# How big does a city need to be to be "International"?



## jefferson2 (May 31, 2008)

The tallest building said:


> here is what all international cities have to have.
> 
> 1. Central financial city of a super huge country.
> 2. A large population.
> ...


well said!

There are a few exceptions to your three must have points, but maybe these are the exception to the rule - Washington, Delhi, Berlin, Rio Janeiro, Beijing (not the primary financial centres of their country); and cities without a large population that are international (Zurich, Amsterdam, Vancouver, Singapore)

I think you should change it to *Either being the central financial city OR being the capital

the luxury point is true as far as i can see; and national iconic building/park as well


----------



## Slartibartfas (Aug 15, 2006)

The tallest building said:


> here is what all international cities have to have.
> 
> 1. Central financial city of a super huge country.
> 2. A large population.
> 3. A national or international iconic park or building.


Zurich doesn't really feature any of these points, nor does Geneva. Both are international cities however.


----------



## harrypowell (Apr 29, 2009)

IrishMan2010 said:


> Yeah that's the case with my city Dublin. Relatively small, not a major financial hub, relies on the UK so much and yet it's an Alpha- city. Dublin is in that league because of it's history and literature, and during the Celtic Tiger years it was Europe's boom town (pharmaceutical) and (I.T), which sadly is the complete opposite now.


Is Dublin an 'alpha' city ? :uh:


----------



## Pavlov's Dog (Aug 2, 2007)

I don't think a city's population is all that relevant to how International it is. Chonquing might have 30 million people but it is about as provincial as a city could be. Very few international flights and few foreigners.

A city like Geneva is highly international despite having a very small population.

determining factors in how international a city is:

1. international institutions - embassies, consulates, NGO's, international cooperative organizations (NATO, FIFA, OAS, IATA)

2. international corporations - national or regional headquarters with a high presense of expat employees. Post box corporations in the Caymans, Bermuda or Wilmington don't matter much nor do ships registered in Liberia or Panama

3. foreign residents - with those working for a foreign institution weighted much more heavily than immigrants working menial jobs. Mexican immigrants washing the floors at Apple in Silicon Valley count much lower than an Indian engineer or executive at the same company.

Geneva scores highly on 1 and 3 while Chongquing scores low on all


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Pavlov's Dog said:


> I don't think a city's population is all that relevant to how International it is. Chonquing might have 30 million people but it is about as provincial as a city could be. Very few international flights and few foreigners.
> 
> A city like Geneva is highly international despite having a very small population.
> 
> ...


Even if there is a significant number of Mexican immigrants doing blue collared jobs in The United States does not mean Mexico is a poor country which in reality has an *advanced developing economy* similar to countries such as Malaysia, Brazil or Argentina.

On the other hand while there are a significant number of Mexicans crossing illegally to the United States, its capital Mexico City is a hub for Latin America just like HK is for The Far East.


----------



## Pavlov's Dog (Aug 2, 2007)

I wasn't trying to say anything negative about Mexicans or positive about Indians. It was the type of work being done which I felt was to be weighted, not the origin of the workers. 

Here in Norway we have Swedish immigrants along with Poles, Dutch and Germans in entry level or unskilled jobs and a foreign visitor would not be able to distinguish them from Norwegians unless they were from one of those countries.

Mexico is a poor country though by any measure other than absolute GDP. Looking at the OECD metrics it ranks with Turkey at the very bottom of every developmental index. GDP per capita, human development, corruption, failed state, reporter freedom, political openness, pollution, income equality, etc. Like most any country with a 100+ million people it has a large upper and middle class enjoying a great lifestyle. Nine percent of those people born in Mexico are now residing in the US. That states volumes about Mexico's economic opportunity, wealth distribution and general dysfunctionality.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Pavlov's Dog said:


> I wasn't trying to say anything negative about Mexicans or positive about Indians. It was the type of work being done which I felt was to be weighted, not the origin of the workers.
> 
> Here in Norway we have Swedish immigrants along with Poles, Dutch and Germans in entry level or unskilled jobs and a foreign visitor would not be able to distinguish them from Norwegians unless they were from one of those countries.
> 
> Mexico is a poor country though by any measure other than absolute GDP. Looking at the OECD metrics it ranks with Turkey at the very bottom of every developmental index. GDP per capita, human development, corruption, failed state, reporter freedom, political openness, pollution, income equality, etc. Like most any country with a 100+ million people it has a large upper and middle class enjoying a great lifestyle. Nine percent of those people born in Mexico are now residing in the US. That states volumes about Mexico's economic opportunity, wealth distribution and general dysfunctionality.


Mexico is an *upper-middle income* country.


----------



## Im Using A Computer (Jun 24, 2011)

Manila-X said:


> Mexico is an *upper-middle income* country.


 i doubt you have ever even been to mexico. mexico is not upper middle income. it has a ways to go before it reaches that status.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Im Using A Computer said:


> i doubt you have ever even been to mexico. mexico is not upper middle income. it has a ways to go before it reaches that status.


Been there several times, not just The Baja.


----------



## schweitzerdude (Sep 1, 2010)

I disagree with the idea that a city can't be "international" if it is not in a super-large country. Consider Singapore:

As a nation, "meh"
As a city, certainly an "international city" by anyone's standard.


----------



## Nelju (May 23, 2011)

Mexico is an upper middle income country according to the World Bank.



> Income group: Economies are divided according to 2010 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: low income, $1,005 or less; lower middle income, $1,006 - $3,975; upper middle income, $3,976 - $12,275; and high income, $12,276 or more.


http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications
http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD

Regarding this topic I think foreign population and diversity have to be considered. The biggest canadian cities (Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver) are very international if measured using those variables.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

schweitzerdude said:


> I disagree with the idea that a city can't be "international" if it is not in a super-large country. Consider Singapore:
> 
> As a nation, "meh"
> As a city, certainly an "international city" by anyone's standard.


Singapore is incredibly international. It's one of the most important cities in Asia-Pacific, and a crucial logistics hub. Changi Airport plays a huge roll in region, as does Singapore's port. It's the Asian base for many huge international organisations, and it's full of expat workers (and many Australians on shopping holidays...)


----------



## Bricken Ridge (Feb 16, 2008)

schweitzerdude said:


> As a nation, "meh"



:lol:. you must be referring to its puny geographic boundaries.


----------



## Mr Bricks (May 6, 2005)

harrypowell said:


> Is Dublin an 'alpha' city ? :uh:


Yeah according to wikipedia it is. The list is flawed anyway so who really cares. For example Milan and Sydney are Alpha+ cities up there with Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong. Caracas, Dublin, Warsaw and Stockholm are Alpha- cities i.e. on the same level as Frankfurt and Los Angeles. :nuts:


----------



## Concrete Stereo (May 21, 2005)

If it's about naming buildings as 'international commerce centres', it's just about marketing, really. One can call a building whatever one wants.

There's a World Trade Centre in Eindhoven (a bit more than 200.000 inhabitants)


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Mr Bricks said:


> Yeah according to wikipedia it is. The list is flawed anyway so who really cares. For example Milan and Sydney are Alpha+ cities up there with Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong. Caracas, Dublin, Warsaw and Stockholm are Alpha- cities i.e. on the same level as Frankfurt and Los Angeles. :nuts:


Ok and why is that a flaw? Please explain.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Mr Bricks said:


> Yeah according to wikipedia it is. The list is flawed anyway so who really cares. For example Milan and Sydney are Alpha+ cities up there with Paris, Tokyo and Hong Kong. Caracas, Dublin, Warsaw and Stockholm are Alpha- cities i.e. on the same level as Frankfurt and Los Angeles. :nuts:


Sydney is one of Asia's largest stock exchanges, and the financial capital of the world's 13th largest economy...


----------



## Martin S (Sep 12, 2002)

In the case of airports, certainly in the UK, only the smaller ones tend to call themselves 'international'. Nobody talks about Heathrow International Airport but there is a Norwich International Airport - probably because it is always assumed that airports are international. Here in Liverpool our airport used to call itself Liverpool International Airport but when we started getting a large number of international flights that was dropped.


----------



## goschio (Dec 2, 2002)

Dahlis said:


> Ok and why is that a flaw? Please explain.


Dublin? seriously. LOL


----------



## Isek (Feb 13, 2005)

city_thing said:


> Sydney is one of Asia's largest stock exchanges, and the financial capital of the world's 13th largest economy...


With this argument Frankfurt should be at least upon Sydney! :nuts: 
For me neither Frankfurt nor Sydney would qualify for any upper places in world city rankings. 

I really give a damn about that world city ratings. They lack on unified data and the ratings that exist are far away from what i would suggest.. :lol:


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

city_thing said:


> Sydney is one of Asia's largest stock exchanges, and the financial capital of the world's 13th largest economy...


I don't even consider Sydney an Asian city. It is more *Oceanic* and to me is one of the most important cities in Oceania along with Melbourne and Auckland.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

As with my city Metro Manila, it may not be as powerful as HK, Tokyo or Singapore but it is a major global city in Asia.

And I'm still proud our city. It also serves a hub not just in The Philippines but also the nearby Micronesian territories and Palau. 

The fact I do have clients coming in from Guam and Saipan, they come to Manila for services and needs that they could not find in their area.


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

Dahlis said:


> Ok and why is that a flaw? Please explain.


How is it not a flaw that Caracas is on the same level as Los Angeles? I don't know, use your common sense :bash:

And if that doesn't work:
Caracas is the capital of a lower middle-income, oil rich nation with a stagnant economy. It has around 4.5 million people. Respectable

Los Angeles is the second biggest city in the world's only superpower. It has 18 million people!! Its metro area has a GDP over 1 trillion. That's more than three times Venezuela's. It's arguably one of the world's most important social and cultural centers, home to Hollywood "the Entertainment Capitol of the World" as well as major media, cultural, social, and entertainment firms. It's also a the global epicenter of pornographic productions, which is a multi billion dollar industry. Not to mention that it is having a larger and larger role in the United States as Chinese trade with the US picks up and Los Angeles handles a lot (if not most) of that. Add in the fact that Los Angeles is a diverse, multicultural city that's arguably one of the most important Latin American cities (culturally, not geographically. Other forumers don't use this as a red herring to debate whether LA is in Latin America). 

So to put it brief Caracas is nowhere close to Los Angeles. I consider that a flaw. That casts doubt as to the validity of the entire rankings.

Other evidence that suggests the rankings as flawed:
Budapest is equal to Los Angeles. Not true.
Auckland is equal to Los Angeles. Not true.
Kuala Lumpur > Rome, Los Angeles, Mexico City. Not true
Bangalore is equal to Berlin. Not true.
Luxembourg City > Rio De Janeiro, Houston, Miami. Not true

That's why I can safely say that these rankings are flawed.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

This is becoming *city vs. city*.

But to me, this is more a productive discussion than city bashing.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Manitopiaaa said:


> How is it not a flaw that Caracas is on the same level as Los Angeles? I don't know, use your common sense :bash:
> 
> And if that doesn't work:
> Caracas is the capital of a lower middle-income, oil rich nation with a stagnant economy. It has around 4.5 million people. Respectable
> ...


I agree with LA's status to the world and it is indeed an important city not just to The United States but to the world. 

And this is not just movies but other industries especially in the *manufacturing sector*.

But as for Latin America culturally, *Miami* is also important.


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

Manila-X said:


> I agree with LA's status to the world and it is indeed an important city not just to The United States but to the world.
> 
> And this is not just movies but other industries especially in the *manufacturing sector*.
> 
> But as for Latin America culturally, *Miami* is also important.


I agree 100%. Miami is an important Latin American center, especially for Cubans and other Caribbean people. Los Angeles is an important Latin American center, especially for Mexicans and arguably Central Americans. Miami, to me, has far more importance in the global arena than Caracas, once again alluding to the fact that the rankings are flawed. No offense against Caracas (it's a beautiful city with beautiful women and an important geopolitical role due to its oil) and this isn't supposed to be a city vs. city thing but you can't ignore the fact that these rankings make no sense. :cheers: 

And i also think that Paris and Tokyo should be elevated to the status of London and New York. Paris has everything London has except maybe as strong a financial role, but it surely makes up ground with its cultural role. Not to mention France and the United Kingdom are both roughly equal in importance. Tokyo is the most populous city in the world, with the highest GDP, and the primate city of the world's third largest economy. It may not have the demographic internationalism of London or New York, but Tokyo's innovations and technology have been dispersed all throughout the world. Video Games, Cellphones, Cameras, etc,etc. Tokyo is an alpha ++ city in my view. 

Either way, great thread and hope I didn't city vs. city anything, especially as I'm not biased towards any world city except Panama City (which is rightly a gamma world city) and Tulsa (which is not a global city but arguably an America mini-regional center)


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Manitopiaaa said:


> I agree 100%. Miami is an important Latin American center, especially for Cubans and other Caribbean people. Los Angeles is an important Latin American center, especially for Mexicans and arguably Central Americans. Miami, to me, has far more importance in the global arena than Caracas, once again alluding to the fact that the rankings are flawed. No offense against Caracas (it's a beautiful city with beautiful women and an important geopolitical role due to its oil) and this isn't supposed to be a city vs. city thing but you can't ignore the fact that these rankings make no sense. :cheers:
> 
> And i also think that Paris and Tokyo should be elevated to the status of London and New York. Paris has everything London has except maybe as strong a financial role, but it surely makes up ground with its cultural role. Not to mention France and the United Kingdom are both roughly equal in importance. Tokyo is the most populous city in the world, with the highest GDP, and the primate city of the world's third largest economy. It may not have the demographic internationalism of London or New York, but Tokyo's innovations and technology have been dispersed all throughout the world. Video Games, Cellphones, Cameras, etc,etc. Tokyo is an alpha ++ city in my view.
> 
> Either way, great thread and hope I didn't city vs. city anything, especially as I'm not biased towards any world city except Panama City (which is rightly a gamma world city) and Tulsa (which is not a global city but arguably an America mini-regional center)


It is a productive conversation.

Anyway, most Asian cities are different unlike western cities when it comes to demographics. 

It is not like American, Oceanic or European cities where you have people coming in from different parts of the world immigrating. 

Of course there are those coming in from different parts of Asia moving to some of the more dynamic cities like HK and getting permanent residency. Also expatriates coming in from the western world working there.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

azn_man12345 said:


> For example, what gives the building in Hong Kong the right to be called "International Commerce Center" while the proposed tower in Philadelphia can only be called "American Commerce Center"? Why not "Hong Kong Commerce Center" or "China Commerce Center"? Is it HK's overall contribution to the world that allows the tower to be *I*CC as opposed to HKCC or CCC?
> 
> And what about the Business Center in Moscow? Why is it the "International Business Center"? Why not "Moscow Business Center" or just "Business Center"?
> 
> What makes the city big enough or important enough for it to be able to name it's buildings and districts "International"? Food for thought. :cheers:


Well, both IFC and ICC cater for international firms, especially banks. It's like the "World Trade Center" brand worldwide.

"International" is not so much based on population or demographics, but more on institutions and economy. Geneva is a small place, but it is indeed very international due to the UN and NGO presence.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Manitopiaaa said:


> How is it not a flaw that Caracas is on the same level as Los Angeles? I don't know, use your common sense :bash:
> 
> And if that doesn't work:
> Caracas is the capital of a lower middle-income, oil rich nation with a stagnant economy. It has around 4.5 million people. Respectable
> ...


There is no reason to be rude, I just wanted him to back his statement with facts and an opinion why. Maybe LA would be ranked higher if it was a better orgized city and not just one big suburb without a proper transport system.


----------



## Manitopiaaa (Mar 6, 2006)

Dahlis said:


> There is no reason to be rude, I just wanted him to back his statement with facts and an opinion why. Maybe LA would be ranked higher if it was a better orgized city and not just one big suburb without a proper transport system.


Los Angeles would be ranked higher if these rankings were valid. Are you claiming that transportation infrastructure and urban planning are legitimate criteria to define a global city? And if so, do you think Caracas has equal infrastructure and urban planning as Los Angeles. Los Angeles may be 9 million cookie-cutter style houses and 12 lane highways but that should have no bearing on its importance on a global scale. And if it is, Caracas cannot even match the infrastructure of Los Angeles. And as urban planning is concerned, illegal slums are all the norm in the outskirts of Caracas where people unfortunately live in absolute poverty. That's the fact. There is no reasonable way these two, or many other rankings for that matter, make sense.

And I apologize if I came off as rude. Your comment came off as condescending and cocky at first and I was a bit peeved. Sorry for that.


----------



## Dahlis (Aug 29, 2008)

Manitopiaaa said:


> Los Angeles would be ranked higher if these rankings were valid. Are you claiming that transportation infrastructure and urban planning are legitimate criteria to define a global city? And if so, do you think Caracas has equal infrastructure and urban planning as Los Angeles. Los Angeles may be 9 million cookie-cutter style houses and 12 lane highways but that should have no bearing on its importance on a global scale. And if it is, Caracas cannot even match the infrastructure of Los Angeles. And as urban planning is concerned, illegal slums are all the norm in the outskirts of Caracas where people unfortunately live in absolute poverty. That's the fact. There is no reasonable way these two, or many other rankings for that matter, make sense.
> 
> And I apologize if I came off as rude. Your comment came off as condescending and cocky at first and I was a bit peeved. Sorry for that.


Im not arguing in favour of caracas since i know virtually nothing about the city. The rankings are mostly about economy and infrastructure is an important part in having a good economy.


----------



## vladanng (Aug 2, 2009)

city doesnt need to be big to be important, here in Europe Zurich, Frankfurt, and some others, are not so big cities, they are smaller than my capital Belgrade but far more important for global economy, aviation hubs, in fact they are global cities, thats the fact, but ofcourse if u have some 20 milion metropolis like SP, Manila, Jakarta, Mexico city etc, they are also very important, althought not developed as some cities in Europe.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Dahlis said:


> There is no reason to be rude, I just wanted him to back his statement with facts and an opinion why. Maybe LA would be ranked higher if it was a better orgized city and not just one big suburb without a proper transport system.


Most US cities are in a similar style as LA where it is car-centric with a vibrant downtown and large suburbs.

Houston, Dallas, etc. are similar to LA in fact LA has a better public transportation system than the two.


----------



## Saigoneseguy (Mar 6, 2005)

Siem Reap is very international, compared to huge cities in China for example.


----------



## NorthWesternGuy (Aug 25, 2005)

Moncaltor said:


> Mexico is an upper middle income country according to the World Bank.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, Poland and the US are in the same category. These classifications don't say anything relevant.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

Saigoneseguy said:


> Siem Reap is very international, compared to huge cities in China for example.


For tourism, yes. But if we are talking about the global economy, it is not even a player.

Without The Angkor Wat, Siem Reap would not be that known.

True though compared to most Chinese cities other than Shanghai, Beijing or Guangzhou


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

I have seen that even Luxemburg should be an international city!

Of course you can't compare a huge city like London or NY to a 40x smaller one. The life and traffic in both cities will be completely different. It only shows the importance it plays in global markets or global politics (if we only take in consideration these 2 thinks).

So it just depends which criteria we set: culture, finance, politics etc.

I think that the population of a city itself is less a factor in such kinds of considerations.

Thats why some "little" cities have a huge importance worldwide and why some bigger cities aren't even known by name because they don't play a role in the globalisation.

F.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Luxembourg's financial management industry probably caters to a very globalized clientele.


----------



## Chrissib (Feb 9, 2008)

vladanng said:


> city doesnt need to be big to be important, here in Europe Zurich, Frankfurt, and some others, are not so big cities, they are smaller than my capital Belgrade but far more important for global economy, aviation hubs, in fact they are global cities, thats the fact, but ofcourse if u have some 20 milion metropolis like SP, Manila, Jakarta, Mexico city etc, they are also very important, althought not developed as some cities in Europe.


Don't call Frankfurt small.

Frankfurt has a GDP of roughly 200 billion $ in it's metropolitan area. So Frankfurt equals a country like Pakistan, Chile or the Philippines.


----------



## Metro007 (Apr 18, 2011)

Chrissib said:


> Don't call Frankfurt small.
> 
> Frankfurt has a GDP of roughly 200 billion $ in it's metropolitan area. So Frankfurt equals a country like Pakistan, Chile or the Philippines.


That's exactly what this thread is about: smaller cities like Frankfurt can have much more importance than other bigger cities. And Frankfurt IS a global city.


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

I don't see why the level of mulitculturalism and number of foreigners would make some city more internationally important than some ethnically homogenous city. Multiculturalism sucks anyway as it turns a city into just another dull globalized place without any originality or identity.


----------



## SO143 (Feb 11, 2011)

BE0GRAD said:


> I don't see why the level of mulitculturalism and number of foreigners would make some city more internationally important than some ethnically homogenous city. Multiculturalism sucks anyway as it turns a city into just another dull globalized place without any originality or identity.


hno:


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Leaving aside the rather unsubtle xenophobia, BE0 raises an interesting point.

So then, is an international city one that has lots of emails going back and forth to other countries, regardless of how homogeneous the people sending them are? Or is it one that has lots of non-natives living there or visiting there? Or something different, such as a culture influenced by non-local ideas and trends? I guess one advantage of vagueness is that people can adjust the standards to make their cities qualify.


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

Well I think we made clear that by "international" we mean the importance of the city on the global level. In that way a city which is a major scientific, educational, cultural, transportation or economic hub in the world can be called international because it is of great importance and has conciderable influence not only in its country but also other countries. I really don't see why multiculturalism would in any way increase global influence of the city. I mean ,the very fact that a coutry has to import people means something's wrong with it as it obviously isn't capable of finding adecuate people from its own population. In other words international city isn't the same as a globalized city. 

Per example, a city can be a global cultural center, but it doesn't mean its culture has to be a globalized one. A city can reinvent and rebrand local culture and present it to the rest of the world in a way it becomes accepted. So the city is international because it exports its culture to the rest of the world but not globalized, as it preserved its originality.


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

BE0GRAD said:


> Well I think we made clear that by "international" we mean the importance of the city on the global level. In that way a city which is a major scientific, educational, cultural, transportation or economic hub in the world can be called international because it is of great importance and has conciderable influence not only in its country but also other countries. I really don't see why multiculturalism would in any way increase global influence of the city. I mean ,the very fact that a coutry has to import people means something's wrong with it as it obviously isn't capable of finding adecuate people from its own population. In other words international city isn't the same as a globalized city.
> 
> Per example, a city can be a global cultural center, but it doesn't mean its culture has to be a globalized one. A city can reinvent and rebrand local culture and present it to the rest of the world in a way it becomes accepted. So the city is international because it exports its culture to the rest of the world but not globalized, as it preserved its originality.


But it's just merely a fact of life that world class cities will attract people from all over the world who will influence the city's identity and form a new culture which is different from that of the surrounding hinterland. In the Middle Ages around 10% of London's population was not English. Even ancient Rome was home to people from all over the (known) world. So it's nothing new for people to move around and influence other cities and their societies.


----------



## pesto (Jun 29, 2009)

Sort of like West Berlin needing to import people from East Germany or LA needing to import people from Mexico? Actually, the people risk dying just to get there; you couldn't keep them out. 

As urbanfan says, it seems odd that a city could be so important in the world and not attract those looking for challenges and wealth (or just a job). Every city with international influence from Byzantium to Houston has done so, as far as I know. But I suppose there could be exceptions. 

Even Frankfurt's defenders are quick to point out that different languages are heard on the street and that some significant percentage are foreign born (or have foreign born parents). So it seems that most people do believe diversity is part of the equation. But, there's not "rule" here, just observations.


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

Foreigner coming to an international city as a tourist, seasonal worker or for doing buisenes is different than actually being the citizen there. The former is quite natural and acceptable but having citizenship means that this foreigner has the possibillity to globalize the city and that should be avoided. We should make a clear distinction of what kind of immigrants we want and how to treat them. First of all, before we accept any immigrant, we should make sure all options for employing a native instead of foreigner are exausted. Only then we should fill the lack of workforse with immigrants. Also the treatment of a manual worker and a software engineer cannot be the same. I don't see the need to give citizenship to the former per example.

In any case, most of those people coming to the city would be temporary rezidents and don't in any way make the international city globalized. As for permanent immigrants, with adecuate educational and demographic policy, their number could be braught to a minimum and if they are not only integrated but assimilated, the identity and originality of the city remains intact.


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

BE0GRAD said:


> Foreigner coming to an international city as a tourist, seasonal worker or for doing buisenes is different than actually being the citizen there. The former is quite natural and acceptable but having citizenship means that this foreigner has the possibillity to globalize the city and that should be avoided. We should make a clear distinction of what kind of immigrants we want and how to treat them. First of all, before we accept any immigrant, we should make sure all options for employing a native instead of foreigner are exausted. Only then we should fill the lack of workforse with immigrants. Also the treatment of a manual worker and a software engineer cannot be the same. I don't see the need to give citizenship to the former per example.
> 
> In any case, most of those people coming to the city would be temporary rezidents and don't in any way make the international city globalized. As for permanent immigrants, with adecuate educational and demographic policy, their number could be braught to a minimum and if they are not only integrated but assimilated, the identity and originality of the city remains intact.


Why is this a problem? The very identity of a world class city is one of its people. No one can imagine New York without Chinatown, Little Italy, the Jews or Queens or Bronx, or the Russians in Brighton Beach. The same is true for every other world class city in the world, and even if there is little immigration the cultural influences from the outside will still change the city's identity. Tokyo feels vastly different from the Japanese hinterland even though Japan isn't known for lax immigration. Even Soviet-era Moscow (not exactly a free and tolerant place) was home to people from all over the Caucasus and Central Asia.

Point is, if a city is globalised (either by immigration or cultural influences) then it's proof of vitality and action. A city which doesn't have those traits is stagnant or dying. As was explained before this has been true for thousands of years.


----------



## tigerboy (Jun 7, 2006)

Interesting discussion. International does not mean big.

Luxembourg's financial position and "crosssroads" positioning makes it an international city.

Cambridge is a pleasant English town but its world class university makes it an international city.

Full service alpha cities like London or Paris are clearly international but the likes of Cambridge and luxembourg occupy niches that render then unarguably international.


----------



## Substructure (Sep 10, 2004)

It's not a matter of size but economics. Geneva is a very small city yet is international. Kinshasa is not despite its sheer size.


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

urbanfan89 said:


> Why is this a problem? The very identity of a world class city is one of its people. No one can imagine New York without Chinatown, Little Italy, the Jews or Queens or Bronx, or the Russians in Brighton Beach. The same is true for every other world class city in the world, and even if there is little immigration the cultural influences from the outside will still change the city's identity. Tokyo feels vastly different from the Japanese hinterland even though Japan isn't known for lax immigration. Even Soviet-era Moscow (not exactly a free and tolerant place) was home to people from all over the Caucasus and Central Asia.
> 
> Point is, if a city is globalised (either by immigration or cultural influences) then it's proof of vitality and action. A city which doesn't have those traits is stagnant or dying. As was explained before this has been true for thousands of years.


You are confusing two very different things: evolution of an identity and a replacement of one identity by another. Evolution or natural development of an identity has as a consequence an "upgraded" version of the previous version of the same identity preserving its originality. That's not the case of globalized cities. Chinatown in New York is not part of New York's identity but a Chinese identity in New York. Therefore what you are calling "New York's identity" is just a mix of foreign identities and not something unique for New York. New York doesn't have anything original. It is just a mixture of original things which it COPIED from foreign cultures. That is the case for ALL globalized cities ... they tend to be the same mixture of COPIED foreign cultures. 

Tokyo ,as far as I know, cannot be called globalized because it does have a unique character of its own which is mostly a product of the evolution of native Japanese culture and not a product of COPYING from others. But still it is an international player just like New York. Therefore, globalization and multiculturalism contribute in no way in making a city international ... which is quite logical. If Belgrade simply imported 100 000 Afghan shepherds would it become globally more important? Of course not.


----------



## Dimethyltryptamine (Aug 22, 2009)

Chrissib said:


> Then, according to your definition, Melbourne and Sydney are small towns? :lol:


To be fair, 'City of Sydney' and 'City of Melbourne' generally refers to the CBD.

See, city of London - 

*Population*
Total : 11,500
*Area*
Total : 1.1 sq mi (2.90 km2)

We usually measure by metropolitan area though, as it's that which has influence over the city.

Sydney - 

*Population*
Total : 4,600,000
*Area*
Total : 12,144.6 km² (4,689.1 sq mi)


Melbourne - 

*Population*
Total : 4,100,000
*Area*
Total : 8,806 km² (3,400.0 sq mi)


----------



## urbanfan89 (May 30, 2007)

BE0GRAD said:


> You are confusing two very different things: evolution of an identity and a replacement of one identity by another. Evolution or natural development of an identity has as a consequence an "upgraded" version of the previous version of the same identity preserving its originality. That's not the case of globalized cities. Chinatown in New York is not part of New York's identity but a Chinese identity in New York. Therefore what you are calling "New York's identity" is just a mix of foreign identities and not something unique for New York. New York doesn't have anything original. It is just a mixture of original things which it COPIED from foreign cultures. That is the case for ALL globalized cities ... they tend to be the same mixture of COPIED foreign cultures.


That NYC contains communities from all over the world doesn't "replace" anything. It's part of the city's identity itself that it contains a diverse population. It defines New York as much as Broadway and yellow cabs. Were the Irish and Italian communities in New York a hundred years ago "replacing" anything, or were they re-defining the identity of the city? And besides, there are plenty of things which can only be associated with NYC: Wall Street, Central Park, the NYC accent, the rudeness in the people, and even the existence of the communities. Again, even ancient Rome and Constantinople were famous for their diverse populations.

Finally, all cultures in history (except isolated Amazonian and Andaman Island tribes) have copied from others to various extents. Are you telling me that your own culture (Serb, presumably) hasn't copied from Greek, Russian, Roman, Turkish, German, etc?



> Tokyo ,as far as I know, cannot be called globalized because it does have a unique character of its own which is mostly a product of the evolution of native Japanese culture and not a product of COPYING from others. But still it is an international player just like New York. Therefore, globalization and multiculturalism contribute in no way in making a city international ... which is quite logical. If Belgrade simply imported 100 000 Afghan shepherds would it become globally more important? Of course not.


Tokyo is not globalised? Under what definition is that true? :lol: By all accounts the entire Japanese society was *very* strongly influenced by the US after the defeat in 1945, so much so that elder Japanese now have trouble understanding their grandchildren who speak a very different vocabulary. And let's not forget that in the 60s and 70s it was joked that the Japanese were only good at making cheap copies of western technology; without this process Tokyo would not be a hub of technology today.

Finally, if Belgrade merely imported Afghan shepherds it would not immediately make it more important, since they cannot create connections. Yet if Belgrade became home to 100000 Jewish merchants, British bankers, Russian oligarchs, German businessmen, Chinese entrepreneurs, etc, all of whom saw Belgrade as their (at least second) home, then for sure the city will be more influential. Of course Belgrade cannot hope to be London or NYC, yet you could probably imagine Zurich (and no, don't tell me that Zurich and Switzerland have no identity of their own). So it's more important whether the people who move to the city have connections to bring.


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

BE0GRAD said:


> I don't see why the level of mulitculturalism and number of foreigners would make some city more internationally important than some ethnically homogenous city. Multiculturalism sucks anyway as it turns a city into just another dull globalized place without any originality or identity.


 :nuts: Are you serious? Ethnically homogenous is insular and boring. The world's great cities today and historically are and have always been multicultural. From ancient Athens, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Toledo, Seville, Venice, Vienna, Odessa, London, Paris, NYC, Chicago, New Orleans, Montreal, Toronto, Beunos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town, Sydney, Melbourne, Honk Kong, Singapore, Shanghai etc etc etc. 

Ethnically homogenous has always indicated a dull, less-interesting city and usually a sign of its poorer financial state and cultural importance. Multiculturalism brings ideas from all the different people that come there and then we take the good ideas and provide them for the betterment of all its citizens, and in the process the city evolves and progresses, yet still maintains its own identity. Provincial homogenous nationalism is for backwards, jingoistic societies, who on most accounts in this world are dull, boring places.


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

To answer the thread's question, a city doesn't need to be big at all to be international. It depends on its participation in economic, social and cultural exchanges with other places, as well as its outlook and lifestyles. Smaller cities, such as Geneva and Gibraltor come to mind.


----------



## Manila-X (Jul 28, 2005)

skymantle said:


> :nuts: Are you serious? Ethnically homogenous is insular and boring. The world's great cities today and historically are and have always been multicultural. From ancient Athens, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Toledo, Seville, Venice, Vienna, Odessa, London, Paris, NYC, Chicago, New Orleans, Montreal, Toronto, Beunos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town, Sydney, Melbourne, Honk Kong, Singapore, Shanghai etc etc etc.
> 
> Ethnically homogenous has always indicated a dull, less-interesting city and usually a sign of its poorer financial state and cultural importance. Multiculturalism brings ideas from all the different people that come there and then we take the good ideas and provide them for the betterment of all its citizens, and in the process the city evolves and progresses, yet still maintains its own identity. Provincial homogenous nationalism is for backwards, jingoistic societies, who on most accounts in this world are dull, boring places.


Not all, cities such as Tokyo and Seoul are economically and culturally powerful but is less diverse compared to other global cities.

Shanghai is not that diverse and if it is, the city's diversity is within The Chinese population.


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

Manila-X said:


> Not all, cities such as Tokyo and Seoul are economically and culturally powerful but is less diverse compared to other global cities.


 Less diverse perhaps, but still diverse, especially Tokyo. If you know Tokyo, you'll know that today and for the last generation or so, it's full of foreign workers making it noticably multicultural, Asian especially, but also European (usually more white collar in employment). The district of Roponggi is famous for its diversity. Historically, the port of Yokohama in Japan has been diverse and today it remains a very outwardly looking, interesting city. You'll be amazed of the old European area there if you visit, full of beautiful old European homes. Seoul is relatively international for the region, not like Tokyo of course, and I wouldn't say it's a global cultural powerhouse compared to other big, capital cities, probably because of its isolated position and lack of cosmopolitanism. 



Manila-X said:


> Shanghai is not that diverse and if it is, the city's diversity is within The Chinese population.


 Shanghai is historically diverse. You just have to visit [URL="http://www.anniebees.com/China/China_27.htm"]the Bund[/URL] to confirm that. Maoist communism dealt a death knell to its cosmopolitanism, but now with China's openess and economic boom, it again is returning to its once famed cosmopolitan character. 



> Old Shanghai was a very special time and place. The city was run by foreigners but was not a colony, most residents were Chinese but it was not ruled by China. It was the greatest city of Asia, completely eclipsing Hong Kong and Tokyo. It was one of the most cosmopolitan places that ever existed...
> 
> http://www.earnshaw.com/shanghai-ed-india/tales/t-intro.htm


----------



## Restless (Oct 31, 2009)

skymantle said:


> To answer the thread's question, a city doesn't need to be big at all to be international. It depends on its participation in economic, social and cultural exchanges with other places, as well as its outlook and lifestyles. Smaller cities, such as Geneva and Gibraltor come to mind.


Geneva yes, Gibratar no.

I doubt 30000 people in Gibraltar could sustain 100 restaurants that each specialise in a different cuisine. Or 50 types of weekly dance classes, or 50 ethnic festivals, etc etc

You do need scale for international exchanges as well eg. where can you fly to from Gibraltar?


----------



## skymantle (Jul 17, 2010)

^^ :nono: 

For its small size, Gibraltar is indeed cosmopolitan, which goes to show you don't need to be big to be international. Anyone whose been there can vouch for that. 



> *Lifestyle & Culture
> *Native Gibraltarians may look Mediterranean and most speak Spanish, albeit in a distinct and heavily accented form, but they are proud of their British heritage, often seeing themselves as 'more British than the British themselves'. Even now the only destinations served from Gibraltar's tiny airport are in the UK.
> 
> *They are not, as is often believed, mainly British expatriates, but a mix of all the different people who have settled here over the centuries. This is clear from the variety of surnames you will hear - British, Spanish, Portuguese, Genoese, Maltese and Jewish.*
> ...


 :cheers:


----------



## BE0GRAD (May 29, 2010)

urbanfan89 said:


> That NYC contains communities from all over the world doesn't "replace" anything. It's part of the city's identity itself that it contains a diverse population. It defines New York as much as Broadway and yellow cabs. Were the Irish and Italian communities in New York a hundred years ago "replacing" anything, or were they re-defining the identity of the city? And besides, there are plenty of things which can only be associated with NYC: Wall Street, Central Park, the NYC accent, the rudeness in the people, and even the existence of the communities. Again, even ancient Rome and Constantinople were famous for their diverse populations.
> 
> Finally, all cultures in history (except isolated Amazonian and Andaman Island tribes) have copied from others to various extents. Are you telling me that your own culture (Serb, presumably) hasn't copied from Greek, Russian, Roman, Turkish, German, etc?


First of all, every intercultural mixing is a destructive process as in the beginning we have two or more cultures and in the end just one that is the product of their mixing. Secondly, today's process of globalization is quite different than previous mixing events as before we had only occasional and limited mixing with long inter-periods when new cultures rose from the ashes of the old ones. Right after the settlement of Slavs in Eastern Roman Empire culture in Serbia was just a mix of ancient Slavic and Byzantine culture but after centuries of relative lack of mixing new culture was created. That's not the case with today's globalization as it is not a local and casual event but a continuous process where every culture spreads everywhere on Earth creating thus a giant mix of cultures and precisely because it is a continuous process there is no period where new cultures could form. Instead , we have only the destruction of cultures. 



urbanfan89 said:


> Tokyo is not globalised? Under what definition is that true? :lol: By all accounts the entire Japanese society was *very* strongly influenced by the US after the defeat in 1945, so much so that elder Japanese now have trouble understanding their grandchildren who speak a very different vocabulary. And let's not forget that in the 60s and 70s it was joked that the Japanese were only good at making cheap copies of western technology; without this process Tokyo would not be a hub of technology today.


Tokyo is pretty much a mono ethnic city and is very different from globalized cities like New York or London which are almost the same in everything. Of course , there are foreign influences but they remain however marginal in comparison with local culture and it's derivatives. The lack of multiculturalism doesn't seem to stop it from being an international city. 




urbanfan89 said:


> Finally, if Belgrade merely imported Afghan shepherds it would not immediately make it more important, since they cannot create connections. Yet if Belgrade became home to 100000 Jewish merchants, British bankers, Russian oligarchs, German businessmen, Chinese entrepreneurs, etc, all of whom saw Belgrade as their (at least second) home, then for sure the city will be more influential. Of course Belgrade cannot hope to be London or NYC, yet you could probably imagine Zurich (and no, don't tell me that Zurich and Switzerland have no identity of their own). So it's more important whether the people who move to the city have connections to bring.


You have just proved my point. If Belgrade wanted to become more important internationally it needs quality people and not the people of certain color, religion or nationality ... and quality people ,we can make them at home if having right policies. 



skymantle said:


> Are you serious? Ethnically homogenous is insular and boring. The world's great cities today and historically are and have always been multicultural. From ancient Athens, Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Toledo, Seville, Venice, Vienna, Odessa, London, Paris, NYC, Chicago, New Orleans, Montreal, Toronto, Beunos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, Cape Town, Sydney, Melbourne, Honk Kong, Singapore, Shanghai etc etc etc.
> 
> Ethnically homogenous has always indicated a dull, less-interesting city and usually a sign of its poorer financial state and cultural importance. Multiculturalism brings ideas from all the different people that come there and then we take the good ideas and provide them for the betterment of all its citizens, and in the process the city evolves and progresses, yet still maintains its own identity. Provincial homogenous nationalism is for backwards, jingoistic societies, who on most accounts in this world are dull, boring places.


You know what is really insular and boring? A completely globalized world! A world where every culture is in every city on Earth. A world where if someone living in New York , experiencing elements of Chinese, Indian, Mexican and all other cultures, went to Tokyo, Delhi or Tripoli and experienced exactly the same mix of Chinese, Indian, Mexican and all other world cultures ... in other word, a world where everywhere you have the same "diversity". But that's not the worst part of the scenario. When you mix black and white paint , at first you'll get many areas of white , black and shades of gray creating an illusion of diversity of colors , but after some time you'll have only one nuance of gray thus reducing the number of colors from two to one. That's what will happen with all those mixing cultures but unlike before when we had long inter-periods when new cultures differentiated them selves from the ashes of old cultures there will be no such period now and the world will become an uniform , dull place where everyone thinks and acts the same. 

If I get bored by original Serbian culture I can always go to the neighboring Hungary, Albania or Romania and experience their cultures, and if I want something completely different I can always go to Tokyo , China or Botswana. In a globalized world, all those places would be the same. 


*Conclusion:* If a city wants to become competitive and powerful enough to be internationally important (international city) it needs things like good governance , efficient organization, minimum corruption, developed infrastructure, educated and qualified people etc. All those things can and should be achieved without major immigration and by using mostly local resources. In other words , *multiculturalism is completely irrelevant for a city to become international. *


----------

