What is Birmingham, UK, missing in relation to cities such as Manchester, London and Glasgow?

Question

After recently viewing an article posted about Birmingham's status of England's 'second city', if has left me questioning what we are missing in order to bring the city back to a 'must see' city. In other words how could we make Birmingham more noticeable and appreciated than the great rivals such as Manchester and Glasgow? Or maybe what things in London could be adapted into Birmingham, to help bring the city into London's league?

This will help me gather ideas towards my project at University which is to involve giving Birmingham a status upgrade.

Thanks for your help!

Answer 1

Night life is terrible; people are not cosmopolitan enough like in London.  Also, there aren't nice girls to bonk!

Answer 2

birminham

i live oo, 45 minutes away from the west midlands, but very rarely go there - why?

it's dirty, has no historic centre or independant shopping areas,

annoying accents or too multi-cultural creating confusion and no 'theme'

roads - well, you know how bad the roads are...

and no city in the uk is in 'london's league'

Answer 3

I'll give you a series of clues

On the one hand there are Arsenal, Chelsea, Glasgow Celtic, Glasgow Rangers and Manchester United.

On the other hand, there is Birmingham City.

Need I say more?

Answer 4

It's a serious question which deserves a serious answer.

First, London is a city apart on its own. It's one of the quirks of a small nation like ours that we have only one large city in which is concentrated almost all the major institutions and attractions, and this is its capital. France has other major cities such as Lyon, Orleans, Marseilles, etc., apart from Paris,  while Germany has Bonn, Hamburg, Munich, etc, and Spain has Barcelona, Sevilla, Granada, Cordoba, etc. This is due to the policies of successive British govt to concentrate all resources down there. So it would be very difficult to emulate London.

I'm not sure Birmingham is as far behind Manchester or Glasgow as you imply. True, it has suffered from the over-utilitarian and unimaginative town planners and their Labour pay-masters. It has also probably suffered from the destruction of most of its older civic building during the war. Also a city often benefits from having a river or a sea-front. Birmingham has some extensive canals which have only recently been revived. It could do more with these. Then, a city is really its people - their dynamism, creativity, attitude, etc., and in this respect Birmingham has vast potential. Simon Rattle showed that it is possible to do great things in Birmingham and the civic leaders must ensure that that was not a one-off. It has some great historic institutions that it could capitalise more on, e.g. the Bourneville village and concept, a great university, its central location, NEC, and so on. I'm glad to see they are revamping the city centre and we look forward to great things.

All in all, there's nothing to be ashamed of. Manchester has a better image of late, but it is still pretty grim in parts of the city and there have been a number of recent false dawns and badly executed buildings and projects. The Arndale Centre in Market St is still terrible from the outside. The new tallest glass structure is a blot on the skyline. The tram system is too tentative and un-ambitious.  These are some of the no-nos that Birmingham should avoid. As for Glasgow, well, apart from the old architecture of McIntosh, is there anything to admire?