What does this town have to do to become a “world city”?

Image: NASA/public domain.

People love ranking stuff. Over the years, a variety of organisations and academics have had their say on which cities are the best in the world under a variety of criteria: which cities are the most liveable, say, or the most friendly to millionaires.

The ultimate accolade, though, the gold standard of city rankings, is to become a “world city”: important not just to a country or region, but to the entire globe. No one really cares what happens in Exeter (except, perhaps, the residents of Exeter); everyone cares what happens in New York.

The characteristics required to qualify for this label are simple enough: it’s all about (sorry, this is a horrible word) “connectedness”. To be a world city, you need good transport networks to tie you into the world economy: that means a major international airport, possibly several, and ideally your own docks. You need your own, home grown media and communications industries. And your city should also be full of high-value jobs in international corporations, mainly in the services, finance and media industries. The presence of government and cultural centres helps, too.

If you have all those things then you probably have an economically powerful, international-looking, multicultural population and, congratulations, you are a world city.

But identifying these characteristics is one thing; turning them into a single, definitive ranking is quite another. Most authorities agree that New York and London should top the list. But as you move down the league table, things become a bit murkier. How do Tokyo and Beijing fare against Madrid or Toronto? How do we decide which cities should be relegated, like an under-performing football team, to some lesser division? And how can a city rise up through the ranks?

Below is a chart comparing four of the most recent sets of rankings (some have only been released once, or come out every few years, hence the earlier dates).  These four feature quite different criteria, taking in factors including politics, economics, and culture. But, despite some variation, there’s a lot of agreement over which cities come out on top:

All four lists, you’ll notice, are dominated by the same handful of cities (although a few others, such as Seoul and LA, make one appearance each as wildcards). The implication is that strong performance on some criteria leads to strong performance on the others: when a city becomes a global destination for finance, say, it’s more likely to become a cultural hub too. In jargon-speak, this is known as the “aggregation effect”: New York, London and other big-hitters are so important that people flock to them and so stay important.

So what criteria do these different lists use to rank their cities? Here’s CityMetric’s brief guide to the major rankings.

 

In 1998, some brains from the Globalisation and World Cities (GaWC) think-tank tried to decide, once and for all, how cities should be ranked. As part of something grandly titled “The World According to GaWC”, they graded cities by their activity in four different service sectors: accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law.

Cities were divided into categories, ranging from “Alpha++”, down through Beta and Gamma, before finally reaching “sufficiency level” (cities which don’t quite qualify as global cities, but do at least have some influence).

The elite Alpha++ category has always been exclusively co-occupied by New York and London. The others, though, are more volatile, and in 2008, Shanghai and Beijing both jumped up into Alpha+, skipping an entire category (they were way down in Alpha- in 2004’s rankings).  

These photos of Shanghai’s financial district, Pudong give some clue as to why:

Pudong in 2000. Image: public domain.

Pudong in 2013. Image: PierreSalim at Wikimedia Commons.

We would include a picture of the skyline in 1990, but it’s just marshland and some low-rise apartment blocks.

Those new skyscrapers in the bottom picture are filled with the offices of international corporations: HSBC and IBM both occupy entire buildings and the one that looks like a bottle opener houses the new Shanghai World Financial Center. All this services-led development equates to big tickmarks in the GaWC’s book.

It’s a similar, if less dramatic, story in Beijing. The People’s Bank of China, the country’s central bank, has its headquarters in the city: as China becomes a more formidable economic force, this becomes a bigger point in the city’s favour.

Where there are promotions, there must also be relegations. Milan dropped down from the Alpha+ category when Dubai was bumped up in 2010: it’s the most populous city in Italy, but its financial centre isn’t on the level of other Alpha+ cities. Between 2010 and 2012, Glasgow also fell, from Gamma+ to mere Gamma. This is probably because it fared badly in the recession, losing 15,000 jobs between 2012 and 2013 (the 2012 GaWC figures were, confusingly, published in January 2014.)

A competing ranking, the Global Cities Index, first reared its head in 2008 and has been updated every two years since. Compiled by the American journal Foreign Policy and consulting firm AT Kearney, it uses a much wider set of criteria than the GaWC, including such important and excitingly-worded criteria as “human capital”, “cultural experience” and “political engagement”.


Conveniently for its American compilers, US cities fare rather better in this list. In the 2012 GaWC rankings, only 3 of the 23 Alpha cities were in the US. In the Global Cities Index, 4 make the top 10: New York, LA, Chicago, and Washington DC, which scrapes into 10th place entirely through its political importance.

Being a seat of government has worked in Beijing’s favour, too, and the capital of the People’s Republic rose swiftly from 15th place in 2010 to 8th in 2014. Shanghai has fared less well, and is languishing in 18th. It scored highly on business activity and human capital, because lots of foreign businesspeople live there; but poorly on culture and political engagement.

As with other rankings, though, there’s not much shifting around at the top of the scale – the irrepressible NYLON duo have dominated the top two slots ever since the ranking began.

Also in 2008, the Institute for Urban Strategies in Tokyo published its first annual Global Power City Index. This list ranks cities by economy, research and development, environment, liveability, and accessibility. Its focus, according to its compilers, is cities’ ability to “compete with other cities worldwide in drawing creative people and companies to them”. This emphasis on creative people gives Amsterdam and Vienna, both art cities, higher positions than on any other list.

Since 2012, there’s been a veritable flood of new lists, from the interesting to the absurd.  The Wealth Report, compiled by estate agent Knight Frank LLP and Citibank, rates cities by how important they are to high net worth individuals, via the medium of (here comes the science part) asking them to name their favourites. The results come out roughly the same as in other rankings, with the exception of Geneva, which scores much more highly. Coincidentally, a lot of rich people keep their money in Switzerland.

In 2012, the Economist’s Economist Intelligence Unit published its Global City Competitiveness Index, which is based on cities’ ability to attract tourists, business and capital. Western cities dominate the top ten because of their “human capital” (or “people”, as people call them). These cities’ longer histories makes them more adept at attracting  visitors, businesses and what the compilers call “talent” (and what people, again, would call “people”).

What all the lists have in common is an emphasis on how international a city is – whether its population and companies hail from overseas, whether it is attracting international business, and whether it’s engaging with the international economy. If your city can’t attract people to it from all over the globe, then it’ll never make the list. Sorry.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 
 
 
 

How can cyclists protect themselves against air pollution?

A female cyclist attempts to protect herself from air pollution. Image: Getty.

The popularity of cycling in London continues to rise: according to statistics published by Transport for London (TfL), the number of journeys made by bicycle in London grew by 5 per cent in 2018. The transport agency has attributed the upwards trend in cycling to its investment in cycling infrastructure, not least the seven Cycle Superhighways and 12 Cycle Quietways the city now boasts.

Cycling is widely reported to result in health benefits for participants, and cyclists can expect to achieve improvements in both their physical and mental health as a result of switching from public transport or car to a bike. But with air pollution levels remaining stubbornly high across London, should cyclists be concerned that the health benefits they achieve as a result of cycling are actually being outweighed by the dangers posed by increased exposure to air pollution? 

Unlike during the Great Smog of 1952, air pollution today is often invisible to the naked eye. Nonetheless, London breached the European and UK air quality annual limit on 18  March when, for the 36 time this year, levels of pollution particles recorded at a measuring post exceeded the agreed limit. (EU rules allow 35 breaches a year.) Whilst this is a marked improvement on 2018 when the annual limit was broken on the 5 January, it reminds us of the risk that air pollution continues to pose to Londoners today. 

The rise of respirator masks

Anyone who has cycled or walked along one of London's cycle paths in recent years is likely to have seen someone resembling Darth Vader cycling towards them. Protection masks, which are becoming increasingly popular amongst the cycling community, range from cotton surgical masks to respirators with in-built air filtration systems that cover a significant part of the cyclist’s face. 

But do masks actually work and are they worth the investment? 

Cotton masks categorically do not protect wearers against the inhalation of airborne particles. Whilst they can be somewhat effective in protecting against the spread of illnesses, they will not protect a cyclist from air pollution. 

Respirator cycling masks, which range in price from £25 to over £50, are a more sophisticated option. “N99” respirators are said to remove up to 99 per cent of airborne particles from inhaled air. But the particles that cause air pollution today are extremely small, which makes it particularly challenging for respirators to effectively block them from entering the human body. 

Another complicating factor is the fit of the respirator against the human face. Studies have concluded that under “perfect” conditions respirators do effectively filter pollution out of inhaled air. However, when actually fitted to a human face, respirators are often not able to form an effective seal against skin, which ultimately renders them useless. Features such as facial hair and short noses make is particularly challenging for a seal to form. 

The findings of studies into the effectiveness of respirator cycling masks are somewhat mixed – but point to the ineffectiveness of current designs. 


So what can cyclists do to protect themselves? 

The best intervention a cyclist can make to reduce their exposure to air pollution is to avoid the most polluted streets and roads. TfL’s Quietways are an easy way for cyclists to identify the less busy and less polluted roads (although TfL has announced it will be merging the Quietway and Cycle Superhighway networks into a single Cycleways cycle network during summer 2019). 

Cyclists may also consider reducing their cycling speed to reduce their inhalation of airborne particles. The faster and deeper we breathe in polluted air, the more pollutants are delivered to our lungs. Therefore slowing down and reducing their amount of exertion will go some way to protecting cyclists from air pollution. 

Finally, cyclists should check air quality forecasts and make informed decisions regarding their chosen mode of transport on a particular day. TfL provides daily forecasts on its website. 

So should cyclists stop cycling all together? In a word, no. Although there is currently not an effective way to stop yourself from inhaling air pollution whilst cycling, scientists have concluded that the physical and mental health benefits of cycling continue to outweigh the dangers posed by exposure to air pollution. Cycling remains a healthy method of transport for Londoners. 

If you are a cyclist who is concerned about your exposure to air pollution and you are considering investing in a respirator mask, be aware that research suggests they will not protect you effectively. Instead you may want to consider donating the money you would have spent on a respirator to a charity such as Trees for Cities, whose mission is to transform urban areas by creating Urban Forests.