Sorry, Birmingham.

I gather that some daft, though supposedly prestigious, New York magazine has run an article suggesting to Americans planning to visit Britain that Birmingham is a better place to head for than London.

This is a bit silly. Birmingham, for all it has tried to smarten itself up over the past few years with some swish architecture, has no history to speak of and little atmosphere in consequence. London has 2,000 years of history, and an awful lot has happened there over the centuries. What that gives it isn’t just sights to see – though they’re impressive enough – but something indefinable that hangs in the air. Let’s call it ‘the feel factor,’ which is important. It’s something that exists to a lesser extent in other historic cities like Oxford and York, and is something that’s entirely lacking in Birmingham.

So on what basis does this magazine make its recommendation? I don’t remember all of them, but let’s take three examples.

It has lots of good balti houses.

So does Barnsley.

It has more miles of canals than Venice.

Maybe, but the attraction of canals isn’t so much the water itself; it’s the view you get when you sail on it. I doubt that even the most ardent supporter of Birmingham would claim that Birmingham is the equal of Venice in the aesthetic department.

It has fewer tourists.

Well, of course it does. That’s because it’s dull, dummy!

My point in saying this isn’t to deride Birmingham. Birmingham is Britain’s second biggest city and does its best to be functional, but it’s no tourist attraction. If you want to come to the English Midlands there are plenty of places of interest, but Birmingham isn’t one of them. My point in saying this is to deride journalists who try to manufacture copy when there’s no substance to build on.