Kearney’s Top 30 global cities report 2020 (best cities, rankings, best)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Where is the Dallas's Houston's Atlanta's on this Outlook list?
Just what I see in how Boston is seen as moving up.... yet it is not a fast growing city or metro really.
Metro might be a different story, but city-wise Boston grew by as much as Dallas over the last decade (12%) and by more than Houston (11%), albeit less than Atlanta (19%).
There are certain restrictions keeping the metro area from growing as much. Lots of old money near the urban core that maintain pretty strict zoning. However, I still wouldn't call 7% growth on the metro-level "slow".
Well, we do not see our US Southern Fast Rising cities where some cities like Houston city-proper and metros like Dallas/Ft Worth and Houston metro look to go after Chicagoland too and Toronto with its Golden Triangle who did pass Chicago city-proper in 2013. but Toronto seen as SKYROCKETING to NYC or London's current position.
Where is the Dallas's Houston's Atlanta's on this Outlook list? Too many USA Cities vying for a piece of the pie in migrations of Corporations and people. Yes mighty NYC fall even below Chicago seen as dropping..... It is our own fault as a Nation that needs to promote Corporate expansion in the cheaper regions since moving to China has ended.
Still this Outlook did not gain them an entry? That is my assessment over which cities fell. Socialist Europe (as some label it in the US) is clearly not failing in Outlook. Also the rise of 3 of Australia's cities and it is not a large population of what 11-mil?
I am not dissing the list at all. Just what I see in how Boston is seen as moving up.... yet it is not a fast growing city or metro really. We know Toronto is fast-growing by immigration that is not under US immigration limits control, but Canada does do immigration by its merit system of basically needing skills Canada needs or you will be unlikely to get a visa.
I know Kearney does give its criteria it uses. That does not change by year.
Boston is not slow growing... by any means. Its one of the fastest growing cities... And, Boston is the fastest growing Biotech, Life Sciences and Pharma hub in America. Perhaps, the most important city in the world this year in that field. The Pzifer and Moderna COVID Vaccine, both stemmed from Greater Boston. Andover and Cambridge, respectively.
It may be shedding a lot of the in staters, but Massachusetts has the 2nd highest gain of immigrants per capita, and fifth overall in America. Not to mention 81.7 million square feet of projects under construction, approved, and down the pipeline. (Over 10 million square feet of labs). Right now Boston+Cambridge has 41 cranes in the sky, with 4 buildings over 600ft under way.
Last edited by masssachoicetts; 12-04-2020 at 11:10 PM..
The Pzifer and Moderna COVID Vaccine, both stemmed from Greater Boston. Andover and Cambridge, respectively.
Nitpick: while part of the vaccine is being manufactured at Andover and Pfizer has research labs in Cambridge, their vaccine was developed by a German company and most of the manufacturing will be happening in Michigan and Belgium. We do have a big place in the global biotech industry, but we can’t claim the lion’s share of this particular accomplishment.
Moderna is entirely Boston-based, though I’ve heard that they’re contracting Lonza in Portsmouth to help them ramp up production since their Norwood manufacturing facility isn’t ready. Lonza is a Swiss company, but the labor and intellectual capital are New England’s.
But, yeah. In general that poster doesn’t seem to have a good grasp of Boston’s growth.
Last edited by Boston Shudra; 12-04-2020 at 11:17 PM..
Interesting! Based on the definitions I've read, megacities are usually defined as metropolitan areas exceeding 10 million people, though some define them as actual city populations between 5-8 million people. (Sources are those quoted in this wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megacity).
Based on this, NYC and LA would be the only US cities that count as you mentioned, though Chicago is knocking at the door. That said, I'd argue that more US cities than just NYC and LA are megacities in terms of influence, but maybe I'm just a biased American!
I agree the entirety of the "Big 5" + 1 (I just made that up ) of NY, LA, CHI, DC, SF + Boston should be considered highly influential on a global scale, but whenever I see publications of "top echelon" of global cities with international power, especially when artificially confined to a Top 10, it's usually just NY & LA. The rest are some mix of the European duopoly of London and Paris and 5-6 of the Asian behemoths of Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul, and maybe Sydney or Taipei.
Nitpick: while part of the vaccine is being manufactured at Andover and Pfizer has research labs in Cambridge, their vaccine was developed by a German company and most of the manufacturing will be happening in Michigan and Belgium. We do have a big place in the global biotech industry, but we can’t claim the lion’s share of this particular accomplishment.
Moderna is entirely Boston-based, though I’ve heard that they’re contracting Lonza in Portsmouth to help them ramp up production since their Norwood manufacturing facility isn’t ready. Lonza is a Swiss company, but the labor and intellectual capital are New England’s.
But, yeah. In general, that poster doesn’t seem to have a good grasp of Boston’s growth.
Pzifer had the brains behind their vaccine development in Cambridge (I think? Are they in Cambridge now? I know they moved all their research labs from NYC/NJ to Boston quite some time ago). Which definitely appeals to the influence of the city.
I agree, some people just don't realize how much Boston is growing. I mean yesterday alone, a 400ft tower called the Svanska Office Tower and 111 Braintree Street (500+ Residential Units) got proposed).
IIRC, Boston is one of three cities with more than 5 million square feet of Office under construction at the moment (Alongside Washington DC and Seattle). Most projects have been put on hold. And to boot, Boston ahs the most Lab Space under construction right now, by far. Almost double what SF or SD Have underway.
"Global" is a horribly vague word. Are they calling global city with most rails, atms, btms, flights, isps, central geo location or what not. From what I read the authors like Canada or are from Canada.
These are the 29 metrics that Kearney uses for determining their rankings. It is 29 "metrics" spread across 5 "dimensions"
Re: methodology, I don't think they are too different from Resonance, but to me they seem to place a bit more weight on business, trade, and commerce type activity and less on tourism, branding, and feel. There are several small but stark differences between Resonance and Kearney rankings. However I prefer these to GaWC ratings.
Quote:
Originally Posted by euro123
^ "Toronto jumped an impressive 9 places to the number 2 spot, driven by a large upswing in innovation and continued strong governance."
This seems like the biggest change in the list, as another user noted esp. given how San Francisco and Boston seem to sink you'd think Canada and America move in opposing directions.
To reiterate, Toronto's jump is in regard to future outlook, which is far more volatile than their overall rankings. It may or may not be reflected in the actual future rankings. Also, AT Kearney has a very global presence, but they are headquartered in Chicago.
^ Thank you. Some good criterion and some bad, that is: hilariously subjective and impossible to quantify, such as: sporting events, cuisine, "online presence", freedom of expression...no way. It will be better to focus only on easy to count metrics eq.: number of air flights, 5G providers, smartwatch sales, new startups growth, electric cars sales, religious diversity since you can find actual numbers for such things.
^ Thank you. Some good criterion and some bad, that is: hilariously subjective and impossible to quantify, such as: sporting events, cuisine, "online presence", freedom of expression...no way. It will be better to focus only on easy to count metrics eq.: number of air flights, 5G providers, smartwatch sales, new startups growth, electric cars sales, religious diversity since you can find actual numbers for such things.
The most laughable metrics are sister cities and culinary offerings. Like for real?
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,565,972 times
Reputation: 5785
Not sure why the disdain for Kearney list, which has proven it's much better, and compares cities in a more comprehensive manner than the GaWc list. Which simply goes by which cities compare to London/New York.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) of NY, LA, CHI, DC, SF + Boston should be considered highly influential on a global scale, but whenever I see publications of "top echelon" of global cities with international power, especially when artificially confined to a Top 10, it's usually just NY & LA. The rest are some mix of the European duopoly of London and Paris and 5-6 of the Asian behemoths of Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Seoul, and maybe Sydney or Taipei.
