# The Great Supercities of the Future



## Filip (Oct 10, 2003)

Jim856796 said:


> Vancouver is a host city of the Winter Olympic Games, it already has one of the world's most praised rail transit systems (The SkyTrain), and it has a good Central Business District (plus one coming up in Surrey). Why shouldn't it deserve to be a supercity? Toronto already is one.


Natural barriers for one? Toronto's overwhelming hold on Canada's service and financial industries? Lack of cultural institutions? Next to no nightlife?

There are many reasons why Vancouver cannot be a supercity.


----------



## Andeval (Jan 8, 2010)

How about Moscow - main Eastern European City?


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

Jim856796 said:


> Vancouver is a host city of the Winter Olympic Games, it already has one of the world's most praised rail transit systems (The SkyTrain), and it has a good Central Business District (plus one coming up in Surrey). Why shouldn't it deserve to be a supercity? Toronto already is one.


Toronto is only a supercity if we accept the contention that super is a broad church. Toronto does not rank with the likes of London, Paris or NYC. It doesn't rank with the second division likes of LA, Chicago and Moscow. It is an important city and a fine city but it is not a supercity unless we prostitute the meaning of super and include any important city.


----------



## yusef (May 20, 2006)

Many people would argue that Vancouver isn't even a "big" city, let alone a supercity.

Vancouver should be at peace for what it is: a sleepy town/city that is ideal for nature lovers. 

Mentioning Vancouver in the same sentence as Istanbul,or Rio....ROFLMAO chopper!!!!!


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

yusef said:


> Many people would argue that Vancouver isn't even a "big" city, let alone a supercity.
> 
> Vancouver should be at peace for what it is: a sleepy town/city that is ideal for nature lovers.
> 
> Mentioning Vancouver in the same sentence as Istanbul,or Rio....ROFLMAO chopper!!!!!


Yes, I think that Canadian cities are well overestimated. There are 30 cities on the planet which have more than double the population Toronto has.


----------



## yusef (May 20, 2006)

Chrissib said:


> Yes, I think that Canadian cities are well overestimated. There are 30 cities on the planet which have more than double the population Toronto has.


Yes I agree. I'll give some credit to Toronto.........for a Canadian city.

But Vancouver??? Please.... if they start putting Vancouver on these supercity lists they might as well put every city on earth on these lists as well.

Vancouver is the exact opposite of what I perceive as a SUPER city.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

I think my idea of 'supercity' must be very wrong. 

I mean, cities like NYC, London, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, Mumbai, HK, Singapore, Shanghai, Paris etc. - I can see them being 'supercities' due to how important they are in the grand scheme of things. These cities make the world go 'round.

But Toronto, Melbourne, Vancouver, Denver, Guadalajara? C'mon. These cities are important to their countries but not on a world scale.


----------



## Anderson Geimz (Mar 29, 2008)

city_thing said:


> I think my idea of 'supercity' must be very wrong.
> 
> I mean, cities like NYC, London, Moscow, Tokyo, Seoul, Mumbai, HK, Singapore, Shanghai, Paris etc. - I can see them being 'supercities' due to how important they are in the grand scheme of things. These cities make the world go 'round.
> 
> But Toronto, Melbourne, Vancouver, Denver, Guadalajara? C'mon. These cities are important to their countries but not on a world scale.


If Singapore can be a supercity then so can Toronto or even Melbourne.


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Chrissib said:


> Yes, I think that Canadian cities are well overestimated. There are 30 cities on the planet which have more than double the population Toronto has.


Perhaps, but the biggest Canadian cities punch above their weight when it comes to economic relevance globally. We can't just rank "supercities" by population or we'd have to say that places like Karachi are more relevant than Paris.

Perhaps Vancouver is a stretch but I don't think Toronto is. 
It's the 5th largest metro in North America (or 6th if you count DC and Baltimore as one metro).


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

city_thing said:


> But Toronto, Melbourne, Vancouver, Denver, Guadalajara? C'mon. These cities are important to their countries but not on a world scale.


Denver's not even all that important to the US.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I like this ranking of cities.



> One of the first attempts to define, categorize, and rank global cities was made in 1998 by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC) based at the geography department of Loughborough University, United Kingdom. The roster was outlined in the GaWC Research Bulletin 5 and ranked cities based on their provision of "advanced producer services" such as accountancy, advertising, finance, and law. The GaWC inventory identifies three levels of global cities and several sub-ranks. This roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational corporations providing financial and consulting services rather than denoting other cultural, political, and economic centres.
> The 2004 rankings acknowledged several new indicators while continuing to rank city economics more heavily than political or cultural factors. The 2008 roster, similar to the 1998 version is sorted into categories of "Alpha" world cities (with four sub-categories), "Beta" world cities (three sub-categories), "Gamma" world cities (three sub-categories), and cities with "High sufficiency" or "Sufficiency" world city presence


*Alpha World Cities ++:*
New York, London

*Alpha World Cities +*:
Hong Kong, Paris, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing

*Alpha World Cities:*
Milan, Madrid, Seoul, Moscow, Brussels, Toronto, Mumbai, Buenos Aires, Kuala Lumpur 

*Alpha World Cities –:*
Warsaw, São Paulo, Jakarta, Zürich, Mexico City, Dublin, Amsterdam, Bangkok, Taipei, Rome, Istanbul, Lisbon, Chicago, Frankfurt, Stockholm, Vienna, Budapest, Athens, Prague, Caracas, Auckland, Santiago

*Beta World Cities +:*
Melbourne, Barcelona, Los Angeles, Johannesburg, Manila, Bogotá, New Delhi, Atlanta, Washington, Tel Aviv, Bucharest, San Francisco, Helsinki, Berlin, Dubai, Oslo, Geneva, Riyadh, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Cairo

*Beta World Cities:*
Bangalore, Jeddah, Kuwait, Luxembourg, Munich, Kiev, Dallas, Lima, Boston, Miami

*Beta World Cities –:*
Sofia, Düsseldorf, Houston, Beirut, Guangzhou, Nicosia, Karachi, Montevideo, Rio de Janeiro, Nairobi, Bratislava, Montreal, Ho Chi Minh City

*Gamma World Cities +:*
Panama City, Casablanca, Chennai, Brisbane, Quito, Stuttgart, Denver, Vancouver, Zagreb, Guatemala City, Cape Town, San José, Ljubljana, Minneapolis, Santo Domingo, Seattle, Manama, Shenzhen

*Gamma World Cities:*
Guadalajara, Antwerp, Kolkata, Rotterdam, Lagos, Philadelphia, Perth, Amman, Manchester, Rīga, Detroit, Guayaquil, Wellington, Portland

*Gamma World Cities –:*
Porto, Edinburgh, Tallinn, San Salvador, St. Petersburg, Port Louis, San Diego, Calgary, Almaty, Birmingham, Islamabad, Doha, Vilnius, Colombo

Source

Read about it more here


----------



## Abhishek901 (May 8, 2009)

poshbakerloo said:


> The super cities are and always will be, New York, London, Paris and Tokyo...


lol


----------



## redbaron_012 (Sep 19, 2004)

Sometimes I wonder if the parameters that decide what rank a city holds has anything to do with how good it is for an individual to live there....To work, rest and play.........Population growth seems to be a big deal here in Australia yet many of us feel what makes our cities such wonderful lifestyle places diminish day by day as infrastructure fails to keep up with the suburban sprawl.When you live so far from the downtown area you have to own a car....maybe two or more just to get anywhere then freeways end up being multiplied and soon become carparks for hours each day...and have tolls inflicted on some of the newer improvements .I understand civilisation doesn't stand still and no city is ever finished but when does it all go bust............humans are like a virus on the earth....every other species naturally balances to the environment.....I'm no greenie...but just observe with a frown at times? I see success with high density in places like New York but many world cities must be a hell of a place to live..............unless your wealthy.


----------



## iloveasia (Dec 20, 2007)

It all depends on what you think would make a 'Supercity' 

Economy
Politics
Culture
Size
?


----------



## HK999 (Jul 17, 2009)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> I like this ranking of cities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


i'd like to see the omega cities lol 
btw this list pretty much sums it up, i agree with the most.


----------



## kalibob32 (Jan 28, 2010)

the above list is very subjective

i think that in order to speak of global / super cities you have to categorize them. 

for eg, there are _financial_ global cities, _cultural_, _religious_ ones, etc


----------



## Kensingtonian (Nov 8, 2008)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> I like this ranking of cities.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Paris and Tokyo in the same category as Singapore, Sydney, Beijing and Shanghai? I don't think so.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

Sydney is a joke, isn't it?


----------



## xXFallenXx (Jun 15, 2007)

I dont understand how LA is below Auckland, Warsaw, Vienna, Budapest, Prague, Caracas, or Santiago. :dunno:


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I think a lot of it is based on region. For example, Sydney (which a lot of people here seem to have a problem with being classified as a _Alpha World City +_) is the most powerful and influential city on the continent of Australia/Oceania. It's constantly underestimated, but you'll find it in just about every top-10 list there is to be had (livability, finance hub, etc). Would London be as influential as it is should New York have been on the same continent as it? I don't think it would. 

All in all though, I agree with that ranking of cities.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

NihonKitty said:


> Just to clear up the confusion Dime is using ranking based on shares traded and not Market Value.


That does clear things up.


----------



## RobertWalpole (Mar 16, 2010)

poshbakerloo said:


> The super cities are and always will be, New York, London, Paris and Tokyo...


Maybe Shanghai too.


----------



## Looking/Up (Feb 28, 2008)

^^ That's a silly idea. I'm sure at various times people thought Rome, or Babylon, or Alexandria, or Athens, would always be the world's super cities. Cities rise, and cities fall.


----------



## India101 (Jul 22, 2008)

abrandao said:


> And it is really weird to see São Paulo in a lower position in comparision to Mumbai or Kuala Lumpur. I would say totally improbable.


Uh, Mumbai's city proper is the largest in the world. It is also the largest city and financial capital of a fast growing and probably the 3rd largest economy in 10-20 years.

Though it does have bad infrastructure and poor people.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

Looking/Up said:


> ^^ That's a silly idea. I'm sure at various times people thought Rome, or Babylon, or Alexandria, or Athens, would always be the world's super cities. Cities rise, and cities fall.


Exactly! In all likelihood, the great super-cities of the future will be different than the cities that dominate today. I'll go with Mumbai, Shanghai, and Shenzhen.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

I think my city will be the one of the world's greatest supercities, and is much more deserving of that title than any of your cities.
If my city is currently one, it will remain that way forever. If my city is not one at present, it is a certainty to become one within the next 200 years.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Sauce? Clearly your lying because MY city's stock exchange is bigger and everyone knows that stock exchanges are the greatest indication of what it takes to become a city of finance, and a city of finance = supercity. durrr.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

^ MontTorBosWash, LagosKanIbadan, DhakKolkDelhLahore and Ballina will be the great supercities in 2100.


----------



## India101 (Jul 22, 2008)

No city in Australia will be a super city with your tiny population


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

Oh no! Someone has doubted the ability of my city to be a supercity. As this greatly affects me, I have taken umbrage and will prove them wrong with lots of predictions about the best-case scenario in 2400.


----------



## Looking/Up (Feb 28, 2008)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> Sauce? Clearly your lying because MY city's stock exchange is bigger and everyone knows that stock exchanges are the greatest indication of what it takes to become a city of finance, and a city of finance = supercity. durrr.


That wasn't what isaidso and I were arguing. We were just pointing out that the TSX is larger than the ranking you posted. Neither of us suggested that a stock exchange alone creates a financial 'super city.' We were just correcting the mistake you made


----------



## abrandao (Sep 8, 2006)

India101 said:


> Uh, Mumbai's city proper is the largest in the world. It is also the largest city and financial capital of a fast growing and probably the 3rd largest economy in 10-20 years.
> 
> Though it does have bad infrastructure and poor people.


I don't see population as a good indicator to verify whether a city is a supercity or not. Do you think Lagos could be considered "more supercity" than Milan???????

São Paulo city proper is the second or third largest in the world, anyway. Plus, the economic capital of Brazil is a more important financial, industrial, trade and service center than Mumbai (it is the most important in Latin America indeed) and is also one of the biggest urban areas in the world. Brazilian economy is also growing, and it is expected to be the 5th largest in the world in 10-20 years. With more infrastructure, higher _per capita_ income and less inequality than that observed in India.


----------



## jefferson2 (May 31, 2008)

the great supercities of the future..

my opnions

some important supercities would be (in the foreseeable future)... new york, tokyo, moscow, shanghai, beijing, istanbul, mexico city, sao paulo, mumbai, london

other possible cities in each region...

lagos or johanesburg maybe? 

other ones in india or china? these countries have large populations/ growing economies, and there seems to lots going on outside the well known centres

abu dhabi, tehran, tel-aviv, cairo?

jakarta? manila? bangkok?

sydney and toronto are increasing in importance.. they didnt even really exist a couple hundred years ago and now are important/ stable economic centres, with populations over 5 million

places like tehran, cairo and jakarta are huge, but they seem a bit cut off for the moment as compared to places like hong kong or los angeles


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

^^ Super cities have tended to be the most populous, but increasingly it may become less crucial. Look at London and Paris! They're still holding there own, but both have dropped out of the top 20. Technology/information, human capital, infrastructure, economy, politics, culture, and a minimum critical mass of population will all be key determinants. Those cities that dominate will be those that are strong in all or most of these areas.

I do think cities with relatively small populations like Sydney (4 million) and Toronto (6 million) can become globally influential by continuing to punch over their weight and continuing their upward trajectory. London (10 million) will remain influential, but from a slightly larger population base. 

What is clear is that the power base is moving to China, India, and some other rapidly developing nations like Brazil, Mexico, and Indonesia. Consequentially, cities like Mumbai, Shanghai, Sao Paulo, Mexico City, and Jakarta will become more dominant each passing decade.



Looking/Up said:


> That wasn't what isaidso and I were arguing. We were just pointing out that the TSX is larger than the ranking you posted. Neither of us suggested that a stock exchange alone creates a financial 'super city.' We were just correcting the mistake you made


Some people think everyone has some self serving or nationalistic agenda. It's not us that such remarks cast a reflection upon!


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> I like this ranking of cities.
> 
> *Alpha World Cities ++:*
> New York, London


Maybe before 2008. 

But its hard to imagine London ranking up there today.


----------



## India101 (Jul 22, 2008)

abrandao said:


> I don't see population as a good indicator to verify whether a city is a supercity or not. Do you think Lagos could be considered "more supercity" than Milan???????


Yes Nigeria is a very fast growing a economy. A lot of stuff is gonna happen in Lagos.


----------



## abrandao (Sep 8, 2006)

^^
OK, Lagos might go through an economic boom in the upcoming decades, it is not a good example for what I am trying to explain. Take Kinshasa, Karachi, Khartoum or Dhaka for example then. It comes clear that population does not mean much.


----------



## abrandao (Sep 8, 2006)

bayviews said:


> Maybe before 2008.
> 
> But its hard to imagine London ranking up there today.


Well I think it is hard to imagine London out of the top position of any list of supercities.

London, NYC, Paris and Tokio are the four capitals of the world, in my opinion.

Then we can think of Hong Kong, Beijing, Los Angeles, Moscow, São Paulo, Washington, Milan, Frankfurt, Zurich, Mumbai, Rome, Berlin, Istambul, Madrid, Sydney, Cairo, Amsterdam, Tehran, Toronto, Buenos Aires, Mexico, Chicago, Johanneburg, Miami, Lagos, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago, Tel Aviv, Athens, Barcelona, Bogota etc.


----------



## India101 (Jul 22, 2008)

Once the problems are sort out and North Sudan becomes a country it will be oil rich like the Middle East. Check out the project they got planned, some buildings are already done:










Pakistan's economy is growing pretty fast long with Bangladesh both cities (Karachi & Dhaka) are growing fast aswell. But Pakistan has problems like the Taliban and other terrorist groups in and around the city.

Kinshasha could be a great super city as the D.R.C are rich in resources but I don't see it happening for a long time.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

I disagree with Paris, to be honest. It isn't as relevant as it "used to be". 
Also, In your second tier, you grouped _a lot_ of countries together which I don't agree should be considered of second tier importance. Which is why I liked that Global City Index, it was well broken up.


----------



## bayviews (Mar 3, 2006)

abrandao said:


> Well I think it is hard to imagine London out of the top position of any list of supercities.
> 
> London, NYC, Paris and Tokio are the four capitals of the world, in my opinion.


I can see London still ranking up with the rest of that top 4. But not up alone with NYC at the very top.


----------



## Myster E (Oct 17, 2006)

bayviews said:


> I can see London still ranking up with the rest of that top 4. But not up alone with NYC at the very top.


Yes it can.....Sorry but this argument of NYC being alone is futile, London and NYC have one thing in common, English speaking alpha world metropolises with the former having 100 of 500 of Europe's largest companies headquartered there and being one of the three financial HQ's of the world. London's postion on the globe to trade with markets around the world makes it more ideal too considering the time difference.


----------



## Looking/Up (Feb 28, 2008)

Dimethyltryptamine said:


> I disagree with Paris, to be honest. It isn't as relevant as it "used to be".


I thought this way also for awhile, but I'm not so sure anymore. I think Paris probably plays a much larger role than we know but we just don't hear as much about it because in the English-speaking world, London and New York are viewed as the two top cities. Paris, however, is significantly more important for other French-speaking nations. Also, it plays perhaps a larger role in the EU.


----------



## fox1 (Apr 27, 2003)

Chrissib said:


> Sydney is a joke, isn't it?


have you been there? do you care to elaborate? would you like to quote some economic figures, maybe?


----------



## ukiyo (Aug 5, 2008)

You guys shouldn't care so much about a single study..it doesnt mean anything. 

Anyway this thread has completely become a city v city thread.


----------



## 863552 (Jan 27, 2010)

Guys if you took research, Sydney now is Australia's econdomic hub. But trends in growth show Melbourne by 2015 is to take over that title. 7 of Australia's top 10 companies are based in Melbourne.

Something to munch on.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

isaidso said:


> Some people think everyone has some self serving or nationalistic agenda. It's not us that such remarks cast a reflection upon!


Certainly not everyone, but there are always _some _people who do.


----------



## deranged (Jan 22, 2009)

Anyway, while all studies have their flaws, this is the one I most agree with (the "least worst" if you like ):

*The 2008 Global Cities Index*


```
[B]Rank 	City 	 	Best category (position in that category)[/B]

1 	New York City 	Business Activity and Human Capital (1st)
2 	London 	 	Cultural Experience (1st)
3 	Paris 	 	Information Exchange (1st)
4 	Tokyo 	 	Business Activity (2nd)
5 	Hong Kong 	Business Activity and Human Capital (5th)
6 	Los Angeles 	Human Capital (4th)
7 	Singapore 	Business Activity (6th)
8 	Chicago 	Human Capital (3rd)
9 	Seoul 	 	Information Exchange (5th)
10 	Toronto 	Cultural Experience (4th)
11 	Washington DC 	Political Engagement (1st)
12 	Beijing 	Political Engagement (7th)
13 	Brussels 	Information Exchange (2nd)
14 	Madrid 	 	Information Exchange (9th)
15 	San Francisco 	Human Capital (12th)
16 	Sydney 	 	Human Capital (8th)
17 	Berlin 	 	Cultural Experience (8th)
18 	Vienna 	 	Political Engagement (9th)
19 	Moscow 	 	Cultural Experience (6th)
20 	Shanghai 	Business Activity (8th)
21 	Frankfurt 	Business Activity (11th)
22 	Bangkok 	Political Engagement (13th)
23 	Amsterdam 	Business Activity (10th)
24 	Stockholm 	Information Exchange (13th)
25 	Mexico City 	Cultural Experience (9th)
26 	Zürich 	 	Information Exchange (8th)
27 	Dubai 	 	Information Exchange (14th)
28 	Istanbul 	Political Engagement (8th)
29 	Boston 	 	Human Capital (9th)
30 	Rome 	 	Cultural Experience (15th)
```
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2008/10/15/the_2008_global_cities_index


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

^^that ranking has always confused the **** out of me. The extra "(xx'th)" weirds me out.


----------



## Taller Better (Aug 27, 2005)

city vs city


----------

