[Closed] Worst UK City

London.

Northampton.

Lived around there for seven years, and have no desire to return

Northamptons a city?

LONDON DOESN'T COUNT.

Manchester? London? [i]Really?[/i]

I vote Peterborough. Nice cathedral though.

Newport, not just because I'm from Cardiff - but Newporters deserve a better city - Cardiff has had literally billions spent on it to make it a magnificent city, Swansea is heading the same way but a few token gestures aside Newport is still ugly and rough looking.

Birmingham?

I can't think of too many pluses to Coventry.

Birmingham

As a Brummie I may be biased, but I'm guessing you've not been to Coventry?

My vote goes for Manchester,

Not even close.

Peterborough. Awful, awful place.

I've been sent to Coventry a few times!

LONDON.

I love these really positive threads. They always bring out the best in people.

Hull?

3 years as a student in Cov, it gets my vote. Can't think of a single thing going for it.

Why doesn't London Count?

I would say Stoke or Swansea.

Stoke

Swindon

There is no doubt.

Can't think of a single thing going for it.

It isn't Peterborough.

Although Hull is on a par with Peterborough.

Manchester, but what little I've seen of Middlesborough was pretty grim

Preston?

Swindon

There is no doubt.

Yeah there is - it's not a city

Stoke

Probly the winner

Sunderland or Gatehead centres. South Shields is also pretty grim but I don't think its a city.

Neither Gatesheed or Shields are cities.

Dungdee.

Manchester,not even close.Try Salford....

Having lived in Stoke-on-Trent for all of my 28 years, I'd say that it's the worst!!! Certainly the worst that I've been to!

Coventry has a pub that has been voted one of the best. It is a converted public toilet. Gets my vote.

Did meet a STWer there who convinced me to buy a SS though

Birmingham gets my vote. Visited for a weekend and I have no desire to ever return.

Bradford

Peterboghorror.

Chester, the romans left hundreds of years ago and people still believe what they see is what the romans left, it also smells of pooh just like in roman times due to poor sewage disposal.

More empty shops than gladiators in a lions cage.

not even a city but is proper minging.. ROCHDALE.. kids getting goodness knows what done to them and have been since the 60's.. more insurance claim 'shops' per capita than anywhere else.. most expensive place to insure a taxi in uk.. only place mcdonalds had to close because no one used it..MPs wife sells pics of her boobies on ebay.. slave labour used in local factory.. former mp peadophile gang leader.. according to the current mp whose wife sells pictures on ebay of her boobies.. indoor market been closed cos an outdoor one is going to be more popular given its position 6 miles from the roof of the pennines... the library was recently moved less than 100 meters at a cost of over 14 quid a book..14 quid a book..

Someone tried to convince me Milton Keynes is a city once. Obvious lies, it's a railway station, a bus station, the bowl, and miles of **** all.

BTW,when I lived in Manchester the River Mersey was a few hunderd yards from the bottom of my garden.Maybe you've heard of it but judging from your ignorance I doubt it...I think you'll find that many cities are built on rivers are flat.

Portsmouth trumps all.

Sheffield seemed pretty shit to me but I have only been once and may not have seen its best side. What I did see was crap. It is also surrounded by some nice country. Hmm. I don't think any cities are that bad, we have some really, really shit towns though. Gillingham, sheerness and Bridgwater come to mind.

I vote Stoke as well;

I spent many a weekend there visiting girlfriend at N. Staffs Poly: she was the only one on her course who was a 1st choice candidate. She visited the college in a blizzard and didn't see Stoke. She cried for the 1st week she was there. Grim 5 towns pretending to be a city, and we come form the North East: it makes Middlesbrough look cosmopolitan. That said I haven't been back since 1988, and I aint ever going back.

Wherever the OP lives.

“Umm Qasr is a town similar to Southampton”, UK Defence Minister Geoff Hoon told the House of Commons yesterday. “He’s either never been to Southampton, or he’s never been to Umm Qasr”, said one British soldier, informed of this while on patrol in Umm Qasr. Another added: “There’s no beer, no prostitutes, and people are shooting at us. It’s more like Portsmouth.”

I think Manchester is alright.
Coventry is a good suggestion.

Back in the 80's I'd have said Liverpool but it's much better now.

I'm going to go with Stoke though.

Nobody has even mentioned SWANSEA or PORT TALBOT ,both total dives .

thats why i live in EIRE now.

Coventry
Dundee (place and % of yessers!)
Basingstoke
Slough

(Loose definition of city)

If we're doing places that aren't cities then I vote Runcorn!

Wolverhampton has got to be up there, as has Hull. Both horrible places.

Is Peterborough a city? Learn something new hey, can't really remember my time there...

Not much worse than these in my experience than...

Bradford
Stoke
Portmouth
Middleborough
Newport

Whilst we are naming towns, there are plenty...

Skelmersdale
Bury
Rochdale
Crewe
Rhyl
Luton
Dunfermline
Rotherham
Doncaster
Widnes
Dover
Slough
Croydon
Etc etc

Peterborough is a shit hole. Bradford is too. never been to manchester so couldn't comment on that. Birmingham is ok. Been to nicer places but its scrubbed up pretty well in the last 10 years. Wolverhampton is somewhat lacking in redeeming features as is Preston but Peterborough and Bradford win hands down IMO.

Nottingham - worked there for 8 years. Poor travel links, not on mainline, horrendous links to M1, more average speed cameras than you can shake a stick at. Once drove past what I thought was a drunk sleeping it off, turned out to be a dead body. A truly horrible place and they think Robin Hood was a local lad - everyone know he's from South Yorkshire

Portsmouth trumps all.

No it doesn't. Whilst having many aspects of the very worst, it does have some significant redeeming qualities (both harbours, the solent, (most of) Southsea, Old Portsmouth, The Historic Docks and a gateway to Europe) which is more than could be said for others already mentioned.

I have no desire to live there but quite like having it down the road, which is way more than I could have said about Coventry (or Leicester) .

Slough. By miles.

Chester? Seriously... Oh no I forgot it's Mr happy making the comment 😉

London. Vile shit hole.

Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield, Birmingham and all it's neighboring cities, Nottingham, Leicester, Derby, Southampton and Portsmouth.

All these cities tie for second place. First place is obviously London, but apparently that doesn't count.

Other obvious choices to consider include Dundee, Sunderland, Wakefield and Manchester. But I actually quite like the time I spend in these places so what do I know.

Slough. By miles.

i thought we were talking about cities?

Nick1962, the Mersey runs through Liverpool and the edge of the suburbs of Manchester, you ignorant fool.

Anyone visiting the centre of Manc wouldn't even know the Mersey exists.

Plus, if the Mersey is a one of the good things about Manchester... Well, says it all really.

All cities are shit if you go to wrong bits or are there with the wrong people, I've seen great Bit's and horrible bits of, Leicester, Nottingham, Birmingham, Manchester, Bradford, Leeds, but I also know them all well or know people that do so tend to enjoy my time in each.

St. Davids.

The club scene is RUBBISH.

It would be interesting to understand the mindset of those proposing London. Every city, especially one the size of London, will have some scummy quarters but the mark of a truly awful one is if there are no redeeming features. You would have to be staggeringly blinkered not to acknowledge the (significantly) large number of redeeming features of London.

I always used to hate going to London. We'd go by car and after an hour of shuffling along through the delights of Catford and the south circular and I'd happily put a bomb under the place and was blind to the delights of the centre. Now I go in by train I have a totally different attitude to the place. I wouldn't want the live there as I'm just not a city dweller but it does not mean I don't recognise London as an amazing place.

<gross generalisation>Durham - a pit village with a big church, filled with Oxbridge rejects. "Oh so you got two As and a B?" </gross generalisation>

Oh my god. How could I forget Birmingham????

The centre is utterly run down and without doubt one of the most depressing places you'll ever go to. They've invested in small areas like the Bullring and the mailbox but that actually makes the rest of it worst. It's like looking at the slums of Delhi reflected in the glass towers of the rich.

Liverpool by a country mile.

London.

Liverpool - that lovely journey from the M62 to the harbour front

Can't believe nobodys mentioned Wakefield yet. Proper shithole

Hang on - isn't that pretty much every city slagged off other than Bristol 🙂

Lots of post industrial cities are dumps, like Wakefield and Middlesbrough etc but you can still live in them find the better areas and make it work as a home. But London you can't it is just an unrelenting shithole for mile and miles which devours the lives of all the misserable sods who live there. So London without a doubt.

I'd say pretty much all UK cities are horrible

I don't know the reasons behind it, but Europe seem to be able to have nice looking cities that aren't full of shit, so it can't be that hard

Lots of post industrial cities are dumps, like Wakefield and Middlesbrough etc but you can still live in them find the better areas and make it work as a home. But London you can't it is just an unrelenting shithole for mile and miles which devours the lives of all the misserable sods who live there. So London without a doubt.

So your definition of a quality (or less shit) city is your ability to eek out a tolerable life there on a middling income? I find that a little bit sad.

If you had a day off work and [b]had[/b] to spend it in a city you would rather do it in Wakefield than London?

Those thinking Peterborough and Dundee are bad need to broaden their horizons.

Not cities, but any grim northern town beginning with B is pretty horrendous

Stirling is pretty poor for a city imho

The fact that nobody has said Derby yet says it all, no one even realises it exists
But I would say Stoke just about trumps Derby
And both only because Cumbernauld isn't a city

Personally though I think all cities share similar issues, and have their good and bad points, the clincher is what is easily accessible from around the city, for example Sheffield and Manchester have the Peak District, Liverpool is in easy distance to the coast and welsh mountains, even Middlesbough, a complete shithole has the North York Moors

If you had a day off work and had to spend it in a city you would rather do it in Wakefield than London?

I could get a lot more drunk, so forget where I was, much quicker and cheaper in Wakefield (I lived just outside Wakefield for 2 years, it is pretty shit and I know how dangerous getting drunk there can be, especially on a Friday night!)

Nick1962, you charmer.

Coventry 😐

[IMG] [/IMG]
[IMG] [/IMG]

Manchester and Birmingham are bearable but most other northern cities are very grim I'll not list them all but I have had the misfortune to visit and work in most of them, there are a few nice ones but they are mostly in the south.
Thing is most cities in the UK are just too small to feel like a city, they are just overblown towns really.

Another one for Wakefield here, although I vote London too. Its also seems like the worst city is where you live, and most cities (city centres) are pretty grim and only getting worse!

If you had a day off work and had to spend it in a city you would rather do it in Wakefield than London?

If you were to pick somewhere for a day out you would choose to visit London over Wakefield for what it has to offer tourism wise, but surely the point made above was more like would you rather live in Wakefield or London? (By the way I have lived in both)

Cities are all crap.

Their only redeeming features are to concentrate people away from the countryside so I can get some peace.

^ at least Coventry's bad buildings are still standing
I give you Derby -

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

[img] [/img]

They are both prime sites in the city centre, both have been derelict for at least 10 years.
There is quite a few more like that, on street car parking in that area is around £2.10 an hour 8am-8pm 7 days a week, it's no wonder the city centre is dead

Manchester now its becoming flat city. Incimpetent Manchester council workers agreeing more flats for regeneration and rip off parking 8am-8pm illegally to prop up funds. Only Trafford council is a becon to help their community. The city are crooks IMO

but surely the point made above was more like would you rather live in Wakefield or London?

That was his point yes, but I would say it's a very inept way of judging a city. The OP's question was "what's the worst UK city?", not "what is the worst UK city to live in?". I say you simply can't put a city with the heritage, culture and variety of London at the top of the list on the basis of it being a bit shit to live in on an average income (it is imo - wouldn't trade places with my sister who does this in a million years). IF I had to live in a city and IF I was minted, London could be pretty awesome however.

[i]Coventry
[/i]

Cripes, that brings back memories. That and the Godiva. Spent years in those places. Awful, awful places.

I give you Derby -

A mere trifle...
[img] [/img]

edit: I hadn't realised work had started again to be fair so this is presumably now a building site.