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 a city of great historical importance, but that alone does not push it above cities with higher GDP and current standing. What's next, Jerusalem?
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.
You aren't comparing apples-to-apples because there are no MSAs in Turkey.
And I already wrote that American cities are obviously richer, with higher GDP. But that's a silly way to rank cities, unless you think that Dallas is greater than Paris, or Mississippi has higher quality of life than Sweden.
If the only criteria for world city status is median household income, then the task is easy, and the greatest city on the planet is Bridgeport, CT, because it has the highest metroplitan median income. I personally think this is a ridiculous way to rank cities, but it's certainly an option.
Istanbul is a city of great historical importance, but that alone does not push it above cities with higher GDP and current standing. What's next, Jerusalem?
No, Istanbul is a city of great historical AND current importance. It's a massive, booming metroplis of 20 million people, with towers going up everywhere, bridges and subways and entire neighborhoods being built everywhere, and vast wealth being created, with one of the largest concentrations of wealthy on earth.
Jerusalem is a comparatively small city of almost no current importance.
And, again, if you want to use wealth, fine. I think it's a silly way to measure cities, but if it's your thing, then Bridgeport, CT is king.
No, Istanbul is a city of great historical AND current importance. It's a massive, booming metroplis of 20 million people, with towers going up everywhere, bridges and subways and entire neighborhoods being built everywhere, and vast wealth being created, with one of the largest concentrations of wealthy on earth.
The stats for the Istanbul metro say that the system length is 50 miles and it has 65 stations. That is pretty small for a metropolis of 20 million people.
By contrast, the New York City subway has 232 miles system length, 842 miles of track length and 468 stations.
I expect that most other aspects of Istanbul compare similarly to American cities, although I'm sure that city has a rich culture which I would like to experience someday.
Last edited by BigCityDreamer; 07-08-2014 at 01:51 PM..
You aren't comparing apples-to-apples because there are no MSAs in Turkey.
And I already wrote that American cities are obviously richer, with higher GDP. But that's a silly way to rank cities, unless you think that Dallas is greater than Paris, or Mississippi has higher quality of life than Sweden.
If the only criteria for world city status is median household income, then the task is easy, and the greatest city on the planet is Bridgeport, CT, because it has the highest metroplitan median income. I personally think this is a ridiculous way to rank cities, but it's certainly an option.
You are not really telling how it is greater than Chicago or LA. It doesn't have better Universities, Research, Museums etc,
You are not really telling how it is greater than Chicago or LA. It doesn't have better Universities, Research, Museums etc,
True, it doesn't have better universities or museums.
But Chicago and LA don't have better universities than Cambridge, MA, or Oxford, England, or Palo Alto, CA, and they don't have better museums than Florence, Italy, or Venice, Italy, or Versailles, France, so, using your standards, Chicago and LA are less world class than small towns with better universities and museums.
The stats for the Istanbul metro say that the system length is 50 miles and it has 65 stations. That is pretty small for a metropolis of 20 million people.
By contrast, the New York City subway has 232 miles system length, 842 miles of track length and 468 stations.
I expect that most other aspects of Istanbul compare similarly to American cities, although I'm sure that city has a rich culture which I would like to experience someday.
I don't know why you're trying to argue for LA or Chicago against Istanbul by citing NYC.
Could you explain why you are talking about NYC's larger rail system rather than LA's smaller rail system? No one here is arguing that Istanbul is ahead of NYC. LA has a much smaller subway system than that of Istanbul, and overall transit, including all rail, is a fraction of the Istanbul system.
And I have no idea what "length of rail system" has to do with whether a city is world class. LA is unquestionably the #2 US city but has nowhere near the #2 rail system in the US.
True, it doesn't have better universities or museums.
But Chicago and LA don't have better universities than Cambridge, MA, or Oxford, England, or Palo Alto, CA, and they don't have better museums than Florence, Italy, or Venice, Italy, or Versailles, France, so, using your standards, Chicago and LA are less world class than small towns with better universities and museums.
So what makes Istanbul a world class cities besides being old.Also tell me why it belongs on this list of cities
Alpha++
United Kingdom London
United States New York City
Alpha+
Hong Kong Hong Kong
France Paris
Singapore Singapore
Japan Tokyo
China Shanghai
United States Chicago
United Arab Emirates Dubai
Australia Sydney
Alpha
Italy Milan
China Beijing
Canada Toronto
Brazil São Paulo
Spain Madrid
India Mumbai
United States Los Angeles
Russia Moscow
Germany Frankfurt
Mexico Mexico City
Netherlands Amsterdam
Argentina Buenos Aires
Malaysia Kuala Lumpur
South Korea Seoul
Belgium Brussels
Indonesia Jakarta
United States San Francisco
United States Washington, D.C.
They need to solve their crime issues if they are to become truly "livable" cities
Livable goes out the window once a city gets too trendy (gentrification) on it's quest to be "world class". At that point, a large gap develops between the few nice neighborhoods and the bad neighborhoods. A large income is needed in order to enjoy the basic everyday life in the city. Example: Pittsburgh. Most residents will say the city was better off five years ago before this recent boom.
Small cities have the best to offer. The goal to be "world class" is not an achievement to be pursued.
Livable goes out the window once a city gets too trendy (gentrification) on it's quest to be "world class". At that point, a large gap develops between the few nice neighborhoods and the bad neighborhoods. A large income is needed in order to enjoy the basic everyday life in the city. Example: Pittsburgh. Most residents will say the city was better off five years ago before this recent boom.
Small cities have the best to offer. The goal to be "world class" is not an achievement to be pursued.
What boom?
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.
