...but Glasgow 43rd!?

[Independent (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/article3276224.ece)]
London, capital of the world

A new study has found that the British capital outstrips 60 global rivals as an economic and cultural powerhouse

London London has topped the most exhaustive comparison ever compiled of the world's great cities in a finding that sees Britain's capital outstrip global rivals as a centre of economic performance and cultural significance.

Following months of research of population figures, financial markets, tourism trends, transport facilities and data relating to sports and arts events and transport, the study comes to a dramatic conclusion: London is the world's capital city.

The survey was carried out by The Independent and, for the first time, allows a direct comparison of global cities.

Around the world, civic competition is reaching new heights as cities strive to provide the finest creative, culinary and tourist experiences. This is creating powerhouses such as Delhi and Beijing.

Closer to home, Dublin, Edinburgh, and Glasgow are proving themselves to be dynamic Celtic conurbations. Yet it is London that rises above all other cities.

The measurable and objective data, which can all be found on The Independent's website at www.independent.co.uk/capitals, throws up some remarkable findings and reveals which urban rivals come out on top, which cities look set to climb rapidly up the rankings and which metropolises are seeing their grandeur and magnificence surpassed.

With one of the world's most ebullient stock exchanges, a bustling and economically attractive City, the highest number of Unesco World Heritage Sites in any city, and a truly international restaurant scene that typifies its cultural make-up with more ethnic restaurants than any other metropolis, London scores highly across the board.

Paris came third, winning the title of Continental Europe's capital thanks to its financial clout and busy international airports.

London achieved particularly strong ratings for its much-maligned underground Tube network (the world's first), its cultural credentials and for hosting the Olympic Games twice in a century (1908 and 1948).

The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said the research showed London's strength lay in its multicultural makeup: "London is establishing itself as the world's number one financial centre and greatest city in the world. Londoners are proud of our 'unity in diversity' and regard the multiculturalism of our city as one of its greatest strengths. With over 300 languages spoken here, London is literally the most international city in the world. Its financial sector, its creative industries and its tourism industry all rely, in different ways, on their relations with the rest of the world and, with the achievements of winning the Olympic Games and hosting major sporting events like the Tour de France, we have proved the success of becoming the city that embraces globalisation."

Laurent Feniou, 36, a banker who moved with his family to England in 1995 and has since set up the annual "Francais of the Year" to honour members of London's 300,000-strong French expat community, was not surprised that London had been voted ahead of Paris. "You never really feel like a foreigner in central London," he said. "Whether it's food, clothes or people, the diversity is just amazing. I think it's a very safe city – I drive to work with my scooter, something I would never do in Paris."

At the bottom of the table come Addis Ababa and Beirut. But there are surprises too. Among them is Mexico City at tenth place. At first glance Mexico's sprawling megacity might look like an unlikely contender. But with three Unesco World Heritage sites, an extensive underground rail network to rival most Western cities and one of the busiest airports in the region, Mexico's capital scores high enough in cultural and international significance to warrant being the city with the highest rank in the developing world.

Other cities that make the top 10 are those urban sprawls that regularly appear on the all-time desirable destinations lists. New York is narrowly pipped to the post by London by just two points, but the Big Apple does beat all its competitors in terms of flights, market capitalisation of its stock exchanges and as the location for the highest number of headquarters for global corporations. Paris, which lags a full 10 points behind London, is three places above Madrid (6th) and six ahead of Rome (9th). Despite being regarded as one of the cuisine capitals of the world, however, where the French capital fell down in particular was on diversity, boasting just 10 ethnic restaurants in the Paris Time Out City Guide.

Chicago, Washington, Los Angeles and San Francisco all made it into the top 15. Other cities to perform well in the survey included Tokyo, but Asian centres such as Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai are closing in. Delhi and Mumbai both came in way ahead of Russia's former capital St Petersburg, the laidback bliss of Melbourne and even the balmy Mediterranean delights of Israel's capital Tel Aviv. Dublin came in at 30, four places ahead of Edinburgh, while Glasgow was at 42.

For some reason the article doesn't tally with their published figures but interesting nonetheless. I'm not sure I support the legitimacy of this report but I'm amazed we made it on there... and surprised at who didn't!


World Capitals: How we did it (http://travel.independent.co.uk/news_and_advice/article3261398.ece)
league table of the top 60 cities (http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00261/League_table_of_the_261814a.xls)
the raw data we used for our study (http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00261/World_CapitalsRawDa_261813a.xls)

London
New York
Paris
Tokyo
Chicago
Madrid
Washington DC
Los Angeles
Rome
Mexico City
Barcelona
San Francisco
Berlin
Amsterdam
Beijing
Moscow
Toronto
Hong Kong
Seoul
Brussels
Shanghai
Singapore
Athens
Istanbul
Sydney
Copenhagen
Vancouver
Delhi
Buenos Aires
Sao Paulo
Mumbai
Munich
Rio de Janeiro
Cairo
Bangkok
Dublin
St Petersburg
Montreal
Frankfurt
Edinburgh
Melbourne
Dubai
Glasgow
Jo'burg
Caracas
Lima
Zurich
Kiev
Calcutta
Tel Aviv
Auckland
Havana
Lagos
Abu Dhabi
Casablanca
Colombo
Riyadh
Nairobi
Addis Ababa
Beirut

Wow. New York second :|

Now imagine if we had a sufficiently fast, and high enough capacity transport connection to effectively link Glasgow and Edinburgh together as a single entity...

Kiev?????????? WTF?

That would be quite a prospect Kentigern - on a par with Amsterdam and Beijing! If only! sigh.

The list is a ranking only of cities selected by the Independent, not of all cities in the world. Basically, if Manchester had been included in the shortlist of cities used it would have ranked higher than Glasgow.

To show that I'm not just making this up out of home town bias, based on the criteria used by the Independent Manchester scores higher than Glasgow on population, flights per week, ethnic restaurants and Google hits. It scores the same for Symphony Orchestras and for appearances in 48 hours. Glasgow scores higher for underground rail miles. I don't know how many Manchester guide books were on sale in Covent Garden but I'd imagine the figure would be pretty similar, in fact probably higher for Manchester as it has more tourism.

The list is a ranking only of cities selected by the Independent, not of all cities in the world. Basically, if Manchester had been included in the shortlist of cities used it would have ranked higher than Glasgow.

You're testing this Christmas spirt of goodwill, you know that don't you?

Edited to add, I'm not arguing, I'm not interested, I'm frankly I'm not playing this little game anymore.

You're testing this Christmas spirt of goodwill, you know that don't you?

I wouldn't have thought I was, I'm just showing that the list isn't a comprehensive one. Glasgow, Edinburgh and London were the only cities included in the calculations by the Independent. Follow the Independent's methodology through and you'll see that Manchester would have scored higher. That's not to say that I agree with their methodology, though, because I don't. Rounding the cube root of the number of million Google hits a city's name gets is hardly a good reflection.

I hear what you're saying, and I also think its a pretty inane list... but, why Glasgow?

Now imagine if we had a sufficiently fast, and high enough capacity transport connection to effectively link Glasgow and Edinburgh together as a single entity...

It's called Maglev!!
let's ditch the Forth crossing and use the £4bn plus on Maggie!:)

I hear what you're saying, and I also think its a pretty inane list... but, why Glasgow?

I think they just chose a city to give a decent reflection of where other British cities would rank in comparison to the world's cities. London and Edinburgh are exceptional cases as regards their ranking in comparison to their size.

if Manchester had been included in the shortlist of cities used it would have ranked higher than Glasgow.

Your little silly Manchester is not important enough to be included in such lists.

Your little silly Manchester is not important enough to be included in such lists.

As weren't Miami, Houston and many other important world cities it seems! Oh, and I forgot a small city that's home to UPS, Boeing, Amazon, Microsoft, RealNetworks, Nordstrom and Starbucks to name but a few. :)

The list is a ranking only of cities selected by the Independent, not of all cities in the world. Basically, if Manchester had been included in the shortlist of cities used it would have ranked higher than Glasgow.

To show that I'm not just making this up out of home town bias, based on the criteria used by the Independent Manchester scores higher than Glasgow on population, flights per week, ethnic restaurants and Google hits. It scores the same for Symphony Orchestras and for appearances in 48 hours. Glasgow scores higher for underground rail miles. I don't know how many Manchester guide books were on sale in Covent Garden but I'd imagine the figure would be pretty similar, in fact probably higher for Manchester as it has more tourism.

Not according to this from www.citypopulation.de where the report got its info. Thus,

Principal Cities
Name Adm. C UE-C 2005-06-30
1 London LON 7,517,700
2 Birmingham WML 994,900
3 Glasgow GLC 632,000
4 Liverpool MER 477,600
5 Leeds WYS 448,000
6 Sheffield SYS 446,300
7 Manchester MAN 442,800
8 Bristol BRI 440,100
9 Edinburgh CEB 438,900
10 Leicester LEI 340,100
11 Kingston upon Hull KUH 308,200
12 Coventry WML 306,900
13 Cardiff CAR 305,900
14 Bradford WYS 304,600


Table of Cities

Not according to this from www.citypopulation.de where the report got its info.

Yes, but you used the wrong figure. If you look at the spreadsheet of the statistics they used you will see they used the citypopulation.de agglomeration population for Glasgow, which is 1.52 million, giving Glasgow 1 point (1 for every 1 million inhabitants). The agglomeration figure for Manchester is 2.48 million, giving Manchester 2 points.

Source: http://www.citypopulation.de/World.html

The reason cited for the use of this figure is that it is more reflective than council boundaries, which I think we'll all accept is true.

In true SSC fashion, this has just turned into another one of those threads that inevitably winds up like this:

my cock is bigger than yours
no, my cock is bigger, I saw yours in the shower and it was tiny
no mine's bigger
of course it's bigger - you're using centimeters and I'm counting in inches
no, I'm using inches, and not even counting right to the tip
oh who cares, I'm getting a vacuum pump soon anyway
you realise that vacuum pumps disqualify you, right?
mine's still bigger

After consulting my screw gauge micrometer I can confirm poster 3's claim.

Notice that it wasn't someone from the Glasgow forum that started it.

Did anyone really think they had studied all major world cities and came up with this list? No. So why the need to pollute the thread?

Notice that it wasn't someone from the Glasgow forum that started it.

Did anyone really think they had studied all major world cities and came up with this list? No. So why the need to pollute the thread?

It would seem the original poster thought that, otherwise why would he ask about Glasgow being 43rd in the "capital of the world" rankings? Either that or his post was very badly worded.

For a start, do people really have to spell out something that is so obvious? It's a list without Milan, Boston, Dallas, Dusseldorf, Geneva and Jakarta, for a start. I believe there is also a thread called 'Doomsday' in the Glasgow subforum, did the poster confuse the set of a film for the end of the world?

And he clarified his position (I think unnecessarily, given what I said above) with the following;

I hear what you're saying, and I also think its a pretty inane list... but, why Glasgow?

For a start, do people really have to spell out something that is so obvious? It's a list without Milan, Boston, Dallas, Dusseldorf, Geneva and Jakarta, for a start. I believe there is also a thread called 'Doomsday' in the Glasgow subforum, did the poster confuse the set of a film for the end of the world?

The question "London capital of the world... but Glasgow 43rd?!" is most definitely an implication that the poster was under the impression that this was a "top 60". This is then further implied by the text "league table of the top 60 cities" further down the post, a statement which I cannot find on the Independent's website. I posted to question this assertion as it was quite obvious many cities were ignored. I cited three large US cities myself which would have ranked higher.

And he clarified his position (I think unnecessarily, given what I said above) with the following;

You obviously didn't read what was said too well then did you. It appeared that an assumption was made about what the data represented and I questioned that assumption by challenging it with facts related to the survey itself. Quite the sensible thing to do as far as I was concerned. It's amazing how ambiguous statements regarding statistics can quickly become "fact".

The question "London capital of the world... but Glasgow 43rd?!" is most definitely an implication that the poster was under the impression that this was a "top 60". This is then further implied by the text "league table of the top 60 cities" further down the post, a statement which I cannot find on the Independent's website.

The phrase 'league table of the top 60 cities' is a factual statement. They are indeed the top 60 cities of the Independent's survey. There is a conversational implicature in play that the phrase 'top 60' is relativized to the top 60 in the survey in question. You can safely state the top 60 and label them as such without giving wholehearted support to the methodology of the survey. Surely I don't have to qualify any reference I make to an ordinal list with an aside saying that I don't agree with it?

Whether or not the phrase was used by the Independent is irrelevant.

I posted to question this assertion as it was quite obvious many cities were ignored. I cited three large US cities myself which would have ranked higher.

Precisely; it is 'quite obvious' that many cities were ignored. If it is so obvious, you either suppose other people can't grasp the obvious, which is insulting and incorrect, or you feel the need to state the obvious, which is conversationally redundant.


You obviously didn't read what was said too well then did you. It appeared that an assumption was made about what the data represented and I questioned that assumption by challenging it with facts related to the survey itself. Quite the sensible thing to do as far as I was concerned. It's amazing how ambiguous statements regarding statistics can quickly become "fact".

At best, I can read the original post as being ambiguous between our respective readings, though I think this requires an unreasonable lack of charity on your part. As you say, that the survey is not "all inclusive" is relatively obvious, and it seems like when something is relatively obvious you should give the speaker the benefit of the doubt until they confirm they have missed what you take to be obvious.

However, while I think that is ample reason to sustain my assertion that you 'charged in', it really leaves the important question alone; why did you adopt a tone that your past experience tells you will result in the deviation of the thread from the topic, and raise the hackles of numerous participants in the thread? Was the confrontational (I take it as beyond question that it was confrontation dressed up as helpful factual comparison.) juxtaposition of Glasgow and Manchester the best way to inform a poster you believe to have made a mistake in assessing a newspaper survey of their error, or would it perhaps have been better to refrain from mentioning any one specific city from the same country as the city the poster is from, and instead gently point to a list of possible omissions, and suggest the survey was selective?

You can have the honour of the last word in this debate, as it will certainly not be fruitful to prolong it any further.

The phrase 'league table of the top 60 cities' is a factual statement. They are indeed the top 60 cities of the Independent's survey. There is a conversational implicature in play that the phrase 'top 60' is relativized to the top 60 in the survey in question. You can safely state the top 60 and label them as such without giving wholehearted support to the methodology of the survey. Surely I don't have to qualify any reference I make to an ordinal list with an aside saying that I don't agree with it?
Do you not find it at all misleading to claim the list as a "top 60" when in actual fact the statistics were only ever gathered for 60 cities? It is not a "top 60", it is a ranking of the 60 cities the report was done on.

Whether or not the phrase was used by the Independent is irrelevant.
It's completely relevant. The statement misrepresented the facts.

Precisely; it is 'quite obvious' that many cities were ignored. If it is so obvious, you either suppose other people can't grasp the obvious, which is insulting and incorrect, or you feel the need to state the obvious, which is conversationally redundant.
To some people it would be "quite obvious", but not to others. I have seen figures from this site copied straight into newspapers along with misleading statements that were made about them. Statements like this need clarifying for people who do not know much about the subject matter at hand in order to ensure there is no misrepresentation. If, for example, this survey had included Manchester I have no doubt that the MEN reporters would have come across it on here, as they seem to have a habit of doing, and simply copy the misleading statements we make into their article. If journalists can make these simple mistakes I'm quite sure many other readers of this site do the exact same thing.

At best, I can read the original post as being ambiguous between our respective readings, though I think this requires an unreasonable lack of charity on your part. As you say, that the survey is not "all inclusive" is relatively obvious, and it seems like when something is relatively obvious you should give the speaker the benefit of the doubt until they confirm they have missed what you take to be obvious.

However, while I think that is ample reason to sustain my assertion that you 'charged in', it really leaves the important question alone; why did you adopt a tone that your past experience tells you will result in the deviation of the thread from the topic, and raise the hackles of numerous participants in the thread? Was the confrontational (I take it as beyond question that it was confrontation dressed up as helpful factual comparison.) juxtaposition of Glasgow and Manchester the best way to inform a poster you believe to have made a mistake in assessing a newspaper survey of their error, or would it perhaps have been better to refrain from mentioning any one specific city from the same country as the city the poster is from, and instead gently point to a list of possible omissions, and suggest the survey was selective?

You can have the honour of the last word in this debate, as it will certainly not be fruitful to prolong it any further.
How was I being confrontational? Yes, I stated that Manchester would have ranked higher according to the criteria used here. I also, however, clarified that I did not in any way agree with those criteria and went on to state specific flaws I saw in them. It seems that crusty_bint agreed with both my points about the arbitrary selection of cities and the unusual methodology used to rank them. Unfortunately, however, you don't seem to have taken the comments as they were intended.

Manchester would probably rank higher than Tokyo if the criteria used for ranking was the number of red brick mills. This would not, however, make it a better city.

Irwell, you're a bit touchy. If you were to ask the average British person what river runs through Glasgow, most would know the Clyde. How many would know the Irwell runs through Manchester? very few, i suspect. This whole subject is all a bit petty.

Wtf is peoples problems? I copied this from a thread in the London forum, I was only intesrested because the Independent chose Glasgow as the only other UK city in the list. It was meant to be a Glasgow discussion, not my cock bigger than yours and as Kentigern pointed out (cheers!) I had made that position clear.

Irwell you nob, the text "league table of the top 60 cities" is a fucking link to the Independents site taken from their fucking article - click on the fucking thing, oh, and the list I posted is their top 100!

SO. Two things.

1. Brown. Is over

2. Get a life.

I must admit when I read this list yesterday, I thought 'what a ridiculous list'... and wondered why The Indepepndent would have been so selective. Then I realised that the aim was not to publicise other cities in the world, but to back-slap London and to suck it's own balls... an angle lost on Londoner's it seems, for they are proper cock-a-hoop about it aren't they... see the UK Skybar.

Anyway I didn't bother reading the full article... and if you haven't yet I wouldn't bother. What I did find interesting was the prominence of Glasgow and Edinburgh and that made me check out the stats for those cities which I did find interesting.

I can understand a few cities in the UK wondering why they weren't on the list, but Britain is hardly the centre of the universe and to have 3 or 4 of it's cities in the top 100 WORLD cities would be remarkable if not impossible.

Crusty has made a potentially interesting thread here, but unfortunately as he says it has dropped into a city v city mire and as he has requested it, I'm shutting this one.

Irwell, you know there is a nice big chunky thread on this in Skybar... and as much as I would like to discuss it, Manchester isn't the centre of the Universe.

Happy Christmas x