[Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
ajrlists at gmail.com
Fri Nov 21 09:51:09 UTC 2014
I don’t think it's as simple as that Matthijs. Its fine as an idea as a starter for 10 but we should be looking deeper and what's on the ground before making any decisions.
From: Matthijs Melissen [mailto:info at matthijsmelissen.nl]
Sent: 20 November 2014 19:30
To: Andy Robinson
Cc: Richard Mann; Talk GB
Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Suburbs in London/Brum - big edits
On 20 November 2014 08:51, Andy Robinson <ajrlists at gmail.com> wrote:
> It’s not likely to be as simple as saying everywhere within a city
> boundary is a suburb. A simple example is the town of Sutton Coldfield
> which recently regained it Royal Town status, Its officially a town in
> every traditional sense yet it is part of Birmingham though devolution
> of powers back to the town from Birmingham is slowly (very slowly)
> happening with time. There is no gap in the conurbation between what
> is known as Sutton Coldfield and the rest of Birmingham. It’s not
> considered a suburb of Birmingham as it’s a town destination in its
> own right and locals who hail from it would always say they were from the town and not the city of Birmingham.
Why don't we follow post towns?
In the Birmingham area, that would give us cities/town/villages Birmingham, Alcester, Bromsgrove, Halesowen, Cradley Heath, Rowley Regis, Smethwick, Oldbury, West Bromwich, Sutton Coldfield, Tamworth, Studyley, Solihull, Henley-in-Arden, and Redditch.
Places like Moseley, Kings Heath, and Bournbrook would become suburbs, which is quite reasonable in my opinion - these places are clearly part of the settlement Birmingham.
In most other countries, deciding between village and suburb is a bit easier because villages have their own town sign (usually functioning as built-up area sign as well), while suburbs have no such sign. Post towns in such countries, at least in the Netherlands, are usually equivalent to signed towns.
More information about the Talk-GB