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.
I think the descriptions of the cities are accurate (save for the fact that Toronto is more of a global city than anything not named New York, LA, or Miami), but the placement or "ranking" is wrong. Toronto is certainly better than 9th, Philly than 12th and Chicago than 5th. Also, no Mexico City? You can't have the largest metro in North America not place at least in the top 10 in a North American ranking.
Every city gets a neat little description, and then there's Philly - "large NE city"
Did that city sleep with their wives? I don't get it.
Stopped reading when I saw Philadelphia was ranked 12th and just a "major NE city".
Seriously? How pretentious can this forum be?
What is with the favoritism and unfavoritism on this site?
Pretentious? Philadelphia is my second favorite city in the U.S. (and I'm a huge It's Always Sunny fan). I don't think I've ever said a bad thing about Philly in my life. That said, it's sphere of influence is super tiny (Pennsylvania, Delaware, South Jersey) and it's overshadowed by two global cities. It has a booming economy, beautiful rowhouses, great universities and lots of telecoms, logistics, and biotech firms. But it's not as high on the American totem pole as it used to.
I think #11 in the U.S. is an appropriate ranking.
I think the descriptions of the cities are accurate (save for the fact that Toronto is more of a global city than anything not named New York, LA, or Miami), but the placement or "ranking" is wrong. Toronto is certainly better than 9th, Philly than 12th and Chicago than 5th. Also, no Mexico City? You can't have the largest metro in North America not place at least in the top 10 in a North American ranking.
I reserve 'Global City' status for cities that are the most important in the world in some function or niche. Los Angeles is unmatched in terms of Hollywood around the world. Boston is unmatched in terms of higher education (Harvard, MIT, Boston U, Boston C, Tufts, etc). San Francisco is unmatched in terms of Silicon Valley. Washington is unmatched in terms of the Pentagon and the most powerful Government in the world. New York doesn't need an explanation.
Toronto is a global city with strong financial links, sure. But it's not a global vanguard on anything. It doesn't set global trends. It's not at the harbinger of progress in any arena. It's not the most important world city for any industry. It's similar to Miami. A regional city (Toronto is the hub of Canada, much as Miami is the hub of the Caribbean) with strong international connections. It's also similar to Houston in that there's an industry it excels in (energy for Houston, finance for Toronto), even if it isn't the most important city for that industry.
I didn't add Mexico City to the list. They'd be near the top of the regional cities if I added them. Again, they're not a global vanguard but Mexico City's sphere of influence is 125 million people. It also has cultural influence over many more in Latin America.
I reserve 'Global City' status for cities that are the most important in the world in some function or niche. Los Angeles is unmatched in terms of Hollywood around the world. Boston is unmatched in terms of higher education (Harvard, MIT, Boston U, Boston C, Tufts, etc). San Francisco is unmatched in terms of Silicon Valley. Washington is unmatched in terms of the Pentagon and the most powerful Government in the world. New York doesn't need an explanation.
Toronto is a global city with strong financial links, sure. But it's not a global vanguard on anything. It doesn't set global trends. It's not at the harbinger of progress in any arena. It's not the most important world city for any industry. It's similar to Miami. A regional city (Toronto is the hub of Canada, much as Miami is the hub of the Caribbean) with strong international connections. It's also similar to Houston in that there's an industry it excels in (energy for Houston, finance for Toronto), even if it isn't the most important city for that industry.
I didn't add Mexico City to the list. They'd be near the top of the regional cities if I added them. Again, they're not a global vanguard but Mexico City's sphere of influence is 125 million people. It also has cultural influence over many more in Latin America.
While I commend you for trying to articulate an objective standard for your tiers, I still get the sense that you went by what "feels right" to you and then searched for labels to justify it.
If a 'Global City' is one that must be "the most important in the world in some function or niche" then Chicago is not a global city. Instead we get "agricultural capital of the World-Merc"... That's what makes Chicago a global city, really?
I do like your framework though. But I'd move to Toronto to Global Cities, and Montreal and Seattle to Regional Hubs (why are "capital of the Caribbean" (Miami) and "capital of the Great Plains" (Dallas) regional hubs, but capitals of French Canada and Pacific Northwest not?). I'd also put Vancouver higher. Otherwise pretty good list (at least in terms of tiering and categories).
While I commend you for trying to articulate an objective standard for your tiers, I still get the sense that you went by what "feels right" to you and then searched for labels to justify it.
If a 'Global City' is one that must be "the most important in the world in some function or niche" then Chicago is not a global city. Instead we get "agricultural capital of the World-Merc"... That's what makes Chicago a global city, really?
I do like your framework though. But I'd move to Toronto to Global Cities, and Montreal and Seattle to Regional Hubs (why are "capital of the Caribbean" (Miami) and "capital of the Great Plains" (Dallas) regional hubs, but capitals of French Canada and Pacific Northwest not?). I'd also put Vancouver higher. Otherwise pretty good list (at least in terms of tiering and categories).
I gave Chicago 5th place, one of the worst rankings on this thread. And that's precisely because their global niche isn't as well-defined as those for Washington, New York, San Francisco and LA. Chicago is, however, the largest city of the Midwest, the World's Breadbasket. I can't think of another city in the globe which has as much impact on global agricultural markets as Chicago. The only problem for Chicago is that in the past 10 years, there have been massive yield increases in other parts of the world. So while the Midwest is still the most important global food source, its lead dwindles by the year. When I think Chicago, I think of the city as the unrivaled heart of the region. And when I think Midwest I think (a) agriculture and (b) industry. The Midwest is no longer the world's foundry, but it's still the premier mass agricultural region in the world.
Toronto isn't the most important city for any niche or industry or sector. I don't think it qualifies. The only argument would be racial diversity and international financial linkages. Neither are enough to elevate the city to the first tier.
The Great Plains is 25 million people (from Dallas to North Dakota). The Caribbean is 45-50 million people. By comparison, Seattle doesn't have much influence over British Columbia. So the PNW is split between a 5 million person mini-region led by Vancouver and an 11 million person mini-region led by Seattle. Quebec is also only 8-9 million. It's a matter of scale. At some point, I'd have to include Boise since it's the regional hub of the Upper Rockies. 8-9 million and 11 million just don't rise to the scale I would use for regional influence. So while Seattle and Montreal do lead regions, they are small in population (I don't do land area or Anchorage would suddenly be a major regional hub - or Iqaluit).
I gave Chicago 5th place, one of the worst rankings on this thread. And that's precisely because their global niche isn't as well-defined as those for Washington, New York, San Francisco and LA. Chicago is, however, the largest city of the Midwest, the World's Breadbasket. I can't think of another city in the globe which has as much impact on global agricultural markets as Chicago. The only problem for Chicago is that in the past 10 years, there have been massive yield increases in other parts of the world. So while the Midwest is still the most important global food source, its lead dwindles by the year. When I think Chicago, I think of the city as the unrivaled heart of the region. And when I think Midwest I think (a) agriculture and (b) industry. The Midwest is no longer the world's foundry, but it's still the premier mass agricultural region in the world.
Toronto isn't the most important city for any niche or industry or sector. I don't think it qualifies. The only argument would be racial diversity and international financial linkages. Neither are enough to elevate the city to the first tier.
The Great Plains is 25 million people (from Dallas to North Dakota). The Caribbean is 45-50 million people. By comparison, Seattle doesn't have much influence over British Columbia. So the PNW is split between a 5 million person mini-region led by Vancouver and an 11 million person mini-region led by Seattle. Quebec is also only 8-9 million. It's a matter of scale. At some point, I'd have to include Boise since it's the regional hub of the Upper Rockies. 8-9 million and 11 million just don't rise to the scale I would use for regional influence. So while Seattle and Montreal do lead regions, they are small in population (I don't do land area or Anchorage would suddenly be a major regional hub - or Iqaluit).
Like I said, I appreciate that you are trying to put some logic into it. As long as you realize that your weightings and cut-offs, and the attributes that you consider necessary (or sufficient) to qualify a city for this tier or that, are totally arbitrary.
For example, one could argue that Midwest's agricultural prowess has little (if anything) to do with Chicago's status as a global city; that, instead, it is its strength across many different fields, its renowned universities, its architectural significance and world class cultural institutions that make it such. By the same token, with regard to Toronto, one could say that being the dominant alpha city of a G-7 country that's routinely ranked in the top 15-20 cities in the world by various studies is more than sufficient to earn it global city status -- irrespective of whether it is a leader in any particular field (which neither Toronto nor Chicago is).
I guess my point is that we all bring our own biases into it (not all of which are grounded in objective reality), and your list is no exception.
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.
