Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You need to have a holistic approach to cities. Firstly, how do you define a “World Class” city? All of these cities mentioned are “Global cities” in the GaWC-report from 2012. Their rankings are;
1. Atlanta: Alpha (-)
2. Denver: Beta (-)
3. San Diego: Beta (-)
4. St. Louis: Gamma (+)
5. Phoenix: Gamma (+)
6. Orlando: Gamma (-)
7. Kansas City: Gamma (-)
8. Salt Lake City: High Sufficiency
9. San Antonio: Sufficiency
10. New Orleans Sufficiency
If looking only at GDP (nominal) all these cities other than Salt Lake City have an internationally high GDP. The GDP per capita is most likely also internationally high although not compared to European cities in the same size. Still, is these cities “world class” just because they have a high GDP and fairly large Metropolitan Areas? Personally I associate these cities with;
1. Atlanta; CNN, Coca Cola, Martin Luther King and rap music
2. Denver; Rocky Mountains and sports teams
3. San Diego; Sea World and Midway museum
4. St. Louis; Gateway Arch
5. Phoenix; Grand Canyon
6. Orlando; Disney World
7. Kansas City; Thomas Hart Benton (although not born there)
8. Salt Lake City; Mormonism
9. San Antonio; the Alamo
10. New Orleans; Food, Creole, French, Music, French Quarters and history
A world class city has to offer something beyond the corporate brands, high-ways, a dusty artifact and industrial parks. The only cities in United States which hold “world class” ought to be New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco and Washington DC. Then come Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, Miami, Houston, Atlanta, Detroit and Seattle at least when it comes to size of the metropolitan area but none of them are world class.
A city like Kansas City will never become a Tokyo, London, New York, New Delhi, Mumbai, Moscow, Lima or Tehran. Nor will it ever compete with even the smallest European cities. There is a reason why white Americans are enchanted by Europe – it is just beautiful, dense, great public transportation, great food, history, gigantic downtowns and everything else you want in a city. America is not a country – America is just a business.
Ah - thanks for that.. Mississauga is probably hovering around 750K now - the 715 was based on the 2011 census.. Mind you Hempstead probably has grown as well. Well, Mississauga is still far more heavily populated than Buckhead!
I wasn't really talking about population, but about status. Of corse Mississauga is bigger, it's denser than Buckhead and has more land. But anyway, back to the topic.
I don't know - might be.. Mind you I do think you should research Mississauga more.. yer right though this is not the topic..
?
Based on the criteria you keep harping on, YOU'RE saying Marseille is borderline world class. It only really lacks an economy, but that's just one category, right?
Marseille has cutesy walkability? Haha. Go to the 5:16 mark.
Marseille's core looks Bigger than San Francisco's. Not p4p bigger, bigger period. Its structural and population densities in the core are well ahead of every US city besides New York. Look at these transit options!
San Francisco has the bigger population, but that's mostly due to its suburbs, and who cares about those, amirite ? You could easily give a half dozen of your "world class" attributes to Marseille in direct comparison, maybe more. The only clear winners for San Francisco are economy, education, and cultural amenities. You know, the really important stuff.
Marseille is a dump (relatively speaking) whose best days are well behind it. Sure it has a large and dense urban core and plenty of nice architecture (as would be expected from France's second city with a distinguished history) as well as a modest metro network, but clearly more is required for a city to be considered "world class". Otherwise there would be 50+ world class cities in Europe alone. SF outclasses Marseille in pretty much every other category that matters. Not only is it visibly more affluent, but it is more dynamic, creative and sophisticated. It is also far more international -- by that I don't just mean "diverse" but a global magnet of tourism and talent. It's a lot more than just economy and GDP. It is its world class universities and cultural institutions, its highly rated culinary scene, and its role as an important cultural force in this country. The fact that it anchors a metro area of 4 to 7 million (depending on how you count) and has outstanding natural beauty also unquestionably enhances its status.
I would say that San Francisco does not have world class urbanity, but taking all its attributes together it should probably be considered a world class city. I also don't have an issue with someone saying that it is more world class than Barcelona (even if I don't necessarily agree). Most global rankings, including AT Kearney, rate it higher as well. But it's due to a lot more than just economy.
Could you please point us to a suburban edge city in the U.S. that isn't "in fact an urbanizing part of (enter city)?"
If you can't (and you definitely can't), then you agree with me 100%, and you're just arguing with yourself.
Again, Buckhead is a generic, suburban edge city. Whether it's "urbanizing", the relative distance from downtown, and the postal address all have nothing to do with anything re. whether or not Buckhead is a suburban edge city.
Pretty much any district in any metro area is "urbanizing" to some extent, unless we're talking an area in horrible decline, like an East St. Louis or Gary, places which are "de-urbanizing" to some extent. Anyplace not in collapse is urbanizing.
Oh Nola...I agree with you 100% and am just arguing with myself? Because well, as you said, I "definitely can't" and am just arguing with myself.
I think you should apply for a job with the Pyongyang urban planning committee....they would truly appreciate your steadfast commitment to single mindedness.
And you don't see how round the clock cultural activity like that could be adding more value to the world than a late night sangria joint? We do see things differently if that's the case. I'd rather the world have another "Chinatown" than another drunk Spaniard.
I certainly don't see the point you're trying to make. You're saying a fabric and clothing retail district that becomes a loose extension of skid row in parts is great round the clock cultural activity that is adding more value to the world? And how did you equate what's in Barcelona with just a late night sangria joint? It sounds more like you have almost no bearing on either LA or Barcelona and then are trying to use these assumptions that I can't see anyone reasonably agreeing with you to make your arguments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Very few countries do better per capita wise, and they're all tiny in comparison (Singapore, San Marino, etc). Speaking of inequality, isn't it Interesting that pot-bellied America--a gargantuan immigrant hub that has attracted poor, huddled masses for centuries, still manages to outperform pretty much every country in super refined, cultured, pinky-extended-when-they-drink Shiraz Western Europe? You'd think less poverty and more homogeneous demographics would help their per capita numbers, but they don't. But, they're so much better than us!
Our cities may not win many beauty contests, but they kick ass where it counts, and make no mistake, they are the drivers of this economy.
Sure, there are only a handful of countries with higher GDP per capita by either PPP or nominal values, but they certainly exist. There are also many countries lower than the US on this metric, but in the same ballpark. The distribution of wealth in the US is extremely top-heavy though which skews the stats quite a bit and the fact is the US government provides far fewer social services than most other developed countries. So, yea, your talk of large numbers of migrants fits pretty well into the narrative since the large number of less affluent immigrants gets hidden by the gargantuan amount of wealth in the US that they share fairly little part in.
You act GDP is a category comparable to street performers and sidewalk cafes. It's actually much much MUCH more important than that.
Marseilles beats San Francisco in a lot of smaller categories, but it isn't in the same league. Why? Economic and arguably cultural might.
What do you think is more important to London's current status as a world capital? Forex or the Tube?
How are street performers and sidewalk cafes the best examples of things outside of direct GDP measurements?
Aren't you just playing to his point though? He explicitly states in his post that he doesn't consider Marseilles and Florence aren't world-class specifically because they don't have much economic might.
Don't you reckon that the tube both grew due to economic might and as necessary infrastructure for the city to function? Exchanges need companies and companies need people to run all of this. There's an entire slew of things that support and catalyze each other, so the question of forex or the tube is sort of disingenuous.
I personally don't see any of them completely transforming into a real WORLD class city(yes, I know Atlanta is Alpha- but it feels a bit more like Beta+ imo) though out of this list I'd say 1. Atlanta followed by 2. Denver.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
? You could easily give a half dozen of your "world class" attributes to Marseille in direct comparison, maybe more. The only clear winners for San Francisco are economy, education, and cultural amenities. You know, the really important stuff.
