# Is any other city at the same overall level as NY, London, Tokyo, Paris?



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

What do you think? 

America is a surprising case, since it has far more people than Japan, France or the UK, but only has one city in the top 3 or 4. How about LA?

Or HK, Seoul, Osaka etc. What for instance makes Paris more important than HK or Shanghai?


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

brooklynprospect said:


> Is any other city at the same overall level as NY, London, Tokyo, Paris?


In terms of overall importance - no.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

If we are to believe the natives of NYC, London, Paris, and Tokyo- no.


----------



## Monkey (Oct 1, 2002)

We've had this discussion again and again and again on here. These cities are firmly established as the "Big Four" and there's really no point in trying to suggest that any other city can match them for overall importance.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Yeah, look at the discussion. The people that are against any city joining the "club" are the ones already inside. It's like they are oblivious to the chance that any city can rival them, past, present, or future.

Basically what happened in those topics was that someone might ask a legitimate question or ask for examples of something and then someone would post data, news articles, or pictures. Then the person defending the city would say, "HA- that's no match for _____ is Paris/Tokyo/London/New York." Then someone else would ask for something else, and someone would provide examples for that as well, only to be ridiculed. Then another person would bring the discussion back to step 1 and ask the same damn questions, as if their strategy was to wear people down. That's what half the posts are in the topic- garbage to aggravate people. "Paris and London get along dandy and so they'll never become unimportant. You people are so stupid."

And then people would post incorrect information or statistics on their city just to gloat. It's a waste of time- the people that believe their city is on the same level are fighting an uphill battle against mostly people who are unwilling to compromise and just post the same message of "well that doesn't beat XXXX and NYC overshadows it" and don't tell how NYC (or any other city) overshadows it. You know, if we were seeing what beats what then we'd have only the Big One, not the Big Four, as all four can't be better than each other and share the stage by your logic.


----------



## PotatoGuy (May 10, 2005)

LA!!!


----------



## pottebaum (Sep 11, 2004)

Realizing it's a beautiful and vibrant city, I have to ask...why is Paris so important?


----------



## kyenan (Mar 22, 2003)

Why is Hongkong not forming Big Five with the Big Four?


----------



## eddyk (Mar 26, 2005)

pottebaum said:


> Realizing it's a beautiful and vibrant city, I have to ask...why is Paris so important?


I remember when it was the big 3...the Tri-world cities or whatever they were called...London, New York and Tokyo


----------



## sean storm (Nov 18, 2004)

some of you children must be bored shitless.....

my goodness. :stupid:


----------



## wickedestcity (Jul 23, 2004)

brooklynprospect said:


> What do you think?
> 
> America is a surprising case, since it has far more people than Japan, France or the UK, but only has one city in the top 3 or 4. How about LA?
> 
> Or HK, Seoul, Osaka etc. What for instance makes Paris more important than HK or Shanghai?


i got a better question , which of these "top cities" is the bigest,most influental, most bad-ass city of em all !! now thats a compatition!


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

either HK is included(and probably Chicago too, America is too powerful) or Paris is out.

come on let's face it, Paris is beautiful, but how is important economically, politically? it's very important culturally though.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

There are as many discussions about the Top 3 (NY, London, Tokyo) as there are about the Top 4 (NY, London, Tokyo, Paris). And many about the Top 5 (NY, London, Tokyo, Paris, HK). Anything beyond that is even more speculative and less concrete.


----------



## GM (Feb 29, 2004)

Sen said:


> either HK is included(and probably Chicago too, America is too powerful) or Paris is out.
> 
> come on let's face it, Paris is beautiful, but how is important economically, politically? it's very important culturally though.


When I read comments like that, I think that many foreigners have a sterotyped vision of Paris. Those who have never been to Paris see this city like a small pretty village with a big Eiffel tower in the middle.
Paris is not that.
Face it, Paris is a huge megapole, it's the most populated urban area of Europe (10 millions of people live in the URBAN area of Paris, not metropolitan). The GDP of Île de France is as big as 2/3 of the GDP of the entire China.
Paris is also important politically : France is one of the five permanent memeber of the UN, France has the atomic bomb, France is one of the most influential country in the EU, etc...
London is more important than Paris only as a financial center.
But Paris is a huge city, it's not only the pretty postal card that you have in mind.


----------



## rocky (Apr 20, 2005)

Dam im sick of people thinking paris is a village of 1million people eating baguette and wearing berets. grow up.
its a metro of 11.5 m people and the 2nd financial place in europe and the first business center in europe, with a higher GDP than AUStralia. thanks.(source wikipedia)


----------



## Petronius (Mar 4, 2004)

^^ I totally agree. In Europe only London can stand up to Paris. It's got the highest GDP of the whole of Europe, population-wise Paris is the biggest or second biggest, depending on how you count it, a lot of International organisations have their hqs in Paris, like the OECD, or UNESCO. It's also the capital city of one of the most influential countries in Europe and the world.
Not to mention its thriving cultural life. Pariscope is published weekly and it's got like 400 pages of cultural events within THAT week. :eek2: I think only London can measure up to this, not even NYC or Tokio.


----------



## Sen (Nov 13, 2004)

GM said:


> When I read comments like that, I think that many foreigners have a sterotyped vision of Paris. Those who have never been to Paris see this city like a small pretty village with a big Eiffel tower in the middle.
> Paris is not that.
> Face it, Paris is a huge megapole, it's the most populated urban area of Europe (10 millions of people live in the URBAN area of Paris, not metropolitan). The GDP of Île de France is as big as 2/3 of the GDP of the entire China.
> Paris is also important politically : France is one of the five permanent memeber of the UN, France has the atomic bomb, France is one of the most influential country in the EU, etc...
> ...


i admit i have never been to Paris, and id like to visit Paris someday, but i never thought of Paris as a small pretty village with a big Eiffel tower in the middle. Yes it's beautiful, yes it's a thriving metropolis, but that doesnt change the fact London is the most important city in Europe, and Europe is not important economically and politically to have two cities in the top 4, when US and Asia only have one respectively.


----------



## kyenan (Mar 22, 2003)

Sen said:


> i admit i have never been to Paris, and id like to visit Paris someday, but i never thought of Paris as a small pretty village with a big Eiffel tower in the middle. Yes it's beautiful, yes it's a thriving metropolis, but that doesnt change the fact London is the most important city in Europe, and Europe is not important economically and politically to have two cities in the top 4, when US and Asia only have one respectively.


The GDP of entire Asia is smaller than that of EU countries only.


----------



## spyguy (Apr 16, 2005)

Nominal or PPP?


----------



## crawford (Dec 9, 2003)

rocky said:


> Dam im sick of people thinking paris is a village of 1million people eating baguette and wearing berets. grow up.
> its a metro of 11.5 m people and the 2nd financial place in europe and the first business center in europe, with a higher GDP than AUStralia. thanks.(source wikipedia)


I couldn't agree more. Many Americans have a very ignorant view of Paris. They think of a fairy tale village, with Amelie, lovers, creperies and the like. They don't understand Paris is a huge, diverse metropolis that feels as cosmopolitan and important as New York or London.

Take the RER from CDG to central Paris. That trip alone will change your mind about the city.


----------



## eklips (Mar 29, 2005)

Oups, sorry, had misunderstood what pottebaum said, I apologise


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Shanghai is nowhere near the top 7 or 8 cities (yet). HK, Chicago, Frankfurt, Toronto, Sydney and LA are certainly ahead of it.


----------



## Skopie (Jan 17, 2005)

Azn_chi_boi said:


> Btw.. Paris is only 41 square mile compare to LA's 469 SQ Miles... if you were counting population.
> 
> But only 33.56 sq. miles in Paris are inhabitatble.


The land area doesn't relate to population, Paris still has a higher population than L.A, despite being a fraction of L.A's size. 

Whilst I accept L.A is a fairly important city, it's not as important as Chicago, and no where near Paris.


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

^ I agree to that. I think Chicago is also more important than L.A. 

Metropolitan LA is just a huge collection of suburbs, with a CBD in the center. I know cities with less than a million people that look a lot more urban than LA. The population of an American metropolitan area means nothing. I mean even Washington and Baltimore are considered one met. area!

If my country would calculate like Americans do, my whole country, being the most crowded of Europe, is one huge metropolitan area!


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

Besides, that list is kinda off. Like I mentioned Baltimore and Washington are considered one metropolitan area, while in my country Rotterdam and The Hague are not while those two cities are a lot closer by to eachother!


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

Skopie said:


> The land area doesn't relate to population, Paris still has a higher population than L.A, despite being a fraction of L.A's size.
> .


The LA metro has 17 million people. It certainly covers a larger area than the Paris metro, but what matters is function. Driving 100 km to and from work is quite common in LA. While in Paris I think very few people would do so. So 100km outside downtown or Westside LA for instance would definitely be integrated into the same metro area, while 100 km outside of central Paris would probably not be. Remember, Americans drive a lot more than Europeans. 

When I lived in LA (or NJ) I wouldn't think twice about driving 50 km. I would go drive 50km to get something to eat, and it would take perhaps 30 minutes. Living in NYC, I walk and take the subway for 30 minutes to get Chinese food in Chinatown. The trip is perhaps 10km? (actually I don't know, but anyway not very far).

As for whether LA is suburban or urban - who cares? What does that have to do with a city's importance? Bath, England and Charleston South Carolina are more urban than LA. Does that make them more important?

Politically, Paris is the capital city of a middle-rank power who's politicians like to talk, but unfortunately can't actually influence global events very much. LA is the 2nd largest city in a far more powerful country. Please don't even compare France and the US in importance. There's no equivalence in France getting one global city and America also getting only one.


----------



## Tom_Green (Sep 4, 2004)

Osaka, Hong Kong, Seoul, Berlin later Shanghai, Beijing.

It´s better to have more nice and important cities in the world.


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

Besides economy, what does Osaka have that brings it to such a high level? And Beijing's the capital, but what else? Shanghai's the economic giant in PRC, which still isn't that developed yet. Berlin's the same case with Frankfurt.


----------



## Rail Claimore (Sep 11, 2002)

"Has more Fortune(Global) 500 companies than any other city."

Not true, it's total Global 500 companies is in the mid 20's, same with London. Tokyo has more than 50.


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

kyenan said:


> The GDP of entire Asia is smaller than that of EU countries only.


Are you sure?
China + Japan + India + South Korea + Hong Kong + Taiwan + Southeast Asian coutries + South Asian countries + Middle East...

So all the above contries/regions' (Asia's ) GDP together is smaller than that of EU countries?


----------



## ChinaboyUSA (May 10, 2005)

within 10 to 15 years, Beijing and Shanghai will play much more important role in the world


----------



## Azn_chi_boi (Mar 11, 2005)

How about Russia and most of the former soviet union thats is in Asia


----------



## carfentanyl (May 14, 2003)

brooklynprospect said:


> Politically, Paris is the capital city of a middle-rank power who's politicians like to talk, but unfortunately can't actually influence global events very much. LA is the 2nd largest city in a far more powerful country. Please don't even compare France and the US in importance. There's no equivalence in France getting one global city and America also getting only one.


Oh yeah, I think most of us kinda forgot that the US is so much more important than the rest of us. You should get two global cities just because your country rocks!

Go U.S.A.!


----------



## Zenith (Oct 23, 2003)

> ^^ I totally agree. In Europe only London can stand up to Paris. It's got the highest GDP of the whole of Europe, population-wise Paris is the biggest or second biggest, depending on how you count it, a lot of International organisations have their hqs in Paris, like the OECD, or UNESCO. It's also the capital city of one of the most influential countries in Europe and the world.
> Not to mention its thriving cultural life. Pariscope is published weekly and it's got like 400 pages of cultural events within THAT week. I think only London can measure up to this, not even NYC or Tokio.


??? London is the biggest by far population wise, and has the highest gdp in europe. It also has the most international organisations in europe.

Do your homework, I totally agree with you about Paris it is an economic powerhouse ! It is easily one of the big four, but to say only london stands up to it in europe ?? its the other way round.


----------



## Skopie (Jan 17, 2005)

brooklynprospect said:


> The LA metro has 17 million people. It certainly covers a larger area than the Paris metro, but what matters is function. Driving 100 km to and from work is quite common in LA. While in Paris I think very few people would do so. So 100km outside downtown or Westside LA for instance would definitely be integrated into the same metro area, while 100 km outside of central Paris would probably not be. Remember, Americans drive a lot more than Europeans.
> 
> When I lived in LA (or NJ) I wouldn't think twice about driving 50 km. I would go drive 50km to get something to eat, and it would take perhaps 30 minutes. Living in NYC, I walk and take the subway for 30 minutes to get Chinese food in Chinatown. The trip is perhaps 10km? (actually I don't know, but anyway not very far).
> 
> ...


Is it continous development for that 100km, or is there countryside in between? I sure hope there's countryside in between, 100km of sprawl is nothing to be proud of.

Also I'm sure people do commute into Paris from 100km away, I know certainly in England, people commute to London from Birmingham, Manchester, even from Wales. It doesn't mean that Birmingham and Wales are part of London's Metro does it?

I realy can't comprehend how America works out it's cities population, if I were to include everyone within 100km of my city it's population would jump from 300,000 to nearer 8 or 10 million. Crikey, Wakefield just became one the most important cities in the world, thanks to American population calculations.

I don't think Los Angeles will ever be considered one of the big cities of the world, as oil prices rise, i think Los Angeles will suffer the most out of any city in the world.


----------



## edsg25 (Jul 30, 2004)

Skopie said:


> I don't think Los Angeles will ever be considered one of the big cities of the world, as oil prices rise, i think Los Angeles will suffer the most out of any city in the world.


Skopie, there could be problems, but LA should be commended for the many things it has done to make itself more centralized and more urbanized. These include:

1. a major rapid transit system that has brough light rail to much of the city as well as subway service from downtown to midcity areas and into the valley.

2. huge investment in the downtown core commercially, residentially, and culturally

3. development of the Wilshire Corridor as a high rise, urbanized linear city

That said, and maybe some Angelenos can answer, there could be some very serious problems if driving becomes more and more impractical. The questions I have:

• Even with downtown and other major cores throughout the city and the LA area, can a sprawling area like LA, with commuting going in innumerable directions, truly be tied together by mas transit?

• How much of an issue is it to have formidable mountains (like the Santa Monicas) right in the city. The Valley is cut off from the City and, in that sense, one can easily see how the secession movement got started.


----------



## [Everywhen] (May 2, 2005)

of course......melbourne and sydney

just multiply melbourne and syndney's pop. 4 or 5 times, and you have 2 way much better cities than n.y or tokio

btw. i think l.a. is way to big, too shallow, too hollywood....if it wasnt for hollywood, l.a. would be just another big city with no identity, i has nothing to offer

l.a., in my opinion is the ugliest, most spread out city in united states, and the ugliest in the world.....nothing special bout it


----------



## Menino de Sampa (Sep 21, 2003)

What a shame, nobody remembered of including the world class *Espumoso*.


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

I think HK should be on the same level. It has a high population, 2nd biggest port, and a really good skyline. Why isn't Hong Kong on the same level?


----------



## Shooter2 (May 8, 2005)

No


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Hong Kong is primarily a business city. London and Paris have a lot of cultural institutions that are far better developed than Hong Kong. Naturally New York and Tokyo will be there because they are the key financial centers for the world's 2 largest economies. However, the Kansai region was historically Japan's economic powerhouse. Osaka seems quite under-rated in importance.


----------



## YangtzeSea (Jan 8, 2005)

Actually, HK is so small with so little population (8 m). And I don't think Paris can compare with the Top 3(NY, London, Tokyo).


----------



## shibuya_suki (Apr 24, 2005)

^hong kong is 1100sq km,and 7million people,not 8m.....its quite similar with london and new york for its size,

and there are no way of hk ,london,and tokyo for what big3....where is ny and paris....??for cultural,creative,stylish,hk cant compare with real big3....


----------



## DarkFenX (Jan 8, 2005)

Shooter2 said:


> No


Would you care to explain why instead of posting a no?


----------



## Lebensraum (Apr 1, 2012)

Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou.


----------



## Fabio1976 (Nov 9, 2007)

Lebensraum said:


> Seoul, Hong Kong, Singapore, Beijing, Shanghai, Shenzhen, Guangzhou.


10 years for a reply !!!!


----------



## the spliff fairy (Oct 21, 2002)

wow, it's been a decade, the answer's changed. I think you can add Shanghai, Beijing and arguably Hong Kong to that list - though personally I wouldn't for the latter. Although it's got more money than the other two contenders, it has far less history, institutions and culture - the kind of stuff that isn't measured monetarily.

I also remember at one stage Moscow climbing higher and higher in the ad nauseum city rankings just before the global downturn (amount of millionaires/ billionaires/ michelin restaurants/ cultural events/ visitors/ population/ art/ economic growth etc), but it dropped off the radar again not long after. It's got potential, that's true.

I have a personal measure in my head that coincides with a city's Alpha ++ statuts and nothing to do with how rich it is - how many major international level tourist sites/ UNESCO sites/ major buildings and infrastructure (like seriously major) and collections a city has tends to correlate with it's global standing.

NYC and London counts these sites/ institutions into their thirties, Paris in it's late twenties - but that's offset by the largest 'Old City' in the world where every building is stunning (read: it's general urban fabric is one giant institution in itself). Tokyo in it's mid Twenties but offset by being the biggest everything by multiple times in the world from population to number of bars to Michelin stars to museums despite having lost most of its physical history twice, within living memory.

Beijing is now in it's thirties, Shanghai in it's twenties - they effectively doubled their institutions, networks, collections and huge edifices within a decade (all the cultural stuff in other words) plus it's all combined with huge size and roaring growth (where the numbers kick in). The question is can they be considered Alpha ++ even with lower nominal GDP values? imo they can and should, money isn't the measure of a city's worth alone - otherwise LA and Osaka usurp London and Paris.


----------



## isaidso (Mar 21, 2007)

In terms of financial power and influence: New York, Shanghai, London, Tokyo, Paris, Hong Kong. If one takes in a full check list of metrics none of these cities would crack the top 10.


----------

