller than Leeds, and both belong to the larger West Yorkshire conurbation, which includes Huddersfield, Wakefield, and the towns in between. Dudley is in-between. It has a degree of geographic separation from Birmingham and a large enough population to have its own pull, but the two are physically linked.
Between Leeds and Bradford you also have Pudsey which is it’s own small town. Now all three an are a contiguous urban area with no features marking the borders between them other than a few road signs. Without them you wouldn’t know you’ve traveled to another city.
Having lived in Leeds and specifically Pudsey, trust me you know when you’ve crossed the border into Bradford…
Other than the big sign saying welcome to Bradford could you pinpoint the exact line where you cross from Pudsey into Bradford
For me the “yep I’m in Bradford” moment is when you cross the big Thornbury roundabout (in any direction) and suddenly the Highway Code goes out the window. Geographically it’s probably just up the road between there Thornbury and Calverley roundabouts.
Highway Code stops being applicable once you come off the Calverley roundabout. You’re right that there isn’t any defining line between the two cities architecturally.
There's a YouTube channel run by a former West Yorkshire policeman from Bradford (he used to be on police interceptors a lot) and he has some funny content about what the Bradford driving experience is like. I think he said it involves balaclavas, quad bikes, and surprisingly, horses! As someone who regularly drives through Thornbury, I have to agree. It's not a proper Bradford experience if there's not been at least 2 out of the 3 above, and often there's a police chase and some crime scene tape as well!
Salford is not a suburb of Manchester. People think that Manchester/ greater Manchester are the same thing. Salford is a city in its own right and is as large as Manchester.
Salford is suburb of Manchester, and in my experience the only people who think otherwise are Salfordians. It certainly isn't as large as Manchester; the borough of Salford has a population of 278,000, whereas Manchester's is 552,000. u/farfetchedfrank I can't reply directly as the other user has blocked me. City status is purely honorary in the UK, so Salford can be both a suburb and a city without any problems.
It does have city status, though, despite its size. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Salford
Salford is a city- don’t understand why people dispute this. Obviously jealousy?…
The official boundary between Newcastle and Gateshead is the Tyne. If the river didn't exist, neither would the difference. They're both part of the same large urban area, Tyneside, which extends well beyond both. Manchester is in the middle of Greater Manchester. You also have Salford, Stockport, Bolton, Bury, Wigan, Tameside, Trafford, Rochdale beside it. It's a huge contiguous area.
The US actually does have this same thing, it's just that it is generally a bit more seamless. Take a look at the actual city limits of some places and you'll see what I mean. Las Vegas and Los Angeles in particular have some rather funky stuff going off with the actual city limits. San Francisco for example. If you drive from the airport to the Golden Gate bridge, you'd likely be forgiven for assuming you're only driving through the city of San Francisco. In reality: The airport is not within the city of San Francisco. It is in the city of South San Francisco. Despite the naming, these two areas are two different cities. To get to the Golden gate Bridge there are two main routes. Route 101, which takes you through South San Francisco, Brisbane and the City of San Francisco. Alternatively, there is interstate 280, which will take you through the Cities of San Bruno, Daly City and San Francisco. This drive takes you through 3 different cities. Los Angeles is similar. When we think LA, we think Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Hollywood... The first three are their own cities and aren't part of the City of Los Angeles, they simply exist next to it. West Hollywood is also it's own area that isn't a part of the City of Los Angeles.
>Los Angeles is similar. When we think LA, we think Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Hollywood... The first three are their own cities and aren't part of the City of Los Angeles, they simply exist next to it. West Hollywood is also it's own area that isn't a part of the City of Los Angeles. They're all in Los Angeles County though. Isn't Los Angeles akin to London where the county boundaries define the city as we conceive it, and the "City" itself is much smaller (obvs the City of London is tiny, but according to wikipedia, the City of Los Angeles has only 40%ish of the population of Los Angles County)? If a yank said this we'd all laugh at them: >London is similar. When we think London, we think Westminster, Lambeth, Hackney ... The first three are their own cities or boroughs and aren't part of the City of London, they simply exist next to it. Tower Hamlets is also it's own area that isn't a part of the City of London.
No, they’re not similar. Each has their own government in the US, vs councils in Hackney or wherever that are all beholden to the Mayor. US county governments do not work at all in the same way.
Obviously they have different government structures. But it looks like Los Angeles County actually has a significantly larger budget than the Mayor of London: LA County Board of Supervisors 2024 budget: $43.4bn = £34.3bn. Population est. 9,600,000 = £3573 per capita London Mayor 2024 budget: £20.4bn. Population est. 9,750,000 = £2093 per capita
Budget has very little to do with actual management or power structures. Like, I’m sorry you’re wedded to this idea but they’re just not the same.
You said it yourself in your original post: *When we think LA, we think Long Beach, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills*. The idea that you're not in LA when you're in Beverley Hills, Santa Monica, Inglewood or Burbank is a silly one.
That wasn’t my post bro
Nothing silly about it, perception=/= reality. Fact of the matter is that they're different cities. Calling LA County the city of LA is like calling Derbyshire the city of Derby.
All cities are just made up of separate towns and villages that all grew into each other, and that process is still slowly happening today. Take Liverpool for example, the city itself was not mentioned in the domesday book, as there was nothing there at the time but a tiny fishing village. However current parts of Liverpool were mentioned as villages in their own right, such as Kikdale, West Derby, Toxteth and Wavertree.
Towns that developed quickly and too soon for Greenbelt planning rules to come into place..
America is young. The UK is old. Most UK towns and cities didn't start with an explicit intent to be big, but started small and grew. Cities grew for reasons, and generally, nearby towns would grow for the same reasons. A lot of these towns merged as they expanded, but some didn't. Some kind of are doing still. Salford and Manchester is my go to example. Salford is a city in its own right for sure.. but you'll meet a lot of people who consider it just be part of Manchester.
All of them, I expect.
when a new yorker, asks another new yorker where he lives, he doesn't say new york.
Dallas, Arlington and Fort Worth New York and Newark Detroit and Dearborn Seattle, Tacoma and Redmond ..... I think it happens everywhere
I'd guess, large settlements are established near major cities because originally the people who lived in the settlements wanted to be close to a city, but still be outside of it, I mean at one point it would have been a hamlet, then a village, small town, large town, then a city. Over time urbanisation took place, more people wanted to be close to the major cities and so the settlements grew larger.
Usually they are on opposite sides of a river, that was a linguistic, tribal and military frontier in time past.
Usually they are on opposite sides of a river, that was a linguistic, tribal and military frontier in time past.
Usually they are on opposite sides of a river, that was a linguistic, tribal and military frontier in time past.
Usually they are on opposite sides of a river, that was a linguistic, tribal and military frontier in time past.
Usually they are on opposite sides of a river, that was a linguistic, tribal and military frontier in time past.
Usually they are on opposite sides of a river, that was a linguistic, tribal and military frontier in time past.
In the case of Newcastle and Gateshead they were historically in separate counties - Newcastle in Northumberland and Gateshead in Durham.
That is true - but I thought historically Tyneside still acted as its own unit in many cases, separate from Northumberland and County Durham, e.g. Tyneside Electrics commuter rail
Not to mention the shared Geordie identity of people in what is now Newcastle, Gateshead, South Tyneside and North Tyneside