Subscribe
Canadian geographer Mario Polèse's book, The Wealth and Poverty of Regions: Why Cities Matter, is not new. It was originally published in 2010. But it's perhaps a good follow-up to yesterday's post about the untethering of wealth. Here's an excerpt from a review of the book by Jeb Brugmann:
All cities, Polèse explains, share the same basic economic causes and effects. These are economies of localization (i.e., locating activities close together) and of urbanization (i.e., clustering lots of diverse activities together at scale). Polèse shows how these urban economies—usefully distinguished and defined in detail as economies of scale, proximity, diversity and concentration—combine with unique natural features and resource endowments, technology and infrastructure investments, national boundaries and market controls, and historical events to create quintessentially local and unique places. Every time he explains the status of another place—New York, London, Chicago, Paris, Montreal, the northern Mexico border, the North American west coast—he demonstrates again how the source code of geography combines with specific local and historical conditions to create a momentum of wealth or poverty.
The rich may have the means to tax-optimize through physical mobility, but the draw to established urban clusters remains strong, which is why it can be a challenge to stay away from them for more than 183 days. There is a "stickiness" to established cities that is the result of momentum and compounding over centuries.
Still, nothing is guaranteed, and there's only so much that can be done if you're swimming against a global landscape that is shifting away from you. Geography does matter. And today, the world's economic center of gravity is rapidly shifting toward Asia. This is good for some cities and bad for others.
Cover photo by Zhu Hongzhi on Unsplash
We talk a lot about mobility and traffic congestion on this blog — particularly in the context of Toronto — and that's because it remains a problem and we continue to avoid any sort of big and meaningful moves. Instead, we like to
There are countless rankings of cities out there. And most of them probably don't mean very much. But the concept of a "global city", as coined by Saskia Sassen in the early 90s, is still immensely fascinating to me. And that's because there is, in fact, an order. There are cities that are less and more important to the global economy.
To this end, Resonance Consulting has just released their annual ranking of the world's best cities. And this year, they've introduced something new to their methodology: perception data. For this, they partnered with Ipsos and asked more than 22,000 respondents across 30 countries the following three broad and open-ended questions:
What are the top 3 towns or cities you would most like to live in someday?
What are the top 3 towns or cities you would most like to visit in the next 12 to 24 months?
What 3 towns or cities do you believe currently offer the best job opportunities?
The intent with these questions was to not anchor people to a specific list of places, and to not necessarily anchor people to big global cities. Maybe the best job opportunities are believed to be in small towns that most people aren't thinking about. The result is that thousands of different towns and cities were mentioned during the survey period.
While this didn't necessarily impact the cities and usual suspects that you would expect to see in a ranking like this -- cities like London, New York, and Paris -- it did change certain things and offer some interesting insights. For example, the strong global perception of Sydney helped to move it into the top 10 for the first in the ten-year history of this report.
On the other end of the spectrum, negative sentiment (outside of China) toward Hong Kong caused the city's ranking to drop precipitously. It is now ranked 97th, behind cities like Naples (Italy), Birmingham (UK), and Rochester (US). Singapore, in case you're wondering, is ranked 5th:
Canadian geographer Mario Polèse's book, The Wealth and Poverty of Regions: Why Cities Matter, is not new. It was originally published in 2010. But it's perhaps a good follow-up to yesterday's post about the untethering of wealth. Here's an excerpt from a review of the book by Jeb Brugmann:
All cities, Polèse explains, share the same basic economic causes and effects. These are economies of localization (i.e., locating activities close together) and of urbanization (i.e., clustering lots of diverse activities together at scale). Polèse shows how these urban economies—usefully distinguished and defined in detail as economies of scale, proximity, diversity and concentration—combine with unique natural features and resource endowments, technology and infrastructure investments, national boundaries and market controls, and historical events to create quintessentially local and unique places. Every time he explains the status of another place—New York, London, Chicago, Paris, Montreal, the northern Mexico border, the North American west coast—he demonstrates again how the source code of geography combines with specific local and historical conditions to create a momentum of wealth or poverty.
The rich may have the means to tax-optimize through physical mobility, but the draw to established urban clusters remains strong, which is why it can be a challenge to stay away from them for more than 183 days. There is a "stickiness" to established cities that is the result of momentum and compounding over centuries.
Still, nothing is guaranteed, and there's only so much that can be done if you're swimming against a global landscape that is shifting away from you. Geography does matter. And today, the world's economic center of gravity is rapidly shifting toward Asia. This is good for some cities and bad for others.
Cover photo by Zhu Hongzhi on Unsplash
We talk a lot about mobility and traffic congestion on this blog — particularly in the context of Toronto — and that's because it remains a problem and we continue to avoid any sort of big and meaningful moves. Instead, we like to
There are countless rankings of cities out there. And most of them probably don't mean very much. But the concept of a "global city", as coined by Saskia Sassen in the early 90s, is still immensely fascinating to me. And that's because there is, in fact, an order. There are cities that are less and more important to the global economy.
To this end, Resonance Consulting has just released their annual ranking of the world's best cities. And this year, they've introduced something new to their methodology: perception data. For this, they partnered with Ipsos and asked more than 22,000 respondents across 30 countries the following three broad and open-ended questions:
What are the top 3 towns or cities you would most like to live in someday?
What are the top 3 towns or cities you would most like to visit in the next 12 to 24 months?
What 3 towns or cities do you believe currently offer the best job opportunities?
The intent with these questions was to not anchor people to a specific list of places, and to not necessarily anchor people to big global cities. Maybe the best job opportunities are believed to be in small towns that most people aren't thinking about. The result is that thousands of different towns and cities were mentioned during the survey period.
While this didn't necessarily impact the cities and usual suspects that you would expect to see in a ranking like this -- cities like London, New York, and Paris -- it did change certain things and offer some interesting insights. For example, the strong global perception of Sydney helped to move it into the top 10 for the first in the ten-year history of this report.
On the other end of the spectrum, negative sentiment (outside of China) toward Hong Kong caused the city's ranking to drop precipitously. It is now ranked 97th, behind cities like Naples (Italy), Birmingham (UK), and Rochester (US). Singapore, in case you're wondering, is ranked 5th:
Here are three examples and possible solutions:
Copenhagen: Over 60% of residents use a bicycle to commute to work or school. It is one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world. You've probably heard this before and are prepared to say, "yeah, well, we're not Copenhagen." But it's important to point out that neither was Copenhagen. In the early-to-mid 70s, the modal split for bikes was somewhere between ~10-15%.
Singapore: This is one of my favorite examples. Singapore is home to the world's first congestion charge zone (1975). And it operates on a dynamic pricing model, meaning that traffic congestion is continually monitored and road prices are adjusted to ensure that traffic always flows at certain minimum speed. It's a highly effective tool and there's no shortage of global case studies. Here's Miami.
Zurich: Despite being one of the wealthiest cities in Europe, car ownership is relatively low (~40-45% of the population, compared to ~60-65% in Toronto). This is due to a great public transit system (Swiss trains and stuff) and because of strict parking policies, among other things.
Zurich has a hard cap on the number of parking spaces in the central part of the city. It is set at 1990 levels, which works out to about 7,600 total parking spaces. What this means is that if somebody, like a big bad developer, wants to build off-street parking, they need to simultaneously reduce the parking supply somewhere else. You can't exceed the cap.
This obviously discourages car usage and moderates the demand for city streets, but it also serves as a clever way to slowly replace on-street parking with better uses, such as an enhanced public realm. This policy has been in place since 1989 and it has had a dramatic effect on car usage. Between 2000 and 2021, the share of car trips in the city decreased from 40% to 29%.
I know that many of you will scoff at these solutions and think "yeah, there's no way." But this is how you make traffic better. You reduce demand and use our finite amount of road capacity more efficiently. So we can either make bold moves or we can continue to complain about traffic.
Cover photo by Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash
Broadly speaking, the perception data also served to remind us that we continue to have a bias toward cities. When people are asked where they want to live, visit, and work, they still think of the world's biggest and most important places. So despite the rise of decentralizing technologies (i.e. Zoom) and the bad things that happened to cities as a result of the pandemic, big cities remain at the center of the global economy.
This is not at all surprising.
Cover photo by Aaron Gilmore on Unsplash
Here are three examples and possible solutions:
Copenhagen: Over 60% of residents use a bicycle to commute to work or school. It is one of the most bike-friendly cities in the world. You've probably heard this before and are prepared to say, "yeah, well, we're not Copenhagen." But it's important to point out that neither was Copenhagen. In the early-to-mid 70s, the modal split for bikes was somewhere between ~10-15%.
Singapore: This is one of my favorite examples. Singapore is home to the world's first congestion charge zone (1975). And it operates on a dynamic pricing model, meaning that traffic congestion is continually monitored and road prices are adjusted to ensure that traffic always flows at certain minimum speed. It's a highly effective tool and there's no shortage of global case studies. Here's Miami.
Zurich: Despite being one of the wealthiest cities in Europe, car ownership is relatively low (~40-45% of the population, compared to ~60-65% in Toronto). This is due to a great public transit system (Swiss trains and stuff) and because of strict parking policies, among other things.
Zurich has a hard cap on the number of parking spaces in the central part of the city. It is set at 1990 levels, which works out to about 7,600 total parking spaces. What this means is that if somebody, like a big bad developer, wants to build off-street parking, they need to simultaneously reduce the parking supply somewhere else. You can't exceed the cap.
This obviously discourages car usage and moderates the demand for city streets, but it also serves as a clever way to slowly replace on-street parking with better uses, such as an enhanced public realm. This policy has been in place since 1989 and it has had a dramatic effect on car usage. Between 2000 and 2021, the share of car trips in the city decreased from 40% to 29%.
I know that many of you will scoff at these solutions and think "yeah, there's no way." But this is how you make traffic better. You reduce demand and use our finite amount of road capacity more efficiently. So we can either make bold moves or we can continue to complain about traffic.
Cover photo by Claudio Schwarz on Unsplash
Broadly speaking, the perception data also served to remind us that we continue to have a bias toward cities. When people are asked where they want to live, visit, and work, they still think of the world's biggest and most important places. So despite the rise of decentralizing technologies (i.e. Zoom) and the bad things that happened to cities as a result of the pandemic, big cities remain at the center of the global economy.
This is not at all surprising.
Cover photo by Aaron Gilmore on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
