Cities

fricatus

There's a silly debate raging in another thread, yet again dragging a good discussion off topic.

Perhaps we can agree some ground rules, and mods, maybe you'd like to enforce them?

Here is what I think we should agree:

1. Cork, Dublin, Galway, Limerick and Waterford are cities - they have city councils as provided for in law. Kilkenny should be referred to a city too, since this title is permitted in law as an honorary basis.

2. If someone inadvertently refers to Limerick or Waterford as a town, or refers to Sligo or Athlone as a city for example, we agree to let it slide and not drag the discussion off-topic. Anyone who makes a big deal out of such minor mistakes should be given a warning.

3. The distinction between city and town is not clear-cut. The UK has its royal charters, the US has its incorporated cities (in both cases some are smaller than ours), we have our own statutes and the French for example avoid the whole stupid issue by calling everything "une ville". Everybody seems to have their own opinions on what the criteria should be, but we don't need these trotted out in every thread.

4. Deliberate snide references, calculated to insult people, diminish their locality, troll, etc., e.g. Kilkenny "city", Galway is just a town, get over it, oh yeah, Waterford is a massive city :rolleyes: , should be met with a warning too.

Anyone else willing to sign up to my little charter or add their own bits?

Bards

just made some small amendments to point 2 & 4.

2. If someone inadvertently refers to Limerick or Waterford as a town, or refers to Sligo or Athlone as a city for example should receive a warning asking them to read the charter and further uttereances will be met with a ban

3. The distinction between city and town is not clear-cut. The UK has its royal charters, the US has its incorporated cities (in both cases some are smaller than ours), we have our own statutes and the French for example avoid the whole stupid issue by calling everything "une ville". Everybody seems to have their own opinions on what the criteria should be, but we don't need these trotted out in every thread.

4. Deliberate snide references, calculated to insult people, diminish their locality, troll, etc., e.g. Kilkenny "city", Galway is just a town, get over it, oh yeah, Waterford is a massive city , should be met with an infraction.

Amtmann

Lads, I cannot believe ye are doing this. I've gained a respect for the two of you as posters on all the other threads we've participated in, but this is unbelievable. It really is the heart ruling the head. That's all I have to say about it.

fricatus

Furet wrote: »

It really is the heart ruling the head. That's all I have to say about it.

No Furet, my intention is the opposite. We had a perfectly good discussion going on the merits or not of the M24, then someone uses the wrong word, which someone else nit-picks and then bang! - there's a big, ridiculous, heated, off-topic argument happening!

Maybe I'm going about this in the wrong way, maybe my little informal charter is a blunt instrument or just a plain stupid idea, but what I want is for discussions not to be derailed for the umpteenth time by this bloody city/town argument!

If you think it's a stupid idea, fine. I was just throwing it out there.

mike65

Ah lads flashing cards for poorly designating an urban centre is a bit much and whatsmore if I refer to Kilkenny as a town which I like to do when the mood takes me I'd get banned.

fricatus

mike65 wrote: »

Ah lads flashing cards for poorly designating an urban centre is a bit much and whatsmore if I refer to Kilkenny as a town which I like to do when the mood takes me I'd get banned.

Yeah but Mike the point is that if you do that inadvertently, and then someone else pulls you up, then they get the card flashed at them.

Likewise, if you're doing it to get a dig in at Kilkenny or wherever, and God knows, we love doing that here in Waterford town , then you should get the card flashed at you, because you're inciting a flame war, the like of which we've been seeing in the M24 discussion.

serfboard

You're right to debate it, but there are other things I've seen that can cause threads to deteriorate (e.g. whether the south-east is ignored/gets too much ).

So, ye could report off-topic posts to the moderator and:

1. The thread could be closed.
2. The off-topic posts moved or deleted.
3. Persistent, deliberate, trolling, flaming off-topicers could be suspended or banned.

invincibleirish

Epic lulz to the OP, When it comes to roads, rail & other infrastructure, most of our cities are classed as towns. You can't magic a major urban area out of the statute books, and having local government like a city council does not entitle anywhere to a certain level of infrastructure provision. Local pride & wounded ego appears to be the catalyst for this thread, and the day Boards starts banning people because people are upset over calling a spade a spade is truly the day the loons are running the asylum.

Amtmann

I did not have any acrimonious feelings about the M24 thread. I was in fact finding it to be an enjoyable and interesting discussion. I had no idea that certain posters are incapable of detached, objective assessment, all the while seething behind their computer screens.

Some of the posters from Waterford take it personally when one calls into question Waterford's claim to be a city in the twenty-first century sense of the word, as though this somehow insults them as individuals. This is a completely irrational, primitive, feelings-based reaction. Can people not reflect rationally on how things are, or must every criticism of a particular place in this country always be met with a protracted sulk?

The M24 thread is now acrimonious, because Bards would clearly like to have posters like me banned for arguing a valid point in a rational, detached manner (but mostly, it seems, because I disagree with him).

For the record fricatus, I regard your proposal as ill-conceived, unworkable control freakery and an impediment to discussion. Furthermore, Bards's addenda are ludicrous and blatantly self-contradictory, to put it mildly.

And again, it fails to recognise that people do not have any problem with the legal title of 'city' being held by any place so recognised for historical reasons. But this is an infrastructure forum, and the feelings projected by some people here translate as simplistically and fatuously as: "Waterford is a city, therefore it 'deserves' the infrastructure normally associated with modern cities". This is the belief that I object to, mostly because it is a classic non sequitur - one which is displayed subtly again and again across these threads. The criteria for beefing up an urban area's infrastructure can not be based on whether or not that area is called a city. It must be based on population density and movements.

fricatus

invincibleirish wrote: »

Local pride & wounded ego appears to be the catalyst for this thread

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not going to repeat it.

fricatus

Furet wrote: »

For the record fricatus, I regard your proposal as ill-conceived, unworkable control freakery and an impediment to discussion.

That's fine Furet, I was just trying to find a way to stop threads descending into this silly city/town argument again. If someone has a better way, let them come out with it. I think serfboard is probably right, in that we just have to report off-topic posts to the mods.

Furet wrote: »

The criteria for beefing up an urban area's infrastructure can not be based on whether or not that area is called a city. It must be based on population density and movements.

I'll second that. The trouble is that such data isn't readily available in this country. My little analysis (see other thread) is an example. Why isn't this information made readily available by the CSO?

I also posted a thread asking about numbers employed in each city and county last week. Those who replied very helpfully told me that I'd have to contact the CSO. While I'm very appreciative of their replies, it's unbelievable that this data is not just available publicly on the web.

Maybe the problem is just that we need better data? Otherwise we're just working with guesstimates, which people will exaggerate to suit their own ends.

invincibleirish

fricatus wrote: »

You've missed my point entirely. I'm not going to repeat it.

How have i missed the point Fricatus? your OP suggests to me that when we talk about infrastructure or planning we have to refer to these areas as cities because under local government they are categorised as such. But transport economics does not deal with local government boundaries it deals with people, how many of them are there, and where they drive/take PT to and from.

Typewriter

mysterious

Oh for the love of God, Why is that Waterford people get so hot headed about this, the facts don't matter, you've all made up your minds that Waterford is liable to this and that and Waterford should have this motorway and that motorway. It never ends...........

People will be getting banned, because no one is going to agree to dissagree on anything.


We all know Waterford is hardly a city. We all know Galway is a small city. We all know limerick is still small, and Cork is medium provincial sized town in EU terms.

What are you trying to prove by creating this thread.

fricatus

invincibleirish wrote: »

How have i missed the point Fricatus? your OP suggests to me that when we talk about infrastructure or planning we have to refer to these areas as cities because under local government they are categorised as such. But transport economics does not deal with local government boundaries it deals with people, how many of them are there, and where they drive/take PT to and from.

Invincibleirish, would you read points 2, 3 and 4 of what I was saying, as well as point 1? Maybe if I try to explain my intentions without trying to sound all legalistic and high and mighty

1. The city/town usage is set down in law, so we should use this as our guide.
2. But if we occasionally slip up, it's no big deal.
3. People sometimes think the usage set down in law is incorrect, but we don't need that discussed on every thread.
4. And don't go annoying people by deliberatly being provocative.

I'm not looking for the boards charter to be changed. Like I said, I'm just sick of this silly argument constantly coming up. I am going to adhere to these principles from now on. If you agree with them, you might as well do so too.

doolox

I think a city has to have a Mayor and aldermen and a separate ruling council to be considered a city. A town may have some of these features but devolves to its county for other powers.
Size has little to do with it as some towns, such as Drogheda and Dundalk are bigger than Kilkenny, which is a City because it has a mayor and an historical charter going back centuries.
It just hasn't grown or maintained its population as fast as others.
You get strange divisions of power and taxation in Dublin, for example, where the City council collects car tax for all constituent public authorities in the former County of Dublin, which ,for local authority purposes, no longer exists.
While Limerick and Waterford have two car number-plate designations, LK and L and W and WD, Galway and Cork only have one for both their respective Cities and Counties
Strange anomolies occur as town council boundaries are expanded into neighbouring county areas with parts of Roscommon becoming parts of Galway and Westmeath as Ballinasloe and Athlone reach out further into the verdant fields of south Roscommon to accomodate growth.
A similar process occurs in Limerick city into Clare and Waterford city Northwards into Kilkenny etc.

KevR

Population:
City of London - 7,800
City of Galway - 72,729

Galway should have 9 times the infrastructure of London and I will be insulted if anyone suggests otherwise!

mike65

doolox wrote: »

Strange anomolies occur as town council boundaries are expanded into neighbouring county areas with parts of Roscommon becoming parts of Galway and Westmeath as Ballinasloe and Athlone reach out further into the verdant fields of south Roscommon to accomodate growth.
A similar process occurs in Limerick city into Clare and Waterford city Northwards into Kilkenny etc.

We wish!

mysterious

KevR wrote: »

Population:
City of London - 7,800
City of Galway - 72,729

Galway should have 9 times the infrastructure of London and I will be insulted if anyone suggests otherwise!

Thats why the Waterford crew opened this thread.

They cant handle the fact that Waterford barely is a city. So they decided to swallow up the outliying countryside by 25km. It's so below me. This argument is just beyond redicoulous. We have been through the mill with this so many times.

Waterford has a population of 45,000. It get investments far higher than any town of that size in the UK. There are very few cities of this size that have direct motorway links to London. In this case Waterford will have two.

But somehow this arguments doesn't hold water to them. This is why there is no point.

My city is Limerick, and Limerick is small too. Limerick has lost alot of direct investment. It has gotten alot of bad treatment. Private investment is what really lifted the city out of the dark age. We have a minister Willie O Dea that is a national joke, does nothing for the city. Nothing. Limerick is twice the size of Waterford, yet we have gotten just about the same level of investment in the last few years.

But again I have to point out this argument is pathetic, people are going to dissagree no matter what, because it's personal.

I'm not cus I can handle the facts and accept the facts as they are.

fricatus

Oh I give up...

invincibleirish

Don't give up Fricatus, i hear what you are trying to say but i don't think anyone is going to notice so long as there are excitable elements around just dying to take offence. Also can i have a copy of your work on the population stats, i'm a nerd for these kind of things. Pretty please?

fricatus

invincibleirish wrote: »

Don't give up Fricatus, i hear what you are trying to say but i don't think anyone is going to notice so long as there are excitable elements around just dying to take offence.

Cheers invincibleirish...

invincibleirish wrote: »

Also can i have a copy of your work on the population stats, i'm a nerd for these kind of things. Pretty please?

Of course you can... it's going to take another few weeks though, since I'm quite busy at work.

Remind me via PM in a month if I forget, will you?

Gruffalo

mysterious wrote: »

They cant handle the fact that Waterford barely is a city.

There is no barely about it. It is a city. City status in Ireland has nothing to do with population.

So they decided to swallow up the outliying countryside by 25km.

But is this not a sad indictment of the incompetent way in which we run our country that cities are not already planned this way.

Waterford has a population of 45,000. It get investments far higher than any town of that size in the UK.

I would imagine that you are correct here. But we do not have as many competing towns and cities as the UK.

There are very few cities of this size that have direct motorway links to London. In this case Waterford will have two.

Waterford is getting two Motorways to London? Have you started a thread on this?

My city is Limerick, and Limerick is small too. Limerick has lost alot of direct investment. It has gotten alot of bad treatment. Private investment is what really lifted the city out of the dark age.

True, and a great city too. I do love Limerick.

We have a minister Willie O Dea that is a national joke, does nothing for the city.

I think he might have gone international at this stage. Stories of his renown have travelled.

Nothing. Limerick is twice the size of Waterford, yet we have gotten just about the same level of investment in the last few years.

And the government have screwed up here. Limerick could be a great source of employment for the people of North Kerry, Limerick, Tipp and Clare. I wouldn't say it is Waterford's fault though, more incompetent governance.

But again I have to point out this argument is pathetic, people are going to dissagree no matter what, because it's personal.

I'm not cus I can handle the facts and accept the facts as they are.

It is not a personal argument. A city is a city as defiined by the rules of the country.

This argument would not even exist if the Government planned properly i.e. set proper city boundaries and focus on growing the cities. If you grow the cities, many of the small towns around them will grow in order to provide support and services.

Fricatus, I think your analysis is a great idea and I too would love to read it when you are finished. In fact I suggest that it would make a very interesting thread.

invincibleirish

Gruffalo wrote: »

It is not a personal argument. A city is a city as defiined by the rules of the country.

But as mentioned those 'rules' (bills) only set out local administrative divisions & boundaries. Not relevant to infrastructure provision.

Gruffalo wrote: »

This argument would not even exist if the Government planned properly i.e. set proper city boundaries and focus on growing the cities. If you grow the cities, many of the small towns around them will grow in order to provide support and services.

Agreed, and to take it further is to re-organise local government boundaries to rationalise and eliminate parochial concerns. As is we have a huge local government administration, but it is inefficient and under utilised as power is centralised.

Gruffalo

invincibleirish wrote: »

But as mentioned those 'rules' (bills) only set out local administrative divisions & boundaries. Not relevant to infrastructure provision.

They do give a place its proper title i.e. Waterford city, Limerick city etc. Population centres are relevant to infrastructure provision, but that does not affect a place's proper name and the fact that in Ireland a city is not given city status because of population, but for other silly reasons. Irish law does override any argument based on infrastructure provision. Therefore, these places are cities.


Agreed, and to take it further is to re-organise local government boundaries to rationalise and eliminate parochial concerns. As is we have a huge local government administration, but it is inefficient and under utilised as power is centralised.

There is certainly a lot that needs to be done to improve the running of the country. Some people have the idea that it is just Leinster House that needs to be sorted, but as you suggest everything down to local level needs reform. We could have great cities in Dublin, Cork, Waterford, Limerick and Galway, if we could get people to run the country properly.

mysterious

My estimated figures. for next census

Cork, 194,000
Limerick 96,000
GalwaY 75,000
Waterford 46,500.

Population predictions for towns
That will have over 30,000. The bolded towns could get city status imo, they have decent size town centres, with many streets. Drogheha is a large town, but there is only one main street in it with many medievial lanes off it. I'm very surprised how small Drogheda was, considering it's big enough to be a city in Irish terms. now I still think a town of 30,000 is not a city IMO. But I'm just going by our standards.
Droghehda,
Ennis
Bray
Swords
Navan
Dundalk

Towns that should be well on the growth list in the next census.
Portaoise
Carlow
Tralee
Mallow
Nenagh
Mullingar
Wexford
Tullamore
Shannon
Sligo
Letterkenny
Longford
Kilarney
Kilkenny
Greystones
Newcastlewest
Tuam

Speaking of the big towns, is there any plans to make Ennis a city:D it's a buzzing town. Ennis seems to have almost everything a city has, and been on the N18 highway and close to Shannon airport.

dubhthach

mysterious wrote: »

Speaking of the big towns, is there any plans to make Ennis a city:D it's a buzzing town. Ennis seems to have almost everything a city has, and been on the N18 highway and close to Shannon airport.

Well given the way the local councillors are acting whose knows, after all the zoned enough residential land around Ennis for an additional 30k people. Main reason why they are in trouble with Dept. of the Environment

serfboard

dubhthach wrote: »

Well given the way the local councillors are acting whose knows, after all the zoned enough residential land around Ennis for an additional 30k people. Main reason why they are in trouble with Dept. of the Environment

"Local councillors in dodgy rezoning shock!"

allied to:

"Brown envelope manufacturer blames banking crisis for fall in demand"

JayeL

I think as a country, we should have the brass neck to declare any town we want, within reason, as a city. There's several reasons for that:

1. It gives the place a bit of a push: when Newry, hardly Queen Elizabeth II's biggest fans, got a piece of paper from Buckingham Palace declaring the place to be a city, that was that. The whole place went nuts, they had a big party, Sinn Fein thought it was a great idea and they all went around enthusiastically replacing "town" with "city" on every sign in town. I mean city. It mattered not a jot in real terms, it changed very little for them in reality but it had this kind of alchemic effect on the place. Well, that and Dubs looking for Sainsburys. And there wasn't a general feeling of "who does Newry think it is?" So what would be the difference in calling Dundalk a city? Does the Queen of England have to do it or it doesn't count?

2. What bleedin' difference does it make/what harm does it do? Declaring Sligo, Athlone, Drogheda, Dundalk or even Clonmel (which I think really was regarded as a city at some stage) is a city does no harm to anyone. And Americans/Canadians/Australians would bat an eyelid at the idea of a city of 20,000, never mind 200,000. It's just our use of the word "city" and the connotations of it to us that give us these hang-ups/inferiority complex about it i.e. sure we're only Ireland, what do we think we are, calling any place on this little island a city?

3. It's cheap. Declaring a half-dozen towns in Ireland as cities will cost very little (paper on which to write legislation and banners for the big day in each new city) and it'll inevitably put these places on the map; whether it's in a positive (investors could perceive "Ennis City" to be a more defined, outward-looking place than "the town of Ennis") or negative ("who does Sligo think it is?") way.

4. It could become a carrot for towns to operate to a higher standard. A city status committee could declare towns as cities if they met strict criteria - and they could take it off them if they weren't. So councils might be tempted to actually take action against corrupt councillors because they "brought the city into disrepute".

Amtmann

Cashel was a city too back in the day. It's little more than a pimple now.

Look. Nomenclature doesn't matter. I have no problem with somewhere small (say population 30,000 - 60,000) being called a city. It's when locals then think that they're "entitled to" or "deserve" a goody bag of infrastructural investment simply because they live in a 'city' that the trouble starts. Again, the only factors that should matter when it comes to providing infrastructure are demographics and demand.