# # of global cities?



## #GORAN (Mar 13, 2005)

Zaki said:


> Actually TO is as if not more world class than sydney. The ifnancial markets are bigger, more diversity, etc. Stunning scenery doesnt make you a world class city. TO is also in a developed country. TO is the most important city in Canada which is a G8 nation, australia is just another developed country. And you talk about importance to the region, well when that region only includes australia, NZ, and new guinea its not that hard. TO has to compete with the most developed nation in the world, the US, and its still doing great.


mwhahah yeap, as well as it being "good" thats its so close to all these other big cities in the US, it also makes it less important, at least sydney is the best in more than the country it is in. Oh and dont even try and steal points with that G8 crap, the per capita of canada and oz is the same, if aus had say 4 million or something extra it would be in the G9 too, and prob. will soon to come. OH also Sydney is also more important than say, Jakarta of Indonesia. Australian economy is more stanble when u look at it, if canada seized to export electricity to the US, the gdp would plunder! anyway, lets not make this into aus vs canada, or sydney vs toronto cos it already exists in city vs city. I stand by that Sydney is an overall better and more important city than Toronto.


----------



## CborG (Dec 2, 2003)

Amsterdam should be a Betaworldcity too


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

London, New York, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong, Chicago, Frankfurt, LA, Toronto, Sydney = 10 world cities.


----------



## Zarkon (Dec 22, 2004)

Milan is hardly underrated


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I guess a lot of people didn't read that we're not saying what will be the next Global city, but rather how many ther is, and what saying power there is. 

I personally think that once it reaches a certain level, such as Paris has, its position is cemented. For instance, it is no longer the seat of a colonial power, but its globalness is not in doubt. 

As to the number of global cities, I think there is not a definite amount. However, I think that they have to be well-rounded in their globalness. For instance, in various aspects, one might think that Miami would be a global city, such as in culture and diversity. However, it lacks in various areas, such as commerce. So, there might be a hierarchy of global cities: global cities in different fields, and global cities in general (all-encompassing). 

I don't think in the near future any other US city will reach the other fours' status as a global city all-encompassing.


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

samsonyuen said:


> So, there might be a hierarchy of global cities: global cities in different fields, and global cities in general (all-encompassing).


There is a theory on what you said

Exactly that: "real" global cities in that way would be a few (New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, maybe Hong Kong and L.A.)

And then there are global cities for specific "sectors" (even more than one sector, but not every sector as the "general" global cities)
So Chicago, Milan, Frankfurt, Singapore, and so on have for example good _rates_ for several sectors, and maybe in one of those they are the "excellence" so everybody in the world has a bussiness in that specific sector must relate to that city (I don't know, it comes in my mind fashion for Milan, as exemple...)
And even maybe it has good rates even in the other sectors (international relationships, bussiness, finance, international links, multietnicity, culture... and so on) but not so good as the general "global" cities (or at least, not in every sector)

I think this method is the one used for list posted at the beggining of the thread
There are few 12 points _Alpha cities_: they have a very good rate for every sector, maybe in many they're world _excellence_
Then there are a little more 10 points _Alpha cities_ with good rate in every sector but not so good as the first ones; probably even one world excellence...
Getting down in the classification we can find more "specialization" on the cities. _Beta cities_ have good rates, probably, but not in every sector: so they're more "global" in specific fields and less in others...
And so on... and so on...

Maybe (it is only an hypotesys) a "low" class city with low rates in every sector but one is a global city (has the excellence...) in that specific sector: a reffering point for the whole world, but only for that specific sector

So we can subdivide global cities in general global and spcifical global: but to do that we should have to know more on their rates on the various sector...

However: I think with globalization global cities (general and not) will grow in number... For exemple just 30 years ago I think the only cities to be call as global wuold have been New York, London and Paris and no one more, even for more specifical sectors
Then: as globalization grows up, so global cities do
Maybe we will see an increasing of global cities even in Europe and NA
But I think they will increase in all the world and more specifically in whole Asia, as in last years
I think next one could be Shangai....


----------



## mdude (Jul 8, 2005)

There should be some sort of rule against proud people with giant Australia flags and huge text in oversized font saying "AUSTRALIA" to comment objectively on certain cities in Australia. Same with any other city quite frankly. Regardless, I don't think there should be at most 2 or 3 cities in each country. China is a country that has 3 times as many people as the United States, so why should US have just as many global cities as China? India has a lot of people also, but it's not a developed country, so should it have fewer or more global cities than other developed countries with less population?

There are no answers. But I'm not quite sure why the OP chose to include only Alpha and Beta global cities. There are ALSO gamma world cities, which some people would argue are more global than beta world cities. 

The Gamma (minor) World Cities are:

6 Points: Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Düsseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Montreal, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington, DC 
5 Points: Bangkok, Beijing, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw 
4 Points: Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Budapest, Buenos Aires, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai 

The only way to tell if a city should be a global/world city is to examine the characteristics that make these cities global. If there is a country with 100 million people and it has 25 cities with the characteristics of a global city (major airports, international familiarity, advanced transport system, large population, attraction from foreign business, cultural institutions, advanced communication structures, etc), then SO BE IT! A city doesn't deserve to not be included on the list just because other cities in the same country are included.


----------



## gutooo (Jan 30, 2005)

Hey.......don't forget São Paulo!!!!

20+ Million people is something!!!!

Lots of American, European and Asian Enterprises !!


Ill post just one pic, I think it says a lot!


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

SE9 said:


> Milan is an Alpha world city, but Berlin isnt even a Beta world city? I didnt know that...
> 
> Well anyway, as other cities emerge within the coming decades, some cities will find themselves "relegated" from the Beta list and maybe Alpha list.... maybe places like Mumbai who will experience fast growth may jump onto the Beta list sometime.


Berlin is Alpha Media World City, but in economy it doesn't stand a chance and even loses against Düsseldorf, Hamburg and Munich.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

Don't forget, Frankfurt is the only city with less than 1 million inhabitants which is beneath the super Global Cities!


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

People misunderstood the topic of the thread and turned this into a city vs city thing.

Concerning the number, it all depends on the importance of the economy + a large population, if a region of the world gets wealthy and has an important population, there are high chances that new "world cities" will arise.

But in the end there canno't be too much of them, a "world city" by definition is a well known internationaly, most people in the world (with some education) have heard of New York, Paris, tokyo, london, hk, milan, l.a, Sao paulo, mexico city, shangai etc.

It is just not possible if you have thousands of them


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

I must admit that I goofed by including a list of cities as part of my first post that may have clouded the issue. Still, it's amazing only 2 or 3 people got the idea this had nothing to do with particular cities.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

# of Global Cities: 10
NYC, Chicago, LA, Paris, London, Milan, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Hong Kong, Singapore


----------



## JDRS (Feb 8, 2004)

There are all sorts of factors that make a city global from finance to sport to population to diversity to how well recognised they are in the world. I think there are probably about 10 really global cities from Asia, Europe and N.America in particular.


----------



## Rockefeller (Jan 1, 2005)

#GORAN said:


> mwhahah yeap, as well as it being "good" thats its so close to all these other big cities in the US, it also makes it less important, at least sydney is the best in more than the country it is in. Oh and dont even try and steal points with that G8 crap, the per capita of canada and oz is the same, if aus had say 4 million or something extra it would be in the G9 too, and prob. will soon to come. OH also Sydney is also more important than say, Jakarta of Indonesia. Australian economy is more stanble when u look at it, if canada seized to export electricity to the US, the gdp would plunder! anyway, lets not make this into aus vs canada, or sydney vs toronto cos it already exists in city vs city. I stand by that Sydney is an overall better and more important city than Toronto.


Canada is simply a bigger economic power than Australia, and has more people. In terms of population, Toronto is growing at a rate double that of Sydney 100k per year vs. 50K per year. Toronto is bigger than Sydney and is simply a bigger economic power, is more multicultural and diverse. It is also the most important city in a more important country worldwide. Accept it! I am not saying that Sydney isn't a world city, but it has its reasons and Toronto has more than its share of reasons as well.

Also, Canada's electricity exports to the U.S is a pitance compared to its Crude oil and natural gas exports. China is also proving to be a more important nation for Canadian exports. Since the U.S and China are going to continually need Canadian natural resources as both huge economies grow, it is ridiculous to discount them.


----------



## CAESARS-PALACe (Jul 29, 2004)

> Originally Posted by *GENIUS LOCI*
> I think this method is the one used for list posted at the beggining of the thread
> There are few 12 points Alpha cities: they have a very good rate for every sector, maybe in many they're world excellence
> Then there are a little more 10 points Alpha cities with good rate in every sector but not so good as the first ones; probably even one world excellence...
> ...


 :laugh: 
No this is not the way they created the GaWC-worldcities list.The method they used is clearly described in their study :



> *we have ranked cities based on their provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law*


Given the fact that Milan is the financial capital of Italy these are exactly the areas in which it performs best. So thanks to Italy's bi-polar system Milan according to this ranking is an Alfa-city while Rome ends up being a Gamma-city. They admit themselfs that this a purely subjective classification the only thing they can guarantee is that the top four cities are correct, not really a major feat because everyone agrees with the top 4 :



> The GaWC is a somewhat subjective ranking, as is any other, but the top four listed cities at least match those commonly considered the major world cities.


GaWC can't claim to have created a classification of Worldcities, all they did was create a classification of cities involved in :

*accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law*

although these are important and vital fields, there is more to cities than this.


----------



## PotatoGuy (May 10, 2005)

*I'll pick 10 (in no order)*

-New York City
-London
-Tokyo
-Los Angeles
-Mexico City
-Hong Kong
-Paris
-Sydney
-Toronto
-Shanghai


----------



## #GORAN (Mar 13, 2005)

Rockefeller said:


> Canada is simply a bigger economic power than Australia, and has more people. In terms of population, Toronto is growing at a rate double that of Sydney 100k per year vs. 50K per year. Toronto is bigger than Sydney and is simply a bigger economic power, is more multicultural and diverse. It is also the most important city in a more important country worldwide. Accept it! I am not saying that Sydney isn't a world city, but it has its reasons and Toronto has more than its share of reasons as well.
> 
> Also, Canada's electricity exports to the U.S is a pitance compared to its Crude oil and natural gas exports. China is also proving to be a more important nation for Canadian exports. Since the U.S and China are going to continually need Canadian natural resources as both huge economies grow, it is ridiculous to discount them.


O.M.G!!! 

1. As a country, both contires are growing by about the same amount
2. Dont even try and say canada is to benefit from china more than australia, its australia that china is to benefit the most, for OUR natural resources!
3. canada is important to who? usa, no - or maybe. Australia is important to who, austalia, nz, papua, indonesia!. I still belive Sydney is a more important place than toronto is. No need to reply cos u cant chnage my mind, just liek u cant change urz.


----------



## Rockefeller (Jan 1, 2005)

#GORAN said:


> O.M.G!!!
> 
> 1. As a country, both contires are growing by about the same amount
> 2. Dont even try and say canada is to benefit from china more than australia, its australia that china is to benefit the most, for OUR natural resources!
> 3. canada is important to who? usa, no - or maybe. Australia is important to who, austalia, nz, papua, indonesia!. I still belive Sydney is a more important place than toronto is. No need to reply cos u cant chnage my mind, just liek u cant change urz.



If you were able to write logical and articulate arguments based on facts, I could be forced to change my mind. The fact that you know that your mind cannot be changed is proof that you have a rigid mind, and that is not a good thing for you. 

I'm not talking about the growth of either country. Even if you are correct and both are growing at the same rate, Canada will always have a greater population as it has more to start with.

Canada exports natural resources to The U.S.A and a growing amount to China (I did not indicate that Canada exports more to China than Australia). Are you certain that all your Natural Resource exports depend on China too much or not? Like Canada exports a huge amount to U.S.A, Australia exports largely to China - why? because it makes sense! That is where demand is and geographic proximity is a factor and this is not a bad thing, its just reality. However, Canada is exporting more and more to China because of the demand.

As for Toronto v.s Sydney and who is and will be the more global city. Well, right now that GaWc (Not that this is all encompassing) thing has them tied. However, as i indicated, Toronto has a greater population and is growing at double the rate of Sydney. Toronto is more multicultural and diverse. Granted it is not as exotic or beautiful as Sydney, but it holds its weight in other areas and I believe momentum is on T.O's side.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

PotatoGuy said:


> -New York City
> -London
> -Tokyo
> -Los Angeles
> ...


And Frankfurt ass financial centre of the third biggest economy in the world, globally more important than Mexico City does not appear??? You can go to more cities throughout the world on direct flight connexions from Frankfurt than from Mexico City, Hong Kong, Sydney or Shanghai!!! Don't be childish. German multinationals act everywhere in the world, but Mexican??? :weirdo:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

This isn't even the GAWC study about global cities.
They have a seperate study of that with a different ranking.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

here it is:

1 London
2 New York
3 Hong Kong
4 Paris
5 Tokyo
6 Singapore
7 Chicago
8 Milan
9 Los Angeles
10 
11 Madrid
12 Amsterdam
13 
14 Frankfurt
15 Brussels
16 
17 San Fransisco
18
19
20 Taipei

http://www.brookings.edu/dybdocroot/metro/pubs/20050222_worldcities.pdf

The open spaces are cities outside the US, EU or Pacific Asia.
My guess is that 10 is Toronto. If anyone can find the rest, it would be much appriciated.


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

i was just in milan, and its rediculous to have it above LA.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

And what study do you have to back that up?


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Interesting study Shiro.. thanks

I noticed in _Global Network Connectivity Ranking_ you posted partially, in first 10 places EU and US have same number of cities: then three more in first 40s for US and all others over te 60th place, while EU remain costatnly with 3 or 4 cities for every ten places

That can suggest there are more spaces in the future to increase the ranking of US cities, respect EU ones that are more "homogeneous"
Or maybe the contrary?
However: these difference (few cities in US with a very good rate with a far distance from other ones ranking and EU with cities occupying all "classes" of ranking) may be created by the fact US is a Nation and EU is not.
I'll try to explain in a better way.

Maybe many cities in Europe have good international relationships, 'cause they are in different countries: so, for exemple, every capital has good relationships 'cause it's a capital...
But in USA, instead, there is Washington D.C. to have strong international relationships with capital role
Then in US connectivity between cities in different States of the Federation I don't think are considered by this study as global, while connectivity between cities of States members of European Union are...

Well: surely even this study confirm Asia will be the next field of global cities development. Now they are few but still in a good "position"


----------



## Lss911 (Dec 1, 2004)

Beijing, Xangai, Toquio, Chicago, New York, London, Paris, Rome, Seul, Hong Kong...not in necessarly on this order.


----------



## Storeman (Jun 24, 2005)

Wow, it's impressive to see how you can basically post anything in the SSC forums and people will start with "my city is better than yours" and "no, you dont understand anything, MY city is better". Almost nobody answers the actual questions.

*1.* I think list that was posted at the beginning is based on a GaWC study as it was mentioned in former posts. I mean, this is a scientivic (but by far not complete) study. A study about some particular sevice sectors. So it really dosn't help saying that this and this city is better cuz it is more multicultural or whatever. That is not part of the study and actually also not a mayor part of global cityness definition. 

*2.* I'll take the global city definition of Sir Peter Hall at this point to base my arguments on:

One of the characteristics of global cities is that they include a concentration of four sectors.
1. Command and Control functions (govenment, international organisations, headquaters of big private companies, etc.)
2. Financal and managment services (accounting, law, advertisting, design, consulting, etc.)
3. Tourism 
4. Culture and media (museums, galaries, newspapers, publishing houses, etc.)
Source; HALL, P. (2001): Global City-Regions in the Twenty-first Century. In: Scott, A.J. (2001): Global City-Regions, Oxford/New York. S. 59-77.

_PLEASE NOTE: The list at the beginning WASN'T based on this definition but only on the four sevice sectors mentioned in a former post._

*3.* How many global cities can there be?
That must be a question of competition. Is there a competition between the cities? The anwer is yes and no.
1. The cities on the highest level (that would be the 12 point cities on the list, eventhoug I don't want to use this list as a basis for my arguments) are not in a competition between each other. They have divided the world. Every city is responsible for "one time zone". Of course there is competition between Paris and London. But this competition has been profitable for both. 
Thatfore the cities on the first level are quite untouchable and the number won't change very much anymore. IMO, it could be possible that very few other cities can reach that level though. (maybe around five more, totally up to 10 on the highest level) I am not sure about the US. Maybe LA could go up cuz uf the growing influence on South America. But I am not a specialist for the US.
2. Going to a lower level the competition is bigger. But also the cities start to specialise in one FUNCTION (e.g. Berlin as a governmental center of no economic importance or Zurich as financel center) and REGION (São Paulo -> gateway city of South America) which reduces competition. Still I think that the number can differ here and some cities will probalby go up, others maybe down (in general I think the number will grow). I am not sure if I can figure out concrete numbers. I think there is a maximum of global cities but this maximum isn't achieved yet. 
The "global cities" of a lower level are actually not that global. They are only of regional or continental importance (probably not many people care about Milan in South America, while few people are caring about São Paulo in Europe). So I would say that almost every highly industrialised country can have a city on that level. 
3. It al depends on the further development. Are we facing a contracting or diverging development. Is it possible that the poor countries catch up in development while industrielised countries lose there prime position. If that is the case many new global cities could emerge. If not, the situation will stay more or less the same (as it is my opinion).

I think all depends also on the time horizon you are talking about. My opinion is probably good for the next 10 to 20 years. What happens after that? No one knows.....


----------



## Storeman (Jun 24, 2005)

Oh, I forgot. Who is really interested in the topic can join the discussion here:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=242612


----------



## GENIUS LOCI (Nov 18, 2004)

Storeman said:


> I think all depends also on the time horizon you are talking about. My opinion is probably good for the next 10 to 20 years. What happens after that? No one knows.....


I think in next 10-20 years world order will change (in what way I don't know... No one knows...)

But I'm pretty sure new order will have an influence on global economy functioning: they could further boost globalization or not
It's not only a question of economy: it's even a political matter; we do not front only the problem to know if global economy will work for decades or not: maybe it could work even for ever, but are global political condition which can stop it, indipendently if it works or not (international terror, new superpowers birth, regional powers with nuclear weapons,...)
These are political factors influencing the way to work of globalization (maybe even globalization will conform itself to changes, however)
So future political order of the world will partially decide on globalisation destiny

Obviously a not global economy doesn't need global cities...


----------



## Storeman (Jun 24, 2005)

Quote posted by GENIUS LOCI


> Obviously a not global economy doesn't need global cities...


The question is: Is a country not part of the global economy BECAUSE it doesn't have a global city?

OR:

Will it every be possible for countries that don't have a global city to participate in the global economy?

:? :? :?

I don't think things will change that dramaticall in the next 10 years. But you are probably right. My predictions are not good for the next 20 years ... Probably they are not good at all anyway


----------



## snitsky (Feb 16, 2005)

That list is a joke in many ways, it only includes the econimic influence, and not other aspects that really make a city world class. Global important economic cities are New York City, Tokyo, London, Paris. No one else comes close. The So called Alpha list is the one that really matters, if you want to beleive GAWC.


----------



## Avatar (Sep 11, 2002)

#GORAN said:


> why is HK more global? it doesnt have much more than cool looking scrapers!
> IT doesnt have the regional importance sydney does.


Why don't you go to Hong Kong and tell me otherwise... Hong Kong craps on Sydney's head, so much so Sydney can't even expect to breathe. Where would I rather live ... Hong Kong.

That said I think Sydney is well placed and extremely important regionally sometimes more so than sterile Singapore. I still find it hard to believe Singapore is rated as high as cities such as Chicago and Hong Kong - it simply doesn't touch them in so many areas. I think as other asian cities become more important esp Jakarta, KL, Bangkok - Singapore will loose some of its power to them.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> here it is:
> 
> 1 London
> 2 New York
> ...


Couldn't you find a more ridiculous list?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Couldn't you make a more ridiculous statement?
Let me guess...your city isn't on the place you want it to be...:|
Look at the source dude...


----------



## Alexandre SP (Jul 6, 2005)

This is 15 Global Cities: NEW YORK, LONDON, PARIS, TOKYO, SHANGHAI, SÃO PAULO, SIDNEY, MEXICO CITY, TORONTO, CHIGACO, LOS ANGELES, MONTREAL, OSAKA, HONG KONG, BUENOS AIRES.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

New York
London
Tokyo
Paris
Hong Kong
Chicago
.....I don't know. It gets a bit fuzzy after that.


----------



## United-States-of-America (Jul 19, 2005)

The US has many global cities.

Hell, here are a few:
New York City-Alpha
Chicago-Alpha
Los Angeles-Alpha
San Francisco-Beta
Boston-Gamma
Houston-Gamma
Atlanta-Gamma
Washington DC-Gamma
Miami-Gamma
Minneapolis-Gamma

After looking at this, I've concluded that the USA has the most global cities in the world.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Just because it's on the GAWC list doesn't mean it's Global. All cities are global, but to different degrees. Only half of those are Global (notice the lower-case and upper case differences?).


----------



## Storeman (Jun 24, 2005)

wow.... people still don't understand what is this post about. so much for reading competence......


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

NewYorker1 said:


> The US has many global cities.
> 
> Hell, here are a few:
> New York City-Alpha
> ...


Excuse me, but didn't I just post a source that says the opposite?
An American source even...


----------



## sean storm (Nov 18, 2004)

*yawn*

^ what makes you think YOUR source is any better than GaWC or some other list?


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

My source is published by the GAWC, genius.
Maybe you should read it first.
So many people just don't bother I gues because they don't see their city on the spot they think it should be...

Anyone who just dismisses this listing is a joker...


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> My source is published by the GAWC, genius.
> Maybe you should read it first.
> So many people just don't bother I gues because they don't see their city on the spot they think it should be...
> 
> Anyone who just dismisses this listing is a joker...


YOUR list shows just HOW internationalized the cities are, not how important they are within the world city hierarchy! That's the difference. The alpha, beta, gamma system shows importance, not degree of internationalization. I have the full article in my 'Geographische Rundschau" magazine... :cheers:


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

Alexandre SP said:


> This is 15 Global Cities: NEW YORK, LONDON, PARIS, TOKYO, SHANGHAI, SÃO PAULO, SIDNEY, MEXICO CITY, TORONTO, CHIGACO, LOS ANGELES, MONTREAL, OSAKA, HONG KONG, BUENOS AIRES.


Ha ha ha! Never seen something that ridiculous! How do São Paulo or Mexico City act in the Global economy? Brazil isn't even within the 10 biggest economies and a Beta Global City, just like Sydney, Toronto, Montreal, Osaka and Buenos Aires! How much do you really know about that topic? :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :hahaha: :lol: :lol: :lol: In Brazilian standards, São Paulo is really something like a global player, but internationally... The only Brazilian multinational is Petrobrás, with it's seat in Rio... So, how do you base that 'intelligent' post???


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

Two maps:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

cello1974 said:


> YOUR list shows just HOW internationalized the cities are, not how important they are within the world city hierarchy! That's the difference. The alpha, beta, gamma system shows importance, not degree of internationalization. I have the full article in my 'Geographische Rundschau" magazine... :cheers:


Exactely...
If you read my posts you will notice that I was exactely saying that...


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

SHiRO said:


> Exactely...
> If you read my posts you will notice that I was exactely saying that...


Grrr, but that doesn't make them more important... I think that Frankfurt is VERY important. The junction of the 3rd biggest economy with the rest of the world. May not be sooo internationalized, since German economy has a decentralized city system, making no city overwhelmingly important. The study shows that Britain for example has London as the world's number one in the hierarchy. NYC is just 2nd, but USA have also Chicago nad LA as Alphas!!! Germany has Düsseldorf which is becoming a Beta, Frankfurt as Alpha, Hamburg, Berlin, Munich as Gammas and some with evidence of globalization... Much better than concentrating everythin in just one city and forgetting the rest of the country. :cheers:


----------



## HighSpeedTrain (Jul 6, 2005)

that map is amazing... can someone translate what each color means into english?


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

^^ Here you are:
red: public accountancy (Wirtschaftsprüfung)
yellow: judiciary (Rechtswesen)
green: advertising (Werbung)
blue: banking (Banken)


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

judiciary in this case is commercial law and int. commercial law...


----------



## Rockefeller (Jan 1, 2005)

very interesting maps and translation Cello1974 - thanks!


----------



## jamie_k44 (Mar 2, 2006)

*I disagree with Tokyo being on the top of the list*

In my opinion, Hong Kong should be on the top of the list (next to London, NY and Paris) and Tokyo should be on the 10-point-line. Tokyo isn't really globalised in a sense that there aren't many global roles Tokyo is playing. However, Hong Kong is the city that should represent East Asia as it is more global than any other cities in the world. Considering the diversity of culture and race, Hong Kong remains superior to Tokyo by far. The Number of Airport passengers is another thing that proves Hong Kong to be the most globalised city in Asia. Although Tokyo has very good infrastructure compared to any other cities in the world (thanks to its excellent railway network), it is hard to say that Tokyo is a 'globalised' city. Other than size and infrastructure, Tokyo cannot be considered as a better, representative city.


----------



## sydney_lad (Dec 6, 2005)

My top 15, (in order).

New York
London
Tokyo
Paris
Hong Kong
Chicago
Los Angeles
Singapore
Milan
Frankfurt
San Francisco
Zurich
Toronto
Sydney
Brussels


----------



## unoh (Aug 13, 2005)

jamie_k44 said:


> In my opinion, Hong Kong should be on the top of the list (next to London, NY and Paris) and Tokyo should be on the 10-point-line. Tokyo isn't really globalised in a sense that there aren't many global roles Tokyo is playing. However, Hong Kong is the city that should represent East Asia as it is more global than any other cities in the world. Considering the diversity of culture and race, Hong Kong remains superior to Tokyo by far. The Number of Airport passengers is another thing that proves Hong Kong to be the most globalised city in Asia. Although Tokyo has very good infrastructure compared to any other cities in the world (thanks to its excellent railway network), it is hard to say that Tokyo is a 'globalised' city. Other than size and infrastructure, Tokyo cannot be considered as a better, representative city.


 
have you ever been tokyo?
I have been to there and Also, I traveled many major cities in world ..
I think tokyo is one of some greatest cities in world...

*My tokyo photo thread*
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=319973


----------



## ejd03 (Oct 23, 2003)

#GORAN said:


> why is HK more global? it doesnt have much more than cool looking scrapers!
> IT doesnt have the regional importance sydney does.


then why is sydney more global? regional importance? what do you mean? H.K has also importance.. it is the capital of Asian financial sector


----------



## elfreako (Mar 7, 2004)

jamie_k44: Remember Tokyo is more than 4 times the size of HK! Capital of the second-largest economy of the world. And contributes about 6% of the global economy.

A few Nigerians and Pakistanis flogging fake watches on Nathan Road hardly qualifies HK to be the cosmopolitan melting-pot of Asia! LOL!


----------



## micro (Mar 13, 2005)

Rockefeller said:


> very interesting maps and translation Cello1974 - thanks!


That map is based on the GaWC list mentioned above, I've seen it before. Both are exactly the same, only the map is more detailed.


----------



## micro (Mar 13, 2005)

Number of global cities?

I'd say all cities are steadily getting more global. May be in medieval times, Rome was the center of the world, but today, even small cities like Detroit, Florence or Cologne are much more global than Rome was back then. The reason is development in technologies that connect the places, like transportation and Internet. So if there are now 20 global cities, I'd say the number will double in a couple of decades.


----------



## Heavenly Creature (Apr 2, 2006)

I think Sydney deserved to be a "major" global city, mainley for it's world recognized icons (Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge), skyline, beaches and warm climate!!!!

If I could choose the top 10 Global Cities, they would be:
-Sydney
-Toronto
-New York City
-London
-Paris
-Tokyo
-Rome
-Hong Kong
-Chicago
-San Francisco


----------



## AndySocks (Dec 8, 2005)

^^ 

You included San Francisco instead of Los Angeles? I love you. How I wish that were true.

Anyway, I'll just stick with six, in alphabetical order: Hong Kong, London, Los Angeles (as much as I hate to admit it!), New York, Paris, and Tokyo. Two for Europe, two for Asia, two for North America. I'm hoping in the future we can get two for South America and two for Africa as well, but who knows.

Now excuse me while I do the "the city I live in is on everybody's lists" dance. :horse:


----------



## Xeni-2 (Jan 20, 2004)

In my opinion, in this order :

1. New York
2. London
3. Tokyo
4. Paris
5. Hong Kong
6. Los Angeles
7. Chicago
8. Singapour
9. Frankfurt
10. Toronto


----------



## alesmarv (Mar 31, 2006)

If it were based on quality of life than, the realy important thing, then Vancouver would be number one. As far as quality of life is concernd American cities rank quite low.

1.Atlantis
2.London
3.NY
4.Paris
5.Toronto
6.Tokyo
7.Hong Kong
8.Frankfurt
9.Singapore
10.Chicago
11.Sydney
12.Vancouver
13.Zurich
14.Milan
15.Moscow
16.Prague
17.San Francisco
18.LA
19.Montreal
20.Shanghai


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

jamie_k44 said:


> In my opinion, Hong Kong should be on the top of the list (next to London, NY and Paris) and Tokyo should be on the 10-point-line. Tokyo isn't really globalised in a sense that there aren't many global roles Tokyo is playing. However, Hong Kong is the city that should represent East Asia as it is more global than any other cities in the world. Considering the diversity of culture and race, Hong Kong remains superior to Tokyo by far. The Number of Airport passengers is another thing that proves Hong Kong to be the most globalised city in Asia. Although Tokyo has very good infrastructure compared to any other cities in the world (thanks to its excellent railway network), it is hard to say that Tokyo is a 'globalised' city. Other than size and infrastructure, Tokyo cannot be considered as a better, representative city.


Tokyo is a globalized city and it's economy and industry is larger than HK. 

HK on the other hand is more cosmopolitan and interntional than Tokyo. 

But I think HK better represents Asia's world city than Tokyo.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Heavenly Creature said:


> I think Sydney deserved to be a "major" global city, mainley for it's world recognized icons (Sydney Opera House and the Sydney Harbour Bridge), skyline, beaches and warm climate!!!!


Sydney is deserving of a world city status but it's still debatable if the city deserves "alpha" status. The Opera House or Harbour Bridge are not the reasons but the city's importance in Australia and The Oceana region. Unfortunately, Sydney's economic importance is less that of Hong Kong or even Frankfurt.

Anyway, there was a recent Global Cities conference held. I think this should be the time if HK deserves to the rank with the London, NY, Paris and Tokyo.

Also if cities like Dubai or Vancouver be given "gamma" status.


----------



## Mosaic (Feb 18, 2005)

interesting map but I can't fully understand as I don't know Germen.


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

noone here is answering Ed's question. 

i dont think ther realy could or will be a cap on the number of golbal cities. pos. and hopefully one day almost every major city will work on a global level. the thing is that there will always be the smaller list of "ALFA" - global cities. inevidabley in a list mesuring anything, theres always the cream of the crop. unless there all exactly equal which is highly unlikely.


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

Only New York, London and Tokyo are global cities. They are the most complete in economics, politics and culture.

The rest don't even come close to this three.


----------



## sydney_lad (Dec 6, 2005)

momochan said:


> Only New York, London and Tokyo are global cities. They are the most complete in economics, politics and culture.
> 
> The rest don't even come close to this three.


Not even Paris?


----------



## superman987 (Sep 29, 2005)

I think you have to inlcude Paris. But i agree there is only FOUR real global cities. Everyone else is far behind. 


It would be cool to see a list of global cities in 50 years.


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

I think that NY, Paris and London (and maybe Tokyo) are really the only top-tier cities in the world.


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

I really think Tokyo should be included for certain instead of a "maybe" type of label.


----------



## ggmm (Jan 8, 2006)

Global Cities: NEW YORK LONDON PARIS TOKYO


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2006)

ggmm said:


> Global Cities: NEW YORK LONDON PARIS TOKYO


Hong Kong?


----------



## LLoydGeorge (Jan 14, 2006)

Xeni-2 said:


> In my opinion, in this order :
> 
> 1. New York
> 2. London
> ...


Chicago is not really global. It's the epitome of Americana. NY is the only global city in the US, but SF is moreso than Chicago.


----------



## EtherealMist (Jul 26, 2005)

*NYC London Tokyo Paris*, with the first 3 being slightly more important.

Realistically speaking, *Hong Kong* is the next to contender, without much other competition.

So to respond to Ed: Yes i think there will be another slot added sometime in the future.


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

LLoydGeorge said:


> Chicago is not really global. It's the epitome of Americana. NY is the only global city in the US, but SF is moreso than Chicago.


Crawl back into your hole, troll. If Chicago were so non-global, as you so whole heartedly believe, then why is it on so many people's lists? There must be something going on here.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Chicago is absolutely one of the most important global cities... Give me a break, LLoydGeorge!


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

For your viewing pleasure, lloyd.










Global, it can't be! :sleepy:


----------



## UrbanSophist (Aug 4, 2005)

I've never seen this big of a Chicago hater before!


----------



## Jules (Jun 27, 2004)

UrbanSophist said:


> I've never seen this big of a Chicago hater before!


Ahem, maybe you're forgetting someone. Does the name, SILVERLAKE, ring a bell?


----------

