world city vision - vancouver event tickets - tickets … summary of indexes rankings study top...
TRANSCRIPT
World City Vision
Research Report
18 June 2012
2
Table of Contents
Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 3
Methodology ................................................................................................................................. 3
World City Vision Development Stages ........................................................................................ 3
Traditional Definitions .................................................................................................................. 4
Traditional Criteria ........................................................................................................................ 5
Economic characteristics .......................................................................................................... 5
Political characteristics ............................................................................................................. 5
Cultural characteristics ............................................................................................................. 5
Infrastructural characteristics ................................................................................................... 6
Summary of Indexes Rankings ..................................................................................................... 7
Studies .......................................................................................................................................... 9
Björn Surborg - World Cities ......................................................................................................... 9
Greg Clark - The Business of Cities .............................................................................................. 11
Indexes ........................................................................................................................................ 12
The Anholt-GfK Roper City Brands Index™ ................................................................................. 12
The Economist's (EIU) World's Most Livable Cities ..................................................................... 13
Jones Lang LaSalle – World Winning Cities 2012........................................................................ 16
Global Cities Index ...................................................................................................................... 17
The Global Financial Centres Index ............................................................................................. 20
Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC) ....................................................... 23
Global Power City Index .............................................................................................................. 24
Green Buzz.net - The World’s Greenest Cities ............................................................................ 27
Green City Index – US and Canada ............................................................................................. 27
MasterCard Worldwide Insights - MasterCard Index of Global Destination Cities: Cross-Border Travel and Expenditures (Second Quarter 2011) ....................................................................... 31
Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey ............................................................................................... 32
Top 5 cities Worldwide - 2011 ................................................................................................ 33
Top 5 cities by Region - 2011 .................................................................................................. 33
Monocle’s Liveable Cities Index .................................................................................................. 34
PWC – Cities of Opportunity 2011 .............................................................................................. 35
Toronto Board of Trade - Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity – 2012 ................ 37
Travel + Leisure’s World’s Best Cities ......................................................................................... 39
World City Survey ....................................................................................................................... 40
Next Steps ................................................................................................................................... 43
3
Introduction
A key initiative that had broad support during stakeholder Rethink discussions was to develop a “World
City” Vision. Tourism Vancouver’s Board of Directors responded by initiating a collaborative process to
developing a broad community vision for Vancouver.
Tourism requires broad community support to be optimally successful. Having a community vision that
is broadly embraced and for which the tourism vision forms a natural part will help the tourism industry
to be more successful.
There is no set definition for a World City, rather there are many ways of defining it, traditionally it has
been defined in economic terms but there are multiple factors that need to be considered, these will be
presented below. There are three stages to developing a World City Vision, this report falls under the
first stage, preparation. The information gathered in the first stage will be utilized for discussion by
stakeholders in the second phase, process. Once there is consensus on how Vancouver will be defined as
a World City, the third stage, adoption will take place.
Methodology
Two secondary research methods were employed to gather material for this report:
1. Utilized internet search engines to source relevant papers, articles, reports and presentations.
2. Attended presentations on the subject, with follow-up conversations with presenters.
Highlights from relevant reports, papers, presentations etc. were then included in this report (refer to
Studies and Indexes). The results from the various Indexes were then summarized in table format;
comparing Vancouver’s ranking to the top ranked cities (refer to Summary of Indexes Rankings).
World City Vision Development Stages
Stage 1: Preparation
The first stage lays the foundation; its purpose is to gather information to form the basis for discussion
by stakeholders in stage two. This report is the completion of the first stage.
Stage 2: Process
This stage involves bringing together stakeholders to discuss what World City Vision means and how to
define it for Vancouver. Just as Vancouver’s tourism industry has established a tourism vision, the
industry will likely be more successful if there is a broader community vision, with broader engagement
from government, other industries and the community at large. In this way, the tourism vision may be
able to “ride in the slip stream” of and provide support to a larger vision which may enjoy broader
commitment and momentum.
4
Considerations for Stage 2:
Establishing a World City Vision – The City of Vancouver could be encouraged to establish a
Vancouver Future Vision Forum for creating a community vision and implementation strategy.
Establishing the Metro Vancouver Vision – Regional governments could be encouraged to
establish a Metro Vancouver Future Vision Forum for creating a regional vision and
implementation strategy.
Lower Mainland Tourism Alliance (LMTA’s) Role – LMTA could represent the tourism industry’s
voice on the Metro Vancouver Future Vision Forum and should provide appropriate support.
The vision must be supported by government, other industries and the community.
Being cross-sectoral will enhance engagement with other industries and community groups.
The tourism industry will be stronger if it’s not “going it alone” and is part of something bigger.
The ownership of the process must be bigger than the tourism industry.
To be broadly embraced, it must be broadly inclusive.
Vancouver needs its own community vision.
Ideally, Metro Vancouver would have a regional vision that is complementary.
Stage 3: Adoption
The stakeholders need to come to an agreement on what defines Vancouver as a World City, and then
they need to embrace it.
Traditional Definitions
World city may refer to:
1. World city (mega structure), the fusion of all urban areas and megalopolises into a single
continuous worldwide city.1
2. Global City (also called alpha city or world center) is a city generally considered to be an
important node in the global economic system. The concept comes from geography and urban
studies and rests on the idea that globalization can be understood as largely created, facilitated
and enacted in strategic geographic locales according to a hierarchy of importance to the
operation of the global system of finance and trade. The most complex of these entities is the
“global city”, whereby the linkages binding a city have a direct and tangible effect on global
affairs through socio-economic means. 2
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_city_(disambiguation) 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
5
Traditional Criteria
Global City or world city status is seen as beneficial, and because of this many groups have tried to
classify and rank which cities are seen as ‘world cities’ or ‘non-world cities’. Although there is a
consensus upon leading world cities, the criteria upon which a classification is made can affect which
other cities are included. The criteria for identification tend either to be based on a “yardstick value”
(“e.g., if the producer-service sector is the largest sector, then city X is a world city”) or on an “imminent
determination” (“if the producer-service sector of city X is greater than the producer-service sector of N
other cities, then city X is a world city”)3.
Economic characteristics
Headquarters for multinational corporations, international financial institutions, law firms,
conglomerates, and stock exchanges that have influence over the world economy.
Significant financial capacity/output: city/regional GDP.
Stock market indices/market capitalization.
Financial service provision; e.g. banks, accountancy.
Costs of living personal wealth; e.g. number of billionaires.
Political characteristics
Influence on and participation in international events and world affairs; for example, Beijing,
Berlin, London, Moscow, New Delhi, Paris, Tokyo, and Washington are capitals of influential
nations.
Hosting headquarters for international organizations such as the (World Bank), NATO, or the UN.
A large population of the municipality (the centre of a metropolitan area, typically several
million) or agglomeration.
Diverse demographic constituencies based on various indicators: population, habitat, mobility,
and urbanization.
Quality of life standards or city development.
Expatriate communities.
Cultural characteristics
International, first-name familiarity. Cities such as New York City, Tokyo, Paris and London are
commonly referred to without needing to specify their country.
Renowned cultural institutions (often with high endowments), such as notable museums and
galleries, notable opera, major ballet companies, orchestras, notable film centres and theatre
centers.
3 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_city
6
A lively cultural scene, including film festivals (such as the Toronto International Film Festival),
premieres, a thriving music scene, nightlife, an opera company, art galleries, street performers,
and annual parades.
Several influential media outlets with an international reach, such as the BBC, Reuters, The New
York Times, or Agence France-Presse.
A strong sporting community, including major sports facilities, home teams in major league
sports, and the ability and historical experience to host international sporting events such as the
Olympic Games, FIFA World Cup, or Grand Slam tennis events.
Educational institutions; e.g. universities, international student attendance, research facilities.
Sites of pilgrimage for world religions (for example, Mecca, Jerusalem or Rome).
Cities containing World Heritage Sites of historical and cultural significance.
Tourism throughout.
City as site or subject in arts and media, television, film, video games, music, literature,
magazines, articles, documentary.
City as an often repeated historic reference, showcase, or symbolic actions.
Infrastructural characteristics
An advanced transportation system that includes several highways and/or a large mass transit
network offering multiple modes of transportation (rapid transit, light rail, regional rail, ferry, or
bus), for example, the London Underground.
Extensive and popular mass transit systems, prominent rail usage, road vehicle usage, and major
seaports.
A major international airport that serves as an established hub for several international airlines,
for example, London Heathrow, Atlanta, Tokyo, and Chicago O’Hare. Airports with significant
passenger traffic and international passengers’ traffic or cargo movements.
An advanced communications infrastructure on which modern trans-national corporations rely,
such as fiber optics, Wi-Fi networks, cellular phone services, and other high-speed lines of
communications. For example, Seoul and Tokyo are known as the digital and technology capitals
of the world.
Health facilities; e.g. hospitals, medical laboratories.
Prominent skylines/skyscrapers (for example New York, Chicago, Sydney, or Hong Kong).
Cities’ telephone and mail services, airport flights-range, traffic congestion, availability of water,
train facilities, nearby parks, hospitals, libraries, police stations, etc.
7
Summary of Indexes Rankings
Study Top Ranked City Vancouver’s Ranking
The Anholt-GfK Roper City Brands Index™ (2009 & 2011)
Paris (2009 & 2011)
19 (2009)
The Economist’s (EIU) World’s Most Livable Cities (2011)
Melbourne 3
Jones Lang LaSalle – World Winning Cities 2012
London 104
Global Cities Index (2010)
New York City Not ranked
Global Financial Centres Index (2011) Industry Sector sub-Indexes: - Wealth Management/private banking
London
London
17
9
Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC) (2010)
Alpha++ London & New York City
Beta+
Global Power City Index (2010) Category: - Livability - Economy - Research & development - Cultural Interaction - Ecology & natural Environment - Accessibility Actor-Specific Ranking: - Manager - Researcher - Artist - Visitor - Resident
New York City
Vancouver New York City New York City
London Zurich Paris
New York City New York City
Paris London
Paris
16
1 18 20 26 15 31
12 14 17 21 10
Green Buzz –The World’s 10 Greenest Cities (2011)
Reykjavik, Iceland 4
Green City Index (2011) Category: - CO2 - Energy - Land Use - Buildings - Transport - Water - Waste - Air - Environmental Governance
San Francisco
Vancouver Denver
New York City Seattle
New York City Calgary
San Francisco Vancouver
Denver
2
1 4 5 5 3 6 7 1
10
8
Study Top Ranked City Vancouver’s Ranking
MasterCard Index of Global Destination Cities (Second Quarter 2011) - North America
London
New York City
Not Ranked in top 20 cities
10
Mercer’s Best Cities for Infrastructure (2010)
Singapore Tied 6 with Düsseldorf
Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey (2011)
Vienna Tied 5 with Düsseldorf
Monocle’s Liveable Cities Index (2011)
Helsinki 20
PWC – Cities of Opportunity (2011)
New York City Not ranked
Toronto Board of Trade - Scorecard on Prosperity 2012 Category: - Economy – All 24 Cities - Economy – 12 North American Cities - Labour Attractiveness Clusters: - Auto & Parts Manufacturing - Transportation & Logistics - Food & Beverage - Finance - Bio-Pharma & Bio-Medical - Aerospace - Information &Communication Technology - Business & Professional Services - Creative & Entertainment - Energy
Paris
San Francisco Boston Paris
Toronto
Vancouver Calgary
New York San Francisco
Seattle San Francisco
Calgary
Los Angeles Calgary
16
19 11 11
4 1 4 7
10 11 10
6 7
11
Travel + Leisure’s World’s Best Cities (2011)
Bangkok 27
World City Survey (2011)
New York City Not ranked
9
Studies
Björn Surborg - World Cities
Björn Surborg in his 2010 paper "World Cities"4,, defines a world city as a city deemed to be an
important node point in the global economic system. A world city is a dominant place in the global
economy with a disproportionately large share of the world's business functions, especially capital
commanding functions, but the term dates back to at least the beginning of the 19th century, when
Goethe used it to describe cities of overwhelming political and cultural importance. Within the
contemporary study of geography, however, world cities are usually defined as centers with a very large
proportion of command-and-control functions within the global economy. These are most commonly
measured as large concentrations of producer services, including banking and financial services,
insurance, real estate, legal services, accounting, and professional associations.
World cities are also highly dependent on each other for investment and other business activities,
creating a world city network. Due to increased global competition in place marketing, world city status
is a desirable achievement for local planners, trying to attract outside investment or a share of the
global tourism. More recently, the concept of the world city has been criticized for focusing too strongly
on urban hierarchies and economic aspects and for being West-centric.
World cities are the command-and-control centers of the global economy but are not individually in a
position to fulfill these command-and-control functions. Instead, they are also highly dependent on each
other—that is, they not only compete for the same business but also rely on each other in fulfilling the
capital commanding functions in the global economy and thus constitute a system. The geographic
distribution of cities remains of central importance for this system regardless of considerable
improvements in telecommunications over the past two or three decades. The most regularly
mentioned world cities at the top of the urban hierarchy, New York, London, and Tokyo, for example,
are located in three distinct world regions and time zones and are thus in a position to collectively
influence business in the Americas, Europe-Africa, and the Asia Pacific Region at any time, whereas one
individual city could not do so. Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Paris, Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Hong Kong,
Singapore, and Sydney, among others, are often cited as other major world cities.
These world cities have in common that they host the largest stock exchanges and the headquarters of
the world's largest banks and other transnational producer services firms. Through these producer
services or command-and-control functions, world cities fulfill core functions within the world economy.
Strong links thus exist between world-systems theory, which conceptually divides countries into core,
periphery and semi periphery economies, and world city research, although the former focuses on the
nation-state as the main unit of analysis and the latter on cities.
4 Surborg, Björn. "World Cities". Encyclopedia of Geography. 2010. SAGE Publications. 15 Oct. 2010.
http://www.sage-ereference.com/geography/Article_n1257.html Surborg, Björn. "World Cities", University of British Columbia, 2012. Vancouver Presentation.
10
The internal structure of world cities is characterized by an advanced telecommunication infrastructure,
a large stock of high-end office space, a large proportion of urban amenities, spectacular architecture,
and signature buildings as well as highly polarized labor markets. Moreover, the hosting of cultural
festivals, sports events, and other mega events, such as the Olympics or Expos (world exhibitions), are
means for cities to attract business and tourists and thus attain (or maintain) world city status.
Office space and infrastructure are essential prerequisites in attracting the offices, especially regional or
global headquarters, of large transnational corporations, which give a city the status of a world city.
However, cultural amenities, such as theaters, museums, concert halls, and sports arenas, are of similar
importance in attracting global managerial staff and professionals to work in a city. Similarly, mega
events, with their substantial global media reach, are tools for promoting a city and showcasing its
attractiveness and achievements. Spectacular architecture provides an image of a city to promote it
through the global media.
Partly as a result of this economic structure, world cities are characterized by a highly polarized labour
market. On the one hand, a large number of professionals and managerial staff in transnational
corporations receive high incomes with additional benefits, enabling them to enjoy many of the cultural
amenities, while on the other hand many low-income workers struggle to find adequate housing,
schooling for children, and often food. These workers often earn a minimum wage (or in case of illegal
employment, below minimum wage) and find employment in low-end service jobs, such as cleaning,
food services, or domestic labour. Both labour markets, high and low income, are highly international
and depend on migrant workers—transnational professionals on the one hand and economic migrants
on the other. The process of social polarization is also a result of post-1970s state restructuring and the
reduction of social redistribution by nation-states.
World cities are often ranked into alpha, beta, gamma, and delta groups, based on the concentrations of
producer services in them. Depending on changes in these concentrations, cities retain both upward and
downward mobility within the system. Vancouver (along with Seattle) falls under the Delta group,
showing some evidence of world city formation.
11
Greg Clark - The Business of Cities
Greg Clark has conducted a comprehensive study, “The Business of Cities, City Indexes in 2011” 5 in
which over a hundred reports, multi-layered indexes and single-variable rankings are explored and
mined for their insights into urban presents and futures. He argues that several factors need to be taken
into consideration:
The role of sustainability and the evolution of ‘Smart City’ concept. The sustainability agenda is
usefully merging with liveability ambitions, enabling both fields to be handled within one regime of
urban design upgrades. The ambition to facilitate residents to make lifestyle choices that contribute
most to collective wellbeing has moved towards the centre of the leadership agenda at least partly
because of the marriage of sustainability and liveability goals.
The quest for quality of life remains the key overarching goal for many city leaders because it is the
profound common ingredient uniting the needs of citizens, businesses, investors, and visitors in a
city. Local amenities, connectivity, and good local public services therefore remain essential to the
urban project. In order to achieve these liveability advantages, most of the world’s mega-cities, and
even more numerous historic and de-industrialising cities, still need to address ongoing substantial
infrastructure deficits. Existing infrastructure, including transport links, energy storage, waste
management, and housing, has to be renewed, managed, and in many cases re-financed, while
investment and re-investment is critical to create new infrastructure that can cope with the
challenges of growth, restructuring and adaptation.
Many cities have invested considerable time and money in devising new economic strategies that
identify which leading sectors to prioritise and building new identities around these sectors that can
effectively communicate to new customers and investors in the emerging world. Strategic economic
positioning is accompanied by the pressure to increase, through innovation, the investment rate in
the new cycle so as to ensure vital existing assets do not become liabilities.
The reality of demographic change that is profoundly shaping cities’ revenue capabilities and service
delivery demands. As well as increased mobility, especially of younger knowledge workers and
aspirational immigrants, cities are confronted with dramatically extended life expectancies often
coupled with low birth rates. As a result urban life is for the most part becoming more and more
racially, socially and economically diverse. This produces greater heterogeneity in citizenry
aspirations, and the need for cities to provide distinctive services and representation to different
population segments.
Clark argues that Vancouver is a medium sized niche city (along with Seattle, Austin, Portland and
Montreal) that performs high on environmental and entrepreneurial measures and is becoming more
prominent in national and international indexes. In terms of Livability, Vancouver is as usual very highly
regarded, but for the first time in nearly a decade has dropped from first place to third place in The
Economist’s (EIU) World's Most Livable Cities Index.
5 Clark. G. “The Business of Cities, City Indexes in 2011” June 2011.
12
Indexes
The Anholt-GfK Roper City Brands Index™
Vancouver was ranked eighteenth in 2009.
Simon Anholt developed the City Brands Index in 20066 as a way to measure the image and reputation
of the world's cities, and to track their profiles as they rise or fall. Now, in partnership with GfK Roper
Public Affairs & Media7, one of the world's leading research firms, Simon Anholt has launched an
expanded City Brands Index, the only analytical ranking of the world’s city images and reputations. The
studies poll nearly 20,000 people in 20 countries each year, asking more than 40 questions about their
perceptions of 50 cities.
The 2011 Anholt-GfK Roper City Brands Index8 is based on a survey conducted in 10 major developed
and developing countries around the globe. The index is developed by averaging city scores across six
categories, it attempts to measure the quality of the City’s ‘brand’ globally by asking participants to
judge cities on the basis of: Presence (knowledge of city and perception of its global contribution); Place
(cleanliness, aesthetic qualities and climate); Prerequisites (affordable accommodation and quality of
public amenities); People (friendliness, personal encounters and cultural diversity); Pulse (interesting
events, activities and lifestyles); and Potential (perception as a good place to do business, to find a job
and go to school).
The top 10 cities from the 2011 global survey
Rank City
1 Paris
2 London
3 Sydney
4 New York
5 Los Angeles
6 Rome
7 Washington D.C.
8 Melbourne
9 Vienna
10 Tokyo
6 http://www.simonanholt.com/Research/research-city-brand-index.aspx
7 http://www.gfkamerica.com/practice_areas/roper_pam/placebranding/cbi/index.en.html
8 http://www.gfk.com/imperia/md/content/presse/pressemeldungen_2011/anholt-
gfk_roper_cbi_7_18_2011releasefinal.pdf
13
The cities measured in each wave include:
North America: Chicago, Montreal, New York, Toronto, Vancouver, San Francisco, Los Angeles,
Boston
Western Europe: Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dublin, Edinburgh,
Geneva, Helsinki, London, Madrid, Manchester, Milan, Paris, Rome, Stockholm
Central/Eastern Europe: Budapest, Istanbul, Moscow, Prague, Riga, Warsaw
Asia Pacific: Auckland, Beijing, Hong Kong, Melbourne, Seoul, Singapore, Sydney, Tokyo,
Shanghai, Mumbai, Bangkok
Latin America: Rio de Janeiro, Mexico City, Buenos Aires
Middle East/Africa: Johannesburg, Cairo, Dubai
The Economist's (EIU) World's Most Livable Cities
Vancouver is ranked third.
The Economist Intelligence Unit's9 livability survey uses data from the Mercer consulting group and
shows cities in Canada, Australia, Austria, Finland and New Zealand as the ideal destinations, thanks to a
widespread availability of goods and services, low personal risk, and an effective infrastructure. It does
not take into account climate or the cost of living as a factor in 'livability.' The Economist Intelligence
Unit has been criticized by the New York Times for being overly Anglo centric, stating that "The
Economist clearly equates livability with speaking English."
The August 2011 report placed Melbourne, Australia as the most livable city in the world, with Vienna,
Austria taking second place, followed by Vancouver, Canada. There was controversy related to the
lowering of Vancouver's rating due to the traffic congestion on Highway 1, as the congestion was
located 90 kilometers away from the city and on Vancouver Island. The highway referenced serves
Victoria, B.C. and Nanaimo, B.C.
Other Canadian cities also ranked highly in the survey, with Toronto and Calgary holding the 4th and 5th
positions, respectively. Three other Australian cities, Sydney at 6th and Perth and Adelaide tied at 8th,
were ranked among the top ten.
The top Asian city was Osaka, Japan, at number 12, tying with Geneva, Switzerland, and beating the
Japanese capital of Tokyo, which placed 18th. Paris was ranked number 16 and London moved up one
place to 53rd. Honolulu at 26th tops the American cities in the list, just ahead of Pittsburgh, ranked 29th,
Boston 41st, Los Angeles (which rose to) 44th, and New York in 56th place.
9 http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=The_Global_Liveability_Report&page=noads
14
Generally African and South Asian cities were ranked lower in the EIU's rankings. Harare, Zimbabwe, was
rated the least liveable city in the world.
About the Liveability survey
The concept of liveability is simple: it assesses which locations around the world provide the best or the
worst living conditions. Assessing liveability has a broad range of uses, from benchmarking perceptions
of development levels to assigning a hardship allowance as part of expatriate relocation packages. The
Economist Intelligence Unit's liveability rating quantifies the challenges that might be presented to an
individual's lifestyle in any given location, and allows for direct comparison between locations.
Each city is assigned a rating of relative comfort for over 30 qualitative and quantitative factors across
five broad categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. Each
factor in each city is rated as acceptable, tolerable, uncomfortable, undesirable or intolerable. For
qualitative indicators, a rating is awarded based on the judgment of in–house analysts and in–city
contributors. For quantitative indicators, a rating is calculated based on the relative performance of a
number of external data points. The scores are then compiled and weighted to provide a score of 1–100,
where 1 is considered intolerable and 100 is considered ideal. The liveability rating is provided both as
an overall score and as a score for each category. To provide points of reference, the score is also given
for each category relative to New York and an overall position in the ranking of 140 cities is provided.
The scores are then compiled and weighted to provide a score of 1–100, where 1 is considered
intolerable and 100 is considered ideal. The liveability rating is provided both as an overall score and as a
score for each category. To provide points of reference, the score is also given for each category relative
to New York and an overall position in the ranking of 140 cities is provided.
The suggested liveability scale 10
Rating Description
80–100 There are few, if any, challenges to living standards
70–80 Day–to–day living is fine, in general, but some aspects of life may entail problems
60–70 Negative factors have an impact on day-to-day living
50–60 Liveability is substantially constrained
50 or less Most aspects of living are severely restricted
10 http://www.eiu.com/site_info.asp?info_name=The_Global_Liveability_Report_Methodology&page=noads
15
Category 1: Stability (weight: 25% of total)
Indicator Source
Prevalence of petty crime EIU rating
Prevalence of violent crime EIU rating
Threat of terror EIU rating
Threat of military conflict EIU rating
Threat of civil unrest/conflict EIU rating
Category 2: Healthcare (weight: 20% of total)
Indicator Source
Availability of private healthcare EIU rating
Quality of private healthcare EIU rating
Availability of public healthcare EIU rating
Quality of public healthcare EIU rating
Availability of over-the-counter drugs EIU rating
General healthcare indicators Adapted from World Bank
Category 3: Culture & Environment (weight: 25% of total)
Indicator Source
Humidity/temperature rating Adapted from average weather conditions
Discomfort of climate to travellers EIU rating
Level of corruption Adapted from Transparency International
Social or religious restrictions EIU rating
Level of censorship EIU rating
Sporting availability EIU field rating of 3 sport indicators
Cultural availability EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators
Food and drink EIU field rating of 4 cultural indicators
Consumer goods and services EIU rating of product availability
16
Category 4: Education (weight: 10% of total)
Indicator Source
Availability of private education EIU rating
Quality of private education EIU rating
Public education indicators Adapted from World Bank
Category 5: Infrastructure (weight: 20% of total)
Indicator Source
Quality of road network EIU rating
Quality of public transport EIU rating
Quality of international links EIU rating
Availability of good quality housing EIU rating
Quality of energy provision EIU rating
Quality of water provision EIU rating
Quality of telecommunications EIU rating
Jones Lang LaSalle – World Winning Cities 2012
Vancouver is ranked one hundred and fourth.11
In 2002, Jones Lang LaSalle launched ‘World Winning Cities’12, a multi-year research programme to
understand the new trends in urbanisation and to assess their impacts on global real estate markets.
The programme is underpinned by a proprietary database of key performance indicators covering more
than 650 cities worldwide. Their analysis is anchored by their ‘Global 300’ – 300 cities that they believe
will account for the bulk of economic and commercial real estate activity over the next decade. The
‘Global 300’ are the world’s most populous, productive and connected cities; their one billion citizens
are responsible for over 40 percent of global economic activity.
11
Feenan, R. “World Winning Cities Research”. Jones Lang LaSalle. 2012. Vancouver presentation 12
Jones Lang LaSalle. “A New World of Cities, World Winning Cities, Global Foresight Series 2012”. January 2012
17
Jones Lang LaSalle ‘Global 300”
Global Cities Index
Vancouver does not rank on this list.
In 2008, the American journal Foreign Policy13, in conjunction with consulting firm A.T. Kearney and the
Chicago Council on Global Affairs, published a ranking of global cities, based on consultation with Saskia
Sassen14 Witold Rybczynski, and others. Foreign Policy noted that "the world’s biggest; most
interconnected cities help set global agendas, weather transnational dangers, and serve as the hubs of
global integration. They are the engines of growth for their countries and the gateways to the resources
of their regions."
Global Cities Index Methodology
The Global Cities Index ranks cities' metro areas according to 25 metrics across five dimensions:
The first is business activity: including the value of its capital markets, the number of Fortune
Global 500 firms headquartered there, and the volume of the goods that pass through the city.
13
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/08/11/the_global_cities_index_2010 14 Sassen, S. “The global city: strategic site/new frontier” http://www.india-
seminar.com/2001/503/503%20saskia%20sassen.htm
18
The second dimension measures human capital, or how well the city acts as a magnet for
diverse groups of people and talent. This includes the size of a city's immigrant population, the
quality of the universities, the number of international schools, and the percentage of residents
with university degrees.
The third dimension is information exchange, how well news and information is dispersed about
and to the rest of the world. The number of international news bureaus, the level of censorship,
the amount of international news in the leading local papers, and the broadband subscriber rate
round out that dimension. The final two areas of analysis are unusual for most rankings of
globalized cities or states.
The fourth is cultural experience, or the level of diverse attractions for international residents
and travelers. That includes everything from how many major sporting events a city hosts to the
number of performing arts venues and diverse culinary establishments it boasts and the sister
city relationships it maintains.
The final dimension, political engagement, measures the degree to which a city influences global
policymaking and dialogue. By examining the number of embassies and consulates, major think
tanks, international organizations, and political conferences a city hosts.
The Global Cities Index - 2010
Rank City Rank by Population Rank by GDP
1 New York 6 2
2 London 28 5
3 Tokyo 1 1
4 Paris 20 6
5 Hong Kong 31 14
6 Chicago 25 4
7 Los Angeles 12 3
8 Singapore 38 23
9 Sydney 43 24
10 Seoul 22 19
11 Brussels 54 48
12 San Francisco 46 16
13 Washington 42 10
14 Toronto 36 20
15 Beijing 13 33
16 Berlin 48 46
17 Madrid 34 22
18 Vienna 55 40
19
Rank City Rank by Population Rank by GDP
19 Boston 41 11
20 Frankfurt 64 20
20 Shanghai 7 21
22 Buenos Aires 11 12
23 Stockholm 59 52
24 Zurich 61 58
25 Moscow 19 13
26 Barcelona 37 31
27 Dubai 56 49
28 Rome 49 37
29 Amsterdam 63 60
30 Mexico City 5 8
31 Montreal 44 35
32 Geneva 65 61
33 Miami 58 54
33 Munich 35 18
35 Sao Paulo 3 9
36 Bangkok 32 42
37 Copenhagen 60 59
38 Houston 40 17
39 Taipei 53 26
40 Atlanta 39 15
41 Istanbul 21 30
42 Milan 52 39
43 Cairo 17 36
44 Dublin 62 55
45 New Delhi 2 32
46 Mumbai 4 25
47 Osaka 16 7
48 Kuala Lumpur 57 65
49 Rio de Janeiro 14 27
50 Tel Aviv 50 40
51 Manila 15 34
52 Johannesburg 45 43
53 Jakarta 24 47
54 Bogota 29 45
55 Caracas 51 62
56 Nairobi 47 64
57 Guangzhou 27 38
20
Rank City Rank by Population Rank by GDP
58 Bangalore 30 53
59 Lagos 18 63
60 Karachi 10 50
61 Ho Chi Minh City 33 56
62 Shenzhen 26 28
63 Kolkata 8 44
64 Dhaka 9 50
65 Chongqing 23 57
A map showing the distribution of Global Cities (2010 data)15
The Global Financial Centres Index
Vancouver is ranked seventeenth.
The Global Financial Centres Index16 (Z/Yen Group)17
is a barometer, tracking the shifts of
competitiveness in global financial centres, and over the last few years it has shown that Canada’s
economy is weathering the storm. Forbes magazine ranks Canada as the best country in the world in
which to do business. Four Canadian cities are now in the top 30 of the Global Financial Centres Index.
Toronto offers a breadth of financial services activity that makes it the third largest financial services
centre in all of North America. Vancouver is Canada’s Pacific gateway, offering unique access to trade
financing in the fast growing Asia Pacific markets. Calgary is a global hub for energy and commodity
financing. Montreal has strong expertise in pension management, and leads in developing software for
the financial services sector.
15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Global_Cities_Index.png 16
Long Finance. “The Global Financial Centres Index 11”. March 2012 http://www.longfinance.net/Publications/GFCI%2011.pdf 17
http://www.zyen.com/long-finance/global-financial-centres-index-gfci.html
21
Top 30 Cities – 2011 Data
Ranking City
1. London
2. New York
3. Hong Kong
4. Singapore
5. Tokyo
6. Zurich
7. Chicago
8. Shanghai
9. Seoul
10. Toronto
11. Boston
12. San Francisco
13. Frankfurt
14. Geneva
15. Washington DC
16. Sydney
17. Vancouver
18. Montreal
19. Munich
20. Melbourne
21. Jersey
22. Paris
23. Luxembourg
24. Osaka
25. Stockholm
26. Beijing
27. Taipei
28. Calgary
29. Dubai
30. Wellington
Research indicates that many factors combine to make a financial centre competitive. These factors can
be grouped into five over-arching ‘areas of competitiveness’: People, Business Environment,
Infrastructure, Market Access and General Competitiveness. They examine:
‘Connectivity’ – the extent to which a centre is well known around the world and how many
non-resident professionals believe it is connected to other financial centres. If the weighted
assessments for a centre are provided by over 65% of other centres, this centre is deemed to be
‘Global’. If the ratings are provided by over 45% of other centres, this centre is deemed to be
‘Transnational’. Vancouver is classified as Established Transnational.
22
‘Diversity’ (Breadth) – the breadth of industry sectors that flourish in a financial centre. A high
score means that a centre is well diversified; a low diversity score reflects a less rich business
environment. Vancouver rates in the highest breadth category – as Broad.
‘Speciality’ (Depth) - the depth within a financial centre of the following industry sectors: asset
management, investment banking, insurance, professional services and wealth management.
Vancouver rates in the highest depth category – as Deep.
2011 Ranking Broad & Deep – Global leaders
1. Chicago
2. Frankfurt
3. Hong Kong
4. London
5. New York
6. Paris
7. Tokyo
8. Zurich
9. Toronto
2011 Ranking Broad & Deep – Established Transnational
1. Copenhagen
2. Geneva
3. Madrid
4. Montreal
5. Munich
6. Sydney
7. Vancouver
23
Globalization and World Cities Research Network (GaWC)18
Vancouver is ranked as a Beta+.
The first attempt to define, categorize, and rank global cities using 'relational data' was made in 1998 by
Jon Beaverstock, Richard G Smith and Peter Taylor, who all worked at that time at Loughborough
University in the United Kingdom. Together they established the Globalization and World Cities
Research Network. A roster of world cities was outlined in the GaWC Research Bulletin 5 and ranked
cities based on their connectivity through four "advanced producer services": accountancy, advertising,
banking/finance, and law. The GaWC inventory identifies three levels of global cities and several sub-
ranks. This roster generally denotes cities in which there are offices of certain multinational corporations
providing financial and consulting services rather than denoting other cultural, political, and economic
centres.
The 2004 rankings acknowledged several new indicators while continuing to rank city economics more
heavily than political or cultural factors. The 2008 roster, similar to the 1998 version, is sorted into
categories of "Alpha" world cities (with four sub-categories), "Beta" world cities (three sub-categories),
"Gamma" world cities (three sub-categories), and additional cities with "High sufficiency" or
"Sufficiency" world city presence.
The 2010 roster of leading Alpha, Beta and Gamma world cities is as follows:
Category Cities
Alpha++ London, New York City
Alpha+ Chicago, Dubai, Hong Kong, Paris, Shanghai, Singapore, Sydney and Tokyo
Alpha Amsterdam, Beijing, Brussels, Buenos Aires, Frankfurt, Kuala Lumpur, Los Angeles, Madrid, Mexico City, Milan, Moscow, Mumbai, San Francisco, São Paulo, Seoul, Toronto and Washington
Alpha- Atlanta, Bangkok, Barcelona, Boston, Dallas, Dublin, Istanbul, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Lisbon, Melbourne, Miami, Munich, New Delhi, Philadelphia, Santiago, Taipei, Vienna, Warsaw and Zurich
Beta+ Athens, Bangalore, Berlin, Bogota, Cairo, Copenhagen, Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Houston, Manila, Montreal, Prague, Rome, Stockholm, Tel Aviv and Vancouver
Beta Auckland, Beirut, Bucharest, Budapest, Cape Town, Caracas, Chennai, Guangzhou, Ho Chi Minh City, Karachi, Kyiv, Lima, Luxembourg, Manchester, Minneapolis, Montevideo, Oslo, Riyadh and Seattle
Beta− Abu Dhabi, Birmingham, Bratislava, Brisbane, Kolkata, Calgary, Casablanca, Cleveland, Cologne, Denver, Detroit, Geneva, Guatemala City, Helsinki, Lagos, Manama, Monterrey, Nicosia, Osaka, Panama City, Perth, Port Louis, Rio de Janeiro, San Diego, San Juan, Shenzhen, Sofia, St. Louis and Stuttgart
Gamma+ Adelaide, Amman, Antwerp, Baltimore, Belgrade, Bristol, Charlotte, Cincinnati, Doha, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Hanoi, Hyderabad, Jeddah, Kuwait, Lahore, Nairobi, Portland, Riga, San
18
http://www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/gy/research/res_gawc.html
24
Category Cities
José, San Jose, Tunis and Zagreb
Gamma Almaty, Columbus, Edmonton, Guadalajara, Indianapolis, Kansas City, Leeds, Lyon, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Quito, Rotterdam, San Salvador, Santo Domingo, St. Petersburg, Tampa, Valencia and Vilnius
Gamma− Accra, Austin, Belfast, Colombo, Curitiba, Durban, George Town, Gothenburg, Guayaquil, Islamabad, Ljubljana, Marseille, Milwaukee, Muscat, Nagoya, Orlando, Ottawa, Porto, Porto Alegre, Pune, Richmond, VA, Southampton, Tallinn, Tegucigalpa, Turin and Wellington
A map showing the distribution of GaWC-ranked world cities (2010 data)19
Global Power City Index
Vancouver is ranked 16 on this list.
The Global Power City Index20 evaluates and ranks the major cities of the world according to their
comprehensive power to attract creative people and excellent companies from around the world amidst
an environment of increasingly strong urban competition worldwide.
The Institute for Urban Strategies at The Mori Memorial Foundation21 in Tokyo, Japan issued a
comprehensive study of global cities in 2010. The ranking is based on six overall categories, "Economy",
"Research & Development", "Cultural Interaction", "Livability", "Ecology & Natural Environment", and
"Accessibility", with 69 individual indicators among them. This ranking also breaks down top ten world
cities ranked in subjective categories such as "manager, researcher, artist, visitor and resident."
19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GaWC_World_Cities.png 20 http://www.globalsherpa.org/power-city-index-2011 21 Institute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation. “Global Power City Index”. October 2010 http://www.mori-m-foundation.or.jp/english/research/project/6/index.shtml
25
A map showing the distribution of the GLCI Survey
Global Power City Index – 2010
Rank City Score Best category (position)
1 United States New York City 322.6 Economy (1.) Research & Development (1.)
2 United Kingdom London 313.6 Cultural Interaction (1.)
3 France Paris 303.1 Accessibility (1.)
4 Japan Tokyo 300.3 Economy (2.) Research & Development (2.)
5 Singapore Singapore 244.2 Accessibility (4.)
6 Germany Berlin 232.9 Ecology & Natural Environment (3.)
7 Netherlands Amsterdam 230.8 Accessibility (5.)
8 South Korea Seoul 228.5 Research & Development (5.)
9 Hong Kong Hong Kong 223.8 Economy (5.)
10 Australia Sydney 219 Ecology & Natural Environment (11.)
11 Austria Vienna 217.4 Ecology & Natural Environment (7.)
12 Switzerland Zurich 215 Ecology & Natural Environment (1.)
13 Germany Frankfurt 212.3 Accessibility (7.)
14 United States Los Angeles 210.7 Research & Development (7.)
15 Spain Madrid 208.8 Ecology & Natural Environment (10.)
16 Canada Vancouver 208.4 Livability (1.)
17 Denmark Copenhagen 206.3 Livability (9.)
18 Japan Osaka 205.6 Livability (3.)
19 Switzerland Geneva 205.4 Ecology & Natural Environment (2.)
20 United States Boston 203.3 Research & Development (4.)
26
27
Green Buzz.net - The World’s Greenest Cities
Vancouver is ranked fourth.
According to Green Buzz.net22 the following ten cities have made the best efforts for achieving their high
environmental goals.
Top 10 Cities – 2011 Data
Rank City
1 Reykjavik, Iceland
2 Malmo, Sweden
3 Copenhagen, Denmark
4 Vancouver, Canada
5 Bahia de Caraquez, Ecuador
6 Sydney, Australia
7 Bogota, Colombia
8 Curitiba, Brazil
9 London, England
10 Paris Portland, Oregon, USA
Green City Index – US and Canada
Vancouver is ranked second.
According to the Siemens/ Economist Intelligence Unit’s23 Green City Index, Vancouver is ranked second
out of 27 major US and Canadian cities.
The 27 cities were chosen with a view to representing a number of the most populous metropolitan
areas in the United States and Canada. The cities were picked independently rather than relying on
requests from city governments to be included, in order to enhance the Index’s credibility and
comparability. The methodology has been developed by the Economist Intelligence Unit in cooperation
with Siemens. It relies on the expertise of both organizations, a panel of outside urbanization experts,
and the experience from producing the European Green City Index in 2009, as well as the Latin American
Green City Index in 2010 and the Asian Green City Index in 2011.
22
green-buzz.net/environment/10-worlds-greenest-cities/ 23
http://www.siemens.com/press/pool/de/events/2011/corporate/2011-06-northamerican/northamerican-gci-report-e.pdf
28
One of the great strengths of the US and Canada Green City Index is the breadth of information it uses.
For every city 31 individual indicators are evaluated, often based on multiple data points. Value also
comes from how the Index is presented: each city is assessed in nine categories and ranked against the
others to indicate its relative position. The process is transparent, consistent and replicable, and is
designed to reveal sources of best practice.
CO2: Vancouver First, 91.4 points
This is one of Vancouver’s strongest categories in the Index. The city emits just 4.2 metric tons of CO2
per person, well below the Index average of 14.5 metric tons. Measured against economic output,
Vancouver emits just an estimated 111 metric tons of CO2 per $1 million of GDP, compared with the
Index average of 296 metric tons. The city’s low emissions are a result of policies geared at green energy
promotion and the dominance of hydropower in Vancouver’s energy grid.
Air: Vancouver First, 95.1 points
Vancouver’s impressive performance in the air category is a result of low emission levels of all pollutants
measured in this Index. The city has one of the lowest rates of particulate matter emissions in the Index,
at just 7 lb. (3 kg) per person versus an overall average of 25 lb. (11 kg).Vancouver has similarly low
emission levels of sulfur dioxide, at 5 lb. (2 kg) per person, less than a quarter of the Index average of 22
lb. (10 kg); and nitrogen oxides, at 37 lb. (17 kg) per person, compared with the average of 66 lb. (30 kg).
Vancouver has a relatively higher population density than other Index cities – which contributes to air
quality through increased use of public transport, for example. In addition, over the last half decade the
city has actively promoted a suite of air quality improvement policies while ensuring that air pollution
does not disproportionately affect the poor).
Transport: Third, 66.6 points
Vancouver boasts the longest public transit system in the Index, at 5.4 miles per square mile (3.3
kilometers per square kilometer), nearly five times the overall average of 1.1 miles (0.7 kilometers). Its
performance is further helped by a high percentage of workers commuting by public transit, bicycle, or
foot, at 25%, compared with the average of 13%. Meanwhile, the city has been expanding bicycle and
pedestrian lanes, and is looking to implement a bike share program.
Energy: Fourth, 80.1 points
Vancouver’s per capita electricity consumption is better than average at 33 gigajoules per person, versus
the Index average of 52 gigajoules. Likewise, the city consumes 237 gigajoules of electricity per $1
million of GDP, compared with the overall mean of 332 gigajoules. Where Vancouver shines, though, is
in its sustainable energy strategy, which seeks to provide high density neighborhoods with financing for
community renewable-energy systems, helping cover high up-front costs, while recouping the benefits
through long-term lower operating expenses. Vancouver is one of just six Index cities actively increasing
the amount of locally produced and consumed energy.
29
Buildings: Fifth, 77.2 points
Vancouver’s score in this category is bolstered by the abundance of Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)-certified buildings. It has among the most in the Index with 10.2 per
100,000 people, compared with the average of 6.4. The city also scores well in the area of policies aimed
at promoting energy efficiency in buildings. While Vancouver does not fully require energy efficiency
audits, the city’s One Day program offers a number of building efficiency incentives such as free energy
assessments, mortgage rebates for energy efficient home improvements, and preferential loans for
efficiency upgrades.
Water: Sixth, 86.6 points
Vancouver consumes 137 gallons (519 liters) of water per person per day, better than the Index average
of 155 gallons (587 liters). Its score is further bolstered by its water leakage rate of 11%, slightly better
than the average of 13%. Vancouver officials have demonstrated eagerness to further improve the city’s
water performance. The city has set a goal to reduce per capita water consumption by 33% over 2006
levels by 2020. To achieve this ambitious aim officials plan to develop incentive programs to accelerate
the installation of water-efficient infrastructure and to unveil full service retrofit programs in
partnership with other utilities.
Waste: Seventh, 69 points
Although Vancouver recycles 55% of municipal waste – the third best rate in the Index and more than
double the average of 26% – the city’s waste performance is hindered by a comparative lack of
incentives in place to reduce overall waste. The city instead relies on advocacy measures, including
efforts to create a “zero waste” culture, by working with schools, developing educational campaigns,
establishing a network of zero-waste businesses, and challenging other cities to reuse or recycle all
waste.
Environmental governance: Vancouver Tenth, 91.1 points
Vancouver is among ten cities in the Index that score more than 90 points. The city has a robust
environmental strategy in place, demonstrated by its strong performance across the board. And while
Vancouver has also launched multiple environmental campaigns such as the Greenest City and One Day
programs that enjoy strong political support, the city’s somewhat lower placement in this category is the
result of a comparative lack of transparency. (This is Vancouver’s lowest ranking). Not all of the city’s
targets have been reported, and while information is accessible and the sustainability campaign is
widely known, data is not collected and provided in a unified location. The city has partnered with a
private company to monitor energy-use plans to make strides to that end.
30
Top 27 Cities – 2011 Data
Ranking City
Score
1. San Francisco 83.8
2. Vancouver 81.8
3. New York City 79.2
4. Seattle 79.1
5. Denver 73.5
6. Boston 72.6
7. Los Angeles 72.5
8. Washington DC 71.4
9. Toronto 68.4
10. Minneapolis 67.7
11. Chicago 66.9
12. Ottawa 66.8
13. Philadelphia 66.7
14. Calgary 64.8
15. Sacramento 63.7
16. Houston 62.6
17. Dallas 62.3
18. Orlando 61.1
19. Montreal 59.8
20. Charlotte 59.0
21. Atlanta 57.8
22. Miami 57.3
23. Pittsburgh 56.6
24. Phoenix 55.4
25. Cleveland 39.7
26. St. Louis 35.1
27. Detroit 28.4
31
MasterCard Worldwide Insights - MasterCard Index of Global Destination Cities: Cross-Border Travel and Expenditures (Second Quarter 2011)
Vancouver is not ranked in the top 20 global cities but is ranked tenth in North America (out of 14 cities).
An important dimension of how cities are connected across the globe is represented by cross-border
travel and expenditures, the human dimension of globalization24. While the international flow of capital
and the trade of goods and services have been meticulously measured and documented, the same
cannot be said of this human dimension of globalization. International travel is a powerful trend that
shapes global commerce and underpins the growth of key industries such as transportation, retail, and
hospitality, and professional services like marketing and advertising. The economic and business impacts
of international travel are especially pronounced in cities that are popular destinations of international
travelers, and in these destination cities, spending by international visitors contributes significantly to
local commerce and business activities, amplifying the dynamism of these urban economies.
In order to develop better insights on this important human dimension of globalization, MasterCard
Worldwide has created the Index of Global Destination Cities, an annual research program that
describes and analyzes the global network of 132 destination cities and how they are connected through
cross-border air travel and associated expenditures.
Destination cities are ranked globally in terms of the number of their total international visitor arrivals
and cross border spending by these same visitors in the destination cities.
Global Top 20 Destination Cities by International Visitor Spending– 2009-2011 Data
Ranking City
Visitor Spending $billion
1. London 25.6
2. New York 20.3
3. Paris 14.6
4. Bangkok 14.4
5. Frankfurt 14.0
6. Sydney 13.8
7. Los Angeles 12.5
8. Madrid 11.8
9. Singapore 10.8
10. Hong Kong 10.4
11. Seoul 10.2
12. Istanbul 10.2
13. Amsterdam 9.9
24
http://insights.mastercard.com/wp-content/uploads/2019.91/06/Global_City_Travel_Connectivity_English.pdf
32
Ranking City
Visitor Spending $billion
14. Rome 8.9
15. Tokyo 8.7
16. Miami 8.7
17. Taipei 8.5
18. Dubai 7.8
19. Melbourne 7.5
20. Barcelona 7.5
North American Top 10 Destination Cities by International Visitor Spending– 2009-2011 Data
Ranking City
Visitor Spending $billion
1. New York 20.3
2. Los Angeles 12.5
3. Miami 8.7
4. Chicago 7.4
5. San Francisco 7.2
6. Atlanta 5.1
7. Washington DC 4.7
8. Toronto 4.3
9. Houston 3.1
10. Vancouver 3.0
Mercer’s Quality of Living Survey
Vancouver is ranked fifth.
Mercer releases annually the Quality of Living Survey25, comparing 221 cities based on 39 criteria. New
York is given a baseline score of 100 and other cities are rated in comparison. Important criteria are
safety, education, hygiene, health care, culture, environment, recreation, political-economic stability
and public transportation. The list helps multi-national companies decide where to open offices or
plants, and how much to pay employees.
In the 2011 list of cities, the top of the list is dominated by Europe, Canada, and New Zealand; and
Switzerland and Germany both have 3 cities in the top 10. The first entries from other countries are
Sydney at 11, Singapore at 25, Honolulu at 29, and Tokyo at 46. Baghdad was at the bottom of the list.
25
http://www.mercer.com/qualityofliving
33
Of the 25 cities at the bottom, 15 are in Africa. Compared to lists for previous years, cities in South Asia
(mainly India), East Asia (mainly China), the Middle East and Eastern Europe are clearly on the rise.
Mercer also has a 'Personal Safety' list, which is also dominated by EU and Swiss cities: the top five are
Luxembourg, Bern, Helsinki, Zurich and Vienna. 2010 year’s ranking also identifies the cities with the
best eco-ranking based on water availability and drinkability, waste removal, quality of sewage systems,
air pollution and traffic congestion. Calgary is at the top of this index (score 145.7), followed by Honolulu
in second place (score 145.1) and Ottawa and Helsinki in joint third (score 139.9). Wellington in New
Zealand (5), Minneapolis (6), Adelaide (7) and Copenhagen fill the next four slots, while Kobe, Oslo and
Stockholm share ninth place. Vancouver is tied at seventeenth place. Port-au-Prince in Haiti ranks at
the bottom of this table with a score of only 27.8.
Top 5 cities Worldwide - 2011
Top 5 cities: Quality of living ranking Top 5 cities: Personal safety ranking
Vienna, Austria (1st)
Zurich, Switzerland (2nd)
Auckland, New Zealand (3rd)
Munich, Germany (4th)
Vancouver, Canada (tied 5th)
Düsseldorf, Germany (tied 5th)
Luxembourg, Luxembourg(1st)
Bern, Switzerland (tied 2nd)
Helsinki, Finland (tied 2nd)
Zurich, Switzerland (tied 2nd)
Vienna, Austria (5th)
Top 5 cities by Region - 2011
Quality of living ranking
Americas Asia Pacific Europe Middle East & Africa
Vancouver (5th)
Ottawa (14th)
Toronto (15th)
Montreal (22nd)
Honolulu (29th)
Auckland (3rd)
Sydney (11th)
Wellington (13th)
Melbourne (18th)
Perth (21st)
Vienna (1st)
Zurich (2nd)
Munich (4th)
Dusseldorf (5th)
Frankfurt (7th)
Dubai (74th)
Abu Dhabi (78th)
Port Louis (82nd)
Cape Town (88th)
Johannesburg (94th)
34
Personal safety ranking
Americas Asia Pacific Europe Middle East & Africa
Calgary (tied 17th)
Montreal (tied
17th)
Ottawa (tied 17th)
Toronto (tied 17th)
Vancouver (tied
17th)
Singapore (8th)
Auckland (tied 9th)
Wellington (tied 9th)
Canberra (tied 25th)
Melbourne (tied
25th)
Perth (tied 25th)
Sydney (tied 25th)
Luxembourg (1st)
Bern (tied 2nd)
Helsinki (tied 2nd)
Zurich (tied 2nd)
Vienna (5th)
Abu Dhabi (23rd)
Muscat (29th)
Dubai(39th)
Port Louis (59th)
Doha (67th)
Monocle’s Liveable Cities Index
Vancouver is ranked twentieth.
Since 2007, the lifestyle magazine Monocle26 has published an annual list of liveable cities. The list in
2009 was named "The Most Liveable Cities Index" and presented 25 top locations for quality of life.
Important criteria in this survey are safety/crime, international connectivity, climate/sunshine, quality of
architecture, public transportation, tolerance, environmental issues and access to nature, urban design,
business conditions, pro-active policy developments and medical care.
The Monocle study also veers away from many studies in identifying Vancouver as a slight laggard in
terms of quality of life. Despite its hosting of the Winter Olympics, its editors argue the Canadian hub is
a long way behind the best in terms of public transport and neighbourhood regeneration.
Top 25 Cities – 2011
Rank City
1 Helsinki
2 Zurich
3 Copenhagen
26
http://www.monocle.com/QoL-2011/
35
Rank City
4 Munich
5 Melbourne
6 Vienna
7 Sydney
8 Berlin
9 Tokyo
10 Madrid
11 Stockholm
12 Paris
13 Auckland
14 Barcelona
15 Singapore
16 Fukuoka
17 18
Hong Kong Portland
19 Honolulu
20 Vancouver
21 Kyoto
22 Hamburg
23 Lisbon
24 Montréal
25 Seattle
PWC – Cities of Opportunity 2011
Vancouver is not listed.
Cities of Opportunity 201127, produced by PwC and the Partnership for New York City, makes its fourth
analysis of the trajectory of 26 cities, all capitals of finance and, commerce and culture and through their
performance, seeks to open a window on what makes cities function best.
A great city is all about growing, retaining and attracting talent. Whether it's Stockholm with its strong
education system or Toronto benefiting from its smart immigration policies, getting and keeping talent
matters. They are measuring what makes a city successful. Success as they define it cuts across business
opportunity, cultural opportunity, and education opportunity.
27
PWC. “Cities of Opportunity” 2011 http://www.pwc.com/us/en/cities-of-opportunity
36
Methodology
Three key factors governed the cities chosen:
1. All are capital market centers (despite many other facets);
2. represent a broad geographic sampling;
3. reflect a balance between mature and emerging economies.
In terms of data indicators, they constructed a robust sampling of variables. Each had to be:
1. relevant;
2. consistent across the sample;
3. publicly available and collectible;
4. current;
5. free from skewing and local nuances; and
6. truly reflective of a city’s quality or power.
Data in 2011 were normalized in most instances, minimizing the likelihood of a city doing well solely
because of its size and historic strength. The 66 variables selected were divided into 10 indicator
categories. Including: Transportation and Infrastructure, Intellectual Capital and Innovation, and
Lifestyle Assets, each made up of smaller variables (within Lifestyle Assets: share of green space, skyline
impact, hotel rooms).
Scoring is engineered for transparency and simplicity for readers and comparability across cities.
Because the study is based on publicly available data supported by extensive research, three main
sources were used to collect the relevant data: Global multilateral development organizations such as
the World Bank, national statistics organizations such as UK National Statistics and commercial data
providers. In some cases, national data were used when consistent, verifiable local data were not. To
make the study most usable and understandable, they avoided complex weighting schemes and treat
each variable with equal importance.
The 26 cities were sorted from best to worst performing in each variable, and then assigned a score
from 26 (best) to 1 (worst). In the case of a tie, the cities were assigned the same score. Once ranked
and scored, the variables were placed in their 10 indicator league tables that display relative
performance of the 26 cities.
Top 26 Cities – 2011 Data
Ranking City
1. New York
2. Seoul
3. Stockholm
4. San Francisco
37
5. Chicago
6. Singapore
7. Hong Kong
8. Los Angeles
9. Houston
10. Tokyo
11. London
12. Toronto
13. Paris
14. Moscow
15. Berlin
16. Shanghai
17. Sydney
18. Beijing
19. Madrid
20. Istanbul
21. Santiago
22. São Paulo
23. Abu Dhabi
24. Mexico City
25. Mumbai
26. Johannesburg
Toronto Board of Trade - Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity – 2012
Vancouver is ranked sixteenth.
The Toronto Board of Trade28 continues its examination of Toronto’s economy and labour
attractiveness, benchmarking the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area (CMA) against 23 other great
metropolitan areas around the world, examining 33 indicators grouped into two domains: Economy and
Labour Attractiveness.
For this edition of the Scorecard, they have expanded the economic analysis on two fronts:
1. A focus on the North American economy based on the most current data available (2011) for eight
indicators:
1. Real GDP per Capita 2. Real GDP growth
28
Toronto Board of Trade. “Toronto as a Global City: Scorecard on Prosperity – 2012” http://www.bot.com/Content/NavigationMenu/Policy/Scorecard/Scorecard2012/Scorecard2012.pdf http://www.bot.com/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Scorecard&Template=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&ContentID=4449
38
3. Productivity 4. Productivity growth 5. Income per capita 6. Income growth 7. Employment growth 8. Unemployment rate
2. An Economic Clusters “lens” is included, allowing for more in-depth consideration of Toronto’s
economic sub-structure, through a comparison of the performance of key clusters in the Toronto CMA
with the same clusters in the other 11 North American metros. In total, ten clusters are examined. These
ten clusters of economic activity are representative sample of manufacturing and service industries,
rather than a comprehensive inventory of total economic activity.
1. Aerospace 2. Auto & Parts 3. Creative & Entertainment (Movie & sound recording, publishing, broadcasting, artists, writers &
performers)
4. Energy (Mining, Utilities, Manufacturing etc.) 5. Finance 6. Food & Beverage 7. Bio-Pharma & Bio-Medical 8. Information & Communication Technology (ICT) (Information, Communication & Technology
Manufacturing & Services)
9. Professional Services 10. Transportation & Logistics
Scorecard on Prosperity – 2011 Data
2011 Ranking City
1. Paris
2. San Francisco
3. London
4. Calgary
5. Toronto
6. Seattle
7. Boston
8. Oslo
9. Madrid
10. Barcelona
11. Tokyo
12. Sydney
13. Dallas
14. New York
15. Stockholm
39
2011 Ranking City
16. Vancouver
17. Hong Kong
18. Montreal
19. Halifax
20. Chicago
21. Los Angeles
22. Milan
23. Shanghai
24. Berlin
Travel + Leisure’s World’s Best Cities
Vancouver is ranked twenty seventh.
Travel + Leisure29 asked readers to vote in its 16th annual World’s Best survey, rating worldwide cities in
categories such as attractions, arts and culture, food, shopping, and value. The complete list of World’s
Best Cities for 2011 spans six continents and 24 time zones.
Top 30 Cities – 2011 Data
Rank City
1 Bangkok
2 Florence
3 Rome
4 New York
5 Istanbul
6 Cape Town
7 Siem Reap
8 Sydney
9 Barcelona
10 Paris
11 Buenos Aires
12 Jerusalem
13 Charleston
14 Chicago
29
http://www.travelandleisure.com/articles/worlds-best-cities/28
40
Rank City
15 Kyoto
16 San Francisco
17 Vienna
18 Venice
19 Hong Kong
20 Santé Fe
21 Madrid
22 Siena, Italy
23 Seville, Spain
24 Cuzco, Peru
25 New Orleans
26 Savannah, GA
27 Vancouver
28 Prague
29 Melbourne
30 Bruges, Belgium
World City Survey
Vancouver does not rank on this list.
In 2011 the London based estate agent Knight Frank LLP together with the Citibank published a survey of
world cities. The Wealth Report,30 which includes the World City Survey, assesses four parameters —
economic activity, political power, knowledge and influence, and quality of life. The list aimed to rank
the world's 40 most influential cities. New York tops the list in Economic activity, political power and
knowledge and Paris tops it in quality of life. London and Paris get the same aggregate ranking of 149,
making them de facto world's 2nd and 3rd most prominent cities.
A map showing the distribution of the World City Survey (2011 data)31
30
http://www.knightfrank.com/wealthreport/ 31
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_City_Survey.png
41
Top 20 Cities - 2011
Rank City Best category
1 United States New York City Economic activity
2 United Kingdom London Economic activity
3 France Paris Quality of life
4 Japan Tokyo Economic activity
5 Belgium Brussels Political power
6 United States Los Angeles Knowledge and influence
7 Singapore Singapore Economic activity
8 China Beijing Political power
9 Canada Toronto Quality of life
10 Germany Berlin Quality of life
11 United States Chicago Knowledge and influence
12 United States Washington, D.C. Political power
13 South Korea Seoul Economic activity
14 Germany Frankfurt Quality of life
15 Australia Sydney Knowledge and influence
16 United States San Francisco Knowledge and influence
17 Hong Kong Hong Kong Economic activity
18 China Shanghai Economic activity
19 Mexico Mexico City Political power
20 Thailand Bangkok Political power
Rank Population of city proper
Population of metropolitan area
Foreign born population
Expatriate cost of living (most expensive first)
Metro systems by annual passenger ridership
1 Shanghai Tokyo Dubai Luanda Tokyo
2 Karachi Seoul Toronto Tokyo Moscow
3 Mumbai Mexico City Hong Kong N'Djamena Seoul
4 Beijing New York City Miami Moscow Shanghai
5 Moscow Mumbai Los Angeles Geneva Beijing
6 Istanbul Jakarta Riyadh Osaka New York City
7 São Paulo São Paulo Sydney Zurich Paris
8 Tianjin Delhi San Francisco Singapore Mexico City
9 Guangzhou Osaka Melbourne Hong Kong Hong Kong
10 Shenzhen Shanghai London São Paulo Guangzhou
42
Rank Metro systems by total route length
Airport systems by annual passenger traffic
Number of billionaires (U.S. dollars)
Gross Metropolitan Product at total PPPs
1 Shanghai London Moscow Tokyo
2 London New York City New York City New York City
3 New York City Tokyo London Los Angeles
4 Beijing Atlanta Hong Kong Chicago
5 Berlin Paris Istanbul Paris
6 Seoul Chicago Mumbai, London
7 Tokyo Los Angeles Mexico City Osaka
8 Moscow Beijing Taipei, Mexico City
9 Madrid Shanghai n/a Philadelphia
10 Guangzhou Dallas n/a Washington, D.C.
43
Next Steps
Review research report.
Proceed to Stage 2: Process
1. Identify partners and stakeholder groups to be consulted on what World City Vision means and how to define it for Vancouver.
2. Establish project timeline.
3. Establish project budget.
Following successful outcome of Stage 2, proceed to Stage 3: Adoption.