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.
It seems to me that the only reason people have a hard time accepting Houston and Dallas as grand world cities is because they're Southern.
No. it is because they are young cities and are simply not known or respected outside the US in the way northeast and west coast cities are.
We, as Americans, aren't the only ones who decide what world cities are. The world decides. and from what I gather the world is pretty unaware of the size and importance of Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta.
No. it is because they are young cities and are simply not known or respected outside the US in the way northeast and west coast cities are.
We, as Americans, aren't the only ones who decide what world cities are. The world decides. and from what I gather the world is pretty unaware of the size and importance of Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta.
True. But if they keep growing and their people keep spreading the word and eventually drawing tourism, that may change.
Yet I find it funny that person kept saying this rankings have been updated. What a joke..!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gtownoe
The above posters are correct. The only Alpha World cities in the U.S. are NYC, Los Angeles, and Chicago. San Francisco did not move up the list into the Alpha World City category.
Let me reiterate that I love Chicago. It is a hugely significant city in the United States. Outside the country, however, it carries little weight.
This is an excellent point and I think is what some fail to realize, I think also, that SF is the exact opposite. SF probably carries more weight outside the US than within. This is due in part to the political and social views that totally alienate SF and The Bay Area from a huge portion of Americans.
"An attempt to redefine and recategorise leading world cities was made by GaWC in 2004."
Which means they changed the list-right?
GaWC recategorized the leading world cities with another study in 2004. They did not rank the cities like the original research.Your statement was way off base since the above is not the updated version of the previous one. SF did not move up in the ranking
Quote:
There already is an updated version that came out in 2004. SF and Boston have really moved up in the ranking.
This is clearly a FALSE statement.
Quote:
As far as the value of export trade, The Bay Area surpasses Chicago quite handily. That is a major component of commerce is it not?
Unfortunately, SF is still not considered one of the top 10 centers of commerce like NY, Chicago, Tokyo...etc.
Quote:
Global Significance? in 2008?
Im sorry....what was that again?
Well, how many of those are Fortune 500 companies? Last I checked, the Bay area still ranks below NY & Chicago area when it comes to headquarters of Fortune 500 companies.
GaWC recategorized the leading world cities with another study in 2004. They did not rank the cities like the original research.Your statement was way off base since the above is not the updated version of the previous one. SF did not move up in the ranking
No, you just refuse to acknowledge that they included factors aside from economic impact.
Quote:
Unfortunately, SF is still not considered one of the top 10 centers of commerce like NY, Chicago, Tokyo...etc.
Absolutely. This is not my point.
This, is my point.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Well, how many of those are Fortune 500 companies? Last I checked, the Bay area still ranks below NY & Chicago area when it comes to headquarters of Fortune 500 companies.
Actually,
The San Francisco Bay Area is home to 28 F500 companies.
4 Chevron
14 Hewlett Packard
18 McKesson
41 Wells Fargo
56 Safeway
62 Intel
77 Cisco Systems
121 Apple
144 Gap
167 Oracle
187 Sun Microsystems
196 PG&E
230 Sanmina-SCI
241 Google
243 Solectron
274 Applied Materials
289 First American Corp
344 Calpine
357 Yahoo
360 Synnex
383 eBay
387 Agilent Technologies
389 Charles Schwab
407 Advanced Micro Devices
415 Ross Stores
443 Longs Drugs
445 Franklin Resources
475 Clorox
Chicagoland has 30
28 Boeing 61,530
38 Sears Holding Hoffman Estates 53,012
44 Walgreen Deerfield 47,409
52 Motorola Schaumburg 43,739
61 Allstate Northbrook 35,796
102 Abbott Laboratories Abbott Park 22,476
108 McDonald's Oak Brook 21,587
120 UAL Elk Grove Village 19,340
125 Sara Lee Downers Grove 18,539
150 Exelon 15,654
175 Illinois Tool Works Glenview 14,055
245 Baxter International Deerfield 10,378
247 Aon 10,311
271 R.R. Donnelly 9,317
280 OfficeMax Naperville 8,965
294 Fortune Brands Deerfield 8,255
303 Smurfit-Stone Container 7,944
320 NiSource Merrillville, IN 7,496
334 Integrys Energy Group 6,979
342 CDW Vernon Hills 6,786
382 Brunswick Lake Forest 5,971
385 Ryerson Chicago (West Side) 5,909
388 W. W. Grainger Lake Forest 5,884
396 USG 5,810
413 Tribune 5,583
454 Anixter International 4,939
472 Wm. Wrigley 4,686
473 Tenneco Lake Forest 4,685
485 United Stationers Deerfield 4,547
490 Northern Trust 4,473
not really a huge advantage considering Chicagoland has 2 Million more people.
Also, The SF Bay Area is home to 78 publically traded companies with annual revenues of $1 billion+, 2nd only to The NYC Area.
Quote:
Again. SF is a small city and I love it
Culturally and Economically, SF whallops cities far larger than it. Amazing.
Wait a minute. Did they purposely leave San Francisco out? I think it is because SF is considered a small city and cannot be compared alongside with NY, Chicago & LA
America's global cities.
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles (http://www.upress.umn.edu/books/a/abulughod_ny.html - broken link)
"A renowned scholar compares America's three global cities.
New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles—for all their differences, they are quintessentially American cities. They are also among the handful of cities in the world that can truly be called "global." Janet L. Abu-Lughod's book is the first to compare them in an ambitious in-depth study that takes into account each city's unique history, following their development from their earliest days to their current status as players on the global stage."
Talking about global significance. Show me where SF ranks, please?
Worldwide Centers of Commerce
Chicago is Second Most Global City in U.S.: Brookings
Campaign for Sensible Growth (http://www.growingsensibly.org/news/releaseDetail.asp?objectID=1830 - broken link)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
This is an excellent point and I think is what some fail to realize, I think also, that SF is the exact opposite. SF probably carries more weight outside the US than within. This is due in part to the political and social views that totally alienate SF and The Bay Area from a huge portion of Americans.
Wait a minute. Did they purposely leave San Francisco out? I think it is because SF is considered a small city and cannot be compared alongside with NY, Chicago & LA
America's global cities.
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles (http://www.upress.umn.edu/books/a/abulughod_ny.html - broken link)
"A renowned scholar compares America's three global cities.
New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles—for all their differences, they are quintessentially American cities. They are also among the handful of cities in the world that can truly be called "global." Janet L. Abu-Lughod's book is the first to compare them in an ambitious in-depth study that takes into account each city's unique history, following their development from their earliest days to their current status as players on the global stage."
Talking about global significance. Show me where SF ranks, please?
Chicago is Second Most Global City in U.S.: Brookings
Campaign for Sensible Growth (http://www.growingsensibly.org/news/releaseDetail.asp?objectID=1830 - broken link)
Where did I ever disagree with you that Chicago is not an economic juggernaut?
What you continue to deliberately ignore is that there is more to life than economics.
Is this not the 2nd or 3rd time we've had this conversation?
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.
