Tag Archives: global cities

Five experts weigh in on global flight-path maps

Posted on by

An art critic, environmentalist, aviation consultant, data visualization expert, and philosopher offer some interpretations of global flight-path maps.

From the art critic:

It’s almost like contemporary fractalisation – based on fractals, those beautiful divisions of science and nature. A number of artists have exploited them. Max Ernst based a lot of his surreal landscapes on fractalisation.

From the aviation consultant:

Europe looks so bright because it has so many short-haul flights. It’s also one of the busiest global markets and there are several hubs in relatively close proximity in Europe: Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam and London…

What we’re going to see in a few years is more connections between Asia and Africa, and South America and Africa, along with more “south-south” trade.

From the expert in data visualization:

You can see the density of the flights, but it doesn’t show you how many people are travelling on them. You could do that by colouring them differently.

From the philosopher:

We are not seeing the life of individual human beings, but the life of the species as a whole, as if the species was one organism, pulsating like a jellyfish. Maybe it represents our collective existence?

Interesting thoughts all around. The quote above from the philosopher is right on in that maps like these allows us to see larger patterns and how we are all connected. It is not just about the flow of passengers or cargo back and forth but also about how these flight paths connect us. The maps could also serve as a proxy for global power and business activity. I remember seeing work from sociologist Zachary Neal along these lines. Take a look at his publications involving cities, networks, and airplanes here.

Is Miami more of a global city because of a booming real estate market?

Posted on by

The Financial Times looks at the increasing prices in the Miami housing market and suggests this is related to the city’s rising status as a global city. This leads to an interesting question: does an in-demand housing market mean that a city is necessarily a global city or does it simply make it more popular than before? I would tend to lean toward the second – being a global city is related more to a city’s role in global finance and status as a cultural center. Miami may be a regional financial center but is it really on the scale of the major cities in the United States? Check out the 2012 Global Cities Index from AT Kearney where Miami is #36. Miami may be popular these days but it has a long ways to go…

 

Reconsidering what sprawl, suburbs, and world-class city mean

Posted on by

A sociology grad student involved with the city of Calgary regarding development and growth suggests we need to step back and reconsider the “vacant terminology” used by “urbanistas”:

When it comes to sprawl, said Gondek, the term actually means “non-contiguous growth of an urban area.”“It’s uncontrolled, it’s unplanned. In our opinion, it’s simply not the case for Calgary,” she said…

“Suburb” is Gondek’s least-favourite misused term, preferring the term “community” instead.

“Suburbs, as they are properly defined, are areas outside the metropolitan region,” she said.

“They are bedroom communities. It’s an American concept that means independent municipalities outside of the city.”

Growth on Calgary’s edges actually involves periphery communities, not suburbs.

“Calgary’s so-called suburbs are actually a part of the city — there’s nothing ‘sub’ about them,” said Gondek, pointing out that these homeowners pay property taxes into the same pool as inner-city residents do.

The third phrase is the idea of just how “world-class” is Calgary.

Gondek looked at various indices to see how cities are rated on their globalness. She found a wide variety of measures, depending on what angle of “globalness” was sought to be defined: population, income, walkability, transportation — any number of measures.

Gondek drew the conclusion that indices of world-classness depend on the subjective views of what the creators of the indices decide is world-class, rather than any real, fundamental, unified definition of the term.

Some of this makes sense. Suburbs are now vital parts of metropolitan regions rather than ugly step-children of cities. Also, sprawl is not necessarily unplanned or disordered as critics suggest; there is a logic to it, typically involving profits to be made by developers and others. Both of these terms are often loaded with negative connotations by critics.

On the other hand, the definition of a world-class city seems more set to me. The term used widely in urban sociology actually is “global city” which has a lot of overlap with the concept of a world-class city. The global city is typically defined as being a global economic center with a high concentration of FIRE (finance, insurance, and real estate) industries. But, there are other dimensions to global cities including cultural and government institutions. (For one example of these various dimensions, see this ranking of global cities.) I wonder if the suggestion that world-class city is a nebulous term is done so that Calgary can feel better about what it is doing…

Book review revives battle between Chicago and New York City

Posted on by

A recent piece in the The New York Times Book Review reignited the debate between Chicago and New York:

Rachel Shteir, writing in the New York Times Book Review, took aim this week at both the city of Chicago and the people who defend and promote it. “Boosterism has been perfected here because the reality is too painful to look at,” Shteir postulates, while reviewing (mostly unfavorably) a handful of new books about the city for Sunday’s cover.

Fortunately, we don’t have to wait for the angry letters to be printed in the next Book Review. The counter-manifestos are already here! In the past few days, it seems, everyone from Gary to Milwaukee has read Shteir’s “Chicago Manuals” piece, resulting in a groundswell of angry rebuttals. (Even New York City reached out: New York deputy mayor Howard Wolfson tweeted that he was “mystified by the offensive, mean spirited & inaccurate attack on Chicago… a great city deserves better.”)…

But, Shteir digresses, she has a bone to pick with Chicago that’s bigger than any book review. She singles out Chicago’s early 20th century optimism, which nearly every Northern and Midwestern city shared (Burnham and co. also made grandiose predictions for New Haven, among other cities), and also its destructive urbanism of the mid-century, which, again, was hardly particular to the Windy City. She groups some real issues—last year’s shameful murder rate—with some not-so-serious problems, like the continual failures of the Cubs. She implies that Chicago is going the way of Detroit, when in fact the city’s population has been more or less stable for the past 20 years. Her praise, and there is some, seems deliberately facetious: “Thanks to global warming, the winters have softened.”

But her central beef with Chicago is how resolutely proud everyone seems to be of the city, despite its issues. It’s the opposite of New York, where everyone complains about everything all the time. In Chicago, per Shteir, the city’s unshakeable sense of greatness is wildly incongruous with its problems, a willful blindness that has become something of a civic calling card.

This sounds like a battle of urban “personalities”: a more critical viewpoint of New Yorkers versus a more optimistic Midwestern view in Chicago. Both cities have very real problems to face even as they are both major global cities.

But, it is not surprising to see this battle flare up again. Chicago is somewhat skittish about its position vis a vis other major cities, Chicago already lost its status as “Second City” to Los Angeles, and recently fell behind the population of Toronto, and New York is the clear lead city in the United States (if not the world). These “personalities” may be affected by these relative statuses: New Yorkers can afford to be critical because they are already at the top while Chicago is competing with other cities and has a long history of boosterism (including its early booster efforts in the late 1800s that were aided by some transplanted New Yorkers).

Census Bureau official: Chicago now 5th biggest city in North America

Posted on by

Following on new from a little while back, the US Census Bureau has officially confirmed that Toronto is now larger than Chicago:

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, our city is home to 2.71 million people to Toronto’s 2.79 million in 2012.

Mexico City, New York and Los Angeles top the list.

Chicago is still one of the top 10 largest cities in North America, and the population did increase by more than 11,000 residents between 2010 and 2011. And we lead the nation in the category of cities that have experienced population growth downtown over the last decade, with an increase of more than 37,000 residents within 2 miles of City Hall, according to Chicago magazine.

Not a big difference at this point but Chicago is unlikely to get much closer in population compared to Los Angeles anytime soon, Toronto may continue to grow, Washington D.C. is growing in influence, and Houston is a ways behind Chicago but has been growing at a rapid pace in recent decades. Maybe this means Chicagoans should be a little worried about their status as a global city?

One area where Chicago does not have to worry: it is still securely ahead of Toronto in terms of its metropolitan area population. The Chicago metro area has over 9 million people while the Toronto metro area has over 5.5 million (2011 figures). Additionally, Chicago has over 2.5 million more than the next biggest US MSA, Dallas.

The cities at the top of the global power hierarchy

Posted on by

The 2013 Wealth Report Global Cities Survey ranks the top cities in the world in terms of power:

The survey was launched in 2008 to monitor city-level power shifts. Its objective is to assess the key urban centres across the world in terms of investment opportunities and the influence they have on global business leaders and decision makers…

Our Global Cities Survey’s four-part assessment of performance is designed to give the most rounded picture of the places that matter to the wealthy and influential. The survey focuses on four categories: economic activity; political power; quality of life; and knowledge & influence.

While New York and London hold on to the top two spots, the Asia-Pacific region, with four entries, has the tightest grip on the top 10. Europe and North America also feature, with three cities each. The Middle East’s first entry, Dubai, is at number 29, while South America’s leading cities, Buenos Aires and Sao Paulo, only just scrape into our top 40.

New York’s strength is reflected in its consistent showing across all four of our categories. The city is particularly strong in economic activity (being the wealth and financial centre for the world’s richest economy undoubtedly helps) and knowledge & influence, where the power of US media firms shines through. Indeed, there is a close relationship between economic activity and overall ranking, with New York, London, Paris and Tokyo occupying the top four slots for both.

When we turn to political power, Washington DC unsurprisingly leads the field, followed by Beijing and then Brussels – a small city in many ways, but one that punches above its weight politically as the headquarters of the European Union. Berlin sits just one place lower down, highlighting the growing tensions within the world’s largest economic bloc.

Here is a chart of the top five cities in each category:

This list doesn’t seem too different from the one A.T. Kearney released last year.

What would be nice to see in addition to these rankings is the interaction between these cities. For examples, how much do the social networks of the wealthy overlap across these places? How many corporations and organizations do significant business in each place? How is wealth actually spread across these places? I assume there are some significant patterns here but the emphasis in these lists is to still see these cities as separate places representing different countries.

Chicago group hopes for 70 million tourists in the city by 2050

Posted on by

Phil Rosenthal writes about a new plan from Choose Chicago to significantly boost tourism in the city:

Bruce Rauner, Choose Chicago’s chairman, told the Chicago Tribune’s Kathy Bergen the goal is to increase the number of annual visitors, which was close to 44 million in 2011, to 70 million a year. Not even Mayor Rahm Emanuel, who has said he would like to see 50 million visitors by 2020, is that ambitious.

On top of ongoing efforts to attract marquee sporting events and cultural attractions, conventions and other attention-getting visitor magnets, privately funded proposals are reportedly being discussed, such as glass-encased gondolas strung high above the Chicago River, light shows that play out across the city’s skyscrapers and bridges, a ritzy downtown casino (if gambling in Chicago is legalized), a jazz and blues hall of fame, and more.

Some of it undoubtedly is best left on the drawing board. We’re Chicago, after all, the heart and crossroads of America. We want to be in a class with Paris, France, not the Paris Las Vegas Hotel and Casino. There’s already plenty to see and do here to fill Ferris Bueller’s three-day weekend, and there is a danger in trying too hard.

Just as dangerous, however, is in not trying enough. There is a lot of competition for tourism money at home and abroad and, depending which way the economy turns, not necessarily a growing pot of disposable cash for destinations to divvy up. Nothing wrong with trying things, so long as those things don’t erode the image and good will that already exist. This challenge is going to require more than some ads and a halfhearted slogan, like: Chicago — A Better Destination Than Wherever Your O’Hare Connection Would Take You.

Rosenthal hints at the real reason behind this push. It is isn’t just about raising the profile of Chicago or making sure Chicago is considered to be a world-class city. It is about money from tourists visiting attractions, staying in hotels, eating meals, and shopping. It is about tourists going to conventions and taking vacations that include spending money.

Even further behind this story is the idea that tourism is sometimes presented as close to a zero-sum game. Particularly in this economy, an average tourist who goes to Chicago might not be going to St. Louis or Nashville or somewhere else. With limited dollars to go around, Chicago has to successfully compete. However, the whole secret might be to attract new tourists. This might be younger people who are starting out, want to see exciting places, and might consider Chicago. (Does Navy Pier cut it with this crowd?) This might be international tourists, particularly from countries with growing middle-classes such as the BRIC nations.

In the end, tourism is big business and is an essential part of a global city’s economy.  Chicago has to either grow its market share or find new customers. Preferably both.

Repeat argument: Washington D.C. is the real second city in the United States

Posted on by

Aaron Renn argues that Washington D.C., and not Los Angeles or Chicago, is the real “second city” in the United States:

During the first decade of the twenty-first century, the Washington metropolitan area overachieved on a variety of measurements versus its peer metro areas—that is, the rest of the ten largest metros in the country, plus the San Francisco Bay Area (which federal classifications divide into two, neither of which would make the Top Ten on its own). Among these regions, Washington ranked fourth in population growth from 2000 to 2010, trailing only the three Sunbelt boomtowns of Atlanta, Dallas, and Houston (see “The Texas Growth Machine”). Washington is currently the seventh most populous metropolitan area in America.The region has performed even more impressively on the jobs front. Since 2001, Washington has enjoyed the lowest unemployment rate of its peer group. Over the course of the entire decade, it ranked second in job growth, trailing only Houston. That wasn’t just because of the federal agencies and gigantic contractors of Washington stereotype. The region has also been a hotbed of entrepreneurship—much of it, to be sure, dependent on federal dollars. During the 2000s, it had 385 firms named to the Inc. 500 lists of fastest-growing companies in America, according to Kauffman Foundation research—by far the most of any metro area. From 2000 through 2011, according to rankings developed by Praxis Strategy Group, Washington’s low-profile but powerful tech sector had the country’s second-highest job growth, after Seattle’s. The region is also one of America’s top life-sciences centers.

Then there’s economic output. During the 2000s, per-capita GDP grew faster in Washington than in any of its peer regions except the Bay Area. Today, Washington’s per-capita GDP is the country’s second-highest—again, after the Bay Area. Unlike Washington, however, the Bay Area hemorrhaged jobs over the course of the decade. Related to Washington’s impressive output is its astonishing median household income, the highest of any metro area with more than 1 million people. A remarkable seven of the ten highest-income counties in America are in metro Washington. And during the 2000s, per-capita income rose in Washington faster than in any of its peer metros.

Finally, Washington’s population is the best-educated in America. Almost half of all adults in the Washington region have college degrees, the highest proportion of any metro area with more than 1 million people. The same is true of graduate degrees: almost 23 percent of Washingtonians hold them…

But what solidifies Washington’s emerging status as America’s new Second City isn’t its economic performance or its emerging global-city profile. Both of those are secondary effects of the real change in Washington: the increasingly intrusive control of the federal government over American life.

Washington has changed in recent decades and Renn highlights some of these shifts. Three things strike me about his analysis:

1. Washington still lags compared to Los Angeles and Chicago in being a world city. According to the 2012 A.T. Kearney Global Cities Index, New York is #1, Los Angeles #6, Chicago #7, Washington #10, and Boston is the next American city at #15.

GlobalCitiesIndex2012ATKearney

This may not be a huge gap but L.A. and Chicago particularly have edges in business activity, human capital, and cultural experience while Washington has the clear edge in political engagement.

2. The choice to build a new capital in the United States back in the late 1700s is still having far-reaching implications today. Imagine New York City as both #1 global city and center of US government. While Renn argues the federal government in Washington is helping propel it up the rankings of cities, I wonder how government centers will fare in the future versus business and trade centers like New York, L.A., and Chicago (which aren’t even the state capitals). We might then benefit from a cross-national comparison with other countries that have similar set-ups.

3. Renn has made this argument before. I wrote a post titled “Washington D.C., not Chicago or LA, the real “second city” of the United States?” back on April 7, 2012 based on Renn’s piece on newgeography.com titled “The Great Reordering of the Urban Hierarchy.” So Renn is making this argument…is anyone else?

h/t Instapundit

No, Chicago really is a global city

Posted on by

Aaron Renn writes in City Journal that the global city of Chicago faces several really tough issues:

The idea was to portray Chicago as a “global city,” and it was successful, to judge from the responses in the national media. As Millennium Park opened (a few years late) in the mid-2000s, The Economist celebrated Chicago as “a city buzzing with life, humming with prosperity, sparkling with new buildings, new sculptures, new parks, and generally exuding vitality.” The Washington Post dubbed Chicago “the Milan of the Midwest.” Newsweek added, “From a music scene powered by the underground footwork energy of juke to adventurous three-star restaurants, high-stepping fashion, and hot artists, Chicago is not only ‘the city that works,’ in Mayor Daley’s slogan, but also an exciting, excited city in which all these glittery worlds shine.”

But despite the chorus of praise, it’s becoming evident that the city took a serious turn for the worse during the first decade of the new century. The gleaming towers, swank restaurants, and smart shops remain, but Chicago is experiencing a steep decline quite different from that of many other large cities. It is a deeply troubled place, one increasingly falling behind its large urban brethren and presenting a host of challenges for new mayor Rahm Emanuel…

Chicago also needs something even harder to achieve: wholesale cultural change. It needs to end its obsession with being solely a global city, look for ways to reinvigorate its role as capital of the Midwest, and provide opportunities for its neglected middle and working classes, not just the elites. This means more focus on the basics of good governance and less focus on glamour. Chicago must also forge a culture of greater civic participation and debate. You can’t address your problems if everyone is terrified of stepping out of line and admitting that they exist. Here, at least, Emanuel can set the tone. In March, he publicly admitted that Chicago had suffered a “lost decade,” a promisingly candid assessment, and he has tapped former D.C. transportation chief Gabe Klein to run Chicago’s transportation department, rather than picking a Chicago insider. Continuing to welcome outsiders and dissident voices will help dilute the culture of clout.

Renn is rehashing issues that Chicago has faced for decade: corruption, clout, unions and pensions, aldermen, population loss, and fiscal concerns. Throw in the recent issues with crime (it’s worse than Afghanistan!) and things look bad.

But I would argue a bit with Renn’s premise: Chicago’s image as a global city is more than just an image or a veneer. For example, AT Kearney named Chicago the #7 global city in the world (five different dimensions) in 2011. When the premier of China came over to the US in 2011, he went two places: Washington, D.C. and Chicago to meet with Mayor Daley about business. A lot of this is tied to Chicago’s historic role as the finance capital of the heartland, the place where futures were invented and developed. It is also tied to Chicago’s ongoing transportation importance: as I’ve blogged about, something like 70% of Class I freight traffic in the US moves through the region (and there are multiple large intermodal facilities), it has many major highways, and the second busiest airport in the US. Chicago is known for its architecture (one of the homes of the International Style), its museums, and its place in American history as the first real boom city (later duplicated by Sunbelt cities).  Add in the beautiful lakefront parks (and I’m still surprised more big cities haven’t developed their waterfront space in similar ways), being a leader in rooftop green spaces, several world-class universities, and dozens of interesting neighborhoods. This doesn’t discount what Renn said about the city having financial difficulty but Chicago isn’t the only place with these concerns. There has been plenty of commentary lately about blue vs. red social models and places like California, NYC, and many other Rust Belt cities face similar concerns: how to balance large-scale social programs with pro-business attitudes. As I’ve suggested on the blog, I think Emanuel is more pro-business than many Republicans would give him credit for and he is definitely in the Clintonian mold: promote traditional Democratic interests but also push for big business and jobs.

Cities can rise and fall over time and perhaps Chicago is at a turning point. However, it is has weathered issues in the past, being perhaps the only Rust Belt city that did okay between 1960 and 2000, and may weather new problems in the future.

Chicagoans should be grateful for NATO summit in their city

Posted on by

I realize the NATO summit may be a hassle for several days (and the weeks of media hype) but it reinforces a point that Chicagoans often worry about: Chicago is indeed a world-class city, #7 on a recent list. This ranking, meaning that Chicago is a top ten city in the world (!), has both advantages and disadvantages. Even though this ranking may include short periods of difficulty, millions of metropolitan-area residents have benefited in the past and will benefit in the future.