GaWC: 2018 Classification of Alpha, Beta and Gamma World Cities

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I at least appreciate that they finally make the criteria for this errantly titled ranking clear for all to understand:



https://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2018t.html

I was going to call major BS about Monterrey but then I realized they meant the one in Mexico

Anyway this list is okay but I dont really get the methodology or what this is trying to say. Who is more critical in the supply chain? Because NY and London are the financial hubs but I can imagine places more critical for physical supply chain connections and shipping hubs

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Urban Zombie

Clearly, Seattle has fallen in the rankings due to its dependence on insignificant mom and pops, like Amazon, Microsoft, Boeing, yadda yadda, add that to its lack of any internationally renowned bands or musicians, and you basically have San Salvador's peer city.

I blame Seattle's sad fate on the decline of Grunge.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by JManc

I blame Seattle's sad fate on the decline of Grunge.

Grunge didn't stand a chance when I started spending more time in a warmer climate and shoved all my flannel shirts to the back of the closet (kept the Nirvana rercords front and center though).

[Urban Zombie]

Originally Posted by JManc

I blame Seattle's sad fate on the decline of Grunge.

Grunge hates America!

[SIGSEGV]

Make America Grunge Again?

[emathias]

Originally Posted by TexasPlaya

Frankly surprised Houston is above Dallas, but neat.

Originally Posted by skyscraperpage17

It's all about that black gold.

In relation to Dallas, I think it has to do with Houston being a major port. Otherwise Dallas and Houston are pretty similar, but the port activity, just by definition, increases Houston's global presence

Originally Posted by photoLith

Im confused, how can Cleveland be a Gamma+ city while Pittsburgh is only a sufficiency city? Cleveland is still having massive population loss, meanwhile Pittsburgh's population loss has pretty much stabilized and is very marginally growing in population. Pittsburgh is home to 6 Fortune 500 companies and Cleveland has 4. I wish I knew how they compiled this data and determined which cities fell where.

I would guess two things: while similar size now, historically, Cleveland has been nearly 50% bigger and still has a lot of legacy connections from it's good days. And second, being in the Great Lakes makes it a bigger port city. That's less of an impact than Houston being a salt-water port when compared to Dallas, but still pretty significant. A third thing is that Cleveland is a Federal Reserve City, giving it at least a bit of a leg up over Pittsburgh for banking. Personally, I think of Cleveland as a smaller Chicago, and Pittsburgh as a larger Cincinnati.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

Make America Grunge Again?

I could get on that bandwagon ...

[Razor]

Interesting list..To me, it's not way out of line with other ranking lists..I'm a little surprised that Sydney is an Alpha+ city, in line with Hong Kong and Paris, but I would have to really delve deeper to understand the criteria for these rankings a little more. As well, Berlin seems a little lower then expected...My own city, Ottawa makes sense. it's a federal government town working on a budget more then economic output..That is assuming a city's business climate affects it's ranking for this particular list

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

No offensive to my Australian friends but how is Sydney ahead of larger Toronto .....

Because it's a British study and Brits are obsessed with Australia. If you lived in the UK you'd think Australia was a super power of 200 million people. It's completely out of whack with reality.

As has been pointed out numerous times already it's a very weird list.

[dc_denizen]

Selling coal and gas to China makes you influential I suppose. Like Vancouver, but substitute real estate instead of o&g

In reality Seattle (Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, etc) is arguably far more influential than Toronto, or both Australian cities. Seoul is extremely influential, on par with Tokyo or sf because of Korea’s auto and tech achievements.

Los Angeles and San Francisco ranking low makes this a ludicrous list.

Moscow is about 20x more influential than Toronto or Sydney

[The North One]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

In reality Seattle (Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, etc) is arguably far more influential than Toronto

lol no

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

Selling coal and gas to China makes you influential I suppose. Like Vancouver, but substitute real estate instead of o&g



Moscow is about 20x more influential than Toronto or Sydney

Selling oil and gas to Europe makes you influential, I guess. Lol

You just outdid yourself there, dc.

[dc_denizen]

No, nuclear weapons, an expansionist and successful foreign policy, and being the capital of an ancient cultural region make you influential.

[montréaliste]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

No, nuclear weapons, an expansionist and successful foreign policy, and being the capital of an ancient cultural region make you influential.

Success is in the eye of the beholdened.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by The North One

lol no

Toronto clearly wins the comparison with Seattle. It's twice the size and it's the lead office (in various senses) for a whole country.

That said, Seattle punches above its weight...two of the four largest HQs by market cap (and somewhere near the top by influence), the Gates Foundation, leading a large if lightly populated US region... And hey, if we can count military power and nuclear weapons, we can kick even NYC's ass.

[The North One]

You're boasting about the fact that there's a ton of nukes just sitting next to Seattle? uhh ok, as if the city didn't have enough potential total wipeout disasters to worry about.

I never said Seattle doesn't punch above its weight but let's be real Toronto is a steamroller and a strong center of finance. It's eclipsing Chicago at the moment let alone Seattle.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Razor

I'm a little surprised that Sydney is an Alpha+ city, in line with Hong Kong and Paris,

Sydney isn't an Alpha+ city. Just because we see something in print, doesn't make it so.

[dc_denizen]

Originally Posted by The North One

You're boasting about the fact that there's a ton of nukes just sitting next to Seattle? uhh ok, as if the city didn't have enough potential total wipeout disasters to worry about.

I never said Seattle doesn't punch above its weight but let's be real Toronto is a steamroller and a strong center of finance. It's eclipsing Chicago at the moment let alone Seattle.

Edit

[mhays]

Originally Posted by The North One

You're boasting about the fact that there's a ton of nukes just sitting next to Seattle? uhh ok, as if the city didn't have enough potential total wipeout disasters to worry about.

That wasn't really a serious boast...I'd put them somewhere else and get rid of most of them. But potential for disaster doesn't mean any less influence.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by mhays

Toronto clearly wins the comparison with Seattle. It's twice the size and it's the lead office (in various senses) for a whole country.

Economically/culturally, it's probably a wash. Similar sized economies, similar global prominence but Seattle has far greater global corporate presence. Seattle might have the third most prominent corporate presence in NA at this point. They have a solid half dozen globally prominent firms, where even someone in the African bush might be familiar with some of the firms.

Toronto is much bigger, of course, and the undisputed hegemon of a major country.

[dc_denizen]

Seattle suffers from a relative paucity of cultural standouts after the 1990s ended

In that capacity, Portland Oregon is more influential than Seattle