Wolverhampton voted fifth worst city in the world

[surrey jim]

It says something about your city when a principle claim to fame is to have the best-known ring road in the country – because a tramp lived on it.
Ask anyone about Wolverhampton, including the locals, about what the city is good for and Josef Stawinoga, who lived in a tent on the road for 30 years prior to his death in 2007, is right up there. Along with the football club and, well, not much else.
They grumble about the influx of immigrants and the loss of the town’s shops to the nearby Merry Hill shopping centre. Unemployment is amongst the highest at 7.9 per cent. The choking ring road and endless junctions feature. The word “chavs” is mentioned with alarming frequency.
Still, residents of the Black Country are proud folk and have reacted with disquiet at the news that a Lonely Planet guide has voted Wolverhampton the fifth worst city in the world to live in.
Keeping some glamorous company - it is still apparently nicer to live in than Los Angeles - and some not so – Chetamul, the decaying Mexican city is thought preferable – Wolverhampton has been slated by Lonely Planet users.
The guide – Cities You Really Hate – lists nine cities and is as unscientific as it is random. It grew from an initial list made by the travel guide that was greeted with such “swift and fierce reaction” that it was forced to redraw it based on its customers’ ratings.
Architecture is strongly Victorian-based, with a strong element of 1960s thrown in. Shoppers are spoiled by the rarity of a supermarket whose main entrance is the original entrance of St George’s Church, built in 1823.
What Wolverhampton has done to irk the website’s community so is unclear. The most prominent criticism comes from an anecdote (its validity unknown) about a Wolverhampton local meeting George Bush in New York the day after the September 11 attacks and comparing his town centre to the Ground Zero site.
Vivek Wagle, the author of the list, said that all other cities have a write-up in the printed version of the travel guide, while Wolverhampton is declared 'so bad we don't even have it on this site'.
Still, rather than dismiss the guide as hokum, the Wolverhampton hierarchy have risen to the bait.
Malcolm Gwinnett, Deputy Mayor of Wolverhampton, said of the snub: "The people who have come up with this list obviously don't have a clue what they are talking about.
"Wolverhampton is a lovely place to live in many parts. It has its downsides just like any other city, but over the past ten years whoever has been in charge of the city has pushed it forward.
"They are clearly living on their own Lonely Planet if they've decided to write about Wolverhampton without even visiting here."
Richard Rhodes, chairman of Wolverhampton Civic Society, said: “I think it is scandalous that they can write off our city without having even visited it.
“We have some wonderful places such as West Park and Bantock House that would appeal to tourists.
Despite the city being the butt of jokes, it has a rich industrial heritage and was at the forefront of the industrial revolution and motoring industries.
The nine cities listed by the Lonely Planet are Detroit, Accra, Seoul, Los Angeles, Wolverhampton, San Salvador, Chennai, Arusha, Chetumal.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...pton-voted-fifth-worst-city-in-the-world.html

I find it hard to beleive that they can get 5th place. Surley there must be many worse cities than there.

 

[Notters]

I prefer wolves to Coventry, Reading, etc

 

[hart's shirt]

And to think they were given city status with us and Inverness.

Tsk tsk.

 

[Simster]

It's not a great place, but it really isn't all that bad FFS.

 

[Gerbil]

Sheffield is worse than wolves. FACT.

 

[Notters]

Sheffield is worse than wolves. FACT.

Surely you jest?

 

[Simster]

Sheffield is worse than wolves. FACT.

Nowt wrong with Sheffied. It's the only place worth visiting in South Yorkshire.

 

[Badger]

Nowt wrong with Sheffied. It's the only place worth visiting in South Yorkshire.

Yeah when you consider there are places like Rotherham, which really is a dump

 

[Simster]

Yeah when you consider there are places like Rotherham, which really is a dump

Rotherham Barnsley and Doncaster are all hideous. Well I suppose Barnsley is just plain dull as opposed to hideous. Sheffield is quite a vibrant city IMO. Nothing like as nice as Leeds but oddly has two football clubs that are infinitely preferable to the one shit club that is based in Leeds.

 

[strings]

As NSC's resident Wolverhampton, um, resident, I feel the need to comment.

Wolverhampton isn't the nicest place on Earth, but it doesn't deserve its' reputation. For a start, it isn't even the worst place in the Black Country. Dudley, West Bromwich and Sandwell are all far worse and in dire need of investment. Some parts of Walsall are pretty bad too, but where they have regenarated, its nice.

I notice Kabul and Pyongyang aren't on the list... I'm sure they are lots worse!

 

[ATFC Seagull]

Yep, on the occasions I've been there I've always thought I'd prefer to be wandering the streets of Mogadishu in my Albion colours.

 

[seagullsoverlincoln]

Its ridiculous-Its no Shangri-La , but its obvious that whoever judged this has never
been to some of the true world shitholes. You are not telling me that Wolves or Detroit
are worse than Harare or Nairobi and an assortment of Eastern European industrial
cities!!

 

[Don Quixote]

Moscow is the shittiest piece of shit i have ever been to surely it is worse than Wolverhampton!

 

[Trufflehound]

LP have clearly never been to Port Talbot or Merthyr Tydfil.

 

[Tooting Gull]

Sheffield is worse than wolves. FACT.

Be honest - you've never been to either, have you?

 

[withdeanwombat]

5th worst in the world?

The selectors have not been to very many cities world wide,it seems to me.

 

[Tooting Gull]

I'm not sure how Wolverhampton is worse than some of the industrial dumps in the Far East. I do think, however, there are cities in this country with very little going for them and Wolverhampton is probably one of them. My limited experience going there for football hasn't offered a very good impression.

Sheffield, incidentally, isn't one of those cities, and has loads of clubs, restaurants, museums and theatres, sports facilities, and superb countryside on the outskirts.

 

[whitelion]

Wolverhampton isn't the nicest place on Earth, but it doesn't deserve its' reputation. For a start, it isn't even the worst place in the Black Country. Dudley, West Bromwich and Sandwell are all far worse and in dire need of investment. Some parts of Walsall are pretty bad too, but where they have regenarated, its nice.

I don't think those places you've mentioned are cities though.

LP are usually quite controversial as well as selective in their reports. Can't understand why LA is on the list even though it is a 'freeway paradise'.

I visited my sister who lived in Wolverhampton in the 90's and didn't find the place too bad.

 

[Mackenzie]

I quite like Wolverhampton. I've had lots of great days out at Dunstall Park. The authors of this 'article' haven't travelled much if they think Wolverhampton is the fifth worst city in the World. Poor effort.

 

[NMH]

I suppose if you have a bad time in a place, then it will strike a louder chord when thinking of 'worst cities'.
I've not heard great things about Caracas, Panama City, or Detroit - are they on the list?

Philadelphia was deadly dull for me, just one small cross street with a couple of not-too-exciting bars, and a couple of squares with some kind of history. Crap.

Genoa Italy was dirty looking, crawling with prostitutes and merchant sailors. Double-crap.

Saying this, I still don't imagine Wolverhampton to be wonderful - just a bit surprising to be 5th on the list.