SkyscraperCity Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

14K views 67 replies 43 participants last post by  isaidso 
#1 · (Edited)
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?
 
#53 ·
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.!
 
#54 ·
^^ 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.
 
#55 ·
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).

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.
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.
 
#56 ·
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.
 
#57 ·
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
 
#59 ·
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?
 
#61 ·
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.
 
#67 · (Edited by Moderator)
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.
 
#68 · (Edited)
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top