Jump to content

Talk:Global city/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

GaWC 2004 Results

This page appears to indicate that in the GaWC 2004 study, Sydney was classified as an 'Alpha +' city. I have just been reviewing the GaWC city study and it appears be classified as 'Alpha', not 'Alpha +'.

Is someone able to confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.143.244.34 (talk) 13:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Flags?

May I ask why the flags were removed? I wasn't the one who added them, but they have always seemed quite useful when I've referred to this article. They serve as a shortcut to understand distribution of these cities and also to find the ones you are looking for—if I'm only looking for global cities in the U.S., it takes about a second to scan the flags to find them. I see only advantage to having them. --Peter Talk 16:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I for one would suggest replacing them. . . --71.111.229.19 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Tehran

Is Tehran ever considered for a position among these studies? I mean, it surely must have more international importance than at least some of the following which are Gamma or higher world cities: San Salvador, Vilnius, Portland, Ljuljana, Santo Domingo, Bratislava. This isn't a nationalist rant--I'm not Iranian. --71.111.229.19 (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Typo

Label of Shanghai image should read:

Skyscrapers in Shanghai

Not:

Skysrapers in Shanghai—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.158.161 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 15:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Pictures

There are 4 pictures in the criteria section. One picture for each characteristic subsection. This is to prevent image crowding with people trying to add multiple pictures of from many cities. Pictures should only be of something which is most revelant to the characteristic subsection. Pictures of such things as just skylines are not relevant to the characteristic subsection. Currently, there is one picture for the economic characteristics subsection, which is of the New York Stock Exchange, one picture for the political characteristics subsection, which is of the Palace of Westminster, one picture for the cultural characterstics subsection, which is of the Louvre, and one picture for the infrastructure subsection, which is of Tokyo Station with a Shinkansen. These 4 pictures are the most relevant and iconic for each characteristic subsection and are from the 4 cities which are always ranked as the top 4. Bambuway (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Text would be nice

The Criteria part could need more fluent text I believe.Globalistum (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Categories needed ?

Is the table of Categories really important to this issue here? It looks like a very loose collection of information. Globalistum (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Los Angeles is an Alpha World City

Los Angeles is ranked an Alpha World City (-) according to these charts: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008c.html and http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008t.html Please update this Wikipedia page, as well as the Los Angeles main page (to indicate that LA is an Alpha World City). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.216.44 (talk) 19:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Chicago is an alpha city; do your homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Santiago

The link is not clear; it gives many Santiagos, thus being possible a source of confusion for readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.160.198.33 (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Maribor

I think that Maribor should be in the gamma cities beacouse he will be the European capital of culture!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariborčan (talk • contribs) 10:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The "following positions" list is pure boosterism

Some users desperately try to include their country into the table, but since their country is not in the top 20, they created a extended list showing the "following positions" of the countries that are not in the top 20.

The boosterism is so obvious that in the first table they chose to show 15 more countries, and in the second one, they listed 20 more countries, so just that the cities of their country would get listed.

That is wrong and is a practice of boosterism. I've deleted the "following positions" list from the tables. The tables are suppoused to show the relevant top 20. AlexCovarrubias ( Talk? ) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Its not boosterism. The following cities are part of the studies. Only because of space restrictions these cities have been kept outside the main table. Please re-include the important parts ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.148.89 (talk) 11:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Berlin

I don't understand how Berlin, ranked no. 6 on the list above, can be tied with Boston (no. 20) and Dallas (not ranked) as a Beta World City. Berlin has world-class opera and symphony, an internationally important film festival, and some of the world's leading museums. It has hosted the Olympics and the FIFA World Cup final. It has three major research universities, plus other smaller universities. How can that compare to Dallas? Okay, Dallas has DFW Airport and Berlin's airport is pathetic. But surely two two cities aren't equivalent. Boston is notably more cosmopolitan and culturally significant than Dallas, but the same level as Berlin? Poldy Bloom (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

São Paulo

São Paulo Our world is made of marketing; that´s why english speaking cities and eventual, up-to-date, historical or business connections make some cities more familiar or prize them as the top ones instead of others. Due to this, it´s really ridiculous to see São Paulo under, for example, Mumbai. The levels of overall development in almost all different fields beetwen these cities are so wide that this can only be a joke. Just because Mumbai holds call centers for USA and UK or have strong commerce today? São Paulo wasn´t colonized or made by english culture, like USA, India or even Hong Kong and Singapore, so it´s very badly known worldwide, even in universities. In fact, all Brazil is badly known. São Paulo (althoug speaking portuguese and also half a century after NY), in the beginning of the 20th century started much like the big apple, with immigrants from Japan to Italy who came to Brazil to make "America". Yes, America. South America is also America. Since the 70´s, SP has also been receiving people from all parts of Brazil, mainly from the very different northeasten Brazil, making it, today, a city of very mixed, very diverse, concious and deep culture. São Paulo is not only one of biggest cities of the world (the macrometropolitan area and its population are only smaller than Tokyo), the first city for number of buildings with 20 to 35 floors (in fact, I don´t like this Pacific sea-like sea of buildings, I would prefer towers with 100 floors and much wider low construction areas) or one of the world´s most important financial cities (the third stock market value). It´s a place of much heritage histoty from all over the world, inside 20 million souls joined in only one century and still very connected to outside. Buenos Aires? Buenos Aires is a beautiful and proud city (São Paulo is not beautiful, for sure, although there are dozens of urbanized Km2 in São Paulo so modern, well done and even so beautifull than any other you may think worldwide), but it have been, for a long long time, a less "world" or "alpha" city, whatever it may means, than São Paulo. Even Shanghai and Beijing are still wrong ranked if compared to São Paulo. Chinese cities are much more polluted, aren´t in a free country (based on western standards), people have to live with less money, services are poorer and way of life is very regional, except for making business. Milan is very far from the diversity, strenght and energy of São Paulo. Sydney is beautifull, has very high quality of life and is proportionally full of money, but both lack the scale of São Paulo, so everything good you may quantify in Milan or Sydney are also i SP (unfortunatelly, the worst things too). And Brussels is a more a town wich eventually is a meeting point, but not exactly a world city. The two big big problems of São Paulo are the inequality (distribution of income per capita), weak urban planning and poor urban improvements (I mean appearence), wich makes the city less touristic than its real capacity (easily foundable behind its doors and inside its buildings) and potencial (about this point, Seoul has becoming really better than SP, since its Olympic Games, alhough today there are more and more improvements on SP parks, visual, subway and trains systems and virtual communication), due to political and country reazons, thinghs often seen widely in Brazil (although there are strong exceptions, like Curitiba and other medium sized cities). Anyway, 2 decades ago the world used to refer to São Paulo as the "worst of the best" or "the best of the rest", but this has also changed very much indeed. Remenber NY was also down in the 70s and London through the 70s and part of the 80s, but today young people don´t even realize that. Museum, galleries, expositions, theather, film festivals, art, culture, night life (with real joy and life), sports, even universities? Are you kidding? Top night life in the world, and you can find virtually any service, things to do and visit (but in portuguese), goods to buy, fields to explore and study. SP, city of diversity, always looking after mind freedom, holds the biggest gay parade in the world. Do you see this in Moscow, Singapore, Seul, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur etc? The problem of these lists are that the updates for first country cities are much much more and quickly done than to any other ones. Or the updates are made on the fashion cities, generally due to a growing economy, no matter how exploiting or destructive this growing can be. I suppose now that Brazil will have the next World Cup, Olympic Games, will role energy, is pushing to be part of the central countries in economics, political etc, is quickly becaming also fashionable, so SP will be discovered. Even considering this, we see crazy things like Los Angeles aside with some other places with completely different reaches . Also I don´t know what rich but less powerful places like Auckland, Dublin, Warsaw, Lisbon, Zurich, Stockholm, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Athens have to do with SP. SP is head of BraziI, wich is the 8th economy of the world! Is connection only about european finance? What about Caracas, Jacarta, Bangcoc? Petroleum? Third World cities? Ideology? These are completely different from SP, even Caracas has nothing in common with SP when you walk on them to really see and feel. I´m pretty sure almost all people who made this list have never been introduced to São Paulo personally. Cities are much much more than panels and citatons. I have a proposition to everybody: simply read about SP on Wikipedia itself and watch photos to imagine how leading, powerful and connected this city is, regardless of its several problems compared to cities settled on full developed countries. But also don´t forget to reconsider all other cities for another next "glogal hierarchy". I just hope it´s not a competition. Thanks for reading my thoughts. Caio july/10/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CaioVinicius (talk • contribs) 20:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of this entry

This is just a list someone made up. So what? Can I make up a list, get it published in a magazine and get a Wikipeida article? Since it's all subjective anyway, what's the point of the article other than to give a link to a site that makes up this list? I think the whole thing should be justified or deleted. And why quote it in city articles. Could I say "Chicago is a Marge list A city." Who'd care. I wouldn't. This whole list is just something someone made up using their own criteria and doesn't belong in an encylopedia 99.149.195.153 (talk) 20:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree to it. I dont understand why so much importance is given to one publication from an unknown universirty intenationally. There are no references to internatioanl publication or even studies made by UN or UN funded organizations. These are more like studies based on parameters which any one can build and his/her city as best. Its not meant to be in wikipedia. We can better have cities ranked on 1 parameter which is already there like based on population or economy or something else. There is no point mixing all up and coming up with lists which are essentially debatable.

--Sandyiit (talk) 06:03, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

But it has a lot more (or has that only happened since you wrote that comment?). Plus Loughborough is pretty well known, although admittedly mainly for it's sporting ability. I mean I could barely name a handful of US universities, so I don';t think the fact it's not famous means the research shouldn't be interesting. As to why there aren't any other reports, surely that's because, as the article says, there aren't many other reports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.54.249.214 (talk) 17:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it seems like these people just add these "so and so" class world cities to every frikin article about a city on wikipedia. If I make a list can I add my site to every city on wikipedia as well? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.194.165.89 (talk) 07:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I concur, upon reading to the bottom of the page the only reaction I could muster was 'oh look, another worthless list based off of criteria impossible to quantify on wikipedia.' Get rid of this trash, it has no place on a website dedicated to facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.171.242 (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Needs some updating

The "Metro systems by route length" bit of the table is out of date. I'm not sure of all the details, so haven't edited, but I believe that the Shanghai Metro is now the longest system in the world, having overtaken London. Loganberry (Talk) 12:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai seems presently to be at the top in the route length column of the table. I removed the please update template from the "Cities ranked by category" section. - Metarhyme (talk) 21:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Osaka

How come Osaka is omitted from this list?? Its Metropolitan area is in the 10 biggest in the world and its GDP its 7th in the World Behind just Tokyo, NY, LA, Chicago, Paris and London, I know its relative proximity to Tokyo may count against its global importance, but only Tokyo, Paris, Beijing, New York, London, Seoul and Madrid have more global 500 companies. It is also a World famous city for food. So please tell me how is it possible that places like Porto, Guayaquil, Calgary, Almaty, Columbus, Port Louis, Portland, Ljubjana, Amman, San Jose and Brisbane all make it on to the roster and Osaka doesnt?? To me this just highlights that this list is incomplete, especially missing Asian cities such as Tehran, Chongqing and Chengdu...I think Osaka should be at least Beta level... please explain or fix...who made this list anyway?? Seems very subjective to say the least.....Im from Ireland and can only laugh that Dublin has more importance than Washington DC!!! I mean seriously Auckland is ranked higher than Berlin in global importance?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.228.115 (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

New Index

The Global Cities Index by the American journal Foreign Policy, in conjunction with consulting firm A.T. Kearney and the Chicago Council on Global Affairs published a new ranking - [1] that can be added to this article. 85.65.69.166 (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

 Done Uber crowds (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on Dallas and Berlin

Dallas and the surrounding cities in its metro area compare favorably to Berlin in many aspects. Dallas also has world-class opera and symphony. Dallas has many quality universities including Southern Methodist, and University of Texas campuses at both Dallas and Arlington, both very large - plus several others. DFW Airport is just an indication of the economy of the area, including headquarters of what is by several measures the largest company in the world, Exxon Mobil. Other household names headquartered around Dallas: AT&T, American Airlines, Southwest Airlines, Seven-Eleven and Kimberly-Clark. The gross metropolitan product of the Dallas-FtWorth area is almost 400 billion US, about twice that of Berlin.

The reality is that it is difficult to rank cities around the globe in a single scale, and all published examples I have come across, especially the one in this article, are failures. Many of them are simply full of bias, even if contributors are geographically dispersed. My preferred scale is nominal (not PPP) gross metropolitan product, because I am often looking at the potential to consume goods that have similar prices across borders. The GaWC list is simply terrible and I would hope wikipedia would agree on deletion. There is a PWC list of metropolitan GDPs available online, but it is PPP, and contains several innacuracies and omissions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.9.56.131 (talk) 17:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

  • it´s americocentrism..
  • Dallas is also home to, what, four major professional sports organizations, including the second-most valuable sports franchise (the Dallas Cowboys) in the world. Between the Cowboys, Texas Rangers, Dallas Mavericks, and Dallas Stars (they also have an MLS team, but I'm not sure of the name), there are a lot of sporting opportunities, not just the traditional cultural opportunities, such as the Opera or the Symphony. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.15.11 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Washington *D.C,*

The proper name of the city listed under Criteria > Political characteristics, and Studies > GaWC studies > Beta + world cities is Washington, D.C. The city name is inconsistent throughout the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.10.211.146 (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

The city's name is Washington; it lies in the District of Columbia, of which it shares the same boundaries. At one time Georgetown was also a separate city inside the District of Columbia; Georgetown, DC. So when one is writing, say, Chicago, Denver, Miami, etc, it's ok to just write Washington, because that is the city's name. When one is writing Chicago, IL; Denver, CO; or Miami, FL, then one would write Washington, DC, to also refer to the state, or district in this case, in which Washington lies. On some ocassions DC or Washington, DC is written or said when one wants to avoid confusion with the State of Washington. But since this is an article about cities, there was no need to throw the DC moniker after the name Washington because you surely know this isn't an article where the state of Washington would be listed in the rankings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.251.112.134 (talk) 23:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_city/Archive_5&oldid=1057763170"