r/Glasgow Tools

Title
Author	eenbiertje
Comment	This. Worth remembering Glasgow's boundaries have grown significantly over the last 3 centuries, absorbing nearby formerly independently governed settlements and burghs (Govan, Partick, Springburn, Pollokshaws, etc.) You don't even need to look at wealthy outliers to see very nearby exceptions to this expansion (Dalmarnock, Renfrew and potentially Clydebank stand out, essentially stradling the existing boundaries and being part of a clearly contiguous urban area). With all that said, just as significant and controversial boundary reviews have happened in the past (such as [when Govan and Partick were absorbed](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19168940)) I do think we need a fundamental review of what constitutes "Glasgow proper" today - for a couple of obvious enough reasons, that were the reasons back then: * Increasing tax income to cover services already used by those living outside the city area * Need for proper unified action plans on transportation, infrastructure, urban planning, housing etc. I wouldn't feel confident boldly saying this needs to include place X or Y, simply because they're wealthy, or even just because they're very close by. There's consequences to every review - the Renfrew tax base and population brought into Glasgow, is a significant loss for Renfrewshire itself, and Paisley for that matter. You then get into less material issues bound up in names themselves: can "Renfrew" not be in Renfrewshire for example? But yeah, generally, there does seem to be a need for a new comprehensive boundary review. They can introduce new problems (for areas that lose territory) as well as solving existing ones (people using Glasgow servcies, but living outwith the tax boundary). So whatever happens, it needs to be looked at carefully and in the round. Don't have a clear answer on what that should look like. Any ideas?
Reddit Link	https://www.reddit.com/r/glasgow/comments/fyew7v/city_boundaries_making_glasgow_look_more_troubled/fmzw91o/
Created	Fri 10th Apr 2020 4:00pm
Status	normal ()

This. Worth remembering Glasgow's boundaries have grown significantly over the last 3 centuries, absorbing nearby formerly independently governed settlements and burghs (Govan, Partick, Springburn, Pollokshaws, etc.)

You don't even need to look at wealthy outliers to see very nearby exceptions to this expansion (Dalmarnock, Renfrew and potentially Clydebank stand out, essentially stradling the existing boundaries and being part of a clearly contiguous urban area).

With all that said, just as significant and controversial boundary reviews have happened in the past (such as [when Govan and Partick were absorbed](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-19168940)) I do think we need a fundamental review of what constitutes "Glasgow proper" today - for a couple of obvious enough reasons, that were the reasons back then:

* Increasing tax income to cover services already used by those living outside the city area
* Need for proper unified action plans on transportation, infrastructure, urban planning, housing etc.

I wouldn't feel confident boldly saying this needs to include place X or Y, simply because they're wealthy, or even just because they're very close by. There's consequences to every review - the Renfrew tax base and population brought into Glasgow, is a significant loss for Renfrewshire itself, and Paisley for that matter. You then get into less material issues bound up in names themselves: can "Renfrew" not be in Renfrewshire for example?

But yeah, generally, there does seem to be a need for a new comprehensive boundary review. They can introduce new problems (for areas that lose territory) as well as solving existing ones (people using Glasgow servcies, but living outwith the tax boundary). So whatever happens, it needs to be looked at carefully and in the round. Don't have a clear answer on what that should look like.

Any ideas?