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.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. I just can't figure out why L.A isn't in your "definitely" category. It's one of the few one-name-tells-all cities in the world. Along with Paris, New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore, Rome, and maybe Shanghai, its a true brand-name city. A hell of a lot of people (at least as diverse as SF and Chicago) and a lot going on culturally and economically, plus landmarks - does a lot for a city.
You are correct, and I agree - that was an oversight.
Just to be clear, everyone does understand some of the European, Asian, and Latin America world cities we are talking about are far less diverse and cosmopolitan than most American cities, right? People keep talking about it like it's a weakness of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, for instance.
I'd bet each of these cities has a larger foreign-born population and much more diverse racial breakdown than Moscow, Istanbul, Rio, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Tokyo, Seoul, Bangkok, etc... People often go to other countries and don't realize just how monocultural they are because the culture is different from the one they are used to.
see this is exactly what I was saying earlier in the thread. people make their criteria based on "how best I can eliminate US cities."
some have gone the highway route, other's have gone on the memorable buildings route, you chose "keeping up with NY, Tokyo, London and Paris without breaking a sweat.
Ok that should do it for US cities, they have been thoroughly stamped out based on that definition, right? but then you back tracked and added SF, DC, Honolulu, NOLA and a host of other cities keep up with NY, Tokyo, etc etc without breaking a sweat???
see a definition with the sole intent on eliminating some cities will never do because it will inevitably disqualify cities that you do consider world class.
A definition should be based on qualities that a city possess, not qualities that a city doesn't have.
Example if you want to list transportation, the standard could be listed as
-Has efficient transportation
not:
Has a rail system like Toronto or London.
I get your point.
But I think - in defining the term "world-class," you very quickly get into intangible factors that cannot be quantified or turned into a "world-city aspirant" checklist. That's the urban planning model, or the political science model, or the social science model, but you run into things like art and culture, which defy modeled visions, and thus are organic processes that have to develop on their own.
Which is precisely why I backtracked (as you put it): Miami, New Orleans, Honolulu are three great examples of not-there-yet (and maybe never) cities that you could nonetheless argue for, in ways that - say Charlotte or Phoenix would still utterly not qualify. Those cities don't have the financial heft, transit-wise they are what they are, they have the banks, skyscrapers, freeways, headquarters, which are the superficial bells-and-whistles that really impress people on these threads. The reason for their 2nd or 3rd tier "maybe" status comes down to culture. Culture and diversity are extremely important, and those cities are living examples of a sort of urban masala - everything is there, so intermixed in a social gumbo (yep - another food metaphor) that the end product ends up being far richer and deeper than any of the individual components. This quality is essential if you're ever going to get there, and you have to have had this quality for a very long time - it needs to be so entrenched in a place that it (cultural richness and diversity) becomes a self-sustaining force unto itself.
For other reasons, those three cities aren't there yet. But if they have that quality, they are ahead of their peer cities - size-wise - and it's true for NoLA in spite of NoLA's very serious problems (If New Orleans can survive and cobble together a strong comeback for all it has been through and inflicted upon itself over the last half-century or so, then - by virtue of survival, resilience, and learning from past mistakes - they would qualify).
I'm from Charlotte. I know what it claims to be, and I also know what it is. The city has done very well for itself. That I am proud of, and I have a great love of my hometown. BUT I sense very, very strongly - from when I lived there and when I didn't - that a lot of its' claims to greatness were based on...Skyline. Freeways. Banks. Wide boulevards as smooth as glass, leafy suburbs that stretch on till dawn's early light. And that stuff does not impress me - not in Charlotte, not in Atlanta, not in Houston...I could care less. Detroit had or was developing most or all of those things through the early 20th century, and was in some senses one of the most genuinely important cities in the world - for about 4 decades, the place was was so hot it was radioactive, and you can today see the ghost of jaw-dropping glory in many miles of crumbling, magnificent architecture. And to theorize why this - a nearly world-class city that fell into a black hole of decay and decline: it's success and chutzpah never translated into intellectual culture or creative culture (apart from Motown and The Stooges, which were big, but not as big in the grand scheme of things as GM and Ford) or intellectual diversity that was as deeply developed as it's globally famous industrial culture, and - money can move (Motown did, roundabout 1971). And look at what Detroit has become. This is precisely WHY a smokin' skyline or 27 beltways that cut through gleaming office parks absolutely does not impress me, because they are only as good as they are until someone moves - a decade of wrong-moves or missteps and Phoenix could be Detroit-in-the-desert well before most of us reach the ends of our lifetimes. A world-class city has to offer 1,000,000 organic, intangible reasons to not want or need to move, and that's 1,000,000 - not 999,999, if I must be pressed into quantifying my argument.
Just to be clear, everyone does understand some of the European, Asian, and Latin America world cities we are talking about are far less diverse and cosmopolitan than most American cities, right? People keep talking about it like it's a weakness of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, for instance.
I'd bet each of these cities has a larger foreign-born population and much more diverse racial breakdown than Moscow, Istanbul, Rio, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Tokyo, Seoul, Bangkok, etc... People often go to other countries and don't realize just how monocultural they are because the culture is different from the one they are used to.
I can't speak for the others, but Sao Paulo and Rio are quite diverse. The big thing about Brasilian cities is that they have tons of mixed races. 26% of Sao Paulo and 33% of Rio is mixed races.
In terms of descent, Sao Paulo city proper has 6 million Italian, 3 million Portuguese, 1 million Arab, 400k German, 465k Japanese, 120k Chinese, 60k Jewish, 60k Bolivian, 50k Greek, and 50k Korean. Not exactly monocultural.
But I think - in defining the term "world-class," you very quickly get into intangible factors that cannot be quantified or turned into a "world-city aspirant" checklist. That's the urban planning model, or the political science model, or the social science model, but you run into things like art and culture, which defy modeled visions, and thus are organic processes that have to develop on their own.
Which is precisely why I backtracked (as you put it): Miami, New Orleans, Honolulu are three great examples of not-there-yet (and maybe never) cities that you could nonetheless argue for, in ways that - say Charlotte or Phoenix would still utterly not qualify. Those cities don't have the financial heft, transit-wise they are what they are, they have the banks, skyscrapers, freeways, headquarters, which are the superficial bells-and-whistles that really impress people on these threads. The reason for their 2nd or 3rd tier "maybe" status comes down to culture. Culture and diversity are extremely important, and those cities are living examples of a sort of urban masala - everything is there, so intermixed in a social gumbo (yep - another food metaphor) that the end product ends up being far richer and deeper than any of the individual components. This quality is essential if you're ever going to get there, and you have to have had this quality for a very long time - it needs to be so entrenched in a place that it (cultural richness and diversity) becomes a self-sustaining force unto itself.
For other reasons, those three cities aren't there yet. But if they have that quality, they are ahead of their peer cities - size-wise - and it's true for NoLA in spite of NoLA's very serious problems (If New Orleans can survive and cobble together a strong comeback for all it has been through and inflicted upon itself over the last half-century or so, then - by virtue of survival, resilience, and learning from past mistakes - they would qualify).
I'm from Charlotte. I know what it claims to be, and I also know what it is. The city has done very well for itself. That I am proud of, and I have a great love of my hometown. BUT I sense very, very strongly - from when I lived there and when I didn't - that a lot of its' claims to greatness were based on...Skyline. Freeways. Banks. Wide boulevards as smooth as glass, leafy suburbs that stretch on till dawn's early light. And that stuff does not impress me - not in Charlotte, not in Atlanta, not in Houston...I could care less. Detroit had or was developing most or all of those things through the early 20th century, and was in some senses one of the most genuinely important cities in the world - for about 4 decades, the place was was so hot it was radioactive, and you can today see the ghost of jaw-dropping glory in many miles of crumbling, magnificent architecture. And to theorize why this - a nearly world-class city that fell into a black hole of decay and decline: it's success and chutzpah never translated into intellectual culture or creative culture (apart from Motown and The Stooges, which were big, but not as big in the grand scheme of things as GM and Ford) or intellectual diversity that was as deeply developed as it's globally famous industrial culture, and - money can move (Motown did, roundabout 1971). And look at what Detroit has become. This is precisely WHY a smokin' skyline or 27 beltways that cut through gleaming office parks absolutely does not impress me, because they are only as good as they are until someone moves - a decade of wrong-moves or missteps and Phoenix could be Detroit-in-the-desert well before most of us reach the ends of our lifetimes. A world-class city has to offer 1,000,000 organic, intangible reasons to not want or need to move, and that's 1,000,000 - not 999,999, if I must be pressed into quantifying my argument.
Oh I do get what you are saying, but I am just not sure you got what I was saying. I was simply stating that if you were to come up with a standard, it should be applicable to all cities, both domestic and international.
The standard you picked does not.
Your standard was sgoing toe to toe with NTY and Tokyo and frankly SF, NOLA and Geneva do not by any means go toe to toe with NY or Tokyo.
Geneva would be a closer fit to places like Houston, Dallas and Atlanta than it would NY.
The same with SF. It is much much closer to HOuston, Dallas and ATL than it is to NY.
lets take Geneva for an example.
It is one of my favorite European Cities. It is not as walkable as Zurich and far from as walkable as London or Paris. Geneva's saving grace is that it is rather tiny (less than 7 sq miles). Car culture is very popular there, but they do make good use of light rail. Actually Geneva is quite similar to the western half of inner Loop Houston in terms of size and ability to get around.
If Geneva was on the same scale as London, or Atlanta it would be a total mess.
Geneva is known for being a global financial center. Not on the level of NY, Tokyo or Hong Kong or singapore, but it is up there in the top Ten at least.
It is also known for its affliliation to the UN.
That is Geneva in a nut shell. It is really small. The transportation system there is not as complex, but being so small saves it. It is a major financial center, and it is quite diverse.
In my opinion it is a World Class city, but not moreso than Atlanta based on your definition of keeping up toe to toe with NY.
NY trumps it my a lot based on the things that it is famous for: Finance and the UN
Just to be clear, everyone does understand some of the European, Asian, and Latin America world cities we are talking about are far less diverse and cosmopolitan than most American cities, right? People keep talking about it like it's a weakness of Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta, for instance.
I'd bet each of these cities has a larger foreign-born population and much more diverse racial breakdown than Moscow, Istanbul, Rio, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Tokyo, Seoul, Bangkok, etc... People often go to other countries and don't realize just how monocultural they are because the culture is different from the one they are used to.
If we are looking for cities that match Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta in importance and impact abroad, my personal opinion would be:
Latin America: Lima, Bogota, and Rio de Janeiro
Asia: Guangzhou, Manila, and Osaka
Europe: Munich, Copenhagen, and Stockholm
Africa: Nairobi and Capetown
Just my opinion and I could be wrong, but having been to each of those and it seems about right.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,035,535 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by justme02
If we are looking for cities that match Houston, Dallas, and Atlanta in importance and impact abroad, my personal opinion would be:
Latin America: Lima, Bogota, and Rio de Janeiro
Asia: Guangzhou, Manila, and Osaka
Europe: Munich, Copenhagen, and Stockholm
Africa: Nairobi and Capetown
Just my opinion and I could be wrong, but having been to each of those and it seems about right.
Good list so far.
For Asia I would add:
- Taipei
- Seoul
- Bangkok
- Kuala Lumpur
- Abu Dhabi
- Tehran
All these cities are a bit less than the Asian Powerhouses of Shanghai, Hong Kong, Mumbai, Beijing, Tokyo, Singapore, & Dubai, and economically I would say none are more relevant or less relevant than Houston, Atlanta, Miami, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, & Dallas.
I think Tokyo, Mumbai, Hong Kong, Singapore, Shanghai, Beijing, & Dubai are best matched with and on par or come just barely short too New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington DC, & Bay Area.
Again, this is the best list of global cities that would fit into the world class cities that I have seen so far:
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
best City ranking out there:
The Global Cities Index 2010
2010 Ranking
1 New York
2 London
3 Tokyo
4 Paris
5 Hong Kong
6 Chicago
7 Los Angeles
8 Singapore
9 Sydney
10 Seoul
11 Brussels
12 San Francisco
13 Washington DC
14 Toronto
15 Beijing
16 Berlin
17 Madrid
18 Vienna
19 Boston
20-tie Frankfurt
20-tie Shanghai
22 Buenos Aires
23 Stockholm
24 Zurich
25 Moscow
26 Barcelona
27 Dubai
28 Rome
29 Amsterdam
30 Mexico City
31 Montreal
32 Geneva
33-tie Miami
33-tie Munich
35 Sao Paulo
36 Bangkok
37 Copenhagen
38 Houston
39 Taipei
40 Atlanta
41 Istanbul
42 Milan
43 Cairo
44 Dublin
45 New Delhi
46 Mumbai
47 Osaka
48 Kuala Lumpur
49 Rio de Janeiro
50 Tel Aviv
I would have squeezed in Philadelphia to that list though
Again, this is the best list of global cities that would fit into the world class cities that I have seen so far
One thing I will always hate about CD is that people pick and choose the lists they like based on how their city is displayed. If their city is displayed as they like, they try to inject credibility into it, if not, they try and trash it.
Too many lists and all have good points, but I cant see what makes one better than the next other than subjectivity.
One thing I will always hate about CD is that people pick and choose the lists they like based on how their city is displayed. If their city is displayed as they like, they try to inject credibility into it, if not, they try and trash it.
Too many lists and all have good points, but I cant see what makes one better than the next other than subjectivity.
have you seen one better than that one??
You are just gripeing because Dallas is not on that list, but I think it is the best list I have seen of cities that would fit into world class cities.
If Dallas had a niche industry it would fit on the list, but Dallas is not World Class for anything at the moment. I gave a definition for World class and that list most closely fits my definition.
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.
this is exactly what I was saying earlier in the thread. people make their criteria based on "how best I can eliminate US cities."