By Simon HayesTower Hamlets could be in line to become Britain’s newest city.
The borough has launched a bid to be granted city status as part of the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations next year, when one local authority area will be granted the honour.
Tower Hamlets faces competition from the likes of Blackpool, Middlesbrough and Reading but Mayor Lutfur Rahman is convinced a successful bid would benefit one of the most deprived areas in the country.
He said: “I feel being a city would be a fantastic boost to the borough and really show what we have to offer.
“We are unique in that we have a thriving business and shopping district in Canary Wharf, an innovative arts scene, a first-rate university on our doorstep in Queen Mary, and a vibrant community spirit, which has embraced different groups of people throughout our history.
“The royal wedding celebrations which I attended were testament to the genuine community spirit that exists in the borough and there is a real appetite to build on this pride and let everyone know what an amazing place Tower Hamlets is. I hope residents will support our bid to become a city.”
The bid is supported by Canary Wharf Group, and has the backing of many other businesses in the borough.
Any local authority in any part of the United Kingdom which considers that its area deserves to be granted the rare honour of city status is eligible to apply.
The council will submit a bid document to the Government on May 27, with a decision expected early next year.
What the practical implications of such a status in terms of funding and governance would be, I don’t know. I think we should also be told how much preparing this application will cost and whether there will be penalties for vexatious bids.
Questions, questions…
UPDATE – 1.50pm
Of course, we should really note that Canary Wharf Group is backing this: it sees itself as a rival to the City of London and it would love City of Canary Wharf status. I’m sure they don’t mind making Lutfur look like a fool for that purpose.
By the way, I’ve just been told that Lutfur has a meeting at 1pm in the Town Hall to discuss the progress of his mayoralty….with one Baroness Uddin. As one councillor remarked, “It’s still not April 1″…
Trial by Jeory 
Don’t you have to have a Cathedral to be a city? Maybe Christ Church Spitalfields?
No, that’s a myth. I think it may have been the case a long time ago but there are cities without cathedrals – Cambridge is one.
Seems a bit ‘non sequitur’ to me.
The definition of a hamlet is “A small settlement, generally one smaller than a village”
A city by definition is a very large settlement.
It would be exceptional – and bound to cause comment – to give city status to a place which has Hamlets in its title!
Or maybe he’s after a change of name next as well?!
There are many very large settlements – bigger than Tower Hamlets – which do not have city status as yet. I think the chances of Tower Hamlets getting it is going to be pretty remote. On that basis one could usefully question whether this is a efficient and effective use of the Mayor’s time when budgets are being slashed and there are far more significant issues to be addressed. It looks very much like a “window dressing” exercise to me.
On the question of cathedrals – it’s my understanding that the existence of a cathedral is entirely related to questions of how a church chooses to organise which places require a bishop – ie which places have a diocese. In other words there is no formal relationship with cities per se.
There is also no longer a formal relationship between the diocese and the existence of a city. There are a few places which have cathedrals but don’t have city status.
This gives as good a summary as any http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_city#Cathedral_towns
As Frank T explains below, it’s not a city in the sociological sense.
The City of London isn’t a particularly large settlement. The City of Westminster isn’t that much bigger (in terms of area and population) than Tower Hamlets.
City status would almost certainly lead to massive inward investment. I think the Mayor will have judged the likelihood of success before investing his time in this.
But don’t let that stop you using this as a stick to beat Lutfur with.
Anon1, exactly what is the basis for your assertion that city status would lead to “massive inward investment”? Why? And you are, aren’t you, aware of the historical reasons for the City of Westminster and the City of London?
Ted, surely you can imagine the impact it could have – having the City of Westminster, City of London and the City of Tower Hamlets as one west to east corridor. The City of London would no longer be the finance capital of Europe/the world. It would be the Cities of London.
The word massive was my hyperbole engine being engaged! But from a PR perspective (you work in meeja, so did I!) it presents an opportunity for really positive branding to attract investment – with most of the work coming from simply being a City.
Businesses that can’t quite afford to locate themselves in the City of London will be more than happy to do so in the City of Tower Hamlets and in fact may prefer to do so as it’s cheaper.
And it will increase civic pride in the borough – and judging by some of the comments on this blog, it’s certainly something we could do with. I’m proud enough to say I live in Tower Hamlets, but I’d love to be able to say I live in the City of Tower Hamlets!
The historical reasons for the Cities of London and Westminster shouldn’t prevent Tower Hamlets from applying for City status.
A good point re. hamlets and cities, You Couldn’t Make It Up.
Perhaps to avoid this contradiction we will just call it the City of Lutfurville and be done with it.
It sounds like an imaginative idea, certainly not to be dismissed outright. Ted appears to have confused city status with being a country – “What would be the capital of Tower Hamlets?” Read more about what it means to by a city here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_status_in_the_United_Kingdom
Let’s see what it would cost and what benefits it would bring before rushing to judgement.
doh…you’re right….laughing. Post-run brain low.
What a vanity project! And pointless since Southwark and Greenwich (as well as Croydon – further out) have all applied and been slapped down for city status. I just hope that too much time and money is not being wasted on this headline grabbing stunt which is bound to fail.
Once the City of London has stopped laughing at the concept of its poor London neighbour getting city status it will start lobbying very hard and very effectively to make sure it does not happen.
we wouldn’t want to annoy the City of London, would we – here in lowly Tower Hamlets we should know our place!
Wot a bunch of kill joys and whiners! Have some civic pride.
I fail to see what makes Tower Hamlets any more worthy of being a city than any other London borough with a similar total absence of historical reason for being a city… indeed, without being centred around a particular town (such as Hackney or Islington) then this borough (based as it is on 21 HAMLETS of the tower) is quite clearly less qualified than those examples to be a “city”.
This whole initiative appears designed to distract from the issues of the day, is an unnecessary expense, and will inevitably lead to a predictable perpetual-victim reaction at the end of it with claims the application only failed not because of its inherent flaws but because of “racism” or some other rubbish.
Surely Lutfur can’t be so bored of the job already or perhaps in his enthusiasm to get into Parliament he has mistaken the office of a Lord Mayor with being a member of the House of Lords…
Eastendersscriptwriterscouldn’tmakeitup and James Folgate: why not city status for Tower Hamlets when we are up against the City of London?
What happened with Spitalfields Market – we lost – and they bulldozed the western end. Now they plan the next mega demolition and redevelopment in Spitalfields, bulldozing buildings between Commercial, Brushfield and Crispin Streets and Whites Row – that’s opposite Christ Church Spitalfields and what the Corporation left of Spitalfields Market.
And of course the City of London really are committed to their other market in Tower Hamlets, Billingsgate…and then there’s the plan for a 7 day market at Old Spitalfields Market. No rest day for us residents in a Camden-alike non-stop tourist and tat market.
Maybe being a City of Tower Hamlets might stop them this time.
Meanwhile TH residents let the Corporation suits know what you think about the Save Billingsgate Market campaign, Old Spitalfields 7-Day Market plan and the London Fruit and Wool Exchange development. They’re all on our patch. Also, there’s a new online community site for residents of Spitalfields: http://www.spitalfieldslondon.com/
But why would a City of Tower Hamlets be any different to being a mere borough? Being the City of Westminster didn’t stop Shirley Porter. TH would still, in governance terms, be a council; exactly the same council in fact as Tower Hamlets Council and Westminster City Council.
This is all about branding and to those who say it would bring inward investment, please provide the evidence – and show how it would outweigh the rebranding costs.