# which will be the 10 most important cities in 2020?



## JARdan (Aug 21, 2004)

New York
Toronto
London
Los Angeles
Paris
Tokyo
Hong Kong
Beijing
New Delhi
Calgary/Edmonton (depending on what is made of the Alberta Tar Sands: 1.5 Trillion+ barrels of oil)


----------



## DrJoe (Sep 12, 2002)

Calgary/Edmonton is not going to happen.


----------



## JARdan (Aug 21, 2004)

DrJoe said:


> Calgary/Edmonton is not going to happen.


Why not?


----------



## marathon (Jun 6, 2004)

New York
Tokyo
London
Moscow
Beijing
Chicago
Frankfurt
Paris
Toronto
Hong Kong


----------



## ab041937 (Jul 7, 2005)

New York(Greatest city to live in.. atleast till 2120 AD)
London
Tokyo
Dubai
Shanghai
Hong Kong
Paris
Mumbai
Beijing
Tel Aviv


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

ab041937 said:


> New York(Greatest city to live in.. atleast till 2120 AD)
> London
> Tokyo
> Dubai
> ...


I don't even think NY is the greatest city to live in now.


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

London, NYC, Frankfurt, Shanghai, Beijing, Mumbai, São Paulo, Madrid, Moscow, Tokyo, Paris, in no specific order... And only in terms of economy...


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

Dubai
DUbai
DUBai
DUBAi
DUBAI
DuBai
DuBAi
DuBAI
DubAI
DubaI


----------



## A.Reece (Sep 4, 2005)

New York
Chicago
Tokyo
Shanghai
Dubai
Hong Kong
London
Frankfurt
Beijing
Mumbai

Maybe Paris,Sao Paulo, Mexico City, Madrid.. :|


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

A boring and disappointing thread.

I've yet to see anyone give any reasons or arguments for any of their choices.

It's just list after list of cities, with no comments or explanations from anyone. How about some discussion and debate?


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

wjfox2002 said:


> A boring and disappointing thread.
> 
> I've yet to see anyone give any reasons or arguments for any of their choices.
> 
> It's just list after list of cities, with no comments or explanations from anyone.


It will take a long time to give reasons for every city,and it's already late. :sleepy:


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

wjfox2002 said:


> A boring and disappointing thread.


Yes, but we ARE boring!!!!


----------



## sfenn1117 (Apr 9, 2005)

No order except #1

New York- Most important business city in the worlds lone superpower. Of course it's #1 
London- Will always be near the top
Paris- Same as London
Hong Kong- Continues to grow
Washington- Most important center of government in the world
Shanghai- Most important city in China 
Tokyo- Arguably the most important city in the Far East
Moscow- It's growing baby. 
Sao Paulo- Most important in SA. 
Mumbai- I don't know everyone else says it. 

LA is not an important world city. Chicago is way way above it. LA just has a lot of people, a lot of movie stars. It's a famous city, but not important for the world. Chicago would be #11 on my list. 

I laugh when I see Dubai. Give me reasons please. A few big skyscrapers? Big Deal. When they start to nab huge corporations and the name Dubai actually becomes known, then I'll buy it.


----------



## addisonwesley (Jun 19, 2005)

This is all assuming the world continues to operate as it does today, with no major economic disasters.


----------



## ab041937 (Jul 7, 2005)

wjfox2002 said:


> A boring and disappointing thread.
> 
> I've yet to see anyone give any reasons or arguments for any of their choices.
> 
> It's just list after list of cities, with no comments or explanations from anyone. How about some discussion and debate?


Ok lemme justify my choice

1) New York - The most cosmospolitan and decorated city in the world with people from all corners of the the world. Most of the New Yorkers cannot call themselves Pure ethnic Americans. Not to mention, its the richest city in the world with GDP of $500 billion(More than most of the countries).

2) London - Currently, the most important European city and will continue to be so.

3) Tokyo - Nobody would doubt the importance of the Japenese capital. Home to some of the biggest technological giants.

4) Dubai - Fastest growing city in the world. Last 10 years have changed the face of this city. Imagine what another 15 years would do if the pace is maintained. Though, its pure contemplation yet.

5) Shanghai - Another rapidly advancing city, inviting lot of business every year.

6) Hong Kong - Need I say about the current financial capital of Asia. It will hold its glory. 

7) Paris - Current fashion capital of the world.

8) Mumbai - Fastest growing city in South Asia. Inviting IT outsourcing business from across the world.Currently the only South Asian city which can match Western cities in terms of Work culture.

9) Beijing - Future Center of Power in Asia.

10) Tel Aviv - Don't know why... maybe, I was running outta choices.


----------



## wjfox (Nov 1, 2002)

What about when the oil runs out in Dubai?


----------



## SUNNI (Sep 20, 2002)

wjfox2002 said:


> What about when the oil runs out in Dubai?


i think they are trying to transform dubai into a major port city in the middle east :?


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

abo, Tokyo is actually the richest city in the world.


----------



## Jaye101 (Feb 16, 2005)

IchO said:


> due to pop explosion in Lagos, Nigeria - it will be 87,000,000 (Metro pop), and plus the high development that will be there in 2020.


 :eek2:


----------



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

^^ Population and importance are different things.


----------



## mongozx (Sep 30, 2005)

In terms of Global influence. The top 5 are obvious (New York, Tokyo, Hong Kong, London, Paris)

In no order Washington DC, Shanghai, Los Angeles should be in the top 10.

But barely anyone mentions San Francisco and the Bay Area. The last time I checked Silicon Valley is in there and that's the place where all new technologies (ie internet, computer/electronics, cell phone, biotech etc etc) are innovated.
The whole world, even Tokyo, looks at this area to see what the future is going to be. Add to the fact that San Francisco is as famous, internationally recognized and as cosmopolitan as any world city. . .it definitely should get a nod on anyone's list. IMO


----------



## Roch5220 (Mar 7, 2003)

Evangelion said:


> i think seoul will probably be in the top 10, with current trends korea alone is supposed to be the 8th largest economy by 2050, i'd add a link to the source but i don't know where it is, its around the forum somewhere


Possibly, but you have to look at other regional cities that seoul will compete with. They will be going up against regional heavy weights that are already established.


----------



## aranetacoliseum (Jun 8, 2005)

2020?
(in no particular order)

1.dubai
2.hongkong
3.shanghai
4.mumbai
5.kuala lumpur
6.tokyo
7.new delhi
8.manila
9.new york
10.singapore


----------



## IshikawajimaHarima (Aug 3, 2005)

aranetacoliseum said:


> 2020?
> (in no particular order)
> 
> 1.dubai
> ...


Nine tenth of your listed cities are asian. interesting.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

And 1/2 of it is utter bullshit... :lol:


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

Some people here are not aware of the past of even the present world. The fact that some cities are developing doesn't mean they will become important, or even more important than economic powerhouses like London or NY for example.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

NYC
London
HK or Shanghai (depends on who comes out on top in China)
Tokyo
LA
Paris
HK or Shanghai (the less important of the two)
SF Bay Area (no one gives enough props to the tech/R&D center of the planet)
Mumbai

An good argument could be made for placing Washington (and in the future perhaps Beijing, but not in 15 years) on top, but since the city's power is almost completely limited to politics, I've left it out.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Roch5220 said:


> Possibly, but you have to look at other regional cities that seoul will compete with. They will be going up against regional heavy weights that are already established.


Seoul is the capital of a country with 50 million people, in the low end of the 1st world, and with one of the world's lowest birthrates and fastest aging populations. There's no way it will be in the top ten in 15 or 20 years. It will be lucky to keep the relative importance it has now. 

Korea might, if it's lucky (and other countries fail), be the 10th largest economy in the world in 2020, but you have to remember that some of the other 9 largest economies may have more than one city each in the top 10. The number 10 economy in the world is very very far away from the number 1 or 2 economies...


----------



## rokey1140 (Mar 13, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> Seoul is the capital of a country with 50 million people, in the low end of the 1st world, and with one of the world's lowest birthrates and fastest aging populations. There's no way it will be in the top ten in 15 or 20 years. It will be lucky to keep the relative importance it has now.
> 
> Korea might, if it's lucky (and other countries fail), be the 10th largest economy in the world in 2020, but you have to remember that some of the other 9 largest economies may have more than one city each in the top 10. The number 10 economy in the world is very very far away from the number 1 or 2 economies...



already, The South Korea is 10th largest economy in the world(2004s) .
and. not 50 million people, it is 48 million people.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

rokey1140 said:


> already, The South Korea is 10th largest economy in the world(2004s) .
> and. not 50 million people, it is 48 million people.


Actually, it was 11th in 2004. http://news.naver.com/news/read.php...52&section_id=101&section_id2=263&menu_id=101

And as a relatively developed economy with a rapidly aging population (and soon to be shrinking workforce), it's very likely to be overtaken by the likes of Mexico, Brazil, Russia...


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

the US will have 3:  
New York
LA
Chicago

China will have 3
Shanghai
Hong Kong
Beijing

Europe will have 2
London (for sure)
Paris or moscow

India will have one
Mumbai

and Japan will have one
Totyo


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

The major players will be the north america(major,stable), asia(major,growing) and europe(semi-major and declining) in 2020.
no cities in the rest of world will be top 10 as they are away from the centre of the world.


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> SF Bay Area (no one gives enough props to the tech/R&D center of the


the dotcom bust around the turn of the century really hurt the bay area, more then most are willing to adimt.... if the housing bubble pops SF is fucked.


----------



## IshikawajimaHarima (Aug 3, 2005)

CENTRAL said:


> the US will have 3:
> New York
> LA
> Chicago
> ...


China will never have 3 of the top 10. If you put Beijing politically, US cities must grow into 4. Besides HK is still the HK dollar world, it separates from China economically. I would nominate Singapore as the hub of South Asia instead of Beijing. btw China will still be a third world country even in 2020. Anyway don't set your mind to the US so much and don't turn this thread into country vs country at your discretion.


----------



## staff (Oct 23, 2004)

Dubai will never be one of the world's 10 most important cities. Never.


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

IshikawajimaHarima said:


> China will never have 3 of the top 10. If you put Beijing politically, US cities must grow into 4. Besides HK is still the HK dollar world, it separates from China economically. I would nominate Singapore as the hub of South Asia instead of Beijing. btw China will still be a third world country even in 2020. Anyway don't set your mind to the US so much and don't turn this thread into country vs country at your discretion.


beijing together with tianjin will form a super metro in 2020, with the population of 30 million, and donimate the north east asia economically. 

i never told you hongkong economically belongs to china, although hong kong's economy highly depends on china. but respect the fact, hong kong is a part of china, this is recognised globally.

although i am a resident of singapore, but after a careful consideration, I pull singapore out of top 10, just because of its small size.

by the way, i dont think china is in the 3rd world even now. the developed countries will never feel anxious of the challange from the real 3rd world. china is definitely leading the 2nd world and will upgrade to the 1st before 2020.

i was not misdirecting this topic into a country vs country thread, just gave my logic of answer. 

hope it helps u to learn something. :cheers:


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

it is not necessary to type in anything other then normal font...


----------



## IshikawajimaHarima (Aug 3, 2005)

@ central

But farmers in China can't move to the city freely. It means poor people won't reduce in 15 years.


----------



## Intoxication (Jul 24, 2005)

*In no particular order*

1.NY
2.London
3.Paris
4.HK
5.Beijing
6.Shanghai
7.Dubai
8.Tokyo

9 and 10 between 
Singapore, Seoul, Sao Paolo, Mumbai, Karachi, Istanbul, Moscow, maybe Gwadar - a small coastal fishing village right now, Look at United Pakistan's post.


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

IshikawajimaHarima said:


> @ central
> 
> But farmers in China can't move to the city freely. It means poor people won't reduce in 15 years.


1, they can move
2, moving into cities dose not correlate to the decrease of poverty. 
3, chinese farmers' income is rising quickly (6% annually), however ppl in cities are getting rich even faster (arround 10%)


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

ChicagoSkyline said:


> I can't tell you ALL 10 important cities at the time of 2020, but I can assure you the CHICAGO is on the top 5 of the list!


it is possible for the whole region.
but sorely as a city, chicago has no chance to become world's top5, as it has to face strong challange from toronto. chicago will never become the absolute centre of that region.


----------



## london-b (Jul 31, 2004)

CENTRAL said:


> london will limpingly maintain its importance in the future. however, mainland EU cities such as paris, madrid, milan,etc will encounter very difficult situation in the near future. i dont see paris still remain in the top 5 in ten yrs.
> no offense to europeans.


Limpingly, please :|


----------



## Phil (Aug 23, 2002)

CENTRAL said:


> london will limpingly maintain its importance in the future. however, mainland EU cities such as paris, madrid, milan,etc will encounter very difficult situation in the near future. i dont see paris still remain in the top 5 in ten yrs.
> no offense to europeans.


I really don't think so. I wonder what makes you think that ? 
I can perfectly see the 4 cities you mention maintain their rank and I can even see Madrid gain some importance .
Just cause cities elsewhere are booming doesn't mean they'll take over "old europe" within a decade, that sounds a little too optimistic (or pessimistic...)


----------



## ab041937 (Jul 7, 2005)

Phil said:


> I really don't think so. I wonder what makes you think that ?
> I can perfectly see the 4 cities you mention maintain their rank and I can even see Madrid gain some importance .
> Just cause cities elsewhere are booming doesn't mean they'll take over "old europe" within a decade, that sounds a little too optimistic (or pessimistic...)


No offence to Spaniards but, I don't see Madrid being there and same about Paris. They'll be great tourist places. How can they be top cities when they do not employ universal language. Barely 0.1% of Madrid population can speak in English (those working at the airport & International Hotels)? Even the fellow Europeans would feel strangers over there. 

In Europe, it will always be London. :cheer:


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

Phil said:


> I really don't think so. I wonder what makes you think that ?
> I can perfectly see the 4 cities you mention maintain their rank and I can even see Madrid gain some importance .
> Just cause cities elsewhere are booming doesn't mean they'll take over "old europe" within a decade, that sounds a little too optimistic (or pessimistic...)


most EU countries are experiencing 0 growth, and some of them like Italy are declining. european's good days have gone. they lost their competibility in traditional industries to asia and meanwhile, they dont gain advantages in new tech industries. no EU country is able to challange the USA, except for UK in these areas.
I agree with HairR that it will be a gradual fall for EU rather than a sudden fall. but oveall, it will be a accumulated big deline.


----------



## ROCguy (Aug 15, 2005)

Europe and America need to team up if we want to stay on top of things and not let China and India totally take over.


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

rakesh said:


> New york,Toronto, Frankfurt, Dubai, Paris, Sydney, Tokyo, Chicago, LA, Shanghai


What happen to London and Hong Kong?

And as for Chicago being the top 5... thats is a stretch...unless you are talking about skylines in 2020.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

CENTRAL said:


> most EU countries are experiencing 0 growth, and some of them like Italy are declining. european's good days have gone. they lost their competibility in traditional industries to asia and meanwhile, they dont gain advantages in new tech industries. no EU country is able to challange the USA, except for UK in these areas.
> I agree with HairR that it will be a gradual fall for EU rather than a sudden fall. but oveall, it will be a accumulated big deline.


You have no clue what you are talking about (as does Harir).
Madrid is booming right now.
Europe has a very bright future with a huge development potential in the south and the east and established modern countries in the north.
China has a long way to go, don't count on it getting anywhere near Europe in our lifetime.

Your wishfull thinking is just pathetic...:lol:


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

It is a fact Europe isn't having as many kids and hasn't for awhile you have had more deaths then births.... Immigration is a different story. 

Your cities are almost too established no huge amount of rural population moving to cities(China), developing countries like India and China are gaining population through birth. Tougher immigration laws and no mexico-to-america illegal immigration.


----------



## LtBk (Jul 27, 2004)

If i remmeber correctly, the current Asian economic powers like Japan, China, Korea, and Singapore are having less babies and the population is aging quickly.


----------



## boto_mix (Sep 14, 2005)

CENTRAL dreaming is free......


----------



## great prairie (Jul 18, 2005)

LtBk said:


> If i remmeber correctly, the current Asian economic powers like Japan, China, Korea, and Singapore are having less babies and the population is aging quickly.


The more developed a country is less babies they have, America is barely breaking even if I remember correctly and smaller population means more population loss generally.


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> You have no clue what you are talking about (as does Harir).
> Madrid is booming right now.
> Europe has a very bright future with a huge development potential in the south and the east and established modern countries in the north.
> China has a long way to go, don't count on it getting anywhere near Europe in our lifetime.
> ...


i am not kidding and i am not from china. 
if you refer to the GDP growth of eu countries, you will find most of that are arround zero and for some countries like italy, it is a negative number.
why you guys are so optimistic? it is time to wake up.


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

i ve been to europe and it was like 10 yrs behind the US (uk not included). however, ppl there still felt they were the centre of the world. the world is changing all the time, china in my eyes were not far from europe, and it is catching up quickly. india will have a longer way to go, but still, it has a brighter future.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

You are delusional.
It is time for you to wake up.
China not far from Europe? Europe 10 years behind the US?
Where did you go? Moldova?
I like how you say "UK not included" as there are dozens of countries on par with the UK.

This thread is dumbed down with every post you make...


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> You are delusional.
> It is time for you to wake up.
> China not far from Europe? Europe 10 years behind the US?
> Where did you go? Moldova?
> ...


judge YOURSELF before you make comments on others.
it is my opinion and it is my right to post it. any personal offense is unacceptable here. that is prob why eu is becoming waker and waker, far behind the usa. shame on you.
open your eyes and see how other ppl in the world look at you.


----------



## earthJoker (Dec 15, 2004)

CENTRAL, your posts really don't make any sense at all.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Your opinion is one of the most uninformed I've ever seen on this forum and that is saying a lot.
And I'll be the judge of what is unacceptable here or not.
There is no "personal offence" (why do the trolls always use that excuse?), just don't expect not to be called out on your ludicrous statements.
You have been doing nothing but bash Europe in this thread, which is quite silly considering that it is fairly obvious that a unifying Europe only stands to gain on the world stage.
I, and many Europeans (and others) can only laugh at how we are viewed by you and your like, because obviously what 's going on over here is too complicated for your backward thinking about nationstates and putting to much importance to rapid growth (which is short term).

We have seen the most ludicrous lists here which include cities like Dubai and Shenzhen and it's sad that your posts even aim lower than that. Now get out of your parents basement and read up on things! (although how does a person "read up" on reality?)


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

CENTRAL,I'd agree with you if we only consider big cities of China.

Ppl say China has a long way to go,because most of rual areas of China are far behind the US for example.

and the future of EU,difficult to say


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Not as difficult as the future of China that's for sure...


----------



## tiger (Aug 21, 2004)

SHiRO said:


> Not as difficult as the future of China that's for sure...


I'd not be so sure.


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

Because turning a largely undeveloped country of 1.2 billion people with a uncertain political system is easier than expanding on an already very integrated union of mostly highly developed modern countries?

:|

Get real...



People perceive news about political and economical reform in Europe as some huge obstacle and at the same time some recent fast economical growth in China as an indicator for garanteed succes...??? It doesn't make any sense.

China is going to have heaps more trouble developing, than Europe is going to have reforming itself.


----------



## thx-rvg (Oct 9, 2005)

Greetings, I'm a new user.

A few comments before I provide my list:

-NYC's GMP (Gross Municipal Product) is estimated at $480B, for an $60k avg./resident (pop. being ~8.1M). This obviously excludes all areas outside of the municipal borders. I'd estimate that, given New Jersey's above-average state per capita, and the cluster of rich neighbourhoods around New York, the per capita GMP for the 22m-strong metro region would be $45k-50k (US avg. $40k, #2 after Norway PPP-wise), so New York City Metro's total economic output is probably around $990B-$1.1T, or more than Canada's or Mexico's GDP, or for that matter, more than that of all but a dozen countries. With such a strong direct base, even if NYC wasn't the financial centre of a nation of 300m people with an economy of $12.3T, it would be a significant centre. The fact that it is at the heart of America's economy ensures it a spot in the top 10 for the next century to come, at least. 

-Considering that Tokyo's Metro region is home to 34-6m people, and that Japan's GDP (nominal) is $4.8T, Metro Tokyo's economy is probably around $1.3T. I believe that doubles India's total GDP (nominal), with room to spare, and is multiple times that of Shanghai's, Beijing's, and HongKong's economies combined. Anyone who disputes Tokyo's position as Asia's economy centre should seriously reconsider. 

-If you look at the richest countries in 1800 and 1900, you'll find that shifts in power dynamics don't occur as quickly as people would often like to hope for. The major difference between 1900 and now is that, while the UK's GDP per capita then was tops, and that of the US at #5, today, that of the US is #2, and that of the UK just slightly below that of the top 10, etc. I expect there to be (hopefully) a more rapid development upwards during the next 50 years, but even so, the rich countries won't be slowing down either necessarily, certainly not the US.

-Current estimates for the size of the economies in 2050 acknowledge the growing importance of China, India, and Brazil, but should be also acutely aware of the continuing importance of the UK, Germany, Japan, and France, not to say anything of the US, which will remain as the most powerful economy in the world in 2050, irrespective of whether China's economy at that time will become bigger. It's not simply the size of an economy that determines how powerful or rich a country is. If we're going by wealth, America's current wealth is somewhere between $20T-$40T, out of the world's estimated $127T. Just make a note of which companies are doing business in China and India. It's important to consider that, if current trends continue, by 2050 Germany will cease to be Europe's biggest economy, giving way to either the UK or France, because of demographics. France and the UK, due to immigration, are continuing to witness growths in their population, while Germany's is beginning to decrease (Italy's population will plummet from 57m to 40m in 2050). In Europe, therefore, the current ranking of the biggest economies (1.DE, 2.UK, 3.Fr) will change (1/2 UK/Fr, 3.De).

Globally, the top economies are likely going to be:

1/2.US or China
3/4. India or Japan
5-8. UK/France/Germany/Brazil

Many of the countries that are touted as future centres of power are starting off from such a low base (especially in Africa, where the avg. person is worse off economically than the average European was in 1800), that even dramatic improvements will still not be enough for those countries to catch up in such a short time (45 years will roll by very quickly). Realistically, to offset both the population growth and the low base beginning, the economies of Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Bangladesh, and Indonesia will need to grow at 4-7% annually, if there's any prospect of immediate prosperity. Given that such growth rates over such a long period have been exceptionally rare (the two big examples being Germany and Japan, and others being Taiwan and South Korea), it's difficult to conceive of a scenario where this will be likely enough. I don't mean to imply that it's impossible, that'd be nonsense, but if it happens, it won't happen without great difficulty. If China, India, and Brazil end up as economic powerhouses big enough to challenge Europe and the US, it won't be because they will have solved all of their problems, but because they are so big that even while having many problems, they are still vast enough to make amends for them. 

By 2020, the biggest economies (nominal GDP-wise) will still be the US and Japan, and maybe even Germany, if it picks itself up soon enough. China will likely have surpassed the UK/France, but I doubt India will in 15 years' time. PPP-wise, it's more or less a done deal that China and India are #2 and 3 now, and by 2020, China might well be #1, barring some major occurence.

- Due to India's and China's size, if economic growth is to happen, and if it is to be sustained, the entire area must be rejuvenated. What this means is that we will not end up with one or two big cities like in the case of Japan or France, but with many big cities in place of a megalopolis, like in Germany. So even if India and China keep on expanding, the likely outcome is that there'll be a greater distribution of power among the various metropolitan areas. It's inconceivable that Mumbai would be pushed to the foreground without improvements in Delhi, Kalkotta, and Chennai, just to name some of the bigger centres. And at any rate, given that Uttar Pradesh has a 166m strong population, it's difficult to imagine Lucknow, or perhaps other major centres, being ignored. I can envisage a system like Germany with Mumbai like Hamburg/Frankfurt, Delhi/New Delhi like Berlin, and so on. Ditto for China: Shanghai as a kind of Hamburg (obviously much bigger), Beijing as a bigger Berlin, etc. I suppose the US provides for the best prototype with NYC being the biggest city, but still being by no means exhaustive as a centre of power. However, I am very skeptical. I find it hard to believe that people in India have as much affinity for Mumbai as the major centre as Americans have for NYC. I see no reason why they should. Ditto for Shanghai in China. I think if there is any one city in that area that will grow in importance, it will be Beijing. China's clout will be felt as much in politics as in economics, if not more so. We'll hear the name "Beijing" more often in the news over the next 15 years than we will either "London" or "Paris". And that's saying a lot. 


- California's economy at this moment is big enough to make it, if it was a country, the 7th richest country in the world ($1.4-1.5T). Metro LA is America's biggest manufacturing centre, and therefore one of the world's biggest. It has America's most important port (and a growing China/India will guarantee that LA's port will continue to grow in importance), the world's 4th busiest airport, and many others besides, and is, in of itself, an important market: 16-20m of the world's richest people as potential consumers, and given that economic output in Metro LA is probably around $700B, that kind of money is hard to ignore. California will continue to add people well after 2020, and by then should have a population of 45m. Add the technological importance of San Francisco and Silicon Valley, one of the world's most important and fertile farm regions in Central Valley, and in the form of Hollywood, the major cultural force in the world, and you have one of the world's central economic and cultural centres. And Los Angeles being at the centre of it, I have a difficulty coming up with a list that does not include LA. Whether we like it or not, the fact is that Los Angeles right now is as important to the world at large as Paris is, both economically and culturally. 


1. New York City
2. Washington, D.C. (political. Ask yourself where many of the major decisions that have shaped our world over the last 4 years have come from; then ask yourself where the major decisions over the next 15 years will be made)
3. Beijing
4. Tokyo
5. London
6. Los Angeles
7. Paris
8. Frankfurt/Berlin (Certainly, if a more integrated EU will opt for Frankfurt as the financial centre; consider this as a symbolic pick to represent Germany, which cannot be ignored)
9. Hong Kong or Shanghai (More HK than Shanghai, because it's more developed already)
10. Moscow (Russia is a dangerous country to ignore; if it actually picks itself up, it could come back as a major force in global economics)

I'd also mention Chicago and the San Francisco Bay Region as two hugely important regions in the US, as well as Seoul, which tends to be (unfairly) ignored, but which is at the heart of many major developments in politics and economics in Asia. 

Indian and Brazilian cities will certainly register strongly as we move past 2020. If well-managed, the New-Delhi/Delhi region, because of it's political clout as India's seat of government, and perhaps as a major economic force in its own right, would seem, for me, to be as strong a candidate as Mumbai. But we'll see.

Anyways, cheers. I'm sorry for the long post. Just felt I needed to give reasons for my choices.


----------



## boto_mix (Sep 14, 2005)

SHiRO said:


> Because turning a largely undeveloped country of 1.2 billion people with a uncertain political system is easier than expanding on an already very integrated union of mostly highly developed modern countries?
> 
> :|
> 
> ...


Yes yes yes. I think as you.


----------



## CENTRAL (Jul 4, 2005)

silly europeans， hopeless land


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Wow. 






Wow.


----------



## boto_mix (Sep 14, 2005)

CENTRAL said:


> silly europeans， hopeless land


 :crazy: :crazy: :crazy: vaya podre.....


----------



## 909 (Oct 22, 2003)

CENTRAL said:


> i ve been to europe and it was like 10 yrs behind the US (uk not included). however, ppl there still felt they were the centre of the world. the world is changing all the time, china in my eyes were not far from europe, and it is catching up quickly. india will have a longer way to go, but still, it has a brighter future.


So what is, cannot be in the future? But what will be, shall be? 
If the world is chancing all the time, how can someone know what comes with the future? In that case i can assume Africa has the brigthest future of all continents...



CENTRAL said:


> silly europeans， hopeless land


Enjoy yourself: Cognitive dissonance and Selective perception.

The world is not what a man thinks what it is...


----------



## SHiRO (Feb 7, 2003)

CENTRAL said:


> silly europeans， hopeless land


Ran out of arguments?
Oh that's right, you never had any to begin with...


----------



## kucksi (Aug 8, 2004)

CENTRAL said:


> judge YOURSELF before you make comments on others.
> it is my opinion and it is my right to post it. any personal offense is unacceptable here. that is prob why eu is becoming waker and waker, far behind the usa. shame on you.
> open your eyes and see how other ppl in the world look at you.


hehe u speak like u live in a bubble or something. please...


----------



## european (Oct 10, 2005)

Guyz we all know that NY, LONODN, TOKYO & PARIS will always be at the top of the list there is no argues about that unless some naturall disaster or terrorist attack occur which is very likely and already has happened but in future there might be more hurrific ones than the ones we seen before and which might wipe out the whole cities just by a drop of one bomb. And if we go for WW3 which is also likely but not very likely then 4 cities will fight against each other.

Anyway moving on thats what I think as top 10 cities of world by 2020.

USA=NY/LA/SF/Washington DC

UK= London/Birmingham

China= HK/Shanghai/Beijing

India=Mumbai/NCR(Delhi)/Bangalore

Korea=Seoul

France=Paris

Japan= Tokyo

Australia=Sydney

Canada= Tokyo

Brazil= Sao Paulo/ Rio

Cant think of any other cities which will be more important than the cites mantioned above. This is my opinion.


----------



## Eduardo (Sep 21, 2005)

Wallbanger said:


> Here ill give a list of 8 important countries and one city from that list.
> 
> USA
> New York
> ...


The best listing ....


----------



## LosAngelesSportsFan (Oct 20, 2004)

european said:


> Guyz we all know that NY, LONODN, TOKYO & PARIS will always be at the top of the list there is no argues about that unless some naturall disaster or terrorist attack occur which is very likely and already has happened but in future there might be more hurrific ones than the ones we seen before and which might wipe out the whole cities just by a drop of one bomb. And if we go for WW3 which is also likely but not very likely then 4 cities will fight against each other.
> 
> Anyway moving on thats what I think as top 10 cities of world by 2020.
> 
> ...



dont forget chicago.


----------



## Evangelion (May 11, 2005)

LosAngelesSportsFan said:


> dont forget chicago.


i highly doubt chicago will be top 10, more likely top 20


----------



## Faz90 (Aug 24, 2005)

I think 2020 is too early for Dubai to be in the top 10. It will barely be after the projects complete, and it will take much more time to be in the top 10. Maybe top 20 or 25 in 15 years.


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

_Why_ would Dubai be in the top 10, though?


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

^^Because it's growing at an enormous rate (according to what I have seen on this site), although I'm not sure if it will make it into the top 10 in 15 years time though.


----------



## Butcher (Dec 13, 2004)

european said:


> Japan= Tokyo
> 
> Australia=Sydney
> 
> *Canada= Tokyo*


 :? You mean Toronto?


----------



## cello1974 (May 20, 2003)

european said:


> Guyz we all know that NY, LONODN, TOKYO & PARIS will always be at the top of the list there is no argues about that unless some naturall disaster or terrorist attack occur which is very likely and already has happened but in future there might be more hurrific ones than the ones we seen before and which might wipe out the whole cities just by a drop of one bomb. And if we go for WW3 which is also likely but not very likely then 4 cities will fight against each other.
> 
> Anyway moving on thats what I think as top 10 cities of world by 2020.
> 
> ...


Well, you ignored:
Germany - Frankfurt/Berlin
Russia - Moscow
Mexico - Mexcio City
and Rio is not globally important. Buenos Aires, Santiago and many other cities come first!!! :sleepy:


----------



## ro34 (Jun 10, 2005)

top 10 cities of world by 2020.

SHANGHAI
HONG KONG
NEW YORK
LONDON
MUMBAI
TOKIO
SINGAPORE
SEOUL
PARIS
KUALA LUMPUR


----------

