Which is the 5th World city?

[N/A]

Assuming New York City, London, Tokyo and Paris are on everyone's top 4 "world city" list, what is the 5-8th in your "world city" list?

[MattSal]

5. Seoul
6. Istanbul
7. Sydney
8. Toronto

[SkyHigh529]

Viable number 5's to me would be Hong Kong, Chicago, Toronto, Los Angeles, Rome, and Moscow

[jmancuso]

port moresby

[Golden Loon]

Hong Kong

[heirloom]

Business Times - 11 Apr 2005

Only S'pore seen as truly global

By MICHELLE QUAH

SINGAPORE is poised to be Asia's only truly global city, beating close contenders such as Tokyo and Hong Kong, says Deutsche Bank. And against the backdrop of such strong long-term prospects, it favoured government-linked companies such as DBS Group Holdings and CapitaLand.

The bank, in its latest research report, said that Singapore had the greatest potential - out of Asia - to attract talent from all over the world, while possessing the highest level of services and entertainment.

It ruled out Tokyo, saying it was more of a large Japanese city than a global one. It also said that Sydney was 'simply too far away from Asia to be a contender'. As for Hong Kong - seen as Singapore's greatest competitor in this arena - the bank said that its prospects would 'gradually diminish due to immigration from the mainland'.

Singapore, on the other hand, had its three main racial groups and a large number of expatriates living in relative harmony, making it 'naturally more multicultural, while immigrants are better educated and are more diverse than in Hong Kong'. The bank said that it believed multiculturalism was necessary for a global city.

Other factors in Singapore's favour are: a very low crime rate, cheap services and a host of good schools. Deutsche Bank added that safety in Singapore extended beyond personal safety, to low risks for businesses locating here, given the country's focus on intellectual property rights, and an efficient and transparent legal system.

Deutsche Bank said that Singapore had also begun to address an area it lagged Hong Kong in - the entrepreneurial mindset of its people. In this area, it said, Singapore's education curriculum has been revised 'to provide students with opportunities to reflect and explore', which it believed would 'produce more entrepreneurial Singaporeans as well as those interested in research'.

Benefiting from Singapore's push to be a global city would be DBS Group Holdings, CapitaLand, Keppel Corp and SingTel - which Deutsche Bank has as its long-term stock picks.

'All four are major regional or global players in their respective industries and have been aggressive in international expansion. A strong performance in recent years demonstrates that they are generally well-managed and have successfully regionalised.'

The bank said that it was 'bullish on GLCs in the long term because Singapore's AAA rating and implied sovereign support give a low cost of capital'.

It added that the four GLCs it favoured had high management quality, and 'Temasek is a wealthy shareholder that is committed to helping them grow'.

Copyright © 2005 Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. All rights reserved.

[samsonyuen]

HK. Toronto, Seoul, Sydney, Rome, Moscow, Chicago and LA? I love those cities, but no; I think they're in the top 15 though.

Singapore is an interesting city. One has to wonder, Does a city have to be a certain size to be a top-tier global city? I personally think so, but it still goes in my top 15.

[Poryaa]

Then the customary source.

12: London, New York, Paris, Tokyo
10: Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore
9: San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html

[Randwicked]

5. Hong Kong
6. LA
7. Shanghai
8. Singapore or Moscow or Berlin

[TallBox]

I'm considering political influence as well as infrastructure, wealth, etc.

5. HK
6. Berlin
7. Rome
8. Moscow
9. Tel Aviv? Seoul? Beijing?

[samurai_401]

Hong Kong and Singapore are large city in the world?

[samurai_401]

Hong Kong and Singapore become main city ?? why?
GDP of the two countries is so small.

[Jury]

Sydney Oz

[Monkey]

6. Berlin


You've got to be joking. I doubt it would even make the Top 20.

[Sen]

HK or maybe Chicago.

LA Toronto Rome Berlin Moscow are simply not in the same league.

[Monkey]

5. Sydney
6. Hong Kong
7. Chicago
8. Los Angeles

I should give a mention to Singapore, which would probably go in 9th after these.

[Monkey]

5. Berlin
6. Toronto
7. HK
8. Sydney

[ch1le]

Hong Kong or Beijing

[Monkey]

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html

That's a very useful link.

[Jury]

^ not a bad list, tho some weired stuff in there, like adelaide in the very bottom and no perth at all ... happy with sydney's position tho, almost alpha ;)

[Alvin]

5. Sydney
6. Hongkong
7. Rome
8. Singapore

[Alvin]

http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/images/rb5f1.gif

[carfentanyl]

On account of financial and cultural value and ofcourse city size:

5. Hong Kong
6. Sao Paulo
7. Seoul, Buenos Aires, Singapore, Chicago, Beijing...

[JDRS]

5) Hong Kong
6) Toronto
7) Sydney
8) Singapore

[defi]

Zurich, obviously ;)

[fcom1]

5. Moscow
6. Milan
7. Zurich
8. Sao Paulo

[Azn_chi_boi]

Hong Kong, Milian, Sao Paulo, SIngapore, Chicago, LA for my 5-10 list in not particlaur order. Probably dump Sao Paulo or LA for Frankfurt?

[NY1]

I would put San Fran in place of all those LA's, nut other than that the cities mentioned are pretty good choices.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

i cant believe how everyone disses LA. you people truey know nothing about LA except for sterotypes. LA's economy would be the worlds 16th largest, the Port of LA Long beach is the third busiest in the world, LA might be the most diverse city on earth, the arts and culture scene here is top notch, and the metro has 17.5 million people (important to some), not to mention the incredible world influence through Hollywood and the studios.

[Jury]

^ i think that LA without hollywood wouldnt be close to what it is today, its how its gained its repuation, and population growth as a result of that too, and the economy etc ..

[Madman]

...read an interesting book that explains that LA had little reason to become what it has without the advent of mass advertising...(things like the harbours of SF and San Diego should have made them the principal cities of California, one of the transamerica lines was bribed to be rerouted to LA, crazy promotion across American expos to create a real estate boom etc etc.)

Anyway my list is
5. LA
6. Hong Kong
7. Sao Paulo
8. Moscow

[defi]

5. HK
6. LA
7. Singapore
8. Milan

[Jose Luis]

LOL LA is not even close to Hong Kong.
Lets face it, the 5th is HK!

[Rail Claimore]

...read an interesting book that explains that LA had little reason to become what it has without the advent of mass advertising...(things like the harbours of SF and San Diego should have made them the principal cities of California, one of the transamerica lines was bribed to be rerouted to LA, crazy promotion across American expos to create a real estate boom etc etc.)

Anyway my list is
5. LA
6. Hong Kong
7. Sao Paulo
8. Moscow

It's an interesting point you bring up about LA being an anomoly as the biggest and arguably most important west coast city. LA itself is an anomoly in its region. Geographically speaking, Long Beach should have been the dominant city in SoCal sans San Diego.

The reason San Francisco didn't develop as fast as LA has little to do with marketing, although marketing was a significant effect of LA's growth in the early 20th century.

San Francisco was severely damaged by the 1906 earthquake, and although it rebuilt itself, San Francisco stunted a lot of its own growth by becoming more like Boston instead of New York, it was the city for elites on the west coast, and thus NIMBYism began rearing its ugly head. Another big factor to mention is railroads. San Francisco has a great location as a seaport, but an absolutely horrible location as a railroad hub or terminus, unlike LA. Until BART tunnels were built under the bay in the 1970's, San Francisco had no direct railroad connection to Oakland and served only a a railroad terminus for trains heading south toward... guess where... Los Angeles.

Los Angeles itself had to deal with one major problem above all else, and that was water. Part of the reason the San Fernando Valley is part of LA's city limits is that LA had to annex land up there to get to a newly built aqueduct built to pull water from the Central Valley. This process was repeated later with aqueducts to the Colorado River.

But back to railroads. Because Los Angeles managed to make itself the railroad hub of the West Coast and had a port at least equal to San Francisco in terms of potential capacity, LA was able to grab major amounts of manufacturing, and thus jobs and population growth from the east. This process continued and fully manifested itself after WWII when LA just blew past Philadelphia and Chicago to become the second largest metro in the US by the early 1970's. LA was absolutely HUGE in the aviation and defense industries and subsequent sub-industries. Although it lost much of this edge in the 1990's, LA today is still the largest manufacturing and industrial city in the US, barely ahead of Chicago and Houston, and that's what's driving much of its population growth in immigration from Latin America.

San Francisco just never caught on to job growth in the same way LA was able to, but it still retained its importance as a port and as the major financial center of the West Coast, although LA has actually grabbed a lot of San Francisco's share of even the financial importance since the 1980's.

Now as for the subject of this thread... it's difficult to say which city is 5th, but I'd say that LA, Hong Kong, and Chicago are definintely 5th through 7th, not necessarily in that order.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Good post. Thanks for the history lesson.

[Skopie]

That's a very useful link.

Crikey, Leeds is in there? Most people outside of the UK havn't even heard of it.

Anyway I would say

5.Hong Kong
6.Chicago
7.Singapore
8.Sydney

[zulu69]

It's an interesting point you bring up about LA being an anomoly as the biggest and arguably most important west coast city. LA itself is an anomoly in its region. Geographically speaking, Long Beach should have been the dominant city in SoCal sans San Diego.

The reason San Francisco didn't develop as fast as LA has little to do with marketing, although marketing was a significant effect of LA's growth in the early 20th century.

San Francisco was severely damaged by the 1906 earthquake, and although it rebuilt itself, San Francisco stunted a lot of its own growth by becoming more like Boston instead of New York, it was the city for elites on the west coast, and thus NIMBYism began rearing its ugly head. Another big factor to mention is railroads. San Francisco has a great location as a seaport, but an absolutely horrible location as a railroad hub or terminus, unlike LA. Until BART tunnels were built under the bay in the 1970's, San Francisco had no direct railroad connection to Oakland and served only a a railroad terminus for trains heading south toward... guess where... Los Angeles.

Los Angeles itself had to deal with one major problem above all else, and that was water. Part of the reason the San Fernando Valley is part of LA's city limits is that LA had to annex land up there to get to a newly built aqueduct built to pull water from the Central Valley. This process was repeated later with aqueducts to the Colorado River.

But back to railroads. Because Los Angeles managed to make itself the railroad hub of the West Coast and had a port at least equal to San Francisco in terms of potential capacity, LA was able to grab major amounts of manufacturing, and thus jobs and population growth from the east. This process continued and fully manifested itself after WWII when LA just blew past Philadelphia and Chicago to become the second largest metro in the US by the early 1970's. LA was absolutely HUGE in the aviation and defense industries and subsequent sub-industries. Although it lost much of this edge in the 1990's, LA today is still the largest manufacturing and industrial city in the US, barely ahead of Chicago and Houston, and that's what's driving much of its population growth in immigration from Latin America.

San Francisco just never caught on to job growth in the same way LA was able to, but it still retained its importance as a port and as the major financial center of the West Coast, although LA has actually grabbed a lot of San Francisco's share of even the financial importance since the 1980's.



Also the Hoover Dam went along way to make LA's growth viable. Thanks for the info tho, its very interesting how quickly LA rose up the ranks.

[Jury]

It's an interesting point you bring up about LA being an anomoly as the biggest and arguably most important west coast city. LA itself is an anomoly in its region. Geographically speaking, Long Beach should have been the dominant city in SoCal sans San Diego.

The reason San Francisco didn't develop as fast as LA has little to do with marketing, although marketing was a significant effect of LA's growth in the early 20th century.

San Francisco was severely damaged by the 1906 earthquake, and although it rebuilt itself, San Francisco stunted a lot of its own growth by becoming more like Boston instead of New York, it was the city for elites on the west coast, and thus NIMBYism began rearing its ugly head. Another big factor to mention is railroads. San Francisco has a great location as a seaport, but an absolutely horrible location as a railroad hub or terminus, unlike LA. Until BART tunnels were built under <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=22&k=the%20bay" onmouseover="window.status='the bay'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">the bay</a> in the 1970's, San Francisco had no direct railroad connection to Oakland and served only a a railroad terminus for trains heading south toward... guess where... Los Angeles.

Los Angeles itself had to deal with one major problem above all else, and that was water. Part of the reason the San Fernando Valley is part of LA's city limits is that LA had to annex land up there to get to a newly built aqueduct built to pull water from the Central Valley. This process was repeated later with aqueducts to the Colorado River.

But back to railroads. Because Los Angeles managed to make itself the railroad hub of the West Coast and had a port at least equal to San Francisco in terms of potential capacity, LA was able to grab major amounts of manufacturing, and thus jobs and population growth from the east. This process continued and fully manifested itself after WWII when LA just blew past Philadelphia and Chicago to become the second largest metro in the US by the early 1970's. LA was absolutely HUGE in the aviation and defense industries and subsequent sub-industries. Although it lost much of this edge in the 1990's, LA today is still the largest manufacturing and industrial city in the US, barely ahead of Chicago and Houston, and that's what's driving much of its population growth in immigration from Latin America.

San Francisco just never caught on to job growth in the same way LA was able to, but it still retained its importance as a port and as the major financial center of the West Coast, although LA has actually grabbed a lot of San Francisco's share of even the financial importance since the 1980's.

Now as for the subject of this thread... it's difficult to say which city is 5th, but I'd say that LA, Hong Kong, and Chicago are definintely 5th through 7th, not necessarily in that order.

just recently on tc here in perth, western australia there was a show/news bulletin of how perth is having the same problem as LA had, the water problem and all that..

[Rail Claimore]

just recently on tc here in perth, western australia there was a show/news bulletin of how perth is having the same problem as LA had, the water problem and all that..

LA still has water problems to a large extent due to the continued growth of not only Southern California, but Arizona. Both areas share water rights to the Colorado River and California was recently ordered to limit how much they take. Mexico doesn't get crap.

LA, however, is leaning more toward the Pacific itself as a source of water with desal plants. Something like 15% of LA's water now comes from the Pacific Ocean, and there are plans to increase that to about 40% by 2020.

[alex3000]

I can't believe how unrated Los Angeles is here in SSC. :no:

Anyways... The 5th world city would be either LA, Chicago, or HK.

[Butcher]

I would say Hong Kong probably. I actually like Hong Kong more than Paris.

[Fallout]

Nobody mentions Madrid?

My list:
5-8: HK, Madrid, Seoul, Los Angeles
9-12 Toronto, Milan, Sydney, Chicago

[Filter]

Hong Kong
Frankfurt
Sidney
Rome

[spyguy]

London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore.

[Kanji]

Probably Seoul, Rome, Berlin, Sydney, Shangai, Osaka or Hong Kong.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------Kanji, aho bajo

[Homer J. Simpson]

Alot of people seem to have skipped over Paris, it is a pretty important city.

My list:
1-4; London, New York City, Tokyo, HK
5-10; Paris, Singapore, Chicago, Frankfurt, Toronto, Sydney
11-15; LA, Milan, Madrid, Zurich, San Fransico
16-20; Shanghai, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Seoul, Bejing

[samsonyuen]

^HomerJ, if HK and Paris are in your 5-10, what's your top 4? I think most people are thinking NY, Tokyo, and London as the top 3, and fourth and fifth as HK and Paris (in no particular order).

[Homer J. Simpson]

^Hey, your right I left one out. I will edit my first post.

[daniel_18]

Singapore.

[Harkeb]

Mbabane, Ougadougo, Antananarivo or Lilongwe?

[Jury]

^ say what?

[Küsel]

Sao Paulo, Frankfurt, Zurich, Hong Kong, Shanghai and LA would be possible candidates. But it depends in which cathagory :)

[LooselogInThePeg]

Well, I don't agree with Paris even being in there to begin with but since it was part of the question:
Generally, New York, London and Tokyo are considered the three World Class Cities.
After that, okay sure, why not, Paris it is.
Hong Kong
Sydney
Chicago/LA
Toronto

I'd say that Chinese cities are coming up fast but they aren't there yet.
Singapore? Well, I don't know about that...it doesn't show up too often on the world's radar.

[hosoo1103]

Tokyo,New York ,London,Paris,Hong Kong

================================

[i_am_hydrogen]

I don't agree that Paris is #4.

But if I had to choose a number 5: Sao Paulo or Chicago.

[1st Division Marine]

Los Angeles,Sydney,Shanghai,Moscow,Toronto.

[TORONTOCOPENHAGEN]

1-5: New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Paris.
6-10: Chicago, Toronto, Mexico City, Seoul, Shanghai.

Outsider: Madrid, Rome.

Personally I have only visited London, Paris, Toronto and Hong Kong. I have visited Singapore, and basically nothing impressed, besides the shopping and eating.

[Khanabadosh]

Hong Kong, Shanghai, Toronto, Sydney

[staff]

Hong Kong, Berlin, Shanghai, Rome, Buenos Aires, Bangkok etc.

[ReddAlert]

Hong Kong, Los Angeles, maybe Sydney

[Azn_chi_boi]

its somewhat interesting that somepeople put LA like 3+ higher rank than Chicago and vice versa.

[FastWhiteTA]

New York, Tokyo, London, Hong Kong, Paris, Chicago, LA, Shanghai, Seoul, Mexico City, San Francisco

[mikep]

After London, New York, Paris, Tokyo it has to be Honk Kong. This thread should be about the 6th world city, in that case its between Frankfurt, Toronto, LA, Shanghai, Seoul

[DoctorZero2]

For now: either Singapore, Hongkong, Chicago or Los Angeles
Future contestants: Seoul, maybe Shanghai

[samsonyuen]

HK is undoubtedly the second city in Asia, Singapore third.
Chicago and LA are not clear leaders in North America, that has so many Alpha/Beta cities. So, I'd say Hong Kong.

[neilio]

Sydney Oz

wow Goran puts sydney as the 5th who would have thought!!

[djm19]

I would put San Fran in place of all those LA's, nut other than that the cities mentioned are pretty good choices.

SF's significance is nothing compared to LA.

[ChinaboyUSA]

Hong Kong and Singapore become main city ?? why?
GDP of the two countries is so small.

Hong Kong is not a country. It is Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China.

[samsonyuen]

What's HK's GDP? And in comparison to NY, London, Tokyo, Paris, Chicago, Seoul, Sydney, Frankfurt, Toronto, and LA?

[crazyeight]

Baghdad

[georgiy]

Moscow, New York, London, Tokyo, Paris. The order however can vary, but those are the major five cities

[andysimo123]

LA would be the 5th. I would say 1st New York 2nd Hong Kong 3rd London 4th Tokyo. I wouldnt put Paris or Sydney in the top ten.

[samsonyuen]

Someone should redo this as a thread with a poll, or can one be added?

[shibuya_suki]

hongkong sure for now
future is shanghai
sorry,no moscow,LA,chicago,toronto,sydney
they are not importanat...as big 3

[PotatoGuy]

People underrate LA just cuz it dusnt have a big ol' skyline, a skyline should have nothin to do w/ the city. Look at London and Paris, they don't have famous skylines. Yet, people diss LA cuz we're all spread out

[ssiguy2]

First I think the question should consider top five.which means including Moscow.
After that {in no order} Toronto, Chicago, Madrid, Milan, HK, LA, Zurich

[samsonyuen]

Unless we're in the 18th century, how is Moscow in the top 5, or even the top 10?

[Hed Kandi]

i would say shanghai, chicago and sao paulo :cheers:

[Azn_chi_boi]

I will pick RIO over Sao Paulo ^.

[samsonyuen]

How can Shanghai, Rio or Sao Paolo, all great cities cities compete with cities in industrialized countries? It can't. Economy is a very important factor in top-tier cities. Which is why none are even Alpha cities. SP is a mid-Beta city, behind London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore, San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, and Zurich. Shanghai? It's a Gamma city. Rio? A Delta city. Even though these cities are in rapidly emerging economies, there is little evidence that they will be truly top-tier global cities for a while.

[DarkFenX]

My choice is either Hong Kong or Singapore.

[kyenan]

I think it's either L.A. or HK. Sydney? Toronto? Berlin? Rome? Moscow? You must be kidding. They may be in Top 15 or in Top 20, but even hard to make Top 10, and is unthinkable to be in Top 5.

[YangtzeSea]

How can Shanghai, Rio or Sao Paolo, all great cities cities compete with cities in industrialized countries? It can't. Economy is a very important factor in top-tier cities. Which is why none are even Alpha cities. SP is a mid-Beta city, behind London, Paris, New York, Tokyo, Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore, San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, and Zurich. Shanghai? It's a Gamma city. Rio? A Delta city. Even though these cities are in rapidly emerging economies, there is little evidence that they will be truly top-tier global cities for a while.
Your data (maybe came from that figure) is so old. Actually, GDP of Shanghai has almost surpassed Singapore in 2004 and will definitely surpass it in 2005. The seaport throughput of Shanghai has almost been No.1 of the world in 2004 and will definitely be in 2005.

[Tsuyoshi]

1.Tokyo
2,New York
3.Paris
4.Chicago
5.London
6.Hongkong
7.Los Angeles
8.Toronto
9.Singapore
10.Shanghai

[Chrissib]

1. Tokyo
2. New York
3. London
4. Paris
5. Hongkong (The smallest out of the 10 cities, but the most important chinese speaking city)
6. Los Angeles
7. Seoul
8. Osaka (It has 17 million inhabitants in the metro area, do not forget!)
9. Chicago
10. Moscow

Toronto and Sydney? Are you joking? They're not even one of the 30 megacities.

[wjfox]

City vs City threads are flat-out banned. I thought this was obvious by now.