Talk:Global city
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
 |
This Geography article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments). |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on October 16, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
|
|---|
[edit] This page should not be a reference for others!
I don't like that the "GaWC Inventory of World Cities" is already seen to by the "official" designator of global/world cities. If anything, there should be an article for global/world cities, and just a sub-section mentioning GaWC, perhaps linking to a more in-depth article. I don't think that its list should be on this page, because it is obviously biased (in favor of company headquarters, etc).
What I really don't like is looking at Wikipedia articles for individual cities, and reading "Such-and-such is a gamma world city." Better, of course, is "Dallas is listed as a gamma world city by the Loughborough University Globalization and World Cities Study Group & Network" (on the Dallas page), which at least mentions that "gamma world city" is not a term that everybody accepts, but rather just a term that one group uses.
And it seems that these "alpha", "beta", and "gamma" designations only apply to the 1999 list, and thus should be used anymore.
Maybe my comments below have been said before, but I don't think that "global city" has much to do with GaWC's designation from 1999. For example:
Minneapolis is a global city, Athens isn't.
Almaty, Kazakhstan and Cleveland, US show some evidence of becoming a global city, Guangzhou shows only minimal evidence.
Kansas City, US and Tashkent, Uzbekistan show strong evidence of becoming world cities, but Shenzhen is nowhere to be found, on the list of world cities or even as a candidate for one.
If GaWC had to revise this list to make a 2004 version, how can we trust this organization? Either they already felt that they were incorrect (and thus shouldn't be quoted) or something major changed between 1999 and 2004 (which I doubt).
Their newer list, now the Official GaWC List, if possible, makes things more difficult to understand than the 1999 version. Perhaps it's better in that it categorizes cities. For example, Tokyo is a global city because of economic and demographic features, not because of a truly "globalized" populace - probably 98% of the people are ethnic Japanese, foreign food (like Italian and Chinese) is of generally poor quality, and made to Japanese specifications, and Mexican, Greek, and other types of food are almost completely absent. However, it is not without its problems. For example, what's the difference between a "global city" and a "world city"? Why is Singapore listed as both? Why is New York not listed as both?
I'm an American (living in Tokyo), myself, but it still seems that the U.S. is over represented. And if it's just about economics, my hometown of Charlotte (as the Wikipedia article states, "is the second largest banking headquarters in the United States after New York City"), probably should surpass some others seen on the list.
According to the 2004 list:
As I said, Singapore is both a global city and a world city. New York is just a global city. What makes a city both? I've lived to Singapore, and I'd definitely call it a global city. However, is it the only city in the world that can claim to be both a global city and a world city?
Strasbourg is a global niche city? And wouldn't "niche city" necessarily make it NOT a global city? Again, is Guangzhou not even a niche city?
Also, I know we want to be fair to the rest of the world and not show Amerocentrism, but Addis Ababa, Ethiopia?! Basle - Switzerland's third-most populous city? Harare, Zimbabwe?! Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire?! And now Kuala Lumpur is conspicuously missing! I think GaWC might be confusing "world city" with "regional hub". There are many regional hubs, but few world cities.
What is up with that? These lists are severely flawed. It is OK to make a Wikipedia page about the GaWC, but please, I would hope that nobody will quote from this global city page to make the point at the top of the "Addis Ababa" Wikipedia page that it's a global city...I mean, a world city... Now I'm confused... --Riction 04:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The rankings are so outdated that they are pretty much useless here
Shanghai and Berlin are "minor world cities" in the same league as Minneapolis? Give me a f'ing break. The GaWC rankings are 8 years old, a lot has changed since then, these rankings should not be given such prominence on this article anymore. --Naus 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- Shanghai gives "Primarily non-economic global contributions"? WTF??? Someone needs to be slapped. --Naus 18:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- So what should be given prominence?. AFAICS, it is only the presence of the GaWC listing that gives any kind of credibility to this article. Without them it would just become become a sandbox for boosterists. So if the GaWC rankings are no longer credible, I suggest the best thing to do is to delete the article. Perhaps that is what you meant; in which case you have my vote. -- Chris j wood 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- Shanghai has the world's busiest port, a high United Nations HDI index, and is the location of mainland China's largest stock exchange (which currently has one of the world's largest trading volumes). More and more multinational companies are moving their Asia headquarters from Tokyo to Shanghai. To suggest Shanghai is in the same league as Minneapolis is an insult to common sense. 8 years is a lifetime in the finance world. --Naus 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- I feel like this article is just an attempt to peddle a controversial study on Wikipedia. One study does not deserve an entire article. This should be a pretty basic point for people to understand. It takes hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers to establish a concept and consensus in the natural sciences; the social sciences should be held to no lower standards. I think this article should be renamed to something GaWC-specific, in the name of neutrality. People here who think one study can sufficiently provide an NPOV perspective, obviously have never done a single day of academic research. --Naus 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- You lost me there, I'm afraid. I'm not even sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. None of what you said above talks directly to my question, the tone seems to be in disagreement with something (not sure who or what), but the actual content seems to support my point. What are you actually suggesting should be done. -- Chris j wood 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Shanghai's stock exchange is not yet a major institution. All the most important Chinese (including Mainland) stocks are mainly traded in Hong Kong. Shanghai is much less significant than HK (which in turn is nowhere near as significant as NYC or London) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.245.218 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposal for complete deletion of section GAWC 1999 Edition !
Reasons: a) outdated study published 8 years ago (conducted even earlier) b) 2004 Edition is available and reflects the current state c) presenting two editions is no extra information value d) The GAWC 1999 studies in general pretends to define a status of major cities but only focuses economic data. This is misleading and already resulted in a widespread citation within Wikipedia major city articles. Proposal: If there are no multiple serious arguments for keeping it, the section should be deleted within the next 7 days. all the best Lear 21 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- That what is resulted now was not resulted in 1999. It's reflect ranking of how it was in pre 1999 years. It's what is happened in history, so should be there Elk Salmon 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Edit rather than delete. The 1999 survey is of significant historical importance, as the first effort to define and identify global cities as such, rather than by simple ranking of population, economic, transport, etc., data. It should be turned into a simple descriptive paragraph explaining the methodology (which it does, more or less) with a very short list, inline, of some of the cities. The table and flag cruft should go, however. The 1999 survey should be viewed as a historical event, not as a currently meaningful ranking. --MCB 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Agree. That was the point i was trying to express. Elk Salmon 12:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep 1999 is hardly out of date, IMHO. It certainly wasn't invalid then and even though I'm sure every city mentioned has changed in some way, it doesn't make it invalid now.--Analogue Kid 06:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete These lists are very inaccurate and were even inaccurate back in 1999. I don't know why some obviously important cities, such as Seoul, are not on that list. I would argue that not enough has happened between 1999 and 2003 for GAWC to make such drastic revisions, signalling that their earlier studies and possibly their current studies, are flawed. 75.57.113.152 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
-
- What are you using as a source for their "inaccuracy"? Personal opinion? If it is simply the change between the 1999 and 2003 surveys, the change in methodology is, itself, of historical and encyclopedic value. If you claim some other, more "accurate" source, cite it. --MCB 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is pretty obvious that this list is meaningless- Washington DC is labeled as a minor city. This is a city where powerful Institutions are located - White House, Pentagon, Supreme Court , Fed, IMF, World Bank, Inter American Bank, FAA,FDA,FCC,NIH,CIA and numerous powerful Think Tanks are located. Not a single day passes without a mention about this city in the news.Sudhirpv 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Sudhir
- KeepIn my own opinion the 2004 survey is biased towards services and English language media. I find it less 'accurate' than the 1999 one, but that's just my opinion. No need to delete information.
[edit] Trimmed layout
The new layout: a) avoids massive waste of space b) allows readability without scrolling c) respects WP:FLAG policy d) deprioritized the city-ranking-table because it is not part of the term global city and therefore can´t prevail in characteristics section e) the content menue below the intro is trimmed and allows uncomplicated access. f) former 'micro' sections of GaWC didn´t had enough content to prevail as standalone sections g)compare other Wiki languages articles of 'global city' for credibility h) no content has been deleted! Lear 21 17:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose. It was discussed long time ago. This is what we all came to, to avoid of open copypast of gawc texts. See talk archive. Elk Salmon 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse, and in fact I'd perform even further compression and inline listing. The article should neither infringe on GaWC material nor be a completely overblown table with flags and ranks. Remember, Wikipedia is not determining rankings; we are summarizing academic work of others in an encyclopedic manner. This is not an almanac or global cities sourcebook -- people who want formal listings and rankings can go to the source(s). And the version that Lear 21 presented is not any sort of copyvio. (Fancy layouts and flag icons do not help with avoiding infringement.) I will restore Lear 21's thoughful layout. --MCB 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Elk Salmon. -AlexLibman 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
- Seriously...you like the complex table, waste of vertical space, and tacky little flag icons? And you do realize that the table, flags, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement? --MCB 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Bold text I'm no expertBold text
I am not an expert on this subject matter, however, I do question some of these rankings When did Cleveland, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Richmond, Va. become such powerful, influential, driving metropolitian cities? The last one, especially, confuses the S*^t out of me.
Is there some type of evidence that can be showed to explain how these cities get these rankings? If we are giving the three cities I just mentioned glogal city status, what about Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Houston, San Antonio, Las Vegas, etc... each of these meets some of the criteria.
[edit] Errors
When looking at the original GaWC 2004 article, table 11, lists only Brussels, Geneva and Washington, and not Strasbourg as a political and social global niche city. The wikipedia article does. What's strange, though, is that the Dutch wikipedia does not list Strasbourg, but lists The Hague instead. Personally, I think both should be incluced in the list, but the GaWC 2004 article does not. I'm not sure what the proper action is: make the section compliant with GaWC or with our own opinions. I would go for the former option. 62.251.12.169 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Old airport listings
Is there a particular reason why the listing for 10 busiest airports is five years old? Airports Council International updates their figures on airport traffic every year and is considered pretty much the main source for these figures as far as I know. Their report can be found here: http://www.aci.aero/aci/aci/file/Press%20Releases/2007_PRs/PR_180707_TOP10.pdf. I am going to replace the cities for now, if anyone has strong objections, feel free to discuss and if need be change back. Vertigo700 23:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
- RE: the note on the page about airport listings. I do not understand why one would not update the listings since the original reference gauges the exact same thing ACI does, which is passenger traffic. It's not about "biggest airports," but rather the ones with the most annual passengers. If there is something else I am not understanding, please let me know, but I don't think updating the numbers makes the article any less about cities, simply more accurate account of them. Vertigo700 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Air traffic
World Cities by Air Traffic has Dallas listed twice. The second entry should be Frankfurt. I am reluctant to edit the big table, so I'll draw others' attention to the error and let them deal with it. ПБХ 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Paris is a global city
Although Paris was deleted of the classement, the city is one of the most influent all around the world. Politic, Economic (1st business district of Europe with La Defense), and international fashion and culture life, Paris was and still is in the first four global cities in the world. That's the reason why I permitted myself to rewrite the name Paris in the Alpha Cities (full service) and in the first lines of the global cities although Sassia has forgotten Paris.
[edit] Ohio Cities
Columbus does not belong in this context. The central Ohio region is one of eceonomic decline, hence the term "rust belt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.125.130 (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- Well as a resident I can tell you that your statement is patently false. If you'll look on the page, you'll note it is the only large city in Ohio that continues to gain population, and at a pretty good clip no less. A recent study shows things are going quite well. While located in the rust belt region, Columbus has risen above the decline experienced by most other areas.--Analogue Kid 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that Columbus does not fit, but for other reasons. It has a modest airport, no serious national or international sports presence outside college football, modest economic and population growth almost all of which is suburban or suburban-style, and little weight in terms of culture, fashion, or dining. True, the Short North neighborhood and Ohio Theater are fairly prominent, but I'd argue they are a better fit for making Columbus a regional city or emerging national city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.14.123 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
As a former resident of Cleveland, I want to see Cleveland on this list, but my experience tells me otherwise. It's no secret that Cleveland has long been in decline. It used to be one of the largest cities in the US, but its population (in the city proper) has fallen by over half. With the possible exception of its airport and medical centers, most of its fine institutions (symphony, universities, corporations) are hold-overs from its glory days. I'd say that any given modest-sized European city (Florence, Lucerne, Valencia, etc) has more going on culturally--by a sizable margin--and would be more appropriately called world cities.
[edit] Top 10 rail systems by length
Can someone explain why Madrid is both number 5 and number 6 and why Mexico City is number 3, 8, and 9 on this list? --chemica 09:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
- According to the list article, Berlin is first not London! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.11.167 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] First sentence
I find the first sentence really unsatisfying (A global city or world city is a concept promoted by the geography department at Loughborough University which postulates that globalisation can be broken down in terms of strategic geographic locales that see global processes being created, facilitated and enacted.) The term isn't "invented" or primarily used by the Loughborough University, but rather is a well-known term in sociology, first coined in Saskia Sassen's The Gobal City. I think THAT should be mentioned, instead of the Loughborough University. Maarten 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Just traced the article history. It was User:Thomas Paine1776 who inserted that text on 4 March 2007. I concur with you that his edit was incorrect and the lead should be rewritten to emphasize Saskia Sassen's contribution. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Hague
Why is The Hague so low on this list? It hosts over 150 worldwide organizations.
- I agree. In the legal field it is arguably the most important city in the world for international law. It is home to the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the UN International Court of Justice ("World Court"), and the International Criminal Court. It is also the headquarters of Shell Oil and home to the world-class Mauritshuis museum. A smallish city, but a world city no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.14.123 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Major Omissions
Cities that are clearly world cities, yet missing from the 2004 list:
Dubai, UAE: One of the most important cities in the Middle East, and a center for cutting-edge architecture.
Guangzhou, China: A massive city often called "the workshop of the world" because of its intense economic growth and extraordinary manufacturing capacity.
Seattle, US: world hub for technology, aerospace, youth culture, and outdoor sports.
Seoul, South Korea: one of the largest cities in the world, and an economic and technological center.
The Hague, Netherlands: One of the most important legal centers in the world, and home to three of the most prominent international courts, as well as world-class museums.
Vancouver, Canada: Large, cosmopolitan city with heavy East Asian influence, and host of the upcoming Winter Olympics.
In addition, the following US cities clearly belong on any list that includes Denver and Atlanta:
Charlotte, North Carolina: Major international airport and second financial hub of the US after New York.
Dallas, Texas: Large American city with one of the busiest airports in the world.
Houston, Texas: Fourth largest city in the US and arguably the energy-sector capital of the world. Major international airport.
Depending on your assessment of the current state of the "rustbelt", Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh might also belong on the list.
There are certainly other cities I've overlooked. Please add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.14.123 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, the list does not give European cities enough credit. A typical European city--even one of modest size--is significantly more connected by transportation to other countries and continents than a given city in the US. Largely as a result of their age, even medium-sized European cities tend to overflow with culture including architecture, artwork, cuisine, fashion, etc. I would add a slew of medium-sized European cities to this list based on culture alone, including: Edinburgh, Dublin, Lucerne, Florence, Pisa, Valencia, Granada, Cordoba, Lisbon, Prague, Copenhagen, Bruges, Cologne, and Cannes. Doubtless there are others that have slipped my mind.
Edit: Sao Paulo, Brazil: One of the largest cities in the world is missing from the 2004 list
[edit] San Diego
I wonder why it isn't a global city yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.170.110 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Low quality
This article seems to rely 100% on a report from a single source and, if I may say so, a rather obscure one at that. With all due respect to Loughborough University, it's not exactly ranked among the great universities in the world. Their classification seem Anglo-centric to the extreme and its ranking seems to build on very subjective ideas. Even if the article is sourced, the source itself could very well be described as original research. For a page on the concept of a "Global City" to rely exlusively on one single source is rather POV. JdeJ (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree there is a problem here, but I think Maarten sums it up above. These concepts predate the work at Loughborough. (Incidentally, important work is done all the time at institutions more "obscure" than Loughborough. JdeJ, are you using the subjective ranking of Loughborough University to argue against Loughborough's rankings on the basis of their subjectivity? Well played sir.)Tjm402 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with "Their classification seem Anglo-centric to the extreme and its ranking seems to build on very subjective ideas." The 2004 ranking seems even worse than the 1999 one. Ricardo 66.171.167.130 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I recently made an edit to include economic restructuring but immediately the edit was deleted. If you read the literature especially in urban sociology, global cities have developed due to the sectorial shifts in the economy especially in industrialized cities from manufacturing to service sector outlets. Saskia Sassen, the scholar cited in this article, has contributed much to this analysis. It would be a disadvantage not to include the term in this piece. Just my views. -Parfait —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socipoet (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] First sentence
As the article now stands, the fist sentence is garbled. AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Madrid is not well considered on the list
I don't think there's 2 points difference between Franfurt or Milano, nor Zurich being categorized more global than Madrid. If you look at the requirements....
Madrid has the second longest underground system in Western Europe, second only to London, and like the fourth or fifth in the world. The new airport terminal is the biggest terminal in Europe, and the main European gate for South America. Madrid metro area, circa 6 million inhabitants, is home to many cultures, specially south-american, east-european and asian. Some of this collectives count more than 200,000, which is like 60% of Zurich's population, included on the list with 9 points.
About infrastructures, Madrid offers a state of the art urban experience. Infrastructure for cars is amazing and modern, with 4 rings of highways rounding the city, one of it partially underground (M30) in what has been the biggest engineering project ever done in Europe.
About socials, Madrid Urban density is huge, compared to London or L.A. That makes people melt together and interact way more than in a suburb-like city. Madrid is open 24h a day, with places to eat, buy, let alone party... There are very little cities in the world with traffic jams at 4AM monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusionvillage (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wikipedia Editors Need To Find Data, Not Make Data
The focus of fixing this article needs to be shifted. Right now, editors are arguing about cities and their thoughts about them, which cities should be included, which cities should be moved or left out. Unfortunately, everyone's opinion is biased (most likely for their own city) and that is understandable: I would certainly have a hard time restricting my bias when ranking world cities also. However, all of that sort of talk falls under the category of "independent research" - you can't list your own opinions under the citations section. The Wikipedia members editing this page need to instead focus on acquiring different professional data than the GaWC data. The GaWC studies (both of them) should be kept on the page, because all information is useful (these particular studies indicate the level of complexity, unavoidable bias, and thousands of factors present when categorizing world cities.) However, if the current information does not suit Wikipedia's quality or neutrality guidelines, then editors need to find new information, rather than argue about their own personal convictions concerning world cities. Cornman7001 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Why I think it is wrong to say the term global city is often associated with loughborough
I edited the article to remove the statement that the term global city is nowadays often associated with GaWC. First of all, there is no evidence to support the statement.
A quick scholar.google.com search will show that itt still is used most often in the sense of Sassen:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22global+city%22+sassen&btnG=Search
feel free to compare this to any combination of loughborough, GaWC, etc. Also feel free to use google.com, and not the scholar engine. It is not often at all that the term is associated with Gwac, neither by scholars (economists, and sociologists) nor by mainstream media. Denizkural (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
