Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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)
View Poll Results: How accurate would you say GaWC is when ranking US Cities?
GaWC is the most accurate ranking out there 13 17.57%
It is fairly accurate 18 24.32%
I take it with a grain of salt 27 36.49%
It is not accurate at all. 16 21.62%
Voters: 74. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-19-2010, 03:39 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,933,707 times
Reputation: 7752

Advertisements

many people quote it, for some it is taken with a grain of salt, for others it is their bible, and others totally discredit it.

what do you think of GaWC?

How much faith would you put in it?

How accurate do you think it is?

Do they put too much weight on certain categories?

do you agree with how US Cities are ranked?

GaWC 2000



GaWC 2004




GaWC 2008:

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-19-2010, 03:57 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,933,707 times
Reputation: 7752
My Observations:

Why do they keep moving Atlanta so much?
Why Is Philadelphia ranked so low?
What did LA do to drop?

Miami and Atlanta ahead of DC? that is interesting.
Seattle, San Jose, Denver, and Minneapolis ahead of Philly?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:00 PM
 
Location: Denver
6,625 posts, read 14,452,056 times
Reputation: 4201
I take it with an enormous grain of salt. I think the fact that Atlanta was an Alpha- at one point says a lot (nothing against Atlanta)...and the fact that Milan & Sydney would be considered 2 of the most important cities in the world is a bit odd...both rank higher than Moscow, Chicago, and Los Angeles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:06 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,933,707 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmac9wr View Post
I take it with an enormous grain of salt. I think the fact that Atlanta was an Alpha- at one point says a lot (nothing against Atlanta)...and the fact that Milan & Sydney would be considered 2 of the most important cities in the world is a bit odd...both rank higher than Moscow, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

where do you think they go wrong though?

what would make them want to rank Milan ahead of Chicago and LA?

and then Rank Boston with Oslo?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:14 PM
 
177 posts, read 479,568 times
Reputation: 206
Their methodology must be shifting way too much to be taken seriously. At least with the lower alpha cities and below. It also seems they have went out of their way to reduce the ratings of US cities - dropping LA is simply inexplicable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:22 PM
 
Location: Los Altos Hills, CA
36,653 posts, read 67,487,099 times
Reputation: 21229
Its a ranking of office locations and branch offices of certain banks, law firms, insurance companies and accounting firms.

I don't give it much weight at all when it comes to status among world cities and it is highly misquoted and people tend to represent it as the end all of the subject when clearly there are tons of pertinent criteria they don't even examine.

Actually they did weigh things such as cultural impact and the rankings there were interesting and I was tickled cause it pegged SF as tied for 3rd with LA and Paris which even I admit is a stretch although I could make the argument LOL. I wont post that ranking again cause its been done 100 times already
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:46 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,933,707 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Its a ranking of office locations and branch offices of certain banks, law firms, insurance companies and accounting firms.

I don't give it much weight at all when it comes to status among world cities and it is highly misquoted and people tend to represent it as the end all of the subject when clearly there are tons of pertinent criteria they don't even examine.

Actually they did weigh things such as cultural impact and the rankings there were interesting and I was tickled cause it pegged SF as tied for 3rd with LA and Paris which even I admit is a stretch although I could make the argument LOL. I wont post that ranking again cause its been done 100 times already

I have seen the above rankings, I just chose to examine Gawc because I have seen it used to bolster 3 different city's global prowess in the half hour before I posted this thread (3 different people used it).

So many people lay their entire argument on it without understanding the methodolgy behind it.

I just noticed too how SF has been dropping in each ranking.

also they have had Houston at Beta minus while Dallas increased. There are aspects of both cities that are increasing, I don't know why one would increase and the other would not
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 04:47 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,169 posts, read 13,239,989 times
Reputation: 10141
It measures International Communications (and how accurately is a good question) between cities. The problem is not what they are measuring but when they use their limited criterea to decalre that such and such a city is a Alpha city or a Beta city etc.

This methodology also seems to give an advantage to smaller nations with only a few cities, over cities which are part of larger nations like the USA, Canada, Russia, India, China etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 07:25 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,495 posts, read 32,933,707 times
Reputation: 7752
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
It measures International Communications (and how accurately is a good question) between cities. The problem is not what they are measuring but when they use their limited criterea to decalre that such and such a city is a Alpha city or a Beta city etc.

This methodology also seems to give an advantage to smaller nations with only a few cities, over cities which are part of larger nations like the USA, Canada, Russia, India, China etc.

must not be too accurately.


also why do they take so long between updates?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2010, 07:31 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
It measures International Communications (and how accurately is a good question) between cities. The problem is not what they are measuring but when they use their limited criterea to decalre that such and such a city is a Alpha city or a Beta city etc.

This methodology also seems to give an advantage to smaller nations with only a few cities, over cities which are part of larger nations like the USA, Canada, Russia, India, China etc.
Haha LINative they have more going on than just that.

No GaWC is a little bit unique compared to other studies in that they think they are intelligently weighing in on importance when in reality they are making a joke of themselves.

They give importance to cities that host the Olympics, are state capitals, number of Billionaires, airport traffic, and are cultural capitals of their region. That is why Dallas outscores Houston, that is why Philadelphia on these rankings is almost considered irrelevant because of how they weigh in.
(Some of their criteria is beyond irrelevant and laughable)

That is also how start up baby Metros like Seattle, Denver, & Portland scream power on GaWC's list.
Nothing against Atlanta & Miami but the moment I read they were an Alpha World city when Boston was not, I couldn't help myself but laugh and possibly spit out the hot chocolate I was drinking (almost literally), because Atlanta & Miami many would consider a peer of Boston, Houston, Dallas, etc.
Nothing against Atlanta & Miami but they should have never been an Alpha World City in the first place, they weren't ready for that, I mean Washington DC by GaWC has NEVER been an Alpha World City before.. what does that say about these people making the rankings?

Personally I find GaWC laughable and irrelevant in their rankings.
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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top