U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-10-2009, 04:02 PM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,260 posts, read 54,976,262 times
Reputation: 15287

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1 View Post
1. Old info
2. That is not a ranking of the world cities. I already explained to you many times it was just an attempt (2004) to redefine and re-categorize the global cities .
Actually its been I that has been forced to explain to you many times that there is more to importance than just financial.

According to the summary:
First, and clearly above all others, there are London and New York. All previous research has highlighted the dominance of these two cities in the world city hierarchy (Taylor 2004a) and they emerge here as the most important 'all-round' global contributors. They are followed by three cities that make smaller all-round contribution and with particular cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco. Finally, among 'all-rounders' there are seven incipient world cities identified in Table 11. In the second category of global niche cities,

Apparently this is stating that 5 cities in particular are indeed above the rest when you combine cultural as well as economic impact. I happen to agree with their findings.


Quote:
Many publications and studies out there still identify cities through alpha, beta, gamma rankings. And according to the latest 2008 rankings, only 2 U.S cities are ranked as alpha; New York (alpha++) and Chicago (alpha-).
So long as those publications and studies ignore cultural and political signifance, they are only misleading readers by not being forthright about what this ranking is really looking at.

Office locations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-10-2009, 09:27 PM
 
1,119 posts, read 2,458,771 times
Reputation: 382
Sorry, but it wasn't a ranking of cities. You're still in the state of denial. But it's ok. SF and LA are beta cities, and that's not a terrible thing.

Again, I know you hate this report below cuz your cities do not rank very high, but it's a very insightful study.

http://www.mastercard.com/us/company...eport_2008.pdf

Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Actually its been I that has been forced to explain to you many times that there is more to importance than just financial.

.

Last edited by downtown1; 05-10-2009 at 09:49 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-10-2009, 10:27 PM
 
3,970 posts, read 11,794,350 times
Reputation: 1576
This is kind of a strange thread. How do you decide where the 1st tier, 2nd tier, and 3rd tier ends? It is totally subjective. With that having been said, there are certainly differences in cities based not on population, but where they are going in the future. Detroit vs. Seattle, for example. Detroit seems to have been dropping in not only population, but relevance. Seattle is growing in population and relevance. It is an interesting turn of events and we will see how this plays out in the next several decades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 12:10 AM
 
1,201 posts, read 1,982,471 times
Reputation: 717
Unhappy a "tell" of two or three or more cities...!

Quote:
Originally Posted by pw72 View Post
This is kind of a strange thread. How do you decide where the 1st tier, 2nd tier, and 3rd tier ends? It is totally subjective. With that having been said, there are certainly differences in cities based not on population, but where they are going in the future. Detroit vs. Seattle, for example. Detroit seems to have been dropping in not only population, but relevance. Seattle is growing in population and relevance. It is an interesting turn of events and we will see how this plays out in the next several decades.
although i really enjoy the beauty of the city of seattle and the beauty of the state of washington, i will have to ask for more defense on this "relevance" statement---particularly, as related to a world view. population growth---maybe---might be a determining factor; however, the huge construction boom and population shift across the river might be more of a factor to not consider seattle, itself. it seems that a good case could be made for the emergence of an entirely new city in the state of washington. i just don't know.

one thing that i am seeing is the loss of the identity of our major american cities through the reclassification of metropolitan areas by the united states census bureau. i know many---several in the southern united states---who hate me when i whine about this; nonetheless, for the most part in the south, cities are simply not constructed in the same manner as those in the northeastern corridor. density is a big, big issue. square miles upon square miles of rural area are now included in population counts/demographics. cities that were once known by their single identity are now being referred to by two, three, and, in several cases multiple names of four, e.g. denver-aurora, washington-baltimore+, charlotte-norfolk++, nashville-franklin-mufreesboro+, salt lake city-odgen++, and many others, including the seattle area+fountain. i realize that some of these areas are part of the csa counts. too, i realize that some of these areas are considered by some to be no more than suburbs; however, not all. my point is plain, several of our large cities are beginning to be reidentified by name and area. this comes about at the expense of the original city. there is something to be said for originality.

Last edited by kingchef; 05-11-2009 at 12:20 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 04:38 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,260 posts, read 54,976,262 times
Reputation: 15287
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1 View Post
Sorry, but it wasn't a ranking of cities. You're still in the state of denial. But it's ok.
Actually its you who refuse to acknowledge that the GAWC 'ranking' you cling to is merely a listing of office locations. Alpha, Beta, Gamma refers to the number of offices certain firms have in cities.

Nothing more.

An Alpha City as far as office locations isnt necessarily in the same class when it comes to all around contribution to the world, as evidenced by this:

Quote:
Well rounded global
Very large contribution: London and New York Smaller contribution and with cultural bias: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco

ii Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto

Global niche cities - specialised global contributions

i Economic: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo

ii Political and social: Brussels, Geneva, and Washington

WORLD CITIES

Subnet articulator cities

i Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna

ii Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa

Worldwide leading cities

i Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich

ii Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basle, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, Mumbai, New Delhi, Shanghai

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html#tab11


Quote:
SF and LA are beta cities, and that's not a terrible thing.
Once again, for your reading enjoyment:

First, and clearly above all others, there are London and New York. All previous research has highlighted the dominance of these two cities in the world city hierarchy (Taylor 2004a) and they emerge here as the most important 'all-round' global contributors. They are followed by three cities that make smaller all-round contribution and with particular cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 08:14 AM
 
1,119 posts, read 2,458,771 times
Reputation: 382
18montclair, Why do you keep referring it as the ranking of world cities. I already explained to you it was just an attempt by Taylor to redefine and re-categorize world cities. You also refused to acknowledge the Master Card study and I understand why. Any list that does not rank S.F high is a joke to you

Also, this is the year 2009, my friend.

Is this called 'ranking' to you?

Global niche cities - specialised global contributions

1. Economic: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo
2. Political and social: Brussels, Geneva, and Washington




Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Actually its you who refuse to acknowledge that the GAWC 'ranking' you cling to is merely a listing of office locations. Alpha, Beta, Gamma refers to the number of offices certain firms have in cities.

Nothing more.

An Alpha City as far as office locations isnt necessarily in the same class when it comes to all around contribution to the world, as evidenced by this:





Once again, for your reading enjoyment:

First, and clearly above all others, there are London and New York. All previous research has highlighted the dominance of these two cities in the world city hierarchy (Taylor 2004a) and they emerge here as the most important 'all-round' global contributors. They are followed by three cities that make smaller all-round contribution and with particular cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.

Last edited by downtown1; 05-11-2009 at 08:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 08:14 AM
 
Location: Villanova Pa.
4,908 posts, read 12,498,556 times
Reputation: 2627
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1 View Post
Sorry, but it wasn't a ranking of cities. You're still in the state of denial. But it's ok. SF and LA are beta cities, and that's not a terrible thing.

Again, I know you hate this report below cuz your cities do not rank very high, but it's a very insightful study.

http://www.mastercard.com/us/company...eport_2008.pdf
I wouldnt get carried away with GAWC report. It was basically a college study program for a geography class at Loughborough Univ.(UK)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 09:14 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,260 posts, read 54,976,262 times
Reputation: 15287
Quote:
Originally Posted by downtown1 View Post
18montclair, Why do you keep referring it as the ranking of world cities. I already explained to you it was just an attempt by Taylor to redefine and re-categorize world cities. You also refused to acknowledge the Master Card study and I understand why. Any list that does not rank S.F high is a joke to you
Stockholm and Copenhagen are certainly not greater centers of commerce than Los Angeles.

Excuse me, any list that doesnt take into acct the actual value of commerce is total and utter tosh.

Los Angeles' $825 Billion Economy is far more important to commerce than how many 5-star hotels there are in Hong Kong, that's actually something pointed out in the report. Laughable.

Quote:
Also, this is the year 2009, my friend.

Is this called 'ranking' to you?

Global niche cities - specialised global contributions

1. Economic: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo
2. Political and social: Brussels, Geneva, and Washington
In other words, there are some cities that only have one strength and others that are strong on many different levels.

According to GAWC, the 5 cities that are strongest in the world when weighing all factors are London, New York, Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.

Quote:
First, and clearly above all others, there are London and New York. All previous research has highlighted the dominance of these two cities in the world city hierarchy (Taylor 2004a) and they emerge here as the most important 'all-round' global contributors. They are followed by three cities that make smaller all-round contribution and with particular cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco.


I dunno if this amounts to a ranking, but usually the term hierarchy means something to that affect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,260 posts, read 54,976,262 times
Reputation: 15287
Quote:
Originally Posted by rainrock View Post
I wouldnt get carried away with GAWC report. It was basically a college study program for a geography class at Loughborough Univ.(UK)
that quantified office locations of certain companies and then held that up as the standard of what defines globally connected cities.

And some here run around acting like its a mandate on actual importance and influence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-11-2009, 09:54 AM
 
1,119 posts, read 2,458,771 times
Reputation: 382
Sounds like a "two-faced" type to me when one uses GAWC as the only source to advance his arguments, and then reject it if the study does not favor his cities

Again, SF is an important city. But you must be delusional to put it on 1st tier.



Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
that quantified office locations of certain companies and then held that up as the standard of what defines globally connected cities.

And some here run around acting like its a mandate on actual importance and influence.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:19 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top