In Edward Glaeser’s book, Triumph of the City, he argues that the average temperature in January is the single best variable to predict which U.S. cities have grown the most over the last century. Indeed, from July 2015 to July 2016, 10 of the 15 fastest growing large metro areas in the U.S. were in the south. Follow the sun and sprawl.

Given this phenomenon, I thought it would be interesting to look at the world’s most influential cities (i.e. global cities) through this lens. Because let’s face it, New York and London aren’t all that warm in January. 

Below are the top 25 global cities (taken from A.T. Kearney’s 2018 Global Cities Report), along with their average January temperature (taken from here). Note, there are two rankings. On the left is their global cities index. And on the right is their global cities outlook, which evaluates current potential. Cities that improved their economics & governance made the biggest leap on the right.

First of all, it’s interesting to see San Francisco jump so significantly in their outlook ranking. This has everything to do with tech and innovation. It’s also important to note that a handful of the above cities are located in the southern hemisphere, so “average January temperature” doesn’t mean the same thing (probably should have normalized to their winter).

Montreal wins the award for the coldest city in this ranking. And there’s really only one city, Singapore, with a tropical climate. Though there are others, such as Hong Kong and Sydney, that would fall under subtropical. All of this isn’t enough for us to start inferring anything, but perhaps colder and more temperate climates aren’t such a bad thing for economic growth.

With the cold winter that we’ve had in Toronto this year I’m going to be honest and say that I’ve, on occasion, wondered why I haven’t moved somewhere warmer. There aren’t any great mountains nearby, so it’s not like I’m putting up with this cold in order to feed my love of snowboarding.

Then yesterday, I was reading The Urbanophile blog and I was reminded of a fascinating finding from Edward Glaeser’s book, Triumph of the City: climate matters when it comes to cities and prosperity.

In fact (from New York Magazine):

The single variable that best predicts a U.S. city’s growth over the past century is its average January temperature. Hence the decline of many northern and midwestern cities and the boom in the South and the Sun Belt, where the Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, and Dallas metropolitan areas have each gained a million people since 2000. For every five degrees that a city’s January temperatures top the national average, Glaeser writes, its real-estate prices will beat the national mean by 3 percent, thanks to the increased demand.

But not all cold places are bleeding people. New York isn’t. And neither is Toronto. The Toronto area accepts roughly 100,000 new people every year. We have more cranes up in the air than any other city in North America. But it’s cold as all hell here. So what gives?

As the New York Magazine article (cited above) points out, New York essentially offers enough benefits to offset its cold winters. There are enough amenities and economic opportunities to make people put up with the bad. And we’re not just talking about weather.

A lot global cities–New York, London and so on–are crowded, expensive and somewhat impractical places to live. But they continue to attract and retain people in droves, which is a nice tie in to yesterday’s post about urban renewal and the importance of lifestyle.

People will put up with a lot if your city is an otherwise awesome place to live.