The Importance,
Definition and Approach to City Greatness
Any
effort to explain the meaning of a great city is bound to elicit a multiplicity
of responses. Journalists often equate a
great city with a “hot city” (an influx of people and capital) or with a “cool
city” (the presence of jazz clubs, art festivals, etc). More serious accounts tie the “great city” to
desirable outcomes, like the ability to effectively govern or bring about
sustainable development (Ng and Hills, 2003). Scholars of the subject sometimes
infer that a great city is also a “global city” (Friedmann, 1986; Sassen, 1991;
Boschken, 2008). The concept of a great
city has been treated as a further step a “world city” can take toward greatness
(Ng and Hills, 2003). As I discuss later the idea of a “global city”
is not entirely the same as a “great city”. The two ideas are often conflated
and sometimes add to the conceptual confusion.
Despite the available literature on the “great city” the concept suffers
from ambiguity and loose meaning (Dunn, 1991; Leapman, 1989; Robson and Reagan,
1972; Tung, 2001).
The
ambiguity in scholarship is matched by the fuzziness of policy makers. Mayors
from all kinds of cities aspire to the nomenclature of “greatness” with real
effects on policies. Minneapolis mayor R.T. Ryback (2006) opted for
better city design as a way of proving his city’s “greatness”. By contrast, Seoul’s mayor Oh Se-hoon (2009) concentrated
on re-making his city’s civil service to demonstrate his city’s “greatness”. At still another end of the world Paris’ Mayor Bertrand
Delanoe emphasized his city’s quality of life as a specific expression of
“greatness” (Lefevre, 2009). Applying an
altogether different logic, policy makers in Houston pursue economic growth to specifically
justify its “greatness” (Economist, 2009).
Granted the widespread use of political hyperbole, the idea continues to
be a powerful motivator for the kinds of policies pursued by civic elites
(OECD, 2006). Given this state of affairs, claims about city greatness deserve
our attention. Greatness can be an
alluring idea, enabling us to think differently and more broadly about cities. A “great city” approach contrasts with the more
frequent attention given to “global cities” , where some of the most salient
studies rank cities by a single economic
criterion of either business “connectivities” or “producer services” (Taylor
and Lang, R, 2005; Sassen, 1991).
The purpose of this essay is to better
explain the notion of a great city as well as move beyond a singular economic
orientation for evaluating cities. An
examination of this kind cannot and should not be exhaustive, but rather lay
out essential attributes for developing the concept. Accordingly, I treat city greatness as a
series of necessary attributes. In
another manner I expect to raise questions about what makes a city great,
how various attributes contribute toward that end and whether cities
should aspire to that accolade.
When we speak of greatness
we mean that a city holds a certain majesty and prominence. Achieving that status means that a city is extraordinary
and distinguished in a number of very important ways. This distinction can be encapsulated in attributes
that can be projected across the world.
The characteristics can vary from military capacity, to cultural assets,
to commercial prowess, to the transcendent propositions of philosophy and religion. Periods of greatness may vary and so too will
the attributes that brought a particular city into ascendency (Hall, 1998). At first glance it may seem that greatness is
a matter of random luck, but in reality we can discern consistent patterns that
account for a city’s distinct quality.
To
explore this concept, I begin with an historical sketch of cities around the
world that have been regarded as great. I
rely on historical example, the scholarly literature and illustrations from
current practices to distill four basic attributes of city greatness. I then apply them to four cities in the
American context.
These
attributes are designed to emphasize qualities that are not time specific, but
are broadly encompassing and relevant to other historical periods. The
idea here is to produce generic attributes of city greatness that might be seen
in broader perspective. I then offer
thumbnail accounts of four cities to illustrate how they manifest particular
attributes and follow up with quantifiable indicators. The selection of our four cities is based on
a consensus in the international and national literature that acclaims them as America’s leading cities (for the selection of
cities see the section on “The 4Cs in New York,
Chicago, Los Angeles
and San Francisco”
and accompanying footnote).
As a mode of
inquiry the approach allows me to offer a viewpoint on city greatness within a
specific national context that could fit cities elsewhere. It also suggests that the “great city”
concept can stand on its own, it can be historically situated, and it can be
evaluated in terms of specific attributes.
Finally, the approach rests on findings that cities are more than
conflict arenas and do pursue long term strategic objectives regarding
development (DiGaetano and Klemanski, 1999; Savitch and Kantor; 2002). Many cities will follow development patterns
that lead toward or enhance their particular notions of becoming great.
The
4Cs of Greatness
One
way to envision urban greatness is to comprise it in a simple formulation of the
“4 Cs”; with each “C” respectively standing for currency, cosmopolitanism,
concentration and charisma. It
is the cumulative impact of the “4 Cs” that differentiate a great city from
other cities.
As applied here
the idea of currency has a double meaning. On the one hand, currency connotes the value
of something and its ability to carry weight in crucial circumstances. On the other hand, currency indicates a city
is up to the temper (zeitgeist) of the times. Currency conveys that a city shapes the world by the value and
forwardness of its actions. In
discussing this attribute we might ask, what drives put a city at the cutting
edge of world change? More precisely, does
a city embody the power of an idea, the more aggressive drives of military
conquest, or the material forces of production?
Different
historical periods afford us different perspectives on the importance of being
current with dominant drives of the time. Many of those cities that achieved greatness
were the very apotheosis of a particular attribute which led the way. Athens achieved hegemony
in the 5th century BC because it had a powerful fleet, routes for delivering
grain and extensive colonies. Through
this power Athens
was able to project its achievements in philosophy, drama and architecture to
much of the world (Mumford, 1961; Reader, 2004. From the 3rd century
onward, Rome’s military
strength created an empire, which projected itself in public works, road
building and architecture (Hall, 1998). During
the 14th to 16th centuries Florence captivated people through its
painting, sculpture, crafts and even the technology of the era (Hall, 1998). By the 17th century, Amsterdam commanded world
attention through its ports and capacity to conduct world trade. Once manufacture drifted into Asia and free
trade emerged in the latter half of the 20th century, there was no
stopping Hong Kong.
While these
historic examples provide some justification for the attribute of currency it
is also rooted in contemporary literature. The much discussed “creative city” is an example of currency. Richard Florida’s (2005) “creative classes” are
the actual producers of new values that are re-shaping the world, thereby
putting their cities at the cutting edge of change. Similarly the capacity to cultivate and
transmit knowledge also puts some cities at the top of an influential hierarchy
of places (Friedman, 1986; Sassen, 1991). Here we see the attribute of currency manifested in how cities assert
themselves.
Cosmopolitanism entails an ability
to embrace international, multi cultural or poly ethnic features. In examining how cosmopolitanism shapes a
city we recognize it is not the stock of international elements held within a
city, but its flow in and around it. This flow enables people and ideas to circulate throughout urban society. More often than not, the interaction across
cultures encourages tolerance, pluralism and an ability to absorb different
ways of life.
Here again great cities
embodied cosmopolitanism at different times and have done it in different ways. Between the 3rd and 2nd
centuries BC Alexandria was the focal point for knowledge
seekers from areas around the Mediterranean and throughout North
Africa. Thirteenth century Venice
achieved renown as a gateway to the Middle East
and the Orient. During the late 19th
and 20th centuries, immigrants from around the world poured into London’s East End and its
South Bank.
Cosmopolitanism
is also a broadly used attribute whose examples can be seen in contemporary
literature. For one, immigration has
always been a source of urban rejuvenation and dynamism (Handlin, 1951). Next,
the increasingly popular idea of global connectivity as an indicator of a
city’s importance is rooted within the larger attribute of cosmopolitanism (Taylor,
and Lang, 2005). After everything else
it is difficult to imagine an important city not having some kind of
international outreach, whether in its media (Hamburg)
or the attention given to the presence of international organizations (Nairobi).
Concentration
is a long-standing feature of cities. As
used here concentration embraces the dual ideas of demographic density and productive
mass. While it is possible to have
productive mass without demographic density (Silicon Valley) or demographic density
without productive mass (Dhaka) these traits
can be complementary. Taken together,
we might theorize that both high densities and productive mass would lead to the
most vibrant cities—first because this kind of city pulsates with human
activity all the time (unlike Silicon Valley) and second because it provides
material well being for most inhabitants (unlike Dhaka). Concentrated cities are characterized by
intense, continuously developed, mixed land uses. Generally speaking they are amenable to mass
transit (particularly rail systems). For
these and other reasons, concentrated cities are thought to hold enormous
advantages that allow them to be “great”. The idea of advantages stemming from
concentrated cities goes back to Alfred Marshall’s (1961) economic theories
about the proximity of specialized industries, Jane Jacob’s (1961) observations
about mixed land use and Michael Porter’s (1995) work on economic clusters. These writers saw virtue in the ability of
industry and people to concentrate their activities within a bounded, defined
location.
Up until recently,
concentrated activities were synonymous with the very essence of being a city. The ancient city of Beijing and Medieval European
cities like Bruges tell us that all great cities were bounded by walls that tightly
defined them (Weber, 1958). Whether or
not the compact city is still a valid attribute of greatness or whether it has
been replaced by post modern, scattered development remains to be seen.
Unlike our other
attributes, the idea of a city being concentrated is more debatable. Traditional writers like Lewis Mumford (1961)
believed that all great cities were concentrated cities with strong
centers. More recently, post modern writers
and market oriented planners see great cities of the future being replaced by sprawled
or low density localities (Dear, 2002; Gordon and Richardson, 1997). The controversy over whether great cities can
also be sprawled cities makes this attribute all the more important. Accordingly, we put these claims to a modest
test by examining development patterns in Los
Angeles.
Charisma
is an elusive concept because so much of it is based on perception and is
commonly evaluated by examining mass attitudes. Charisma can be defined as a
magical appeal that generates enthusiasm, admiration or reverence. That
appeal is based on the evocation of a feeling toward a person or an entity. By this definition “charismatic properties”
can be conveyed by icons and spatial forms (Eisenstadt, 1968). The image of a city can be an important
component of charisma, epitomized in a commanding symbol of one sort or another.
Lynch (1960) demonstrates how symbols
can contribute to the “legibility” of a city, enhance its remembrance and
thereby advance a deep seated appeal. We can see why Jerusalem’s
Western Wall, Paris’ Eifel
Tower and Istanbul’s Byzantine era churches/mosques contribute
to the charismatic properties of those cities.
To be effective, charisma must be authentic and genuinely reside in the
history of a city. Beyond the mere sign
of a city’s logos is a substantive history which is replete with meaning.
Because they are
filled with substantive history symbols are able to draw the loyalty of mass
followers. Much blood has been shed over
Jerusalem’s symbols.
Even today Greeks remind visitors that their ancient city is in foreign hands and
replace the Turkish name Istanbul with its
Byzantine nomenclature of Constantinople. Not all city symbols connote conflict, and we
could add to the list Athens’ Parthenon and San Francisco’s Golden
Gate Bridge. Iconic symbols hold meaning for people and
govern their perceptions, attitudes and feeling about a city.
Again, the very broadness of this
attribute enables us to see it in multiple forms in the contemporary
world. Scholars and applied researchers have
relied on “image” as a major way of evaluating a city’s importance (Short,
2004; Anholt-GFK Roper, 2009; MasterCard, 2008). Mayors and policy makers privately claim image
is as important as reality. Not
surprisingly more and more cities now engage in place marketing and spend large
sums of money to “re-brand” so as to acquire a great city image. A city’s charisma embraces this notion of
image as well as related perceptions about appeal and status.
The
4Cs in New York, Chicago,
Los Angeles and San Francisco
Several caveats
govern our understanding about the possibilities for American cities. For one, cities belong to nations and despite
globalization cities are still part of a nation-state apparatus. Second, most cities are limited by the power
of their home countries. Great cities
usually become great because the nations in which they are located rise to the
fore. Third, in discussing American cities
we should acknowledge that greatness is relative to what can be achieved within
a national context. Accordingly, the
definition of greatness is both relatively and liberally applied —relative
because our cities are often compared to other American cities and liberal
because it allows for a larger number of cities than is sometimes done.
Within
the United States four cities stand out as worthy of being considered “great”.
The selection of cities was determined by
consulting surveys and data from three sources that ranked cities by various
definitions of importance (Foreign Policy, 2008; Anholt-GFK Roper Public, 2008;
and MasterCard, 2008).
[1] New York is
an obvious leader and it is followed, in no particular order, by Chicago, Los Angeles and San Francisco.
[2] We
begin with qualitative, thumbnail accounts of how the 4Cs currently work in these
cities.
Currency
When we speak of currency, the financial
drive of New York
is almost unparalleled. Of all the
cities around the world, only London rivals (or
exceeds) New York. Fueled by two large central business
districts in Lower and Mid Manhattan, the city stands at the top of the
globally connected localities (Taylor and Lang, 2005). New
York’s economic influence extends to the rest of the
world for good and bad. Its banks led
the way in disseminating capital, enabling parts of Asia
to prosper; those same financial houses invented “collateralized debt mortgages”
that brought economic misery. The force
of New York’s
boom periods (2004-2007) and its cycles of bust periods (2008-2009) have reverberated
around the world.
Los Angeles demonstrates
a different kind of currency. In an age
where media shapes mass perception, Los
Angeles has led the way in its ability to house image
makers. Los Angeles’ incubation of the film industry
began in the 1920s and by mid century it held a near monopoly. From that base the city grew into a television
and entertainment capital and a host of other industries followed (aerospace,
banking, fashion). Today Los Angeles is one of the
highest interconnected cities around the globe and is the second highest
technology center in the country (Milken Institute, 1999).
San Francisco is a city of
balance and economic diversification. Its financial district is known as the “Wall Street” of the West and it
is the home of leading banks like Wells Fargo, Barclays Global Investors and VISA. San Francisco
is also tied to the high tech industries in nearby Silicon
Valley; it is a leading tourist attraction and it has significant
linkages to the rest of the world (GaWC, 2000). The city’s currency is fed by well
established industries in health, bio technology and a bevy of first class
universities within commuting distance to the city. These assets put the city at the leading
edge of innovation.
Chicago
is a city that lifted itself into currency during the last two decades. Chicago
made its mark as a major distribution, mercantile and manufacturing center but
much of its economic base radically changed.
Through two decades between 1970 and 1990, Chicago lost more than 40 percent of its industrial
jobs and 17 percent of its population (Savitch and Kantor, 2002). But the city persevered, and through a
combination of skill and foresight a new Chicago
emerged. With a rebuilt and expanded downtown, Chicago attracted white collar employment,
major corporate headquarters and a burgeoning tourist industry. Thanks to its airport Chicago now ranks as an international city and
its institutions put the city at the top of the technology ladder (GaWC, 2000;
Milken, 1999). As we elaborate later, Chicago’s success is not
due to its ascension to first place, but to having filled a set of niches that
now set it apart from other cities.
Cosmopolitanism
New York is known as the
world’s immigrant city and for good reason.
From its founding in the 17th century it has been settled by
migrations from all parts of the world.
Each wave of immigration has put down its own stratum of achievement. Irish, Italians, Jews, Blacks and Puerto
Ricans built the city’s economic base. Asians and Hispanics have reinvigorated the city with a new sense of
entrepreneurship. New York’s cosmopolitanism goes beyond the
contributions of its immigrants. The
city is home to the United Nations and hosts large numbers of foreign
correspondents and diplomats, diverse religious institutions and exotic street musicians. Add to this an influx of migrants from
other parts of the country and the “coming out” of the Gay population, and we
can very well understand why this polyglot city is amongst the most socially
liberal in the country.
Los Angeles reflects a
very different kind of cosmopolitanism. While
it does hold a large immigrant population, the majority is Hispanic. Other immigrants also hail from Asia and
parts of the Middle East. That said the city’s cosmopolitanism does not
solely hinge on people from other lands, but on large influxes of American
citizens from the East, Midwest and
South. Much of Los
Angeles was built on fifty years of migration to the Sunbelt. These
same migrants created the city’s low density neighborhoods, developed its
industry and crowd its vast freeways. The city’s cosmopolitanism has been constructed on newcomers, who
created a uniquely suburban city. Its
critics see Angelenos as an aggressive lot who despoil the landscape and would do
anything to turn a profit (Davis,
1992). Its defenders view the city as
embracing the values of freedom, democracy and upward mobility (Dear, 2000,
2002).
San Francisco achieves its cosmopolitanism in altogether
different ways than either New York or Los Angeles. Like many American cities, old San Francisco was settled by foreign stock from Italy, Germany,
Ireland and Russia But much of that identification is gone and replaced
by a different, more controversial profile.
For some San Francisco
is a trendy, leftist, Gay and altogether eccentric city; for others it represents
a progressive, pluralistic, middle class ideal of urban life. The city is all of this and perhaps more. Nobody describes this social profile better
than DeLeon (1992) who observes that in San
Francisco “Everything is pluribus, nothing is unum. Hyperpluralism reigns. That means mutual tolerance is essential,
social learning is inevitable, innovation is likely and democracy is hard work”
(De Leon, 1992: 13). This attitude has a
powerful effect on how San Francisco
presents itself to the outside world.
Again,
Chicago seems
to slip in between all of our cities with a little bit of everything. It was not always that way. Chicago was a
city split between traditional business located in “The Loop”, patrician
classes living along Lake Michigan or Hyde Park
and blue collar ethnic neighborhoods (Irish and East European). Blacks also
constituted a group unto itself and were heavily concentrated on the city’s South
Side. Up through much of the 20th
century Chicago
was a gruff place, given to clannishness and corruption. But then the city’s social complexion
changed. A new generation of well educated, middle
class professionals sprung from its ethnic neighborhoods and mixed with
newcomers from other parts of the country. While the city retains its neighborhood identity it has loosened up and
taken on a “new political culture”—one that is socially liberal, highly mobile,
anxious for public amenities and open to the rest of the world (Clark and
Hoffman-Martinot, 1998).
Concentration
As
mentioned earlier, in taking up the idea of concentration we consider both
demographic density and productive mass. Parts of New York
are the densest of any city in the United States. Manhattan’s
density of more than 70 000 people per square mile is extraordinary—even by European
standards. Even excluding Manhattan
the rest of the city’s density reaches nearly 24 000 per square mile (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 2000). As for productive
mass, Manhattan lies at the heart of New York’s industrial prowess and within it Times Square provides the city with a real epicenter ––one
that draws the world’s attention every day and is especially uproarious every New
Year’s Eve. Every workday nearly 1.4
million commuters avail themselves of the city’s complex subway system, by far
the largest in the country U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005, 2007). Manhattan’s
business districts mix freely with residential use as do business districts in
downtown Brooklyn, Jamaica,
Queens and Fordham Road
in the Bronx. Save for the less populated Staten Island most of New York is continuously developed.
On
the other side of the continent San
Francisco is also well packed with an average density
of 16 000 people per square mile (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Its productive mass is facilitated by an
abundance of trolleys, buses, and rail transit. San Francisco’s mass transit carries more
than 120 000 commuters to all parts of the city (U.S. Bureau of the Census,
2005, 2007). The focal points of San
Francisco are to be found in its downtown skyscrapers and
along its waterfront. Despite these high points, San
Francisco’s concentration is altogether different from New York’s. This is a city which invokes moratoria on the
construction of office towers and takes restrictions on building heights
seriously. Rather than imposing mega
structures, San Francisco
charms its way into the circle of concentrated cities. Its small shops and distinct neighborhoods are
matched by a patch-quilt of more than thirty mixed use, tightly packed communities.
It is
not by coincidence that Chicago
inspired Park’s and Burgess’ (1925), theory of concentric zones. While the composition of Chicago’s concentric zones has changed, its facility
for diagnosing urban land uses is still intact. The city’s average density of 12 750 residents per square mile says much
for its concentration, but so too does its exciting new business climate (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 2000). Chicago’s productive mass
is cosseted by parks, beaches and street entertainment. Clark (1999)
rightfully labels the downtown as a place for “trees and real violins”. Underground and elevated rail lines carry
more than 100 000 commuters daily (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2005, 2007). Chicago’s
architectural heritage has been brought to the fore by additions to its
skyline. The downtown is now filled with residential apartment buildings and
new neighborhoods have blossomed, forming near continuous stretches of mixed
use development.
By
the criterion of concentration Los Angeles
remains an outlier. Its density of nearly
8000 people per square mile is less than one third of New
York’s, half of San
Francisco’s and roughly two thirds of Chicago’s (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 2000). Los Angeles has no real
center and no conspicuous focal points that serve as a referent for motorists,
cyclists or pedestrians. Its downtown is
small, non-descript and its neighborhoods of low slung bungalows are
indistinct. The city’s rail is in a
nascent stage of development, carrying just 6,000 commuters daily (U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 2005, 2007). Los Angeles’ productive
mass is spread around it rather than within it, and its transportation well
suits that distribution. Angelenos
depend upon automobiles and a vast highway system to work, play and socialize. The city’s extremely long blocks, intended to accommodate
vehicular traffic, thwart pedestrian life. We have here a landscape characterized by segregated uses––solidly
residential areas in one place, malls in another and other activities located
at a distance from housing or shopping. What
might appear to be liabilities for some people are celebrated by others, who
see Los Angeles
as the seat of “post modernism” where everything is discontinuous and held
together by the twin strands of freeways and cyberspace. Some scholars believe the city has ushered into
the current age a paradigmatic break with traditional forms of development
(Dear, 2000; 2002)
Charisma
If
charisma can be contained within symbol New
York has much to offer. It is often identified by a dramatic skyline,
whose images appear in photos and film.
It is a city that broadcasts itself through song and literature; it has
an authentic culture and its characterization as “The Big Apple” conveys an
authenticity about the opportunities to be realized in America’s
largest city. The city’s unique culture contributes
mightily to its appeal and to the mindset it evokes. New
York has few rivals in its ability to lure adventurous
youth, ambitious entrepreneurs and avant-gardes artists.
Chicago has come to embrace the accolade of America’s “second
city” because doing so gives it an added advantage. The city has found its identity as the big
city that is not New York––more
manageable, cleaner and more affordable with a hominess of its own. If the song “New York,
New York” echoes lyrics like, “If you can make
it there you can make it anywhere”, the “second city’s” rejoinder is, “Chicago…the kinda town
that won’t let you down”. Chicago is also filled
with opportunities and sophistication. Its
magnificent architecture, its sports teams and its celebration in story have
enabled the city to fill the promise of greatness. Corporations move their headquarters
to Chicago because
its image now allows for a prestigious location and its geography provides the
advantage of easy access to anywhere in the world. It is this combination of psychic appeal and
practicality that makes the word “second” sound like the best.
San Francisco’s appeal is
not easily duplicated. Its Victorian
housing, Bay area location and tapestry of different cultures give the city a
special meaning. The city’s charisma can
be found in its romance and portrayal of its streets. San Francisco is known as a city that
tolerates almost every lifestyle.
Indeed, the city’s acceptance of what might elsewhere be considered
“deviant” gives it a special sense of social civility. Much of that civility is refracted in the
respect with which San Franciscans treat their environment. This is a city that tore down an ugly
elevated highway despite the cries of business.
Los Angeles is a city
whose charisma can only be described with ambivalence. On the one hand it has few identifiable
symbols and one struggles to find a recognizable sobriquet for that city. Recent arrivals will also complain about the
city’s shortage of “character”, its paucity of intellectual life and the lack
of old bookstores. Yet, Los Angeles does have plenty of devotees. Its sunny weather, beaches and Hollywood
glamour provide Los Angeles
with enough cache to make it appealing. Its
surfeit of privatized spaces allows for a huge variety of tastes, proclivities
and adventures. Los Angeles’
may have inaugurated a different kind of charisma than is traditionally
accepted––all of it made possible by a fast moving, free and open environment. Some European scholars, very much accustomed to
staid, compact cities, find Los
Angeles to be refreshingly spontaneous (Kourchid and
Rhein, 1994).
Applying
the 4Cs to Four Cities
We
now take a closer view of our cities in tandem with one another. Any effort to portray greatness by numbers is
likely to be problematic because of what is selected, how a given quality is
measured and whether indicators point in a certain direction. Like any other phenomenon, the indications of
greatness may not always turn in the same direction. To use health as an example, an individual
may suffer from hypertension, but in other respects show very favorable signs
of physical excellence. In much the same
way, a city may fall short on some measures but be outstanding in other ways. It is then important to understand overall
patterns and not be bound to a single measure.
Moreover, measures should be understood in context, both in terms of our
previous discussion and for what is significant for a city in the 21st
century.
Nowadays a city that is current would have a
commanding economic presence. The
measures for this include employment, gross metropolitan product; the presence
of Fortune 500 companies (economic magnitude and leadership) as well as high
tech businesses and patent entries (cutting edge innovation). In
the same manner cosmopolitanism could be seen in a city’s international posture. Here the measures include immigrants, foreign
tourists (circulation of individuals from overseas) as well as international
airline passengers (world transportation hub), foreign embassies (ability to
project abroad) and global network connections (international business flows). Concentration has many of the components of
an earlier age, except that modern construction has allowed vertical
development (office towers, apartment buildings) and cities are challenged by
suburbanization. The measures for concentration
take into account both density and productive mass. They include central city density and the
size and proportion of the downtown area (ability to cluster people, industries,
etc.) as well as density gradients (the relative importance of the center
vis-à-vis the periphery) and use of public transit (the compactness
destinations). Finally, in the
contemporary world charisma is associated with popular appeal. The indicators for charisma include numbers
of Google hits (interest and recognition), desirability of the city as a
residential location (youthful and upwardly mobile appeal), the richness of
public amenities (entertainment, restaurant and sports appeal), a Bohemian
factor reflecting careers in the arts (cultural appeal) and the frequency a
city appears in film (general audience appeal).
Table
1 presents each of our 4Cs with respect to New York,
Chicago, San Francisco
and Los Angeles.
The table displays various measures by their
raw numbers or an established score (see footnotes for the table definitions).
Also shown by a slash (/) is the ranking of our four cities, relative to other major
cities in the United States.
[3]
Table 1
Ranking New York,
Chicago, San Francisco
and Los Angeles
by the 4Cs
While
not surprising it is worth noting that the prominence of a city within a given
attribute is somewhat consistent down the line.
That is, cities with a high degree of currency will not only do well on
gross metropolitan product (GMP) but enjoy the largest number of jobs and serve
as the location for the most Fortune 500 companies. New York captures
the top slot on most of these variables, though San Francisco by far exceeds the other cities
in per capita income.
As
we proceed to cosmopolitanism we see high numbers of immigrants together with
high numbers of foreign tourists, a large amount of international travel, a
surfeit of embassies and consulates and tens of thousands of global connections. Again, New York
is predominant, followed on many of these measures by Los
Angeles, Chicago and San Francisco.
The
attribute of concentration is also revealing.
New York
is the most consistently concentrated city with extremely high densities, a commanding
downtown (size, area, employment) a sharp density gradient and a high reliance
on public transit. Chicago
and San Francisco
do well on most of these measures, especially population densities, downtown
size, density gradients and public transit.
As expected, Los Angeles’
pattern of settlement is more spread than its sister cities. Its relatively low density gradient tells us
that its pattern of settlement is fairly uniform––there are few demographic
peaks and valleys in that city and it has the highest proportion of automobile
use.
The
last attribute charisma meets some expectations but surprises us on
others. Once again, New York is consistently at the top. By far it has the largest number of Google
hits and does well relative to other cities on its Bohemian ranking. New
York also scores at or near the top on amenities,
film mentions and as a desirable location. Chicago
and San Francisco
also acquit themselves well on most of these measures and run fairly close to each
other. Los Angeles does surprise us by exceeding many
of its sister cities on the Bohemian index, as a desirable location and its
frequency of film mentions. Los Angeles’ position on
some of these indicators is pregnant with implications for greatness (see
below).
Of considerable
interest is the position of our four cities relative to other major cities in
the United States. These comparisons confirm the relative
greatness of our four cities at a national level. In most cases we find our cities among the
top fifth in the country, sometimes occupying seriatim the top four places. Out of 22 measures and 88 observations found
in the table, our cities were amongst the top fifth in the nation 71.5 percent
of the time. Other cities that occasionally
traded the fourth position with one of our cities were Boston
and Washington D.C. Some
switching occurred on selective measures.
Otherwise, our four cities were in good stead at the nation’s pinnacle.
Under
currency New York, Chicago
and Los Angeles
held this ranking on four of six measures. San Francisco satisfied the top fifth ranking
just once, though its per capita income was the highest of all major cities in
the nation. Under cosmopolitanism New York held this
position on all five measures. Chicago, San Francisco and Los Angeles found themselves
in the top fifth on four of five measures. Under concentration New York held the first or second position
on all six measures. Chicago
was in the top fifth on two measures and San
Francisco on three measures. By contrast, Los Angeles did not meet the top fifth
criterion on any of the concentration measures. The finish of this listing,
charisma turned out to be quite interesting. Chicago
did quite well on three of five measures.
As one might expect New York was among
the top fifth on all five measures, and it was joined by San Francisco. Despite the conventional belief that Los Angeles lacked
“character” that city distinguished itself by climbing to the top fifth on all
five of the charismatic measures. Here
we see that “character” can be translated into charisma in altogether different
ways. We consider this result together with others in the next section.
Conclusions:
Paths to Greatness
Whether
we accept that a single large nation can have several great cities or not, we
can learn a great deal from trying to identify that phenomenon. For one, within the context of their respective
eras great cities have enjoyed a global scope, but the converse does not
hold—being a global city does not necessarily qualify it as a great city. By definition global cities are well
connected with other parts of the globe.
In this respect Singapore
is an extraordinary efficiency/communications machine that reaches across the
world, but it lacks the essential of charisma.
Second,
this brief examination raises the issue of whether a great city also requires
being a large city.
Certainly, great
cities have been sizeable and a small city will find it difficult to meet the
criteria for all 4 Cs.
We see this
obstacle popping up in the smallest or our cities, San Francisco, especially as it pertains to the
weight of its economy (currency).
Nevertheless, cities of lesser size can be quite high on charisma and
even achieve greatness.
Not only does San Francisco fare reasonably well on the charismatic
criterion, but other medium sized cities like Boston,
New Orleans and Seattle exceed many of their larger rivals on
various measures (Google hits, internet movies).
[4] Additionally, while we might have expected
that very large cities would have a distinct advantage on measures of cultural
richness, these same medium sized cities generally do better than their much larger
counterparts.
[5]
Third,
we should consider that a city does not have to be at the very pinnacle of
every attribute to be great. It does
however have to be prominent on enough counts to claim greatness. Chicago
demonstrates that a city can distinguish itself by finding a niche
position. Chicago is our only city not to achieve the
first rank on any attribute. Notwithstanding
that shortcoming, Chicago
attained distinction by consistently staying near the top in every attribute and
coupling that standing to a unique identity.
This tells us that finding a proper niche and making the most of it can
be a key factor. Chicago was able to bring itself to
distinction by dint of its natural geography, its agglomerations of capital and
human talent, its built environment and skillful politics (Simpson, 2001). This extraordinary combination of indigenous,
structural factors and human agency is not easily duplicated.
Fourth,
Los Angeles is
instructive for understanding what greatness might look like in the 21st
century. The issue is all the more
important because unlike the 19th century inspiration behind New York, Chicago and San Francisco, Los
Angeles is a product of the 20th century
(Abu Lughod-Lughod, 1999). Its post
modernist defenders often see it as a paradigmatic break and as posing an
altogether different model for greatness. A more careful scrutiny tells us something
else. For all the descriptions of it as a
radically decentralized, post modern city, Los Angeles is densely populated (at least by
American standards). Its current density
of almost 8000 people per square mile makes it one of the more heavily settled cities
in the country, allowing some to claim that Los Angeles is much like New York,
Chicago and San Francisco (Fulton, et al., 2001). While Los
Angeles is denser than most would imagine, the use of these
averages over large metropolitan areas can be misleading. Clearly, such calculations wash out the very
sharp differences that do exist at the core of these cities. More significantly, concentration goes beyond
counting numbers of people per square mile and embraces productive mass, which
is quite spread in Los Angeles. Concentration also touches on a host of other
factors such as centrality, continuity, mixed land uses and mass transit. By these criteria Los Angeles falls short.
The
truth of the matter is that Los
Angeles is neither conventionally “concentrated” nor
classically “sprawled” but rather a hybrid.
At the risk of adding still more terminology to a field burdened by
neologisms, Los Angeles
might best be described by a) density that is b) extensive both
of which, in turn, are c) auto dependent. These three ideas are summarized in the acronym DEAD Some would argue that this developmental form
produces immense liabilities like traffic congestion, moribund streets and a
lifeless downtown.(Eidlin, 2005). This view faults Los Angeles as a city devoid of the
collective use of public space. Others
see this developmental form as free, fluid and convenient. This view hails Los Angeles as a city suited for a new age of
flexibility and individual choice. Our own
purposes are narrower and address the issue of whether DEAD fits a future model
of “city greatness” or alternatively whether DEAD disappears as a city matures (Los Angeles as a city in
transition).
While
the evidence is incomplete, it appears that Los Angeles has adopted more familiar forms
of concentration. Over the past 40 years
its densities have increased by 49 percent. Unlike other cities whose
population drifted into rural land, newcomers to Los Angeles have chosen established
neighborhoods. There is something both
new and unusual about this trend. Compared to traditional cities that grew from
the center outward, Los Angeles
demonstrates an inverted pattern of growing from the periphery back toward an
in-filling of its core. This pattern of
in-fill can also be seen in recent efforts to bolster its downtown with office
towers, residence and tourist attractions.
All of which are re-reinforced by an embryonic and fragmented mass
transit of buses, light rail and underground transit.
Exactly
where this in-fill will take Los Angeles
is unclear. Los Angeles will never be a New York, Chicago or San Francisco, but neither does it conform to a sprawled Phoenix or Albuquerque. Los
Angeles’ accomplishments and attraction in its DEAD
form already deserves recognition, so we might think about this urban form as a
possible model. By the same token, Los Angeles is also
evolving as it acquires greatness, and this suggests a certain striving toward
more concentration. If that city’s
drift toward more concentration does continue–– even though truncated–– it may
well be the exception that proves the rule about the inherent advantages of
conventional cities. Either of these are
open possibilities that only time and further observation will decide.
Last, we should recognize that most cities
will not achieve greatness nor should they endeavor to do so. Only handfuls
are capable of achieving greatness. While this may seem self evident, many
smaller cities in the United
States and elsewhere continue to mimic those
at the top. It is not uncommon to see
this imitation in new convention halls that lay vacant, airports that are
relabeled as “international” hubs but have very few overseas flights; and
designer buildings that pop through lonely skylines.
There
are serious costs to pursuing greatness when it is not realistically
achievable. To take one example of great
city mimicry, cities across America
have engaged in a rash of convention hall construction. In the space of the last decade spending on
convention centers doubled to $2.4 billion annually and availability increased
by 50 percent (Sanders, 2005). So severe was the competition that one scholar
likened it to an “arms race” between cities (Sanders, 2005: 1).
The
extant hope of these cities was that hosting conventions would bring fame,
raise revenues and build monuments of greatness. Yet the race to build convention halls turned
out to be a race to the bottom, as the oversupply of convention space exceeded
the demand. Attendance in some cities
plummeted by more than 40 percent from the previous period. More telling was the debt cities incurred as new
convention halls lay vacant. In addition
to paying off bonds, cities were obliged to meet ongoing expenses for
maintenance and utilities. Besides
these burdens were the opportunity costs missed because cities granted free
land and tax abatements to developers.
Our
brief exercise should teach policy makers that greatness is a rarity, to be
admired but not necessarily copied. Attempting
to emulate the impossible can be corrupting and wasteful. Better for a city to be what it is and aspire
to be the best regional center or best small town than pretend to be what it is
not. Knowing a city’s potential,
appreciating it and making the most of it is every bit as valuable.
References
Abu Lugohd, J (1999). New York,
Chicago, Los Angeles.
University of Minnesota
Press: Minneapolis, MN.
Anholt-GFK Roper (2009). Ranking is Global City Survey. GFK
Custom Research. New York
Boschken, H (2008). A Multiple-perspectives Construct of the American Global City. Urban Studies 45 (1) January, 3-26.
Burgess, E (1925). The Growth of a City: An Introduction to a Research Project. In
Park, R et al. (Eds) The City. University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
Clark, T (1999). Trees and Real Violins: Building Post
Industrial Chicago. Manuscript, February 12.
Clark, T and Hoffman-Martinot,
M (1998). The New Political Culture. Westview
Press: Boulder, CO.
Dear, M. (2000). The
Postmodern Urban Condition. Blackwell
Publishers: Oxford, UK.
Dear, M (2002). Los Angeles
and the Chicago School: Invitation to a Debate. City and
Community 1 (1): 5-32.
DeLeon, R (1992). Left
Coast City.
University Press of Kansas: Lawrence, KS.
Davis, M (1992). City of Quartz. Random House: New York, NY.
DiGaetano, A. and
Klemanski, J. (1999). Power and City
Governance. University
of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN.
Dunn, K. (1999). A Great
City is a Great Solitude. Yale French Studies (80): 93-107
Economist (2009). Lone Star Rising. July 11: 3-12.
Eidlin, Eric (2005). “The
Worst of All Worlds: Los Angles and the
Emerging Reality of Dense Sprawl”.
Unpublished Paper. University of Toronto, Program in Urban Design,
Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design. Toronto, Canada.
Eisenstadt, S.N. (1968). Max Weber: Selected Papers on
Charisma and Institution
Building. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL.
Florida, R (2005). Cities
and the Creative Class. Routledge: London.
Friedmann, J (1986). The World City
Hypothesis. Development and Change 17: 69-83.
Fulton, W, Pendall, R.,
Nguyen M. and Harrison, A (2001). Who Sprawls
Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across
the U.S. Brookings Institution: Washington, D.C.
July.
Gordon, P. and Richardson, H. (1997). Are Compact Cities A
Desirable Planning Goal. Journal of the
American Planning Association 63 (1): 95-107.
Hall, P (1998). Cities in Civilization. Random House: New York, NY.
Handlin, O. (1951). The Uprooted. Little
Brown: Boston, MA.
Jacobs, J (1961). The Death and Life of Great American
Cities. Vintage: New York, NY.
Kourchid, O and Rhein, C (1994). Modernisme industriele et conservatisme
politique: Comparaisons entre les region
d’Ile-de France
et de Los Angeles.
Centre national de la Recherche Scientifiques, Unviersite de Lille. Lille, France
16-18 Mars.
Lefevre, C. (2009). Policy Responses and Governance of
Paris-Ile de France in the Globalisation Era. Manuscript.
Leapman, M (1989). The
Book of London: Evolution of a Great
City (Ed). Weidenfled and
Nicolson: London.
Lynch, K. (1959). The Image of the City. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Milliken Institute (1999). America's
High-Tech Economy: Growth, Development and Risks for Metropolitan Areas.
Milliken Institute: Santa Monica, CA.
Mumford, L. (1961). The City in History. Harcout Brace: New York
Ng., M and Hills, P (2003) World cities or great cities? A
comparative study of five Asian metropolises.
Cities 20 (3): 151-165.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
(2006). Competitive Cities in the Global
Economy. OECD: Paris.
Oh Se-hoon (2009). Welcoming Address: Seoul
International Conference on Creativity. Seoul,
South Korea. August 12.
Porter, M. (1995) The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City. Harvard Business Review 73 (3): 55-71.
Reader, J. (2004). Cities. Grove Press. New York, NY.
Robson, Wm and Regan, D. (1972). Great Cities
of the World Vol. 1 and 2. Sage: Beverly
Hills.
Ryback, R.T. (2006). Great City
Design Teams. US Fed News Service, Including US State News, October 10
Sassen, S (1991) The Global
City. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Sanders, H. (2005).
Space Available: The Realities of
Convention Centers as Economic Development Strategy. Research Brief. Brookings Institution: Washington D.C.
July.
Savitch, H and Kantor, P (2002) Cities in the International Marketplace. Princeton
University Press: Princeton, NJ.
Short, J (2004) Global
Metropolitan, Routledge: London and New York.
Simpson, D. (2001) Rogues,
Rebels and Rubberstamps. Westview Press: Boulder, CO.
Taylor, P and Lang, R (2005). U.S.
Cities in the World
City Network. Brookings Metropolitan Policy Program, Washington D.C.
Tung, A.M. (2001). Preserving the World’s Great Cities. Three Rivers Press. New York,
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2000). American Community
Survey Estimates (City). Washington D.C.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (2008) Commuting to Work
via Public Transportation: American Community Survey Estimates (City). Washington
D.C.
Weber, M. (1958) The
City. Free Press. New York, New York.
ENDNOTES
[1] Rankings were
internationally compiled and American cities were then culled from them. The four cities receiving the highest number
of overlaps for the highest ranks were selected. Foreign
Policy
collected and analyzed data from 60 cities.
The categories included business, education and politics as well as
cultural and environmental issues. The Anholt-GFK Roper was based on a survey
of more than 20,000 respondents from 50 cities which included perceptions of
local markets, job opportunities, governance, cultural richness and quality of
life. MasterCard ranked 75 cities across
the globe using data on legal/political
framework, economic stability, business and finance, knowledge creation
and livability.
[2] The most notable studies dealing with
greatness relied on a city’s incorporated boundaries (Mumford, 1961; Robson and
Regan, 1972; Weber, 1958). Municipal
boundaries are also politically, socially and economically more coherent than
metropolitan areas. In the United
States incorporated boundaries are also less
subject to radical change than metropolitan boundaries (subject to frequent
redefinitions by the Bureau of the Census because of suburban growth). Each of the four cities is large enough
within its municipal boundaries to warrant an examination of this kind. In
terms of area San Francisco,
stands out as the smallest city with just 47 square miles. Our other cities are large enough for a fair
assessment, ranging from over 200 to more than 400 square miles. Chicago holds
227 square miles; New York 304 and Los Angeles, 469 square
miles. Los Angeles holds one of the largest areas
for a major American city, allowing us to take into account of a full panoply of activities and variations in
spatial configuration.
[3] To capture
major cities we include 25 cities with the highest population plus New Orleans and Santa
Fe. Their respective populations are as follows: New
York (8,246,310) Los Angeles (3,770,590) Chicago (2,740,224) Houston (2,034,749) Philadelphia
(1,454,382) Phoenix (1,440,018) San Antonio (1,267,984) San Diego (1,264,263)
Dallas (1,187,603) Detroit (951,270) San Jose (898,901) Jacksonville (797,966)
Indianapolis (790,815) San Francisco (757,604) Austin (725,306) Columbus
(724,095) Memphis (650,100) Charlotte (649,578) Baltimore (639,493) Fort Worth
(635,612) Boston (600,980) Washington, DC (585,267) Milwaukee (584,007) Seattle
(565,809) El Paso (563,662) New Orleans (288,113) and Santa Fe 73,056)
[4] Regarding
Google hits the ranks for these cities are: Boston
5/27; New Orleans 22/27; and, Seattle 13/27. When it comes to Internet
movies sites the ranks are: Boston 6/27; New Orleans 7 /27; and, Seattle 9/27.
These cities with populations of less than 600,000 hold their own on
most of these counts relative to cities with twice their population like Houston, Phoenix and San Diego.
[5] Regarding amenities the rankings for lesser
sized cities are as follows. Boston 2/50; New Orleans 8/50;
and Seattle 5/50. Surprisingly, some larger cities had negative
scores (below average) on amenities. Houston ranked 18/50; Phoenix
21/50 and San Diego
16/50. On a broader note among our the cities examined the R2
correlation between size and amenities is a modest 0.34
.jpg)