2006-11-27 03:13:12 · 14 answers · asked by yomamaspimp 1 in Travel ➔ United Kingdom ➔ Other - United Kingdom
Birmingham is Englands 'second' city as its the second largest in size after London - not because its the second nicest!
2006-11-28 23:35:58 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well having been born in London lived in Birmingham for half of my life and Manchester for the other half I think I am best to say that each one of the cities has their charm.
I do not agree that Manchester is Britains second city nor do I agree it should be England's second city. Birmingham should not be england's second city either and Liverpool should not be the European capital of culture but unfortunately we do not get to choose these thats is all based on Politics.
But as Birmingham is england's second city one has to try and figure out why.
- They have a wonderful fountain in the centre of Birmingham and hold a German christmas market there every year.
- The museums and art Galleries are diffcult to find but worth a look once you do find them.
- The shopping is fantastic in Birmingham and a lot cheaper than othe rplaces I have been.
- Birmingham and the Black Country has a fantastic amount of history and cultural activity if you care to look.
- The accent in Birmingham is a lot more fun to try and figure out.
- The Transport system, which I will admit needs updating, is not tooo bad for a city.
Manchester on the other hand.
- The Trafford centre is a great place to go shopping despite it being extremely expensive and usually over-run with annoying teenage gangs especially in the holidays.
- The transport system is amazing with the metro.
- Of course the most famous football team in the world is there.
- The commonweath games have been held there.
- Manchester airport is one of the nicest airports that I have had the pleasure of using.
So as you can see each city is different in it's own respect both with their pro's and con's so If I were you I would leave that descision to the politicians and just enjoy the city you live in.
2006-11-27 09:54:32 · answer #2 · answered by truly_malteaser 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Manchester is not classified as the second city of England. Birmingham and Manchester have been battling for this title for a while, however, it has been established that Birmigham is the second city of England. Both of these cities have undergone a major re-vamp over the past 10 years. But Birmingham has the title.
As a Londoner, who is studying in Birmingham, I have always considered Birmingham to be the second city and Manchester as the third.
I have never visitd Manchester, but hope to do so, by the end of the year. One thing that I have found, however, with any city outside of London, is that they all have bad transport links, and they need to do that before, any city attempts to proclaim for any firm title.
2006-11-27 06:08:24 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Why do Mancs keep,saying the BBC has relocated there from London? There are BBC studios all over the country (e.g., their studios in Glasgow were recently replaced with new purpose built facilities at Pacific Quay) and the main BBC location is the new centre in London. As for which is the "second" city... Birmingham is bigger than Manchester and the West Midlands are bigger than Greater Manchester. I really dislike the idea of "second cities" though... What does it mean anyway? There isn't a pecking order of virtue amongst cities. These best places to live probably aren't in any of our top 5 biggest cities.
2016-05-23 10:00:39 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think Manchester is Englands second city but not Britains second city. I would rate Edinburgh as Britains second city. I agree some parts of Manchester are horrible.
2006-11-27 03:17:23 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, to me it goes London, Birmingham, Manchester, simply because of the size of each place. London is great, I love it, manchester, where I live, is good, and is getting better, and birmingham.. well.... wasn't too impressed when I visited let's say.
2006-11-28 05:31:55 · answer #6 · answered by st_565 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In my opinion Birmingham is not a nice place. But then I don't really like Manchester either.
EDIT: Paul - I think you'll find that it is you northerners who have the accents, not us. We speak English how it was intended to be spoken.
2006-11-27 03:19:13 · answer #7 · answered by hardcoredjbenzy 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think Glasgow is britains second city. After all they were the second city of the British empire.
2006-11-27 08:14:14 · answer #8 · answered by Pianoman 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Manchester? Good place to have your car stolen but I never saw much else to recomend it.
The north eastern accent is the oldest English, closest to Chaucer's English. I never could stand the southerner's arrogant belief that they were somehow more than the rest of the British just because they lived nearer the queen.
2006-11-27 03:41:37 · answer #9 · answered by Chris H 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Firstly, the south of england in general is a disaster area. Manchester should be England's first city. Asking a Londoner to express anything other than an opinion concerning either football or where to bury bodies is a waste of time.Cant understand a word they're saying anyway.
2006-11-27 03:27:42 · answer #10 · answered by Missing Link 3 · 0⤊ 5⤋