Why London is beating American cities

[chris08876]

That list is bonkers. Tokyo should be number one. I love NYC but even I know when its outclassed in terms of just a functioning city. Those Oxford folks must of gone to San Diego and were charmed by the strong Euphoria Cookies out there to think San Diego is above Tokyo. Did Godzilla ravage the city? Must of not got the memo on that one.

NYC is world class, fantastic... but Tokyo is a step above it IMO. Maybe not in sheer economic power but in many categories of what defines a good city, it is the gold standard.

[sopas ej]

Oh I see, human capital. Basically, the economic value of a worker.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by chris08876

That list is bonkers. Tokyo should be number one. I love NYC but even I know when its outclassed in terms of just a functioning city. Those Oxford folks must of gone to San Diego and were charmed by the strong Euphoria Cookies out there to think San Diego is above Tokyo. Did Godzilla ravage the city? Must of not got the memo on that one.

NYC is world class, fantastic... but Tokyo is a step above it IMO. Maybe not in sheer economic power but in many categories of what defines a good city, it is the gold standard.

Tokyo is a great city, but it has flaws too. I certainly don't think it is in league of its own, but it is definitely on my short list of the world's greatest. My shortlist includes (no particular order):

Tokyo
London
Paris
Istanbul
New York

[veep]

Originally Posted by chris08876

That list is bonkers. Tokyo should be number one. I love NYC but even I know when its outclassed in terms of just a functioning city. Those Oxford folks must of gone to San Diego and were charmed by the strong Euphoria Cookies out there to think San Diego is above Tokyo. Did Godzilla ravage the city? Must of not got the memo on that one.

NYC is world class, fantastic... but Tokyo is a step above it IMO. Maybe not in sheer economic power but in many categories of what defines a good city, it is the gold standard.

Depends on what you value in a city.

IMO no homogenous city belongs near the top of any such list. To be a truly great city you need to be a gathering place for all the world's people.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by veep

Depends on what you value in a city.

IMO no homogenous city belongs near the top of any such list. To be a truly great city you need to be a gathering place for all the world's people.

This seems to be a very contemporary and even personal view of things.

For sure, a great world city is typically a crossroads for people from around the world. That doesn't necessarily mean that a large part of the people who transit there (for all sorts of reasons) need to settle there.

It's a bit ludicrous to suggest that Tokyo isn't one of the top cities in the world based on this criteria alone.

[jmecklenborg]

Yeah except the very standards by which westerners morally judge themselves (or rather position their personal quest for cultural capital as a moral crusade) with respect to immigrants is non-existent in the big cities throughout Asia. We see plenty of people on forums like this brag about which western city has the largest and most eclectic minority population (and certain minorities carry greater cultural cache than others) while inferring that they, themselves, possess a higher cultural status because they, themselves, successfully mingle with said minorities.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by veep

San Francisco + San Jose = 193.2. The Bay Area is #1 by a massive margin.

Bogus list. No way, San Jose > Tokyo.

just no f*cking way.

Listicle.

[MolsonExport]

Which city do you think ranks higher?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Yeah except the very standards by which westerners morally judge themselves (or rather position their personal quest for cultural capital as a moral crusade) with respect to immigrants is non-existent in the big cities throughout Asia. We see plenty of people on forums like this brag about which western city has the largest and most eclectic minority population (and certain minorities carry greater cultural cache than others) while inferring that they, themselves, possess a higher cultural status because they, themselves, successfully mingle with said minorities.

Nobody in the world actually thinks this outside of a rapidly receding niche of people in certain western countries.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Yeah except the very standards by which westerners morally judge themselves (or rather position their personal quest for cultural capital as a moral crusade) with respect to immigrants is non-existent in the big cities throughout Asia. We see plenty of people on forums like this brag about which western city has the largest and most eclectic minority population (and certain minorities carry greater cultural cache than others) while inferring that they, themselves, possess a higher cultural status because they, themselves, successfully mingle with said minorities.

It's important to distinguish between the moral aspects of diversity and the other reasons for valuing it. The moral standpoint comes down to having pre-existing diversity in the form of indigenous people, formerly enslaved people, and people from colonial territories such as Puerto Rico. Such people who are already here deserve to be treated with respect and fully included in contemporary society, so cities that attract such people and allow them to thrive without externally coerced segregation show a type of moral virtue. That's because of the long history of things like apartheid, Jim Crow, and even the Holocaust etc. which are examples of intolerance toward local minority groups (well, minority in terms of money and power rather than population in the case of S. Africa).

But valuing diversity in terms of immigration is a mostly separate thing. It has little or nothing to do with moral virtue and is mostly part of globalization. Having access to wide varieties of cultures and ideas is interesting and exciting for many. In fact, having variety such as being able to eat food, buy products, or hear languages from anywhere in the world is a type of wealth, and having people from around the world helps to facilitate that. And given the low birth rates in much of the West, immigration is often seen as a way to help prevent demographic and economic stagnation. But these are valuable for instrumental rather than moral reasons.

The main exception is obviously refugees since there's a strong moral component there. But while many immigrants in Europe are refugees, it's a pretty minimal percentage in North America.

[kool maudit]

London isn't beating anything. It is a low-wage, high cost-of-living pile of eroding advantages.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But valuing diversity in terms of immigration is a mostly separate thing. It has little or nothing to do with moral virtue and is mostly part of globalization. Having access to wide varieties of cultures and ideas is interesting and exciting for many. In fact, having variety such as being able to eat food, buy products, or hear languages from anywhere in the world is a type of wealth, and having people from around the world helps to facilitate that. And given the low birth rates in much of the West, immigration is often seen as a way to help prevent demographic and economic stagnation. But these are valuable for instrumental rather than moral reasons.

Right, the argument for diversity generally isn't moral but utilitarian. Some degree of competitive immigration, in most cases, makes rich societies richer. Of course some of these measures are subjective inputs, and the counterargument would be that others have subjective values that are eroded via immigration. I agree with the former view, but the latter view isn't outrageous.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's important to distinguish between the moral aspects of diversity and the other reasons for valuing it. The moral standpoint comes down to having pre-existing diversity in the form of indigenous people, formerly enslaved people, and people from colonial territories such as Puerto Rico. Such people who are already here deserve to be treated with respect and fully included in contemporary society, so cities that attract such people and allow them to thrive without externally coerced segregation show a type of moral virtue. That's because of the long history of things like apartheid, Jim Crow, and even the Holocaust etc. which are examples of intolerance toward local minority groups (well, minority in terms of money and power rather than population in the case of S. Africa).

But valuing diversity in terms of immigration is a mostly separate thing. It has little or nothing to do with moral virtue and is mostly part of globalization. Having access to wide varieties of cultures and ideas is interesting and exciting for many. In fact, having variety such as being able to eat food, buy products, or hear languages from anywhere in the world is a type of wealth, and having people from around the world helps to facilitate that. And given the low birth rates in much of the West, immigration is often seen as a way to help prevent demographic and economic stagnation. But these are valuable for instrumental rather than moral reasons.

The main exception is obviously refugees since there's a strong moral component there. But while many immigrants in Europe are refugees, it's a pretty minimal percentage in North America.

Excellent points.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It's important to distinguish between the moral aspects of diversity and the other reasons for valuing it. The moral standpoint comes down to having pre-existing diversity in the form of indigenous people, formerly enslaved people, and people from colonial territories such as Puerto Rico. Such people who are already here deserve to be treated with respect and fully included in contemporary society, so cities that attract such people and allow them to thrive without externally coerced segregation show a type of moral virtue. That's because of the long history of things like apartheid, Jim Crow, and even the Holocaust etc. which are examples of intolerance toward local minority groups (well, minority in terms of money and power rather than population in the case of S. Africa).

But valuing diversity in terms of immigration is a mostly separate thing. It has little or nothing to do with moral virtue and is mostly part of globalization. Having access to wide varieties of cultures and ideas is interesting and exciting for many. In fact, having variety such as being able to eat food, buy products, or hear languages from anywhere in the world is a type of wealth, and having people from around the world helps to facilitate that. And given the low birth rates in much of the West, immigration is often seen as a way to help prevent demographic and economic stagnation. But these are valuable for instrumental rather than moral reasons.

The main exception is obviously refugees since there's a strong moral component there. But while many immigrants in Europe are refugees, it's a pretty minimal percentage in North America.

good post

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But valuing diversity in terms of immigration is a mostly separate thing. It has little or nothing to do with moral virtue and is mostly part of globalization. Having access to wide varieties of cultures and ideas is interesting and exciting for many. In fact, having variety such as being able to eat food, buy products, or hear languages from anywhere in the world is a type of wealth, and having people from around the world helps to facilitate that. And given the low birth rates in much of the West, immigration is often seen as a way to help prevent demographic and economic stagnation. But these are valuable for instrumental rather than moral reasons.

Cities have also always been cultural melting pots since the beginning of civilization. The reach of the biggest cities has just gotten larger with improvements in transportation, but diversity has always been a characteristic of the biggest and most powerful cities. Cities that aren't attracting diverse groups of people are dying.

[kool maudit]

Diversity and cosmopolitanism is traditionally associated with ports or imperial capitals in certain phases. It's a powerful urban aesthetic but it's far from the only quality a city can rise or fall on.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Cities have also always been cultural melting pots since the beginning of civilization. The reach of the biggest cities has just gotten larger with improvements in transportation, but diversity has always been a characteristic of the biggest and most powerful cities. Cities that aren't attracting diverse groups of people are dying.

So Tokyo is dying?

[Crawford]

It isn't accurate to say Tokyo is dying, but Tokyo has waning global influence largely due to Japan's waning presence, which is related to its lack of cosmopolitanism. In finance, it was once trendy to predict Tokyo as the global financial center by the early 2000s. Tokyo isn't even close to the Asian financial center, well behind Singapore, HK and Shanghai. Still, 2024 Tokyo does have more diversity than stereotyped, and actually has a lot of rich Chinese expats, who keep its condo industry humming.

Still overall, Tokyo feels pretty peripheral these days.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Acajack

So Tokyo is dying?

No but Japan is.

[Crawford]

Singapore, a very generic city/state, with limited visitor appeal, is Asia's financial center. Singapore is also famously cosmopolitan.