Which city has more "global city" potential? Cleveland or Cincinatti or Columbus... (Cincinnati: mover, crime)

[BelieveInCleve]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

Cle440, in the examples you posted ... they could apply to pretty much all 3 of the big 3 C's...

Did I think about creating a similar list that you just provided? Sure, it crossed my mind.


The reason I didn't, is because I travel too much. When visiting Toronto, Chicago, Manhattan, etc ... Ask yourself, how does Cleveland and Toronto compare? How does Atlanta and Cincinnati compare? How does New York and Columbus compare?


Nothing. NOTHING in Ohio comes close, period.

One city is in a free-fall.
One city is on life support.
And the other is leading in a marathon race, but is only on mile marker 5.

Let's push the naiveness aside and not fool ourselves.

Actually, no they couldn't. There is a couple categories on that list that Cincinnati or Columbus don't have at all or anywhere close to Cleveland. For example, neither Cincinnati nor Columbus has a light or heavy rail system in the city. Cleveland is also much more diverse as far as culture and ethnicity.

I think you misunderstood the topic of this thread and the reason I made that list. I'm not trying to prove that Cleveland is a global city, I'm just saying that Cleveland is the closest thing to a global city in Ohio or has the most potential to be or be considered a global city, that's all. I'm not trying to bash any other city in Ohio, but Cleveland clearly takes the cake.

[Cincy-Rise]

The answer is:

1. NYC (Business Activity and Human Capital (1st)
2. L.A. (Human Capital (4th)
3. Chicago (Human Capital (3rd)
4. Washington D.C. (Political Engagement (1st)
5. San Francisco (Human Capital (12th)
6. Boston (Human Capital (9th)

*Human Capital: Economics

Actually, no they couldn't. There is a couple categories on that list that Cincinnati or Columbus don't have at all or anywhere close to Cleveland. For example, neither Cincinnati nor Columbus has a light or heavy rail system in the city. Cleveland is also much more diverse as far as culture and ethnicity.

You'll notice that none of our current World Cities are ranked World Cities because of their public transportation and Boston certainly isn't the most diverse city in the U.S. either.


If you understand (this is not directed to you, Cle440) the meaning of a World City, which is an economic and social term, in other words it is scientific ... you'll understand why I find this thread to be on the same lines as an SNL skit.

There is no "closest" to any of our current World Cities ... no matter how hard any of us try. Even in our Ohio cities prime, we weren't there ... maybe close, but that still doesn't cut it. Will D.C. ever decline to Detroit's level? No. Will NYC wither away as heavy manufacturing continues to destroy cities inside out? No. Will Boston's lack of diverse ethnicity promote decline? No.

The cities listed above are in pretty good shape. They'll continue to thrive no matter how tough the economy gets. They do not rely on good public transit to keep them afloat. They are known throughout the world in any given country and any given city. Their history is solid. Their presence is intimidating. They do not rely on a specific source of employment whether that be insurance, banking, steel manufacturing, or banking.

To utter Cleveland, Cincinnati, or Columbus in the same breath as New York City, Toronto, Paris, Los Angeles, Tokyo, or London is beyond funny and far from comparable... no matter how you cut it.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

I guess a good question to ask is, what are the world cities that are located in the U.S.?


I'll give you a clue ... there are 6.

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., San Franciso, and Boston would be my list. There are a few others that are on the fringe, like Miami, Atlanta, and Philadelphia I would say.

[Cincy-Rise]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., San Franciso, and Boston would be my list. There are a few others that are on the fringe, like Miami, Atlanta, and Philadelphia I would say.

They're posted above in my last post.

[Clevelander17]

Originally Posted by NorthPoleMarathoner

I didn't say anything about the 1904 Olympic Games.

I said the only 3 Midwestern cities around the world that people generally know are St. Louis, Chicago and Detroit.

Relax bud, it was a joke. Ya know, St. Louis hosted the Olympics in 1904? That was my way of expressing surprise that you mentioned St. Louis as being known around the world. St. Louis is a fine city, but it's closer to being a peer to Cincinnati or Cleveland than Detroit or Chicago.

[BelieveInCleve]

Actually, all 6 of those cities/metros have very good and extensive rapid/light rail lines/public transportation, and they are all very diverse.

It seems like you're still missing my point. There is cities in Ohio closer and farther away from being a global city, you cannot tell me that Lima is as close to being a global city as Cleveland.

I'm not uttering them in the same breath, all I'm saying is Cleveland is the closest thing in Ohio to a global city. It's not that hard to understand.

[NorthPoleMarathoner]

Originally Posted by Cincy-Rise

The answer is:

1. NYC (Business Activity and Human Capital (1st)
2. L.A. (Human Capital (4th)
3. Chicago (Human Capital (3rd)
4. Washington D.C. (Political Engagement (1st)
5. San Francisco (Human Capital (12th)
6. Boston (Human Capital (9th)

*Human Capital: Economics




You'll notice that none of our current World Cities are ranked World Cities because of their public transportation and Boston certainly isn't the most diverse city in the U.S. either.


If you understand (this is not directed to you, Cle440) the meaning of a World City, which is an economic and social term, in other words it is scientific ... you'll understand why I find this thread to be on the same lines as an SNL skit.

There is no "closest" to any of our current World Cities ... no matter how hard any of us try. Even in our Ohio cities prime, we weren't there ... maybe close, but that still doesn't cut it. Will D.C. ever decline to Detroit's level? No. Will NYC wither away as heavy manufacturing continues to destroy cities inside out? No. Will Boston's lack of diverse ethnicity promote decline? No.

The cities listed above are in pretty good shape. They'll continue to thrive no matter how tough the economy gets. They do not rely on good public transit to keep them afloat. They are known throughout the world in any given country and any given city. Their history is solid. Their presence is intimidating. They do not rely on a specific source of employment whether that be insurance, banking, steel manufacturing, or banking.

To utter Cleveland, Cincinnati, or Columbus in the same breath as New York City, Toronto, Paris, Los Angeles, Tokyo, or London is beyond funny and far from comparable... no matter how you cut it.

Any list that doesn't have Detroit first in the United States is insane. The invention of the assembly line and the automobile changed the entire course of human history for the better. Very few other inventions can say that. Detroit is by far the most important city in the U.S.

What did those other cities give us? LOLs. Nothing comaped to the auto.
And I think most would agree that Ohio does not have what we would consider a global city. Although I think Cleveland and Akron would be the closest.

I wouldn't use diversity or public transportation as measuring sticks anyway. Tokyo, Cairo and Moscow are not diverse. And I bet they are on the list. If by diverse they mean race. And that is about as dumb as reason I can think of to rate a city.

And the entire U.S. is public transportation. The government owns all the roads, subways, Amtrak and regulate the airlines and railroads so much they may as well be public. It is virtually impossible to go from point A to point B in this country without using government transprtation. I don't know why we should view one city as different from another in that regard.

I would put Dayton before I would put Washington. Dayton gave us the airplane. Washington gave us a bunch of wars and high fructose corn syrup.

[NorthPoleMarathoner]

Originally Posted by Clevelander17

Relax bud, it was a joke. Ya know, St. Louis hosted the Olympics in 1904? That was my way of expressing surprise that you mentioned St. Louis as being known around the world. St. Louis is a fine city, but it's closer to being a peer to Cincinnati or Cleveland than Detroit or Chicago.

It's all good.

[Cincy-Rise]

Originally Posted by Cle440

Actually, all 6 of those cities/metros have very good and extensive rapid/light rail lines/public transportation, and they are all very diverse.

The point is ... a World City isn't based on public transportation. lol

Cincinnati is doing better economically than St. Louis and Cleveland without having LRT and Human Capital is what World Cities are gauged upon.

Also, as someone else mentioned above, there are World Cities that aren't very diverse either ... in the U.S. specifically Boston.

you cannot tell me that Lima is as close to being a global city as Cleveland.

Actually, that's about how it sounds when you compare Cleveland to NYC or Toronto (2 World Cities).


I think you're seeing my point, but wording it in different ways.

[BelieveInCleve]

You still don't understand what I'm saying.

The thread topic is "Which city has more "global city" potential? Cleveland or Cincinatti (Cincinnati) or Columbus" After that it shows characteristics of a global city.

I simply used those characteristics and wrote down how Cleveland does in those categories. Based on that, Cleveland has more global city potential or is much closer to being considered a global city than Cincinnati or Columbus. That is all. Cleveland may not be a global city or anywhere near where NYC or the other cities mentioned are, but its the closest to that out of all the other metros in Ohio including Cincinnati and Columbus.