Is Sheffield the worst planned developed city in UK?

[mike84 13]

Sheffield is no different than every other city in the uk.

 

The street layout in the centre is virtually the same as 100 years ago. Without wholesale demolition of hundreds of buildings it won't ever change. And £billions being spent on new road infrastructure it will always be the same. The U.K. As a whole hasn't been planned or designed for the volume of traffic and car ownership we have.

[gwhite78 10]

Such a small town ? Sheffield is one of the biggest citys in the country and is a city, i agree that the road planning in the city centre is a complete mess and must have been disigned by a right pilok.

 

Yes Sheffield 'technically' is a city because has a town hall and cathedral. But it's tiny. The hills make it appear bigger than what it really is. Sheffield at best is a overgrown racist parochial town. Apart from traffic caused by insane inept planning, it doesn't feel, act, operate or offer many city attractions at all. It's only strong point is the accessible surrounding rugged countryside.

 

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 02:48 ----------

 

No cycle infrastructure in a city built across the foothills of the Pennines? Shocking.

 

San Francisco is just as hilly, if not hillier than Sheffield and must be at least 10x bigger. SF like many Scandanavian cities and towns has plenty of well used cycle infrastructure and bike pullies /lifts to take you up hills so you don't have to pedal.

Edited September 29, 2015 by gwhite78

[Mighty Clean 10]

its a struggle to see any road markings in many off streets and roads that's for sure, seems like the council are only interested in bus routes as there very much in the public eye all else seems to be ignored.

[Cyclone 10]

Yes Sheffield 'technically' is a city because has a town hall and cathedral. But it's tiny. The hills make it appear bigger than what it really is. Sheffield at best is a overgrown racist parochial town. Apart from traffic caused by insane inept planning, it doesn't feel, act, operate or offer many city attractions at all. It's only strong point is the accessible surrounding rugged countryside

Overgrown town that's the 4th biggest city in England.

Feel free to leave if you don't like it though.

 

San Francisco is just as hilly, if not hillier than Sheffield and must be at least 10x bigger. SF like many Scandanavian cities and towns has plenty of well used cycle infrastructure and bike pullies /lifts to take you up hills so you don't have to pedal.

 

US cities are entirely different to the UK. Sheffields roads probably existed before the first European settler even landed on the East coast of the US, never mind started building a settlement on the West.

[Jonny5 10]

Yes Sheffield 'technically' is a city because has a town hall and cathedral. But it's tiny. The hills make it appear bigger than what it really is. Sheffield at best is a overgrown racist parochial town. Apart from traffic caused by insane inept planning, it doesn't feel, act, operate or offer many city attractions at all. It's only strong point is the accessible surrounding rugged countryside.

First bolded bit is so wrong. Sheffield is a proper city, look at views of it on any road atlas or google maps.

 

It covers more land area that San Francisco (actual SF, not the sprawl down to San Jose).

 

The only thing that is small is the mentality of the people who run it (and quite a few people who live here). Because of them I agree with the second bolded bit.

[Wazzock 10]

ghwhite 78 - overgrown racist parochial town??? What a load of insulting bulls**t!

[truman 10]

First bolded bit is so wrong. Sheffield is a proper city, look at views of it on any road atlas or google maps.

 

.

 

What's your definition of a city?

[Jonny5 10]

The hub for several smaller surrounding towns and villages.

 

The population & area depends on the population density of the surrounding areas, but anywhere that has fulfils the above criteria and has a population over 500k is a 'proper' city.

[Grappler 12]

Yes Sheffield 'technically' is a city because has a town hall and cathedral. But it's tiny. The hills make it appear bigger than what it really is. Sheffield at best is a overgrown racist parochial town. Apart from traffic caused by insane inept planning, it doesn't feel, act, operate or offer many city attractions at all. It's only strong point is the accessible surrounding rugged countryside.

---------- Post added 29-09-2015 at 02:48 ----------

 

 

San Francisco is just as hilly, if not hillier than Sheffield and must be at least 10x bigger. SF like many Scandanavian cities and towns has plenty of well used cycle infrastructure and bike pullies /lifts to take you up hills so you don't have to pedal.

 

Nope, Sheffield is 142 square miles and San Francisco is 241 square miles, so almost twice the size.

 

EDIT: While greater San Francisco is bigger than greater Sheffield, the city centre of San Francisco is not that big, nice and compact and easy to walk around, so in that sense, the cities are much more of an equal size.

Edited September 29, 2015 by Grappler

[Cyclone 10]

The hub for several smaller surrounding towns and villages.

 

The population & area depends on the population density of the surrounding areas, but anywhere that has fulfils the above criteria and has a population over 500k is a 'proper' city.

 

That's a high bar, that probably limits England to about 6 cities in total.

[Grappler 12]

The hub for several smaller surrounding towns and villages.

 

The population & area depends on the population density of the surrounding areas, but anywhere that has fulfils the above criteria and has a population over 500k is a 'proper' city.

 

While I would agree that a "city" should be of a certain size, that doesn't change the fact that Truro is classed as a city, with a population less than both Sheffield football clubs get in attendance at home games.

 

From Henry the VIII time up until the 20th century, a city had to have a diocesan cathedral, these days any town can apply for city status I think.

[Jonny5 10]

Nope, Sheffield is 142 square miles and San Francisco is 241 square miles, so almost twice the size.

SF is nothing like that big. That's taking into account either water or Oakland, & San Jose, which I wouldn't recommend that you do

 

 

That's a high bar, that probably limits England to about 6 cities in total.

I reckon 7. I think that's about right. "Proper" Cities that is. London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool, Sheffield, Bristol.

 

Obviously there are a couple of dozen other cities.

 

I don't want to get into a 30 post 3 day marathon but those are imo historically and geographically the nations most important cities.

 

Although every year that goes by Sheffield's inclusion on that list looks a little bit more tenuous