# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Reuters/Lucas Jackson

Our new ranking puts the Big Apple firmly on top.

New York and London are both powerhouse cities, competitive in everything from fashion, music, and finance, to now even start-ups and high tech. In recent years, the long debate over which is the world's most economically powerful city has reached something of a fever pitch. In 2012, London Mayor Boris Johnson (who was born in New York City and is, for now, still a dual citizen) debated members of the Bloomberg administration on this score. And earlier this month in London, Harvard economist and native New Yorker Edward Glaeser suggested his hometown is fast losing its status to London. Indeed, London should be congratulated for its remarkable run over the past couple of decades, even as the U.K.'s economy has sputtered.

But the newest ranking of the world's most economically powerful cities put together by my Martin Prosperity Institute (MPI) research team finds New York to be the clear winner.

Our updated version of the Global City Economic Power Index ( we introduced the original version in 2012) is based on five core metrics:

Overall Economic Clout: We evaluate overall economic activity by gross domestic product (GDP) as measured by the Brookings Institution in their Global Metro Monitor Map.

Financial Power: We gauge global financial power based on think tank and consultancy Z/Yen's Global Financial Centres Index, which gauges the strength of a city's finance and banking industries.

Global Competitiveness: Here we use two measures. The Global City Competitiveness Index [PDF], by The Economist, includes 32 indicators of economic strength, physical capital, financial maturity, institutional character, human capital, global appeal, social and cultural character and environment and natural hazards. The Global Cities Index from consulting firm A.T. Kearney tracks business activity, human capital, information exchange, cultural experience, and political engagement in metros.

Equity and Quality of Life: Lastly, we include a measure of equity and quality of life, The United Nations' City Prosperity Index [PDF], which measures prosperity along five dimensions: productivity, infrastructure, quality of life, equity and social inclusion and environmental sustainability.

We calculate a city's total score across these five indices, with 10 points awarded to a first place ranking, nine to a second place rank and so on.

The chart below lists the top 10 global cities on each of these five metrics alone:

Rank Global Metro Monitor Map (Brookings)Global Financial Centres Index (Z/Yen)Global City Competitiveness Index (The Economist)Global Cities Index (A.T. Kearney)City Prosperity Index (United Nations)

Which takes us to our ranking. The map below charts the world's 25 most economically powerful cities on our combined Global City Economic Power Index.

The table below provides the actual ranking scores for the top 25 global cities. (It also compares the updated 2015 rankings to their previous 2012 rank).

New York takes the top spot, with an overall score of 48, ranking first on three measures and second on the other two. London is a reasonably close second, with 40 points, based on three second-place finishes, along with a fourth and a fifth. Tokyo, which has the world's largest metro economy, is third with 29 points. These three remain in the same spots as they did in 2012.

Hong Kong is fourth with 21 points, narrowly besting Paris (which it tied in 2012), which has 19. Singapore, Los Angeles, Seoul, Vienna, Stockholm, and Toronto round out the top ten.

The remainder of the top 25 include four U.S. cities, Chicago, Boston, D.C. and San Francisco; six European cities, Zurich, Helsinki, Dublin, Oslo, Geneva and Moscow; and four Asian cities, Sydney, Osaka-Kobe, Beijing, and Shanghai.

The next map (above) and the table (below) add an additional measure into the mix. To better control for the sheer size of metro size, we add a sixth measure, of economic output (or GDP) per capita.

New York again tops this list with a total score of 49, compared to 40 for London.

Here, Macao and Boston leap up the list. Hartford, Connecticut, another new entrant, moves to become tied for 12th. San Jose, in the heart of Silicon Valley, is tied for 15th; Houston is 17th; and Bridgeport, Connecticut, is tied for 19th.

Interestingly, for all the talk of their rapid growth and huge populations and economic size, the Chinese metros of Shanghai and Beijing fall off this list, as do Geneva, San Francisco, and Moscow.

*****

So there you have it. New York tops London on both versions of our Global City Economic Power Index. New York's metro economy is much larger than London's, with total economic output of $1.4 trillion compared to $836 billion for London. New York gains additional advantage from being part of the Boston-Washington mega-region, a $3.75 trillion dollar economy. That would make it the world's the fourth-largest economy, larger than Germany and a trillion dollars larger than $2.55 economy of the entire United Kingdom.

NYC's advantage is likely to grow in the future. With its five boroughs, extensive transit system and metro footprint, there is plenty of room to grow beyond Manhattan (and even Brooklyn) into the outer boroughs and across into New Jersey, where housing is much more affordable than in Manhattan proper (not to mention London). And New York is a part of America's rebounding economy, which is likely to grow far faster than Europe in the foreseeable future.

No matter whether it's New York or London you're rooting for, the world remains extremely spiky, with its economic gravitational pull increasingly rotating around a relatively small number of uber-powerful cities and metro areas.

About the Author

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sorry, London: New York Is the World's Most Economically Powerful City

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our new ranking puts the Big Apple firmly on top. New York and London are both powerhouse cities, competitive in everything from fashion, music, and finance, to now even start-ups and high tech. In recent years, the long debate over which is the world's most economically powerful city has reached something of a fever pitch.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
wisting high above Shanghai's financial district, China's tallest tower - and the second tallest in the world - is preparing to officially open its substantial doors to the public next month. The Shanghai Tower, reaching 632 metres, is the third "supertall" tower on the city's iconic skyline. Looking out from the 119th floor, the city lies below like a toy model, a densely packed mass of streets and high-rise buildings.

China loves a world record, and its new building boasts plenty, including the world's fastest elevators, highest hotel and restaurant, and tallest viewing platform. Reassuringly, it also required the largest ever cement pouring for the foundations. But most importantly, the 128-storey tower also claims to be the world's greenest skyscraper. Awarded the top green rating, LEED Platinum, the government is hailing the tower as a sign of China's growing green credentials.

China's sustainability record in the past has been abysmal. The country burns 47% of the world's coal, according to the US Energy Information Administration, and is facing the impact of decades of rapid deforestation and water pollution. With some of the most polluted air on the planet, killing as many as 4,000 people a day, an increasingly restive population is demanding more government action.

Nervous of the impact that smog-filled days and clogged roads could have on social stability, the government has begun tree planting programmes, ordered thousands of cars off the roads in cities such as Beijing, and is investing in green technology in a big way. China is now the biggest renewables market in the world, more than double than in the US, and home to almost one of every three wind turbines globally.

Green buildings, however, make up a woefully small part of the green industry, with most work focused on quick construction and quicker sales. Estimates put the number of green buildings on the mainland at less than 1%, though a 2014 target by the State Council wants 30% of new construction projects to be green by 2020.

The Shanghai Tower (right) has been awarded the highest sustainability rating. Photograph: Connie Zhou/Gensler

In Shanghai, engineer Shunfu Cha points to 200 wind turbines spinning at the top of the tower - the world's tallest turbines, naturally - which generate around 10% of the building's electricity. "These are one of the most obvious green technologies," he says, gesturing upwards into the clouds. "But only one part of bringing down the energy use."

The building collects rainwater and re-uses waste water, has a combined cooling and heating power system and uses 40 other energy-saving measures that developers claim cut 34,000 metric tonnes from its annual carbon footprint. The building is wrapped in two layers of glass for natural cooling and ventilation, and in total developers say a third of the site is "green space", including 24 sky gardens sitting between the two skins.

"At the moment, everyone is trying to achieve top green certification criteria," says Xiaomei Lee, managing director of Gensler Shanghai, the building's architect. "But nobody yet has achieved LEED Platinum for a supertall building. People assumed that a building of this size can't achieve such a high sustainability rating."

Shanghai Tower might be the only supertall tower to achieve LEED Platinum, but it is part of an increasing movement for towers to market green credentials as the demand for more sustainable urban development is felt.

The world's first Passivhaus-certified office tower - a certification rating that considers ongoing annual energy use, considered more stringent than other energy codes - was opened in Vienna two years ago, using 80% less heating and cooling energy than an equivalent tower through efficient power systems. London's tallest building, the Shard, also has a raft of sustainability features which enable it to use 30% less energy than a conventionally designed skyscraper of the same height. Globally, 75 skyscrapers are LEED rated.

Bosco verticale in Milan, with more than 1,000 different species of tree. Photograph: Alamy

More buildings are also turning green, literally. The Two World Trade Center development in New York has been designed to include a series of green terraces featuring different biozones. And in Milan, the Bosco Verticale is a pair of residential towers with 800 trees and thousands of plants on concrete balconies, maintained with recycled water. In Tel Aviv, plans for the Gran Mediterraneo tower include farms, vertical gardens and a range of fauna.

Advocates say that far from their reputation as polluters, skyscrapers offer environmental benefits. "Per capita, skyscrapers use less energy and water, generate less waste and provide for a more engaged living experience," says Mahesh Ramanujam, chief operating officer at the US Green Building Council. "When properly developed, they also preserve and protect precious green space in urban markets."

People assumed that a building of this size can't achieve such a high sustainability rating

Xiaomei Lee

But the concept of "green skyscrapers" itself is controversial. Buildings are the largest contributor to climate change through carbon emissions, and critics point out that logically, taller towers will need more resources both to run and to construct. So are we just seeing the latest version of "greenwashing"?

Environmental concerns include the fact that clusters of towers can make the streets below dark, trapping hot air and pollution at ground level. There is a knock-on impact in terms of carbon emissions, blocking light to surrounding properties, forcing the need for more electric lighting and eradicating the possibility of solar energy.

Tall towers also face charges of elitism. News that London has 260 new skyscrapers in the pipeline met with bitter oppositionfrom campaigners earlier this year, largely on the grounds that these towers will mostly offer luxury apartments that do little to help problems of affordable housing.

In 2014, two Russian free climbers reached the top of the Shanghai Tower in just two hours.

And money is certainly to be made in green development. Investors and companies are increasingly looking to benefit from cost efficiencies, with maintenance bills around 20% less than typical commercial buildings. While they cost more to build, the USGBC estimates most green projects pay for themselves in around seven years, especially as property agents say rents in LEED-certified buildings can be up to 30% higher.

The UN expects two-thirds of the world to live in cities by 2050 - the Chinese government's target is 60% by 2020 - presenting challenges over how to provide sustainable buildings in space-starved cities. Research has suggested that high-rise buildings are the most sustainable form of urban development. A 2013 report by Terrapin Bright Green, commissioned by the New York government, recommended knocking down Manhattan towers that were too inefficient and replacing them with even bigger skyscrapers. Modern replacements could be 44% larger and still use 5% less energy, the study claimed.

While Terrapin acknowledged that demolishing and rebuilding wouldn't be appropriate - or affordable - in every case, they found that even where buildings were knocked down and replaced, the energy needed to dismantle the existing building and construct a new one would still be offset within 15 and 28 years.

"Some people have opposed taller buildings on the premise that they use more energy, but they have failed to consider the larger spillover effects of urban sustainability that come from a dense urban fabric," claims Sarene Marshall, executive director for the Center for Sustainability at the Urban Land Institute. "While buildings are the largest contributor to climate change through carbon emissions, transportation is a very close second. When you have a denser urban population, people are more likely to walk, bike or use public transportation to get to work. So if you build taller buildings, you have a denser urban fabric.

A 2013 report suggested knocking down 'inefficient' skyscrapers in Manhattan and replacing them with taller ones. Photograph: Timothy A Clary/AFP/Getty Images

"If you build lower buildings and spread them out over a longer distance, what often happens is a much higher footprint in automobile transportation."

A study by the New Climate Economy backs this up. Comparing the cities of Barcelona and Atlanta, with similar populations, Atlanta was found to have a much larger carbon footprint because people used cars to get around a large, sprawling urban area. The thinktank concluded that taller, denser buildings can dramatically reduce a city's carbon impact.

However, green credentials and promises don't always stack up. Critics say that LEED criteria focuses too much on the development of the building, and not enough on how it is used afterwards. A New Republic report claimed that The Bank of America tower in New York, hailed as the world's most "environmentally responsible" office building when it opened in 2010, actually produces more greenhouse gases and uses more energy per square foot than any comparably sized office building in Manhattan. In relying too much on LEED ratings, critics argue, developers and governments can get additional publicity without necessarily being energy efficient in the long run.

In many US states, there are also tax breaks for energy-efficient buildings, leading to claims that building designers target the easiest and cheapest green points in order to qualify as LEED rated and gain tax exemptions.

And there are cases where the new technology disappoints. In London, the Strata Tower in Elephant and Castle, met criticism by residents when it opened as its in-built wind turbines - designed for helping heat and cool the building properly - weren't turning. "I feel like I'm in an eco experiment that has gone wrong at the design stage", one resident said. The promised new public garden at the Walkie Talkie tower in London also attracted criticism for being neither particularly green nor public enough.

For advocates of high-rise buildings, vertical development seems to be the future, and they remain convinced that green skyscrapers like the Shanghai Tower are the only sustainable way to do it. Sceptics will be watching closely for evidence that their optimism is not unfounded.
Follow Guardian Cities on Twitter and Facebook to join the discussion

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Inside Shanghai Tower: China's tallest skyscraper claims to be world's greenest

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
wisting high above Shanghai's financial district, China's tallest tower - and the second tallest in the world - is preparing to officially open its substantial doors to the public next month. The Shanghai Tower, reaching 632 metres, is the third "supertall" tower on the city's iconic skyline.

# data[].attributes.body
Another one of Dan's amazing obscure case studies:

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/the-worlds-most-expensive-city-is.html

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.citylab.com/work/2015/03/sorry-london-new-york-is-the-worlds-most-economically-powerful-city/386315/

# data[].attributes.body
Something for London just cos'.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
London mayor Sadiq Khan has asked for a review of the Garden Bridge project.

The MP for Barking, Margaret Hodge, will examine whether value for money has been achieved from the taxpayers' £60m contribution to the bridge.

Ms Hodge, a former chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, will also look at whether transparency standards have been met by public bodies.

Mr Khan has said no more taxpayer money should be spent on the bridge.

The mayor said: "I'm clear that since the beginning of the project there hasn't been the necessary standard of transparency and openness around the Garden Bridge.

"Nearly £40m of public money has already been spent and Londoners deserve more information about the decisions that have been made."

Mrs Hodge said she did not have a view on whether the Garden Bridge was "a fantastic idea or a waste of money".

But James Hatts, editor of local news website SE1, believes the mayor's review is overdue.

He said the Garden Bridge Trust had "already burned through £30-40m of public funds" and "there are huge question marks" over the business plan.

"They are relying on corporate events, souvenirs, credit card readers as you walk onto the bridge so that you can give a donation," he said.

"It's really difficult to see that they are going to get £3.5m year on year. Ultimately, the way Boris Johnson and local authorities structured the planning permission and associated agreements for the bridge means there's a chance the public purse will end up meeting ongoing costs."

Analysis: Tom Edwards, BBC London Transport Correspondent

This could be the beginning of the end for the Garden Bridge. It was meant to be a haven on the Thames and while many in the establishment loved it and thought it would be well received, slowly but surely dissent has grown.

Protesters objected to the location of the bridge as it would affect protected views of St Paul's from South Bank and would require the destruction of numerous established trees on the river banks. They also thought taxpayers money could be better spent elsewhere.

Now it seems like this is a slow death by a thousand reviews.

The review by the Garden Bridge Trust, a third investigation of the scheme, could make it harder for the trust to raise all the private money needed for the scheme. So far not all of it has been raised.

The mayor hasn't killed off the bridge just yet but there are those who think he effectively has done in announcing this review.

Lib Dem London Assembly member Caroline Pidgeon called on Mr Khan to state he will not underwrite the maintenance of the Garden Bridge.

"His current stance of providing a permanent taxpayer bailout to pay for the maintenance of the bridge while claiming to never provide any further public funding for the project is utter nonsense and indefensible."

Campaigners also pointed out that by ordering the review at a cost of £25,000 the mayor was already spending taxpayers' money on the Garden Bridge.

The Garden Bridge aims to link Temple with the Southbank.

Garden Bridge funding so far:

£30m from Transport for London, £20m has been pledged as a loan to be repaid in full

£30m from central government

About £37m has been spent so far

If the project is finished, then not only will the £20m be repaid to TfL, but the Garden Bridge Trust will need to pay about £22m in VAT to the Treasury - leaving an ultimate cost to the taxpayer of £18 million.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
London mayor Sadiq Khan has asked for a review of the Garden Bridge project. The MP for Barking, Margaret Hodge, will examine whether value for money has been achieved from the taxpayers' £60m contribution to the bridge. Ms Hodge, a former chair of the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee, will also look at whether transparency standards have been met by public bodies.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The biggest issue in gauging the economic power of cities until recently has been the lack of good, comparable and systematic data. But in the past several years, a number of research teams, think tanks and global consulting firms have come up with novel and innovative ways to gauge the relative economic strengths of global cities and metro areas. The table below summarizes the top ten rankings on five of these new metrics.

From left to right, my own Global Economic Power Index reflects three key dimensions of economic power: economic (economic output), innovation (patents) and financial. The Economist's Global City Competitiveness Index incorporates 31 indicators of economic strength, human capital, institutional effectiveness, financial maturity, global appeal, physical capital, social and cultural character and environment and natural hazards. AT Kearney's Global Cities Index gauges business activity, human capital, information exchange, cultural experience, and political engagement. The Global Financial Centres Index measures financial and banking strengths, and the McKinsey Global Institute projects global city economic output up to 2025. The second table (below) shows my scoring of these global cities across the five lists. (Note: A city's total score reflects its rank across the five lists above, where 10 points is awarded to a first place, 9 to a second place rank and so on.)

New York stands atop the crowd, finishing first on three of these lists, second on two, and the only city to finish gold or silver in each survey. London is second overall, with one first place finish, two seconds, a third, and a fourth. Tokyo is third. This stands in contrast to my own earlier estimates that had Tokyo placing first, mainly because of the size and diversity of its regional economy, which includes a vast array of manufacturing as well as R&D. Still, both New York and London have considerably more global economic and financial influence.

Hong Kong and Paris tie for fourth, followed by Chicago, Singapore, Shanghai, LA, and Zurich round out the top ten. While China is projected to eclipse the United States as the world's largest economy by as early as 2016 according to some predictions, it will be some time before Asian cities overtake New York. New York remains in the top spot according to McKinsey's 2025 projections.

There are several reasons to believe New York's position atop the global urban hierarchy is secure, at least for the medium-run. For one, it is the world's most open and diverse large city. As its mayor Michael Bloomberg recently noted in the Financial Times, the key to global competitiveness lies in a city's ability to attract the best and brightest from every corner of the globe. "The most creative individuals want to live in places that protect personal freedoms, prize diversity and offer an abundance of cultural opportunities," he wrote.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
What Is the World's Most Economically Powerful City?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The biggest issue in gauging the economic power of cities until recently has been the lack of good, comparable and systematic data. But in the past several years, a number of research teams, think tanks and global consulting firms have come up with novel and innovative ways to gauge the relative economic strengths of global cities and metro areas.

# data[].attributes.body
An Article to help you understand urbanisation and how it will effect the economic growth of cities around the world,
Rebecka Wade

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Urban world: Cities and the rise of the consuming class

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The speed and scale of urban growth today is astounding. MGI explores the urbanization phenomenon and the impact of the one billion people in rapidly growing emerging-market cities who will become consumers by 2025.

# data[].attributes.body
It is a website that allows you to find out some statistics of some world cities and about the culture and how they are trying to improve it for the people living there,
Sarah

# data[].attributes.body
Here is more geographical informations. Very important for A2 revision.

# data[].attributes.body
Booming article right here! Contains many vital informations for case studies!
More love than what Jackie gave, Cam

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Cities are not static. Like living organisms they change and adapt over time. Some grow and others shrink in response to economic, political and environmental shifts. But they do this in radically different ways, reflecting local responses to regional, national and global changes. Recently, LSE Cities focused on the patterns of growth, governance, transport and density of the four national capitals of Japan, India, Colombia and the UK. Together, the metropolitan areas of Tokyo, Delhi, Bogotá and London have over 80 million residents (equal to the population of Germany) and, according to the Brookings Institution, a combined GDP of $2.2 trillion, the size of the Brazilian economy or three times that of Saudi Arabia.

Tokyo has become a highly efficient global megacity in the last four decades - but despite its enviable integrated public transport system and the forthcoming Olympics in 2020, the city is likely to lose 400,000 people over the next 15 years as a result of low-birth rates and a slowing national economy. London, by contrast, has just come out of the demographic doldrums - overtaking its historical high of over 8.6 million (its size in 1939) and riding high on its global economic pulling power (it has just come top of the Mori Memorial Foundation index of city 'magnetism'). Such levels of growth are fuelled by a dynamic birth rate (twice that of Rome or Madrid) and strong in-migration attracted to London's resilient economy, promoted aggressively by its proactive mayors.

The Colombian capital of Bogotá, with a city population slightly smaller than London at 8 million, has built on the intelligent policies of successive mayors to cope with typical Latin American patterns of informality, violence and unregulated growth. Famous for introducing the Transmilenio Bus Rapid Transit and an extensive system of cycleways ( ciclovías, which predate Boris bikes by a decade), Bogotá is seen as a regional exemplar (alongside Medellín) on how to manage urban change. Despite being, or perhaps because it is, the capital of the world's largest democracy, Delhi is still struggling to find a political voice. After pioneering efforts by the former chief minister to build a metro system and introduce natural gas to its buses and rickshaws, the metropolitan area of more than 23 million people has witnessed a sharp increase in inequality even though it remains one of the safest megacities in the world, with 2.7 homicides per 100,000 people compared to Bogota's 16.1.

Current debates about the efficiency of urban governance gravitate around the 'fit' between the size of the administrative boundary controlled by a city mayor or governor, and the actual number of people who live in the 'wider functional metropolitan' area. Many cities spill across multiple political jurisdictions as their populations and footprints have grown over time, leading to fragmented decision-making and lack of co-ordination even though they all 'belong' to a continuous urban agglomeration. For example, only seven million of Mexico City's 22 million residents are actually controlled by the city mayor of the Distrito Federal while the majority lives (and pays taxes) in the neighbouring political districts. The inability of a metropolitan-wide entity to raise money and determine policy and investment strategies for the entire 'functional' area, inevitably leads to dysfunctional transport, infrastructure, housing and environmental policies which can't be solved within the confines of restricted political boundaries. Sustainable commuting patterns or water supply systems, for example, cannot be implemented without some level of control across broader geographical areas that extend well beyond the city limits of these, and other, global cities.

Using data from the DLR-DFD (the German Space Agency), we tracked how administrative boundaries have changed in recent decades in the four cities. While 8.4 million Londoners are now under the jurisdiction of the mayor, they still only make up 39% of the more extensive economic region of the South-East of England, which contains 21.8 million. Similarly, the governor of Tokyo is responsible for only 34% of one of the largest metropolitan agglomerations in the world with nearly 40 million inhabitants. Delhi at 66% and Bogotá at 82% have a relatively greater share of the population of their respective metropolitan region.

The four cities have responded in different ways to urban expansion. Tokyo and Delhi in effect implemented oversized governance systems over 60 years ago and have waited for the city to catch up. Tokyo's Metropolitan Organisation Act of 1943, which merged the Prefecture and City to form the Metropolis of Tokyo, made the new institutional boundaries three times larger than its boundary at the time. Similarly, Delhi's 1947 independence boundaries covered 19 times the area of Old Delhi (Shahjahanabad) and Lutyens' New Delhi. Today, the built-up areas of both have spilled over these 'historic' boundaries, with Delhi showing high levels of new development in the neighbouring states to the south and east of the traditional city boundary. Delhi's built area is still growing rapidly, while Bogotá and Tokyo experienced their growth spurts towards the end of the last century.

The 1943 Greater London Plan defined the political boundary of the then London County Council at what was roughly the limit of the built-up area, but reinforced it with the implementation of the Green Belt. By 1965 the London County Council gave way to the Greater London Council which covered five times the area (which coincides with today's Greater London Authority boundaries). In 1954, Bogotá's Special District enlarged the city boundary to 37 times its former size, and while much of the administrative area remains unpopulated (due to topography and land constraints) the majority of recent growth is concentrated.

Delhi, Bogotá, London and Tokyo, have pioneered innovations in transport in the last few decades, from Tokyo's highly integrated transport system to Delhi's new Metro, London's Congestion Charge, Boris Bikes and CrossRail to Bogotá's Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and ciclovías. The colours of routes on the maps identify which level of government - national, state, city, local and shared responsibility - owns and manages different parts of the network. The bar charts indicate the percentage of the type of city transport infrastructure managed by each government level.

In London, there is a separation between ownership and operations - with some private companies managing buses and trains - while the public sector (mayor and boroughs) still maintains the strategic and managerial power over the base infrastructure. Delhi's BRT route (50% private sector funded) and Tokyo's rail privatisation (representing 63% of the transport infrastructure) confirm the growing importance of private sector investment in public transport infrastructure. Although national governments traditionally control and fund the management of rail-based public transport, this research confirms that they play a less significant role than the sub-city level when it comes to roads. In London, local boroughs manage 90% of roads, while the Mayor (through Transport for London) controls the major arteries which carry 30% of the city's traffic.

Local boards control 89% of the roads in Tokyo. Infrastructure management at the level of the municipality represents an advantage in terms of the exercise of democracy and responsiveness to citizens, but economic growth and the availability of resources will struggle to keep apace of the requirements of urban populations. As a result, support from the private sector or national government will become even more significant to the sustainability of urban transport systems in the future.

Density is a fundamental measure of urban structure and determines the efficiency of its urban footprint. In these diagrams, the number of people living in a square kilometre - the 'ambient population density' over 24 hours - is represented for the four case study cities. Across an area of 100x100 kilometres, the diagrams illustrate this density of 'occupation' in any part of the city over a 24 hour period.

The taller spikes in the diagrams represent higher numbers of people concentrated in particular locations - dense residential areas, central business districts, event spaces, shopping streets etc. Flatter zones suggest more residential neighbourhoods of a suburban or low-density nature.

Higher densities can facilitate more sustainable public transport, walking and cycling, making it more efficient to provide services and promote urban vitality. These advantages depend, however, on high-quality urban design and effective city management to minimise the negative impacts of overcrowding, stress and pollution.

While some cities have maintained resident population levels in their central areas, others are losing population from these zones as their boundaries expand. This poses a challenge to cities, as they depend on residents' taxes to finance urban facilities and infrastructure.

At the same time, most cities have a high percentage of people entering to work each day who do not pay taxes there and often are not represented by the city government as they cannot vote locally. Studying commuters is therefore fundamental to the governance of cities. Tokyo has the equivalent of 20% of its population entering the administrative city every day, while Delhi has 13.5% and Bogotá and London in the order of 9%.

Density differs widely within the four case study cities. Delhi and Bogotá have higher and more concentrated densities in the city core and outskirts while Tokyo and London present lower and more balanced distribution of densities.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A tale of four world cities - London, Delhi, Tokyo and Bogotá compared

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
These four cities - home to a total of more than 80 million people - respond to economic, political and environmental shifts in radically different ways. LSE Cities crunches the data on growth, transport and density

# data[].attributes.body
Hey, so its not an article exactly... but this is really good interactive activates and in depth knowledge on useful case studies.
love Jackie ;)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
BBC NEWS | Special Reports | Urbanisation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Visit BBC News for up-to-the-minute news, breaking news, video, audio and feature stories. BBC News provides trusted World and UK news as well as local and regional perspectives. Also entertainment, business, science, technology and health news.

# data[].attributes.headline
Missing key terms or need to check your understanding?

# data[].attributes.subject
Missing key terms or need to check your understanding?

# data[].attributes.body
An excellent revision aid to SUPPORT your revision/notes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A page of resources to help students of AQA's World Cities unit at Advanced Level

# data[].attributes.body
Some interesting articles, statistics and an up-to-date report on World Cities

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Chapter 1 - From Habitat II to Habitat III: Twenty Years of Urban Development

The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) started in 1976 with the UN Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver, Canada, at a time when the governments began seriously to perceive the cities under their jurisdictions as "emerging futures" in their own right. Opening the event, Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau aptly summarized the worldwide (and ongoing) challenge as follows: "Human settlements are linked so closely to existence itself, represent such a concrete and widespread reality, are so complex and demanding, so laden with questions of rights and desires, with needs and aspirations, so racked with injustices and deficiencies, that the subject cannot be approached with the leisurely detachment of the solitary theoretician."

Chapter 2 - Urbanization as a Transformative Force

Tracking the last twenty years of development reveals a global transformation that positions cities at the core of the development agenda. Urbanization is indeed one of the most significant trends of the past and present century, providing the foundation and momentum for global change. The shift towards an increasingly urbanized world constitutes a transformative force which can be harnessed for a more sustainable development trajectory, with cities taking the lead to address many of the global challenges of the 21st century, including poverty, inequality, unemployment, environmental degradation, and climate change. Cities have become a positive and potent force for addressing sustainable economic growth, development and prosperity, and for driving innovation, consumption and investment in both developed and developing countries. This dramatic shift towards urban life has profound implications for energy consumption, politics, food security and human progress. Although some of this change is positive, poorly planned urbanization can potentially generate economic disorder, congestion, pollution and civil unrest.

Chapter 3 - The Fate of Housing

The "emerging futures" of cities will largely depend on whether urban housing is cast in decent buildings or in loads more unsustainable, ramshackle shelter. Housing determines the mutual relationship between every single human being and surrounding physical and social space. This involves degrees of exclusion or inclusion in terms of collective and civic life which, together with socioeconomic conditions, are the essence of urban dynamics. That is why the fate of housing will largely determine the fate of our cities. The sustainable future of cities and the benefits of urbanization strongly depend on future approaches to housing.

The analysis of urban development of the past twenty years presented in this maiden edition of the World Cities Report shows, with compelling evidence, that there are new forms of collaboration and cooperation, planning, governance, finance and learning that can sustain positive change. The Report unequivocally demonstrates that the current urbanization model is unsustainable in many respects. It conveys a clear message that the pattern of urbanization needs to change in order to better respond to the challenges of our time, to address issues such as inequality, climate change, informality, insecurity, and the unsustainable forms of urban expansion.

Download Statistical Annex

Download Abridged Version

TOP

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Chapter 1 - From Habitat II to Habitat III: Twenty Years of Urban Development The United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-Habitat) started in 1976 with the UN Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver, Canada, at a time when the governments began seriously to perceive the cities under their jurisdictions as "emerging futures" in their own right.