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.
Istanbul is much larger, denser and more booming than either Chicago or LA, much older and more historically important, more globally iconic, and the largest city in all of Europe.
I'd say Istanbul is extremely important. Really only NYC would match or top Istanbul here in the U.S.
This is the guy who argued exhaustively that Chicago isn't even in San Fran's class.
Obviously you're lying, as I just wrote in the very last post that Chicago and SF are in the exact same class.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheese plate
Just file him away as a Chicago hater without the ability to make any objective statements when it comes to Chicago and I'm sure many other cities he doesn't like for whatever personal reasons.
And obviously you're lying here too, as, again, I did no such thing.
Don't insult others or make up stuff because you're ignorant about places outside the U.S. like Istanbul.
Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington DC typically rank higher than Istanbul, Moscow and Shanghai on global city metrics - even though that is not the same as "world class." But, something to consider.
There is no such thing as "global city metrics" so I don't know which rankings you're referring to. That GaWC nonsense that people always bring up has nothing to do with whether a city is global; it's talking about big business interconnectivity.
And I can't imagine that those first three cities would rank above your second three cities? On what basis except for median income would a Washington DC be ranked above an Istanbul as a city?
They're just private companies assembling various data points. They have nothing to do with whether a city is world class.
It's very easy to make a list of cities using various weights. But I have never seen a list that ranks cities according to their world class status, and don't even know how one would do this.
They're just private companies assembling various data points. They have nothing to do with whether a city is world class.
It's very easy to make a list of cities using various weights. But I have never seen a list that ranks cities according to their world class status, and don't even know how one would do this.
Yes, this is true. What exactly is required for a city to be world class? I don't think there's a definition most people can agree on.
Istanbul is much larger, denser and more booming than either Chicago or LA, much older and more historically important, more globally iconic, and the largest city in all of Europe.
I'd say Istanbul is extremely important. Really only NYC would match or top Istanbul here in the U.S.
Chicago has a GDP of $524 billion, LA 790 billion. Istanbul has a GDP of 301 billion. There is no point in even comparing it to NYC.
Istanbul is much larger, denser and more booming than either Chicago or LA, much older and more historically important, more globally iconic, and the largest city in all of Europe.
I'd say Istanbul is extremely important. Really only NYC would match or top Istanbul here in the U.S.
Istanbul is Alpha-. Both Chicago and LA are more powerful.
There is no such world class city ranking, and the website you're referring to has nothing to do with the thread topic...
So what kind of metric would you use in assessing whether or not the three cities are already world class or can do more to become so?
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.