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.
Someone talked about Niche Cities? Really intrgued by their inclusion of Denver.
THE WORLD'S MOST WELL ROUNDED CITIES by GaWC released in 2004
Five levels of global city are identified. First, and clearly above all others, there are London and New York. All previous research has highlighted the dominance of these two cities in the world city hierarchy (Taylor 2004a) and they emerge here as the most important 'all-round' global contributors. They are followed by three cities that make smaller all-round contribution and with particular cultural strengths: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco. Finally, among 'all-rounders' there are seven incipient world cities identified in Table 11. In the second category of global niche cities, the three leading Pacific Asian cities are critical economic nodes in the world city network and there are also three critical nodes that are non-economic: Brussels, Geneva and Washington, DC. Thus a total of 18 cities are deemed to be global, actual or incipient.
The remaining world cities encompass articulator and niche cities. The former are focussed upon subnets and there are 13 distributed between the three non-economic spheres. Classic examples are Vienna at the centre of a UN agency subnet and Nairobi at the centre of a NGO subnet. There are 21niche world cities identified of which seven have important concentrations of economic activities and 14 concentrations of non-economic activities. Frankfurt is typical of the first group with its concentration of banks while Manila is typical of the second group with its concentration of NGOs.
These two sets of cities represent the upper echelons of the hierarchical tendencies in world city networks. To reiterate a point made in the introduction, they do not encompass all globalization processes, all cities
GLOBAL as so involved, but they are the key locales that network formation agents are using in their everyday activities that are creating world city networks. CITIES
Well rounded global
Very large contribution: London and New York Smaller contribution and with cultural bias: Los Angeles, Paris and San Francisco ii Incipient global cities: Amsterdam, Boston, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, Moscow, Toronto
Global niche cities - specialised global contributions
i Economic: Hong Kong, Singapore, and Tokyo
ii Political and social: Brussels, Geneva, and Washington
WORLD CITIES
Subnet articulator cities
i Cultural: Berlin, Copenhagen, Melbourne, Munich, Oslo, Rome, Stockholm Political: Bangkok, Beijing, Vienna
ii Social: Manila, Nairobi, Ottawa
Worldwide leading cities
i Primarily economic global contributions: Frankfurt, Miami, Munich, Osaka, Singapore, Sydney, Zurich
ii Primarily non-economic global contributions: Abidjan, Addis Ababa, Atlanta, Basle, Barcelona, Cairo, Denver, Harare, Lyon, Manila, Mexico City, Mumbai, New Delhi, Shanghai
I would think Houston, right? I mean there's not that much of a difference between Chicago's population to Houston, unless you include the metro area.
People were saying DFW...but don't forget, San Antonio recently surpassed DFW in population
In all honestly, I rarely remember Chicago. I don't even know what state it is in. Wisconsin? Illinois? Maybe Illinois, sounds right. Have to Google it, lol.
What are they known for besides blizzards? I'm not saying Houston is better, because it's not. In fact, Houston is sh*t hole in my eyes and too BIG.
But those who rank Chicago above L.A must be drunk.
L.A. is great city! WTH am I doing in Chicago?
Anyways, Houston's population doesn't fluctuate like Chi-town. We go up!
I would think Houston, right? I mean there's not that much of a difference between Chicago's population to Houston, unless you include the metro area.
People were saying DFW...but don't forget, San Antonio recently surpassed DFW in population
In all honestly, I rarely remember Chicago. I don't even know what state it is in. Wisconsin? Illinois? Maybe Illinois, sounds right. Have to Google it, lol.
What are they known for besides blizzards? I'm not saying Houston is better, because it's not. In fact, Houston is sh*t hole in my eyes and too BIG.
But those who rank Chicago above L.A must be drunk.
L.A. is great city! WTH am I doing in Chicago?
Anyways, Houston's population doesn't fluctuate like Chi-town. We go up!
I would also put LA over Chicago. LA is the new second city in the US. But Houston is far from a crap hole.
I would think Houston, right? I mean there's not that much of a difference between Chicago's population to Houston, unless you include the metro area.
People were saying DFW...but don't forget, San Antonio recently surpassed DFW in population
It's much smarter to look at metro areas when comparing cities. Chicago is a much larger city than Houston, just like Dallas is a much larger city than San Antonio. Technically, San Antonio is considerably larger than San Francisco and more than twice the size of Boston. In reality, the only reason that's true is because San Antonio has 4.35 times the geographical size of Boston and SF combined. If you expanded Boston or San Francisco's city proper borders to equal San Antonio's, both cities would have a larger population than San Antonio's entire metro.
Quote:
In all honestly, I rarely remember Chicago. I don't even know what state it is in. Wisconsin? Illinois? Maybe Illinois, sounds right. Have to Google it, lol.
No offense, but have you ever been to school?
Quote:
What are they known for besides blizzards? I'm not saying Houston is better, because it's not. In fact, Houston is sh*t hole in my eyes and too BIG.
Besides blizzards, Chicago is known for being one of the most powerful financial services cities on the planet, and as the most important commodity and derivative center on the planet.
I wouldn't call Houston a hole...however it is very big (at least its borders are).
Chicago is slightly larger than Houston, though with Chicago's population dropping, and Houston's population growing, Houston will be larger than Chicago within a decade or so.
Chicago is slightly larger than Houston, though with Chicago's population dropping, and Houston's population growing, Houston will be larger than Chicago within a decade or so.
Again, you mention that Chicago's population has dropped to about 2.7 million. I'm sure you're not just making that number up, yet I can't find any documentation to back up that claim. Can you help me out and point me to your source? Thanks again.
Chicago is slightly larger than Houston, though with Chicago's population dropping, and Houston's population growing, Houston will be larger than Chicago within a decade or so.
I'm still going to stick with True. Maybe you can actually look at facts for once...
Urban area:
Houston: 3,822,509 in 1,295 sq miles (2,951/sq mile)
Chicago: 8,711,000 in 2,122 sq miles (4,105/sq mile)
Hmmmmm...I think being more than 2.25 times larger than someone else qualifies as being much larger.
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.
Houston
