Talk:Manchester city centre

Duplicated content
This article contains content that is duplicated in the Manchester page. I think there is a good case for merging the two and redirecting this one Manchester City Centre to the Manchester page which is more developed. What do people think? Bornslippy 12:57, 19 July 2004 (UTC)

I agree. PJBeef 16:01, 28 December 2004 (UTC)


 * I also agree. Some of the content is already duplicated, or can be moved into existing sections on the Manchester page. Perhaps any remaining information could be added as a new 'Manchester City Centre' sub-section on the Manchester page. --David Edgar 08:23, 11 January 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Some of the information here is too much for the main Manchester page. The City Centre is an official district of Manchester - it usually appears as a named location on OS maps as "City Centre". There should be some information about this area on the main Manchester page, but then the detailed stuff should be kept here in the separate City Centre article. David 08:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think there have been quite a lot of additions to Manchester since I last commented, and it probably is sensible to keep this page now.
 * Manchester provides a list of all the wards in the city - the City Centre ward, I believe, being the official district you refer to. Can we establish that this page should be limited to the geographical area of the ward? --David Edgar 10:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that despite the duplicated content, it is necessary to allow Manchester City Centre a distinct page, as it is a separate political and administrative entity. Likewise, it is also important that the page on 'Manchester' detail all of the relevant information on the conurbation of Manchester.  Manchester as a city has grown well beyond its administrative boundaries, and this is reflected in the attitudes of
 * 1. Foreign and national impressions of 'Manchester'
 * 2. National press
 * 3. The office of national statistics
 * 4. Manchester institutions and companies
 * The fact that the administrative boundaries of Manchester enclose only a portion of the living city is becoming as irrelevant as the fact that it is the same for the cities of London and indeed Westminster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.84.107 (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

More photos!
Come on guys - get some more photos of Manchester uploaded and added to this page and the Manchester main article. David 15:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

POV tag
Sounds like advertisements to the City Centre. Skinnyweed 22:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a good look through and I could see. So! I removed eevrything which sounded like an advert and in some cases, replaced it with a neutral sentence. - Erebus555 20:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK!
Hi, anyone fancy building a series on Manchester city centre? I think it could be really good for people new to the city and those who already live here to discover how great this place is. I work in the city centre so am planning to spend a bit of time taking pics of areas. I don't know how to make one of those "series" boxes, so could someone help? I think that following the rather good city centre divisions on the tourist map the council gives out would help, so here they are;

1. Manchester Arndale and Market Street 2. Deansgate, King Street and St Anns square 3. Peter's fields 4. Chinatown 5. Exhange square and new cathedral street 6. Northern Quarter 7. Piccadilly 8. Castlefield 9. The gay village 10. Spinningfields

I also propose the addition to this of Oxford Road/Manchester University.

These 11 areas would cover the city centre. Salford would have its own page, maybe with a link in the series box.

Can anyone help? I don't know how to change the template. --Totalthinker 22:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


 * First of all, I'm not sure what template you're talking about changing, but you can make a template by setting one up at Template:Whatever, making a table on that page, and then adding to this page. If you're confident enough to do this yourself, help is at Help:Template or Help:Table - otherwise you could always use a table that exists, copy its edit mode text and then paste and edit it on the new template's page.


 * There are already several articles on the places you mention, such as Northern Quarter, Piccadilly Gardens, Market Street (Manchester, England), Manchester Arndale, Canal Street (Manchester), Castlefield, Exchange Square (Manchester); but not on others, notably: Chinatown and St. Ann's Square - though I'm slightly dubious about making pages on areas that are just used in marketing literature (I've barely heard of Spinningfields but am dubious of Peter's fields - though I'm ahppy to be proved wrong). In any case, it would be easy to at least create a list on this page (if you're not comfortable enough to make a table/template) - however, most are there already, so a template sounds like a good addition. Overall, great to see some enthusiasm for this page - and your photos would be most welcome :-) Cheers. Cormaggio @ 08:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Chinatown
On this page it says that Chinatown in Manchester is the biggest in Europe, on the Chinatown page it says that it is the second largest in the UK after the one in London. Which is correct? CD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.33.99 (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dunno: things get worse. Think the largest dragon arch outside Mainland China still stands. Chinatown biggest in Europe oh no. A large area devoted to Chinese business etc. Manchester does hold the title of the largest collection of free municipal lending library books written in Chinese in Europe complete with a Chinese library. Mike33 13:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal
I see from the discussion above that merging this article with the Manchester article has been considered before, in 2005, when opinion seemed to be fairy evenly divided.

I'm proposing the merger again now for a number of reasons: --Malleus Fatuarum 17:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Manchester article has vastly improved in the meantime, and clearly has a great deal of overlap with this one.
 * This article is not being maintained: there are requests for citations dating back to March of this year.
 * The History section is just a stub referring to the Manchester article.
 * Much of the material looks like like an advertisement for the city centre.


 * I oppose the merge as this article should be a more precise and detailed account of the city centre area of Manchester, in the same way that other districts of the city have their own articles. David 17:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Support: Sorry, I forgot to add what is probably obvious anyway. As the nominator of this merger proposal, I'm strongly in favour of it. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I totally agree with Malleus that the quality of the article is poor; futher shown by the recent rocketting of strength in the Manchester article. However, I do think there is more than enough scope to keep and vastly expand (and thereby improve) this article. Furthermore, at a quick glad we do have Belfast City Centre, Bristol city centre, Newport city centre, Leicester City Centre and Sheffield City Centre. Surely the Gtr Mcr WikiProject can aid us in improving this article and keep a step ahead of the other cities? -- Jza84 · (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose I agree that this article could be better, but the city centre should have an article just as Ardwick, Ancoats, C-on-M etc do.  Mr Stephen 11:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose This article is a total mess but it is useful to have one about the city centre district as there are population figures published for it. I think this article should head in the direction of the economy i.e. focus on business, maybe merge some/all of Spinningfields into it? I get the impression from the article that it is supposed to be the central business district of the Manchester borough and it should focus directly onto that. I do think that suggesting the merge will spur interest in the article which is great! It doesn't need to be a huge article and could easily be overhauled. A detailed map of the boundries of the city would be great so we know what we can and can't include. └ and-rew ┘┌ talk ┐ 13:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I can see that I'm thrashing a dead horse with this merger proposal, so I'll withdraw it. Doesn't mean that I don't still believe that this article ought to be merged of course. :) --Malleus Fatuarum 22:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 05:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Five star hotel
I'm pretty sure that it's inaccurate to describe the Lowry as 'Manchester's first five-star hotel'. I think that the Midland was a five star rating when it opened but was subsequently downgraded. I've not checked for an online reference for this, but there was an illuminating documentary on Channel 4 about the Midland a couple of months ago. The same may apply for other hotels too, I don't know (the downgrading, rather than the documentary!). --Benwilson528 (talk) 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rename of Manchester City Centre
Surely this article Manchester City Centre, should be renamed Manchester city centre? Cutmynoseofftospitemyface (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think so too.... unless it's used officially, as in, by Manchester City Council? --Jza84 | Talk  18:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the rename too. Never understood why it was capitalised. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It appears to be named "City Centre" by the Ordnance Survey and MCC. Perhaps we can rename the article and mention that in the new version? --Jza84 | Talk  18:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, this is what London city centre does, and London City Centre is a redlink, as you can see. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It might be because London City Centre, is, effectively, the City of London, which is slightly different from Manchester. "Manchester City Centre" gets 423,000 hits, and "Central Manchester" 261,000. --Jza84 | Talk  18:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps. But that argument doesn't apply to Cardiff city centre, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant "Manchester city centre". I was suggesting we go for that. Of course, we could mention that "Central Manchester" and "City Centre" are also conterminate? --Jza84 | Talk  20:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * We could, but isn't that kind of obvious? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yup, probably why I suggested it. :S --Jza84 | Talk  20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

(<-) How's that? I hope that's ok for everyone. --Jza84 | Talk  23:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The city centre of London is really two cities: the City of London with its own local government and the City of Westminster (as it was before 1965).--Felix Folio Secundus (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Density?
How is a density given for this neighborhood, if there is no land area given? What exactly are you basing the size on to be able to calculate the density? What, the electoral ward some other definition..? --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Since the population of the electoral ward is given, it's logical that the population density is also that of the ward. I have double checked this from the source (statistics.gov) myself and this is the case. Nev1 (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * A new demography section has been added to the article. It even mentions the area the ward covers (the ward provided the easiest figures and is mentioned in the lead so seemed sensible). Nev1 (talk) 05:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, than the land area should be added to the infobox to keep these consistent with other pages. It makes little sense to add the population and density and not include the square mileage/kilometers. --Criticalthinker (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks like it's 559 ha . I'll pop this in. --Jza84 | Talk  12:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Transport
The article is missing a section detailing transport information for the city centre, which I think would be key. There is only minimal mention of transportation on the article. Tong22 (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead
The lead had multiple issues: repetition, non-notablity, insufficent refs and incoherency.

Manchester city centre – known formally as City Centre[1]

Bit repetitive and non-notable

is the central business district of both Manchester and Greater Manchester,[2] in North West England.

Seems a pretty slight ref for such a sweeping claim: is Manchester city centre really the central business district of Bolton, Bury, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockport, Tameside, Trafford and Wigan?

The city centre, as defined by Manchester City Council, lies within the Manchester Inner Ring Road, straddling the River Irwell, and thereby encompassing a small part of the neighbouring City of Salford.[3]

Salford is a separate city from Manchester, how can any of it lie within Manchester city centre? Surely the Irwell is the border. Haldraper (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The river IS the border, in places, BUT there are parts of Salford, BOTH sides of the river, to the north of the city centre up from Manchester Prison, towards Higher Broughton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.197.204 (talk) 22:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Salford is a separate city from Manchester, how can any of it lie within Manchester city centre? If you have no idea what you are talking about, best leave the articles alone.  Mr Stephen (talk) 17:04, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr Stephen, thank you for your civil, comprehensive and highly illuminating response. Which parts of Salford do you think are in Manchester city centre btw? Haldraper (talk) 17:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * What I think about the boundaries of the area is neither here nor there. One starting point for the boundaries would be the map in the reference that you removed from the article.  Mr Stephen (talk) 18:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)


 * A starting point for agreeing what the boundaries are is to acknowledge that for an area to be part of Manchester city centre it has to be in the City of Manchester. Sounds pretty simple to me.


 * The ref you cite isn't conclusive. Pevsner's guide to South Lancashire, for example, says that the western border of the city centre is the Irwell, i.e. the boundary between the cities of Manchester and Salford. It's also the boundary of the city centre electoral ward: http://marcramsbottom.org.uk/en/document/city-centre-ward-boundaries. Haldraper (talk) 08:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In brief: you don't understand the difference between the loosely defined centre of Manchester and Manchester City Centre.  You deleted a brief note that was trying to lead the reader; you would have done better to read up on the subject and expand the distinction.  Manchester City Centre is reasonably well-defined for strategic purposes and, just as the article used to say, extends into Salford.  You might not like it, I might not like it, but there it is.  The steer was in the material you deleted—Manchester Council—but to save you the effort I will give you a link to a strategic plan for manchester city centre 2009-2012 one of many local planning documents referring to the core, this time containing in terms on p30 Chapel Street is the historic core of Salford and is now an integral part of the city centre and one of its primary gateways.  There is a map near the end of the document.  Mr Stephen (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Does that mean Manchester or Salford city centre? It's not clear. In any case, Manchester city council defines the city centre as an electoral ward that does not include any part of Salford. The ONS map is just a photograph, the border of it is just that, not the extent of the city centre (the Mancheste-Salford boundary is clearly marked on it). Similarly, the GMPTE ref does not say that Manchester city centre is the central business district of Greater Manchester, it says that Manchester and the adjoining parts of Salford and Trafford form a contiguous urban core of Greater Manchester with the surrounding towns like Oldham and Rochdale having their own centres. Haldraper (talk) 12:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The meaning is crystal clear. Mr Stephen (talk) 21:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

It is agreed, by most who live here, that the small part of Salford, within the Ring Road, IS a part of "the city centre" or "Central Manchester", whatever you want to call it!!!Just shows what a joke our local authority borders are within this conurbation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.183.8 (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Love how people, who do NOT live in this rather unique conurbation, love telling us what is what!!!! The area of Salford, WITHIN the inner ring road, IS considered part of the "CITY CENTRE". We all know, even those of us in Salford, Salford DOES NOT really have one!!!The two authorities DO work together promoting the whole area. So this fact needs at least to be ackowledged. We are well aware of the municipal boundaries which most of us cross several times a day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.182.49 (talk) 11:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Future Developments- Co-op quarter
Hello all. Under the future developments section, we have a reference to a 'Co-op quarter'. I believe this has recently been rebranded as "Noma" and there is a bit more information about it here. Can the article be updated to reflect this new information? Tong22 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Lead, again
Hello all,

The lead has been subject of a very viscous and long edit war regarding the definition of Manchester city centre, for months if not years now. I'm concerned that the lead has been diminished by this which could/should be resolved by basing edits on reliable source material, not air brushing or personal preferences or misunderstanding/misreading of source material (both versions are guilty of at least part of these!).

I have spent some time looking closely at the source material would like to propose we adopt a tighter, better defined lead like that written in my draft at User:Jza84/Sandbox2. I do not believe that that should be the lead, rather I believe that those should be two of the three to four needed (we need something on high-rises, notable buildings, politcal and historical activity, the canal/train/tram/bus transport network which converges here and also how the centre is now divided amongst zones such as China Town, Spinningfields, Gay Village etc etc).

Thoughts please? --Jza84 &#124; Talk  22:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If there's no objections, I'll switch the lead over to the draft, and try to add some more regarding the centre's zones and buildings etc. I'd like to get something in there about being the hub of the cotton trade (trade not industry) and Peterloo too where possible. --Jza84 &#124; Talk  10:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've not much objection to the stuff in the lead per se, just that most of it isn't notable enough for the lead which as a result ends up as overlong and rambling with all kinds of obscure, minor and random facts. Haldraper (talk) 07:33, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What you're saying has validity and I've tried to further streamline the rewrite. For me there are a couple of key things needed in the lead - Roman origins, Peterloo, cotton trading centre, notable historical buildings, and the notable modern high rises (only mentioning two - the former tallest in Europe and current tallest in the city), decline and redevelopment. Others may think other things ought to be included (and part of me says the town hall is worthy of a mention). Simillarly the location and definition are important too - would I be right in saying that it is this last issue which causes issue for you (with regards to Salford and Greater Manchester)? --Jza84 &#124; Talk  18:35, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the fact that the City Council defines part of Salford as within the city centre is one of the things that isn't notable enough for the lead and should be in the body instead. Haldraper (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think it's important to define the boundaries early on and as part of Salford is within them it should be mentioned in the lead and in the body of the article. J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, super important for someone looking for general info that the City Council's technical definition is included in the lead. Haldraper (talk) 07:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I too think it's important to include a definition, or definitions. The fact that part of Salford is also considered a part of the city centre is not only curious, but surely interesting and noteworthy. And also it's not only the city council which does this - Visit Manchester and at least one book (Rebuilding Manchester by Euan Kellie) do the same when I've looked in to this further.


 * To be fair, this has been moved from the immediate opening of the article and into an expanded lead which includes other definitions. I think it now makes it clear that the Salford issue is definitive. Surely that's a stronger lead we now have? --Jza84 &#124; Talk  14:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it is definitive (I've never got my head round the idea that some people think part of one city is in the city centre of another) and a lot of weight is being placed on obscure planning documents rather than the actual administrative boundaries of Manchester and the Central ward. The fact that some people define it as such is interesting and noteworthy but belongs in the body rather than the lead which should concentrate on giving an overview of the area and its history for the general reader. Haldraper (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops! Sorry I meant to type "I think it now makes it clear that the Salford issue is not the definitive definition"! I do agree on that, and the source material shows that it's not the sole definition.


 * If you come at this from a different angle - ask yourself "what is Manchester city centre?", and then research and present the findings.... --Jza84 &#124; Talk  16:49, 30 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "The idea that some people think part of one city is in the city centre of another" is indeed a very good reason for including it in the lead. The regenerated Greengate, Salford which is closer to the cathedral than most of the city centre is presumably part of it. The histories of Manchester and this very old part of Salford are certainly linked and not only by bridges. J3Mrs (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's a minor and eccentric belief akin to those who think the Earth is flat and Man didn't go the Moon. It's worth noting but not in the lead. You're either in the City of Manchester or the City of Salford but not both at the same time (unless you stand in the middle of a bridge across the Irwell I suppose). Haldraper (talk) 08:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I do agree with much of what you're saying, although I think the connection with flat Earth and conspiracy theories is a little OTT in this case. I'm also all for using legal administrative boundaries, and equally find it utterly frustrating when (for example) the University of Salford decided to brand itself as "in Manchester". However, we're here to write an encyclopedia bound by rules and protocal, and in this case the page Verifiability, not truth is probably the overriding guideline here, and explains the correct approach to be taken in instances where published source material exists, even when we just don't like it. --Jza84 &#124; Talk  09:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

How about this?

''Manchester city centre is the central business district of Manchester in North West England. The electoral ward of Manchester Central has an area of 2.2 square miles (5.7 km2).''

''Manchester city centre evolved from the civilian vicus of the Roman fort of Mamucium on a sandstone bluff near the confluence of the rivers Medlock and Irwell. This became the township of Manchester during the Middle Ages and was later the site of the Peterloo Massacre in 1819. Manchester was granted city status in 1853 as the Industrial Revolution transformed it into a centre of the cotton trade with buildings such as the Royal Exchange, the Corn Exchange, the Free Trade Hall, and the Great Northern Warehouse. As the cotton trade declined in the mid-20th century, the city centre experienced an economic downturn.''

''The 1996 IRA bombing led to the redevelopment of the city centre and an upturn in retail, leisure and urban living. The revival of the city centre included the construction of the 551 ft (168 metre) Beetham Tower.'' Manchester city centre lies next to the River Irwell, across which is the neighbouring City of Salford.

Haldraper (talk) 12:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely not an improvement. I see you have managed to omit any mention of Greater Manchester. Not the first time you've tried to remove interesting content from the lead of settlement articles. J3Mrs (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's about Manchester city centre. The county Manchester is in is not what people are looking for in the lead. Haldraper (talk) 15:24, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm with J3Mrs here - I disagree entirely. That Greater Manchester is not what people are looking for is not based on anything other than censorship. Equally your suggested lead is not what the source material says - Verifiability, not truth is key here. --Jza84 &#124; Talk  10:29, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Where fiction and non-fiction collide
Hi all,

Just compare this for a moment. Take a look at the discussions above. Ask yourself what's happened to the lead over the last 12 months. Ask yourself where "The city centre acts as the transport interchange for Greater Manchester and over 7 million people live within an hour's drive of it.." comes from and how one might scruitise this with Wikipedia's arsenal of guidelines. Ask yourself if reference removing, airbrushing of fact, and imposition of a narrow personal desire may have occurred here.

Support good research. Support good referencing. Support good editing! Please! --Jza84 &#124; Talk  00:43, 20 December 2014 (UTC)