• The first stage of the forum upgrades has now been completed but they remain in a degraded state and are still being worked on.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Roker near Sunderland


1more said:
No it isn't. It's a factual debate about Seaburn being in Sunderland. Since then people including you are putting caveats on there. Facts remain Washington, Hetton a Houghton are part of the city of Sunderland.
Click to expand...
Don’t think anybody is denying that tbf, but more pointing out the City of Sunderland is a metropolitan borough (with city status) rather than one individual city in the traditional sense. It’s a canny interesting discussion tbh. :lol:
 
WHD said:
Aye, and they also call people from Sunderland "townies". Do they call themselves townies as well?

Also, my missus is from Hebburn. She calls Newcastle the town. Does that mean Hebburn is in Newcastle?

Then surely the council should have changed all the signposts that say "Sunderland" in Washington etc, to say "city centre" then?
Click to expand...
Costs loads of money to do that - would you want the council tax to rise to pay for it? All that needs to be done is the signs at the boundary are changed to say city rather than Borough
 
Sgt Pepper said:
Don’t think anybody is denying that tbf, but more pointing out the City of Sunderland is a metropolitan borough (with city status) rather than one individual city in the traditional sense. It’s a canny interesting discussion tbh. :lol:
Click to expand...
I get that. I wonder is people from Croydon see themselves as Londoners or whether people from Stoke on trent see themselves of being from Stoke or one of the many towns that form it?
 
Sgt Pepper said:
Don’t think anybody is denying that tbf, but more pointing out the City of Sunderland is a metropolitan borough (with city status) rather than one individual city in the traditional sense. It’s a canny interesting discussion tbh. :lol:
Click to expand...
Metropolitan counties are subdivided into metropolitan districts - some districts have borough status and some have city status. Sunderland is not a metropolitan Borough with city status it’s is a city and metropolitan district - it ceased having the status of Borough in 1992 when the entire borough was changed into a city
 
Arcland said:
Costs loads of money to do that - would you want the council tax to rise to pay for it? All that needs to be done is the signs at the boundary are changed to say city rather than Borough
Click to expand...
Surely getting the signage factually correct is important? I mean, it happened 50 years ago, even if the council had just changed a handful of signs a year it would have been finished ages ago.
 
artful splodger said:
Whitburn is SR6 as it's in the same post town as Sunderland as are Seaham & Murton etc, old Post Office areas from years ago, but strangely enough if you go on Google maps & click on any business etc in Whitburn the listed address will be Whitburn, Sunderland SR6, no mention of South Tyneside, the comp also uses Sunderland in their address on official correspondence.
I think it's a bit like those who still put Sunderland, Co Durham as their address. 😉
Click to expand...
i do that
 
1more said:
I get that. I wonder is people from Croydon see themselves as Londoners or whether people from Stoke on trent see themselves of being from Stoke or one of the many towns that form it?
Click to expand...
No idea. On the subject of signs I know in Washington there are ‘town centre’ signs pointing you towards Washington’s town centre, which is basically The Galleries - what a grim town centre. On the 1231 east the signs point you to Sunderland rather than city centre. Mind even the Sunderland and Washington border is misunderstood because people think it’s the A19 when it’s not, which is why Nissan is in Sunderland and not Washington. This discussion has led me onto the Sunderland Wikipedia page and I hadn’t realised Sunderland’s population (not the City of Sunderland’s) was so low at 168,277. Makes our football crowds all the more impressive tbf (and I’m aware we draw in support from outer areas).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHD
1more said:
No it isn't. It's a factual debate about Seaburn being in Sunderland. Since then people including you are putting caveats on there. Facts remain Washington, Hetton a Houghton are part of the city of Sunderland.
Click to expand...

My reply was in reference to this:

"I can guarantee that within another 30 years every location in the current boundaries of what is now the City of Sunderland will be without question simply regarded as they are already as part of "Sunderland" and that does include Washy & Penshaw."

My reply was about that Washington to most people will never be just 'part of Sunderland'. No-one disputes the admin areas and no-one is claiming it's elsewhere even known some there might claim they're actually part of Newcastle (wrong mind).
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHD
I seen the news story about the films studios as being great for Wearside and the North East quite a bit, not a lot of mention for Sunderland
 
Sgt Pepper said:
No idea. On the subject of signs I know in Washington there are ‘town centre’ signs pointing you towards Washington’s town centre, which is basically The Galleries - what a grim town centre. On the 1231 east the signs point you to Sunderland rather than city centre. Mind even the Sunderland and Washington border is misunderstood because people think it’s the A19 when it’s not, which is why Nissan is in Sunderland and not Washington. This discussion has led me onto the Sunderland Wikipedia page and I hadn’t realised Sunderland’s population (not the City of Sunderland’s) was so low at 168,277. Makes our football crowds all the more impressive tbf (and I’m aware we draw in support from outer areas).
Click to expand...
The true population of the City and Metropolitan Borough will be much more like 280 - 285,000 today allowing for migration, growing student population. homes being built, growing industries etc.
 
Zimba said:
It's not though it was all about balancing populations to give an equal population to each of the 5 Tyne and Wear areas.

Washington was originally meant to be part of Gateshead btw with Whitburn and Seaham being part of Sunderland. But because of the rapid house building it all got swapped around and Seaham booted out altogether.

It's why the borders are a complete mess in the Birtley area.

It's something I quite often moan about but more so because they slashed straight through the middle of up here. It's why you have stuff like Cramlington split in half (Dudley etc are Cramlington) and the absolute mess around Hazlerigg where there's a random triangle in Newcastle and the rest in North Tyneside.

Remember this discussion is about where people will recognise places as not where they are on paper.
Click to expand...
Why would washington be part of gateshead?
 
Zimba said:
Can't comment, it was just the early plans. Someone who was involved in it mentioned it on SkyScraperCity, can't find the post now though.
Click to expand...
You do know washington has been around for 100's of years don't you? How can gateshead suddenly claim it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top