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.
Some context here is that the Guardian is notoriously left-wing and very pro-EU.
It's a paper, not something from the Guardian...
Some people see Paris as a dirty messy touristic city covered by an ocean of red tape and taxes. While it's a real global city that produces a comparable output to London.
The idea is to change that slightly.
But I think because it's french, people think voluntarily it can be only slow and boring
Take the offices. Because it's full of old looking buildings, people tend to underestimate the number of office buildings in Paris metropolitan area.
There are over 53 million sq m (570 million) of office space in Paris metropolitan, it's one of the largest office stock in the world and the vacancy rate is rather low at only 7%.
That's where is produced Paris' wealth, not in shops, hotels or monuments.
Office take-up in Paris metropolitan area in 2016 was 2.4 million sq m (26 million sq ft).
Just Q1 2017, the figure was 663,900 sq m (7,140,160 sq ft).
It means that every year in Paris area, the equivalent of a large business district is leased, obviously this doesn't includes the office space already leased.
Some people see Paris as a dirty messy touristic city covered by an ocean of red tape and taxes. While it's a real global city that produces a comparable output to London.
The idea is to change that slightly.
But I think because it's french, people think voluntarily it can be only slow and boring
I'm reading through the full paper as we speak. This is the abstract or executive summary:
Quote:
London’s economy has grown on average by 2.4 per cent per annum in real terms between 2006 and 2014. Although that was faster than other Western global cities like New York and Paris, emerging global cities such as Shanghai and Singapore have seen rates of growth that were twice as fast.
Subsequently, these emerging global cities will likely have larger economies than London in output terms in the future, with Shanghai already having overtaken London back in 2009.
London’s economy is predominantly services driven with primary and secondary industries contributing only 9 per cent of total output in 2014. Although other global cities are also orientated towards services, cities like Berlin and Shanghai have much larger manufacturing sectors.
Looking at the labour market, London has one of the highest employment rates among the global cities, especially for women.
However, in terms of productivity, London has some of the lowest estimates of output per job and output per hour. Moreover, while the average rates of productivity growth in London were similar to other Western global cities, they were weaker than emerging global cities like Singapore.
These productivity differences cannot be explained by industrial composition or workforce characteristics like skills.
I'm not sure how it supports your narrative. If there is any concern it expresses about the standing of London, it is not relative to other western cities like New York or Paris, but to those of emerging global cities.
I'm reading through the full paper as we speak. This is the abstract or executive summary:
I'm not sure how it supports your narrative. If there is any concern it expresses about the standing of London, it is not relative to other western cities like New York or Paris, but to those of emerging global cities.
Mmmmh? Size? Size of the economy (output) ? Growth rate (london 2,4%, Paris 1,9%,)? Composition of the workforce ? Composition of their respective economy ?
Size compare to their host country ?
What was the point ? Show that Paris is a global city with a similar size than London and characteristics (which is not very well known). Then we arrive at the financial part, which makes the difference between the alpha ++ (London) and Paris (alpha +), since the volume trade in London is about 2,5 times higher which is an abysmal gap.
So to the topic is about the competition between those, i say if it turns bad for UK, Paris can equal London (probably not surpass). And nobody can tell today what will happen in 10 years.
If Paris was not comparable in any way to London, british government wouldn't use the city as a benchmark for London's performances.
Last edited by Pokitobounto; 05-28-2017 at 11:15 PM..
The fundamental problem Paris has - in addition to an interventionist governmental tradition and high taxes - is that it is French speaking whereas global cities such as London, New York, Hong Kong or Singapore are essentially English speaking.
As a financial centre, Paris is ranked behind cities like Vancouver or Geneva. Even Luxembourg is more important.
Paris has just 12 Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered there. London has 17 and 75% of Fortune 500 companies have offices in London. Even tiny Switzerland has more with 15 Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered there. No wonder 'les Genevois' regard Paris with some amusement.
Paris, of course, is not a global city. Geneva is more international than Paris.
The fundamental problem Paris has - in addition to an interventionist governmental tradition and high taxes - is that it is French speaking whereas global cities such as London, New York, Hong Kong or Singapore are essentially English speaking.
As a financial centre, Paris is ranked behind cities like Vancouver or Geneva. Even Luxembourg is more important.
Paris has just 12 Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered there. London has 17 and 75% of Fortune 500 companies have offices in London. Even tiny Switzerland has more with 15 Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered there. No wonder 'les Genevois' regard Paris with some amusement.
Paris, of course, is not a global city. Geneva is more international than Paris.
Only in comic books...can't be serious...Vancouver is not even the financial center of Canada
Mmmmh? Size? Size of the economy (output) ? Growth rate (london 2,4%, Paris 1,9%,)? Composition of the workforce ? Composition of their respective economy ?
Size compare to their host country ?
What was the point ? Show that Paris is a global city with a similar size than London and characteristics (which is not very well known). Then we arrive at the financial part, which makes the difference between the alpha ++ (London) and Paris (alpha +), since the volume trade in London is about 2,5 times higher which is an abysmal gap.
So to the topic is about the competition between those, i say if it turns bad for UK, Paris can equal London (probably not surpass). And nobody can tell today what will happen in 10 years.
If Paris was not comparable in any way to London, british government wouldn't use the city as a benchmark for London's performances.
I don't think it's right to say that Paris is completely out of the league of London, or that the two cities can't be compared in some respects. However, to argue that Paris is on a level playing field with London is similarly unrealistic.
You can't do this by comparing productivity alone, especially outside of the macroeconomic context. Most of the big name studies that compare global cities take a polyfactorial approach to this, such as PwC's Cities of Opportunity or JLL's CMI.
The fundamental problem Paris has - in addition to an interventionist governmental tradition and high taxes - is that it is French speaking whereas global cities such as London, New York, Hong Kong or Singapore are essentially English speaking.
As a financial centre, Paris is ranked behind cities like Vancouver or Geneva. Even Luxembourg is more important.
Paris has just 12 Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered there. London has 17 and 75% of Fortune 500 companies have offices in London. Even tiny Switzerland has more with 15 Fortune Global 500 companies headquartered there. No wonder 'les Genevois' regard Paris with some amusement.
Paris, of course, is not a global city. Geneva is more international than Paris.
"Paris, of course, is not a global city." That's an interesting level of BS.
Saying that Paris is not in the same league as London is debatable and has part of truth due its lack of financial power, but you, you reach a level of ignorance quite interesting.
So a city that produces as much as Belgium is not "global" ? waw.
BTW, the index you found on wiki is a competitivity index. It ranks Caiman Islands before Paris on their last report -yes, but for competitivity -.
"Paris, of course, is not a global city." That's an interesting level of BS.
Saying that Paris is not in the same league as London is debatable and has part of truth due its lack of financial power, but you, you reach a level of ignorance quite interesting.
So a city that produces as much as Belgium is not "global" ? waw.
BTW, the index you found on wiki is a competitivity index. It ranks Caiman Islands before Paris on their last report -yes, but for competitivity -.
It's clearly not just a monofactorial ranking of competitivity, whatever that means.
Last edited by Hightower72; 05-29-2017 at 01:11 AM..
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.
