__MAIN_TEXT__
feature-image

Page 1


GPICI 世界の都⼼総合⼒インデックス GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 2010


GPICI CONTENTS BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

4

GPICI CITIES

6

GPICI INDICATORS

7

FLOW OF THE RESEARCH

8

8 CITIES

11

00a. MUNICIPALITY

22

00b. AGGLOMERATION

24

101. POPULATION

26

102 BUILDINGS OVER 100MH 102.

28

103. TOP COMPANIES

30

204. TOP UNIVERSITIES

32

205. THEATERS AND CONCERT HALLS

34

206. MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES

36

207. STADIUMS

38

308. CONVENTION CENTERS

40

309. INTERNATIONAL SCHOOLS

42

310. EMBASSIES AND CONSULATES

44

411. 5窶心TAR HOTELS

46

412. TOP RESTAURANTS

48

413. BRAND窶侵AME SHOPS

50

514. LARGE窶心CALE SHOPPING CENTERS

52

515. LARGE窶心CALE HOSPITALS

54

516. GREEN AND WATER COVERAGE

56

617. SUBWAY AND RAIL TRANSIT

58

618. HIGHWAY

60

619. AIRPORT ACCESS

62

620. AIRPORT PERFORMANCE

64

CONCLUSION

67

APPENDIX

75


BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

London

Seoul Paris Tokyo

Shanghai

Hong Kong Hong Kong Singapore

4 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

New York New York


BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH Since 2008, the Institute for Urban Strategies at the Mori Memorial Foundation has surveyed the "comprehensive power" of the world's major cities and released their findings in the form of the "Global Power Cityy Index (GPCI)." The GPCI looks at 35 gglobal cities of varying y g scales and assesses them based on 69 indicators. The resulting scores, however, do not always reflect the magnitude of city scale. A striking example of this is Paris, which has a population of around two million but is third in comprehensive ranking. Furthermore, examining various indicators in details reveals the fact that an extremely high percentage of cities concentrate their primary urban functions into a centrally located area: an "inner‐city." In the case of Paris, it is safe to say that the “inner‐city” is the entire city.

Singapore Hong Kong

London

Paris

The Global Power Inner‐City Index (GPICI) defines an “inner‐city” as an area with a 5km radius from the city center, which is equivalent to the size of Paris. Of the 35 world major cities surveyed by the GPCI, seven cities, in addition to Paris, are selected for the GPICI and their inner‐cities are surveyed and compared in order to identify each inner‐city’s strengths. Furthermore, the GPICI seeks to examine the phenomenon of urban "polycentrism," whereby different urban functions are not centered in the same geographical location but are spread across multiple "centers." This phenomenon has become prevalent in many major cities since the 20th century, and areas of 10km radius are also examined in the same way as 5km radius area, and compared with the assumption that an area of this size will encompass the elements of polycentrism. p y This is done with the aim of ascertainingg what sort of urban power weight distribution exists in inner‐cities and inner‐city‐ equivalent zones. In recent years there has been a growing movement worldwide to tightly consolidate urban functions into inner‐cities and to promote sustainable urban planning, inspired by "New Urbanism," the "Compact City" concept and other new ways of thinking. The GPICI compares the eight target cities cities’ "inner‐cities" inner‐cities using a common scale and indicators, indicators and the results then visually reveal the characteristics and challenges of each inner‐city.

New York

Shanghai Seoul Tokyo

GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  5


GPICI CITIES For GPICI, of the 8 target cities, five cities: New York, London, Paris, Tokyo and Singapore are firstly selected as these cities are also the top 5 cities in the GPCI 2010 Comprehensive Ranking. In addition, Hong Kong, Seoul and Shanghai are also selected as these are assumed to be the Tokyo's rivals in Asia. Examining these cities' powers in details, revealed in the GPCI, New York and London have great strengths in "Economy" and "Cultural Interaction" while possessing comparative weaknesses in "Livability" and "Environment." 3rd place Paris in the GPCI, is an all‐round player which has well‐balanced comprehensive power compared to the top 2 cities. Referring to Tokyo, Tokyo which is at the 4th place in the GPCI, GPCI although its scores in "Cultural Interaction" and "Accessibility" are low, its high scores in "Economy" and "Research and Development" well compensate for its weaknesses. Singapore's low score in "Cultural Interaction" is also visible like Tokyo, but its score in "Accessibility" is higher than Tokyo's. Seoul could bring out its strength in "Research and Development" and could be in the top group among Asian cities. Hong Kong also successfully came into the top 10, bringing out its strength in "Economy." Economy. Of the 8 target cities, Shanghai is ranked behind, being solely at 26th, which is in the lower group among 35 target cities in the GPCI; however its greatly high score in "Economy" is well exceeding the scores of the other cities in the same lower group. Thus, various characteristic strengths and weaknesses are revealed by the GPCI, examining based on the "city" perspective. Next, based on the "inner inner‐city city" perspective, perspective it is examining what kind of differences there would be, or whether there would be no great differences. Focusing on the co‐relation between each evaluation, it will look at each inner‐city in more details.

Global Power City Index 2010

6 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

Top 5 cities on GPCI 2010 and 3 major Asian cities  selected for GPICI‐2010.

p g Comprehensive Ranking 1. New York 2. London 3. Paris 4. Tokyo 5. Singapore 5. Singapore 6. Berlin 7. Amsterdam 8. Seoul 9. Hong Kong 10. Sydney 11. Vienna 11. Vienna 12. Zurich 13. Frankfurt 14. Los Angeles 15. Madrid 16. Vancouver 17. Copenhagen 17. Copenhagen 18. Osaka 19. Geneva 20. Boston 21. Brussels 22. San Francisco 3. Toronto 23. Toronto 24. Beijing 25. Chicago 26. Shanghai 27. Milan 28. Fukuoka 9 a pe 29. Taipei 30. Kuala Lumpur 31. Bangkok 32. Moscow 33. Sao Paulo 34. Mumbai 35. Cairo Economy Cultural Interaction Environment

Global Power INNER City Index

New York (1st)            London (2nd)

Paris (3rd)

Tokyo (4th)

Singapore (5th)           Seoul (8th) 

Hong Kong (9th) 

R&D Livability Accessibility

Shanghai (26th)


GPICI INDICATORS Global Power City Index

Global Power INNER City Index

69 Indicators in 6 Functions

20 Indicators in 6 Properties 

Economy

0) Background Information 

4) Luxury Property

00a. Municipality 00b. Agglomeration

411. 5‐star Hotels ‐Number / Guest Room / Location 412. Top Restaurants  ‐Number / Location b /L i 413. Brand‐name Shops  ‐Number / Location

1) Vital Property Research and  Development

Cultural Interaction

101. Population ‐Number / Density 102. Buildings over 100mh  ‐Number / Location ‐Periodical / Usage 103. Top Companies ‐ Number / Revenue / Location ‐ Financial / Non‐financial Sectors 

2) Cultural Property 2) Cultural Property

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

204. Top Universities  ‐Number / Student / International  Student / Location 205. Theaters and Concert Halls ‐ Number / Seat / Location 206. Museums  and Galleries ‐Number / Visitor / Location 207. Stadiums  ‐ Number / Seat / Game / Location

3) Interactive Property 308. Convention Centers  ‐Number / Space / Conference /  Location 309. International Schools  ‐ Number / Student / Location N b /S d /L i 310. Embassies and Consulates ‐ Number / Location

5) Amenity Property 514. Large‐scale Shopping Centers ‐ Number / Shopping Center Hour /  Location  515. Large‐scale Hospitals ‐Number / Bed / Location  516 G 516. Green and Water Coverage  dW C ‐ Area / Location

6) Mobility Property 617. Subway and Rail Transit  617. Subway and Rail Transit ‐ Number / Location 618. Highway  ‐ Length / Location 619. Airport Access ‐ Train Travel Time ‐Drive Distance i i ‐ Fare (Train / Bus / Taxi) 620. Airport Performance ‐ Number of Runways   ‐ Number of Cities connected with  Int’l Direct Flight   ‐ Int’l Direct Flights  per week ‐ Annual Int’l Passengers

The GPICI uses a total of 20 indicators in evaluating inner‐cities. Some indicators are taken from the 69 indicators comprising the six functions of “Economy,” “Research and Development,” “Cultural Interaction,” “Livability,” “Environment,” and “Accessibility” used in the GPCI, and some indicators are independently developed. In either case, the indicators used are those which allow inner‐cities to be visualized and quantitatively assessed. The GPICI also compares and contrasts the population and geographical data of each target city's administrative region with that of its inner‐city. For the sake of convenience, the 20 indicators used in the GPICI are sorted into six groups; however, this does not mean that each indicator possesses only the attributes of its group. group Here, Here there are six important urban elements, elements defined as “urban property”: 1) Vital Property, 2) Cultural Property, 3) Interactive Property, 4) Luxury Property, 5) Amenity Property, 6) Mobility Property. These are important particularly in “inner‐city,” and GPICI uses these elements to analyze each inner‐city’s urban power. With regard to the property, for "1) Vital Property," which expresses the vitality of an inner‐city, the first indicator looked at is the number of residents in the city. Th more people The l live li there, th th greater the t its it vitality it lit is. i The Th nextt indicator i di t is i "Buildings over 100mh"; the more high‐rise buildings there are, the more people work, live or reside in the area. "Top Companies" has been included in this property as well because these are representatives of significant economic activity. The second property is "2) Cultural Property," which uses the indicators of "Top Universities," "Theaters and Concert Halls," "Museums and Galleries" and "Stadiums.“ For the third property, "3) Interactive Property," a variety of indicators are possibly used; "Convention Centers," which are often used for trade fairs where strangers gather together and engage in one‐on‐one communication, represents one platform for urban interaction on the most massive scale. In addition, from the perspective of international interaction, the indicators of "International Schools" and "Embassies Schools Embassies and Consulates Consulates" express this property. As the forth property, "4) Luxury Property" is measured with the indicators of "5‐star Hotels," "Top Restaurants," and "Brand‐name Shops.“ For "5) Amenity Property," which indicates the degree of ease with which people can go about daily life, "Large‐scale Hospitals" is used as an indicator based on the assumption that health preservation greatly impacts daily life. Additionally, the indicators of "Large‐scale Shopping Centers," as a measure of the ease with which a person can buy a variety of products, and "Green and Water Coverage," as a measure of the ease with which a person can experience a natural environment, are considered items essential to living a comfortable life. With regard to the ease of mobility, "Subways and Rail Transit" is chosen as an indicator of the degree of railway development which facilitates mobility in the inner‐city, as represented by the number of stations, and "Highway" network is chosen as an indicator of the ease of travel by car in the inner inner‐city. city. In addition to these, in light of the importance of being able to easily get to cities overseas from the inner‐city, "Airport Access" and "Airport Performance" are chosen as indicators of the accessibility and performance of international airports. All of these represent "6) Mobility Property."

GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  7


FLOW OF THE RESEARCH In order to ensure the same quality of results as GPCI, GPICI welcomes Sir Peter Hall, Professor at the Bartlett School of the University College London and a leading global authority in urban planning, as the Principal Advisor, askingg for advice on this survey. y Moreover, in order to secure fair and highly reliable data on target cities, a supervising committee, comprised of 16 experts, two from each of the eight target cities, has been formed. Data collection and analysis are performed by a Tokyo working group of the Institute for Urban Strategies at the Mori Memorial Foundation; their results are reviewed individually by the committee and then compiled. The next step in this survey process is to define the "inner‐city" inner city of each city, and in order to do this, historical, geographical, economic and a variety of other factors are considered to determine the location that constitutes the center of the city. Upon setting the center of each target city, it collects data with equivalent precision for the aforementioned indicator groups for the inner‐cities of the eight target cities. When collecting data, the locational information pertinent to the data is also checked and plotted on a map as a part of the construction of a database. Finally, the organized data is analyzed and the final results compiled.

Principal Advisor Sir Peter Hall  Professor, University College London

Working Group in Tokyo 

Committees for 8 Cities

Research on the “Inner‐city”

TOKYO Heizo Takenaka Professor, Keio University Hiroo Ichikawa Professor, Meiji University

Review

NEW YORK Saskia Sassen Professor, Columbia University Peter Marcotullio Associate Professor, Hunter College, New York

Definition of the Indicators

LONDON Richard Burdett Professor, London School of Economics  and Political  Science Mariane Jang  Project Manager, LSE Cities 

Collection of Data

PARIS Guy Burgel Professor, Université Paris X Nanterre Lise Bourdeau‐Lepage Associate Professor, Université Paris Sud 11

SINGAPORE Belinda Yuen Senior Researcher World Bank Senior Researcher, World Bank Leon Kong President, Ako Knowledge Solutions, Singapore

Production of Database and Maps

HONG KONG Anthony Yeh Professor, University of Hong Kong  Roger Chan  P f Professor, University of Hong Kong  U i i fH K

Analysis of Data y

SEOUL Mun‐Kun Cheong  President, Seoul Development Institute Joo‐il Lee  Senior Researcher,  Seoul Development Institute

SHANGHAI Xuejin Zuo Vise President, Shanghai Academy of Social Science  Qiyu Tu Professor, Shanghai Academy of Social Science 

8 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

Edition of the Outputs


FLOW OF THE RESEARCH The "inner‐city" region is established as both a target area with a 5km  radius extending out from the city center (hereafter "5km target area")  and a target area with a 10km radius extending out from the city center  (hereafter "10km target area"). Based on the database described earlier,  the data for the eight cities is tabulated for the 5km target area and  10km target area, and relative indicator scores on a 100 point scale are  calculated for each inner‐city. These indicator scores for the 20 indicators  are added up for the 5km target area and the 10km target area, and a  total score is obtained for each city.

Vital Property Population Buildings over 100mh Top Companies Cultural Property

Mobility Property

Top Universities  Theaters and Concert Halls Museums and Galleries Stadiums

10Km

Subway and Rail Transit  Highway  Airport Access Airport Performance  

These score calculations are important for identifying the relative  strengths and weaknesses of each inner strengths and weaknesses of each inner‐city city and, furthermore, for  and furthermore for comparing the characteristics of each city's 5km and 10km target area.  Additionally, by creating factor maps for each of the 20 indicators, the  cities can be compared horizontally, which allows quick identification of  both strong cities and weak cities for each indicator. Furthermore, it is  possible to assess indicator distribution within each city and, thus,  ascertain how each city uses its inner‐city.

5Km Center of  the City Interactive Property

Amenity Property

Convention Centers  International Schools  Embassies and Consulates

Large‐scale  Shopping Centers Large‐scale  Hospitals Green and Water Coverage  g

Luxury Property  5‐star Hotels Top Restaurants  Brand name Shops  Brand‐name Shops

Index Score Index Score

5km Score

10km Score

Total Score

GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  9


8 CITIES 8 CITIES

GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  11


NEW YORK The center of New York is set at Times Square, where Broadway and Seventh Avenue intersect.

New York 21

The 5km target area is bordered by Central Park to the north and the SoHo area to the south. south On the eastern and western sides are the East River and the Hudson River, respectively, but the 5km target area extends beyond these to include parts of Queens and New Jersey. From a different perspective, New York's 5km target area is a compact concentration of man‐made structures, greenery and water, and relaxed suburban landscape with housing; in a sense, it is unmatched amongst other inner cities.

17

16

Looking k at the h 10km k target area for f New Yorkk reveals l a distribution d b off tremendously distinctive items, such as Yankee Stadium to the north, the Statue of Liberty on Liberty Island to the south, LaGuardia Airport to the east, and Hackensack Meadowlands Conservation and Wildlife Area to the west; all of these contribute to New York's unique character.

13

Below are the major landmarks and tourist spots in New York, and by looking at the map it is evident that nearly all of them are within the 5km target area.

9 6

0 1

19

7 2 3

4 0 1  2 2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17 17  18  19  20  21 

Times Square Rockefeller Center The Museum of Modern Art The Museum of Modern Art  Grand Central Terminal Madison Square Garden  The Empire State Building Lincoln Center  Central Park The United Nations Headquarters  The Metropolitan Museum of Art New York University  SoHo Ground Zero Columbia University  Jersey City Battery Park  Hackensack Medowlands Wildlife Yankee Stadium Yankee Stadium  Statue of Liberty (Liberty Island) La Guardia Airport  The East River The Hudson River 

12 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

14

10 11

12 15 20 18

8 5


SHANGHAI The center of Shanghai is set at the People's Square and the Huangpu River flows lengthwise through the city, dividing it; Pudong is on the east and Puxi is on the west.

Shanghai

17

In the 5km target area, area the Shanghai Museum faces the People People'ss Square in the center and the Bund is located on the west side of the river. The Bund features a concentration of historical buildings, large shopping centers and hotels and is always full of people. East and West Nanjing Road stretching east and west and Maoming Road to the south form an area which has a large number of shops and which is quite busy. It is also the location of Jing'an Temple and is one of the new towns that have come to symbolize Shanghai Shanghai'ss remarkable development; however, however as the presence of Yuyuan Garden attests, the area still retains an old and traditional physical heritage. To the east of the river are such notable sites as the Oriental Pearl TV Tower and the Shanghai World Financial Center, which is a 101‐story high super‐tall skyscraper with the world's tallest observation deck. In the 10km target area, on the Pudong side there is Century Park, and on the th Puxi P i side id there th i the is th commercial i l district di t i t off Xujiahui X ji h i and d Hongqiao. H i Historically speaking, a characteristic of Shanghai has been the larger concentration of notable spots on the western side of the river compared with the eastern side.

4 0 1

6 8

Below are the major landmarks and tourist spots in Shanghai. It is evident that the majority of the notable sites are on the Puxi side, with a very small notable features evident for the Pudong side.

9

5

2

13

3

14

7

16

11

15

10 12

0 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13 13  14  15  16  17 

People's Square Shanghai Museum Huaihai Road Xintiandi The Bund Yuyuan Garden Nan Jing Xi Lu The Oriental Pearl TV Tower Jing'an Temple Shanghai World Financial Center World Expo Museum Shanghai Jiao Tong University Xujiahui Shanghai Science & Technology Museum Shanghai Science & Technology Museum INTEX Shanghai Gubei Century Park The Huangpu River GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  19


20 INDICATORS 20 INDICATORS

GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  21


00a. MUNICIPALITY Land Area (sqkm) 0 

1,000 2,000  3,000  4,000  5,000  6,000 

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore H Hong Kong K Seoul Shanghai

Inner‐Ring

Population 0

5

10

15

20 million

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai

Inner‐Ring

New York e o Paris

Density (p/sqkm) 0 

5,000

New York London Paris Paris + Inner‐Ring Tokyo g p Singapore Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai

22 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

10,000

15,000

20,000

London o do Tokyo


00a. MUNICIPALITY Annual Visitors from Overseas 0

5,000

10,000

15,000 thousand

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore H Hong Kong K Seoul Shanghai

Foreign Residents 0

500

1,000

1,500 thousand

SSingapore gapo e Seoul

Hong Kong o g o g Shanghai

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai

Foreign Residents / Population 0%

10%

20%

30%

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  23


103. TOP COMPANIES In terms of urban competitiveness, companies are one of the most important factors which support cities. While it is not possible to examine all companies located in the inner‐cities of the eight target cities, it is possible to ascertain the overall trends for each inner‐city by using the "Fortune Global 500" put out by Fortune Magazine. Here, it shows the locations where the world’s top 500 companies in terms of sales for 2008, according to the “Fortune Global 500,” have their headquarters. With the exceptions of Seoul and Paris, the vast majority of companies have their headquarters within the 5km target area of each city. Tokyo k has, h by b far, f the h largest l concentration off headquarters h d in its inner‐ city, having the largest number of headquarters located around the Imperial Palace grounds; this area is home to many well‐established companies. Furthermore, there are headquarters scattered throughout Tokyo's sub‐centers, such as Shinjuku, Shinagawa and Odaiba. In second place is Paris, where the largest concentration of headquarters is to be found on the northern side of the Avenue des Champs‐Élysées; however, th there are also l concentrations t ti off headquarters h d t i La in L Défense Déf and d around d Montparnasse Station. Similar to the distribution of high‐rises, third place New York has concentrations of headquarters in Midtown and Downtown Manhattan, and fourth place London has concentrations in the City and in Docklands. Seoul has concentrations of headquarters distributed around the City Hall, Yeouido and Gangnam‐gu. Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore also have headquarters located in those areas where there are many high‐rise buildings. In terms of types of business, New York and Tokyo are evenly matched in numbers of finance‐related companies. Tokyo has the largest number of non‐finance‐related corporate headquarters, such as Toyota, followed by Paris with Peugeot, etc.

Companies 0

10

20

30

0‐5km

5‐10km

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai

30 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

40

50

New York e o Paris

London o do Tokyo


103. TOP COMPANIES Revenues ($) 0

1,000,000 , ,

2,000,000 , , million

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai 0‐5km

5‐10km

Financial Sectors 0

SSingapore gapo e Seoul

Hong Kong o g o g Shanghai

2

4

6

8

10

New York London P i Paris Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai 0‐5km

5‐10km

Non Financial Sectors 0

10

20

30

40

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong S Seoul l Shanghai 0‐5km

5‐10km GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  31


CONCLUSION


COMPREHENSIVE INDEX By comparing the eight cities based on 20 indicators shaping their inner‐ cities, their strengths and weaknesses become apparent. All of these factors can be compiled in an attempt to assess "inner‐city comprehensive power.“ Being a city with “comprehensive power” means that a city possesses the net attractiveness in terms of overall quality and quantity where the abundance of its strengths more than compensates for its weaknesses.

0‐5km 0

"Comprehensive power" is calculated for both a 5km and 10km target area extending from the center of each city. This then reveals which target radius within each city possesses more "power." The score tabulations incorporate not only quantitative factors but also qualitative factors; for example, theater and concert hall numbers as well as numbers of seats, and museum and art gallery numbers as well as numbers of visitors are tabulated.

New York

In order to give equal weight to each of the 20 indicators, they are each given an index range of 100. The maximum value within a given indicator is assigned a value of 100 and the other scores are calculated relative to thi When this. Wh one indicator i di t has h multiple lti l elements, l t such h as number b off theaters and Concert Halls, and number of seats, each element is indexed and the average score is adopted as the indicator score.

Singapore

London, which has been second overall in GPCI ranking for the past three years, sinks to fifth place in terms of inner‐city comprehensive power The lower ranked inner‐cities power. inner cities are Singapore, Singapore Shanghai followed by Seoul in last place; these results are also a reversal of what is seen in the GPCI rankings. Next are the results for the 10km target area. Paris still remains at the top; however, the gap between the cities overall appears to shrink. Just like the results for the 5km target area, Tokyo is in second place; third place is New York, fourth place is London and fifth place is Hong Kong. Seoul moves up from its last place for the 5km target area to sixth place; Shanghai is in seventh place; and Singapore is last.

68 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

London Paris Tokyo

Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai

The following are the results for comprehensive power. For the 5km target area, Paris outperforms all of the other cities. While Paris is third in comprehensive GPCI ranking, its inner‐city is far and away the most dominant. Looking at specific scores by indicator, apart from '102. Buildings over 100mh' and '516. Green and Water Coverage,' Paris scored at or above a given level, and the comprehensive strength of Paris' inner‐city is evident from the graph. In second place is Tokyo, third is Hong Kong and fourth is New York. Given that New York has been at the top of the GPCI rankings since 2008, it is surprising to see that its inner‐city is not also the strongest. It is also surprising to see Tokyo, which is ranked fourth overall in the GPCI, comes second in inner‐city comparison. The factors underlying all of this will be analyzed in the next section. Hong Kong has a great deal of variation in indicator score; however, as possessing extremely strong scores in some indicators, it is in third place.

200

0‐10km 0

200

400

600

New York London Paris Tokyo Singapore Hong Kong Seoul Shanghai

101. Population

102. Building

103. Company

204. University

205 Theater 205. Theater

206 Museum 206. Museum

207 Stadium 207. Stadium

308 Convention 308. Convention

309. Int'l School

310. Embassy

411. Hotel

412. Restaurant

413. Brand

514. Shopping

515. Hospital

516. Green & Water

617. Station

618. Highway

619. Airport Access

620. Airport Performance


COMPREHENSIVE INDEX Based on the definition of "urban property" given in the first section of this report, it looks at the results gleaned when the eight cities are compared with one another. Here, the index scores calculated in the previous section for the twenty indicators are sorted between the six property groups and their average scores are computed and compared. The intent is to measure the relative strength of each city for the 5km target area and the 10km target area in a manner similar to the computation of "comprehensive power."

0‐5km 70.00 60.00 

The first group to look at is "1) Vital Property." For both the 5km and 10km target areas, there is a large gap between the group of top five cities, i.e., New York, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong and Shanghai, and the other three cities. The inner‐cities inner cities of these five cities can be seen as comparatively 'boisterous boisterous.‘. Conversely, the inner‐cities of London, Singapore and Seoul can be seen as comparatively 'subdued.' If someone visited these cities, this would presumably be the feeling they would have.

50.00 40 00 40.00  30.00  20.00 

The next group to be examined is "2) Cultural Property." Paris leads in this property for both the 5km and 10km target areas, followed by London and New York, with Tokyo also in contention for the top group. For the 10km target area, S l is Seoul i also l extremely t l close l t the to th top t group. It is i perhaps h safe f to t say that th t the th assessment of the city itself is expressed in the assessment of its inner‐city.

10.00 0.00  1. Vital Property

2. Cultual Property

New York

London

Paris

3. Interactive  Property Tokyo

4. Luxury Property

Singapore

Hong Kong

5. Amenity Property 6. Mobility Property

Seoul

Shanghai

0‐10km 70.00

Next is "3) Interactive Property," and assessments for the 5km target area differ from those for the 10km target area. Despite New York's 5km target area, which includes the central Manhattan area, being only very slightly below first place Paris, its 10km target area is ranked down at sixth place. On the other hand, first place Paris rates overwhelmingly higher than the other cities, even for the 10km target area. A likely major contributor to this result is the fact that there is a significant concentration of massive convention centers outside the ring road that circumscribes Paris' 5km target area. Hong Kong also shows strength in this area; for the 5km target area, both New York and Hong Kong demonstrate a high level of "frequent interaction" approaching that of Paris. For "4) Luxury Property," Tokyo rates overwhelmingly higher than the other cities in both the 5km and 10km target areas. Tokyo is followed by Hong Kong, Paris and London. During the economic bubble of the early 1990s, it was famously said that the value of Tokyo alone was enough to purchase all of the United States. The bubble burst and Tokyo is now in the middle of a deflationary economy; however, it is safe to say that the market for high‐end shopping, dining, accommodation, etc., in Tokyo is still sound. Hong Kong also demonstrates strength in this area, although it is small‐scale compared with Tokyo. y

60 00 60.00 50.00  40.00  30.00  20.00  10.00  0.00  1. Vital Property

2. Cultural Property

New York

London

Paris

3. Interactive  Property Tokyo

4. Luxury Property

Singapore

Hong Kong

5. Amenity Property 6. Mobility Property

Seoul

Shanghai

Next for examination is "5) Amenity Property." The top two cities for the 5km target area are Hong Kong followed by Tokyo, and for the 10km target area these results are reversed, with Tokyo in first place followed by Hong Kong. They offer an environment where the necessities of daily life are close at hand, where there is no insecurity about managing one's health, and where people can easily experience greenery, water and other natural elements all while residing in the inner‐city. inner‐city The last one is "6) Mobility Property." For both the 5km and 10km target areas, Paris is ranked first. After Paris, the top group for the 5km target area is Tokyo, Hong Kong and New York and for the 10km target area is New York and Tokyo.

GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  69


ANALYSIS OF CITIES Thus far, the different inner‐cities have been compared based on a variety of indicators. Next, the degree of concentration within the 5km and 10km target areas of each city will be compared to see which is greater, and then the strength characteristics of each inner‐city will be examined. The graphs show the deviation score by each indicator for each city, with the 5km target area indicated in red and the 10km target area indicated in blue. From the shape of the graph, it can be ascertained whether a given inner‐city is stronger for the 5km target or for the 10km target area. In other words, if the area delineated in red is larger than the area delineated in blue, blue the 5km target area has comparatively greater strength than the 10km target area, and if the area delineated in blue is larger than the area delineated in red, then the 10km target area has greater strength than the 5km target area. Moreover, it stands to reason that the larger the red and blue areas are, the greater the strength of that city's inner city. The following is an examination of each city's strength characteristics. TTaking ki New N York Y k first, fi t its it 5km 5k and d 10km 10k target t t areas show h good d balance b l compared with the other cities. Apart from indicators such as "Stadiums" and "Highway," the 5km target area is stronger in most of the measures than the 10km target area. With Manhattan comprising the majority of the area covered, the 5km target area has greater urban power. In particular, the 5km target area's scores are high in such measures as "Buildings over 100mh," "Theaters and Concert Halls," "Museums and Galleries " "Convention Galleries, Convention Centers Centers" and "Green Green and Water Coverage. Coverage “ London's graph has an irregular shape. This is due to the city's extremely high scores in "Embassies and Consulates" and "Airport Performance" relative to the other cities. Comparing the 5km and 10km target areas reveals that, overall, most of the indicators’ scores for the 5km target area are slightly stronger than the 10km target area; however, similar to New York, the score for "Stadiums" is higher for the 10km target area. Other strong characteristics of London include its overall high scores in "Theaters and Concert Halls" and "Museums and Galleries.“ Regarding Paris, which had the highest comprehensive scores for both the 5km and 10km target areas, while the red and blue sections are large overall, there are variations from indicator to indicator. For the 5km target g area,, the scores for "Population," p , "Top p Universities," , "Theaters and Concert Halls," "Museums and Galleries," "International Schools," "Large‐scale Hospitals," and "Subway and Rail Transit" are extremely high. For the 10km target area, the scores for "Top Companies," "Stadiums," "Convention Centers," "Embassies and Consulates," "5‐star Hotels" and "Highway" are higher than those for the 5km target area. All of this suggests that, while Paris has different strengths for the 5km to 10km target areas, it has high scores in all functions due to an inner‐city possessing comprehensive urban power. While it is weak in "Buildings over 100mh," "Large‐scale Shopping Centers" and "Green and Water Coverage" for both the 5km and 10km target areas, the overwhelming strength it has in the other indicators relative to the other cities allows it to have a high overall score.

70 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

NEW YORK 0‐10km

LONDON

0‐5km

0‐10km

101. Population 620. Airport Performance 619. Airport Access 618 Hi h 618. Highway

101. Population 102. Building

70.00

620. Airport Performance

103. Company 204 U i 204. University it

50 00 50.00

617. Station

205. Theater

30.00

516. Green & Water

206. Museum

10.00

515. Hospital

207. Stadium

514. Shopping

308. Convention

413. Brand

619. Airport Access 618 Hi h 618. Highway

618. Highway 617. Station

205. Theater

206. Museum

515. Hospital

207. Stadium

514. Shopping

308. Convention

413. Brand

310. Embassy

412. Restaurant

309. Int'l School

411. Hotel

411. Hotel

PARIS

TOKYO 0‐5km

0‐10km

70.00 50.00 

620. Airport Performance

103. Company 204. University 205. Theater

206. Museum

10.00

207. Stadium

515. Hospital 514 Sh 514. Shopping i

308 C 308. Convention i

413. Brand

310. Embassy

412. Restaurant

309. Int'l School 411. Hotel

0‐5km

101. Population 102. Building

30.00

516. Green & Water

204 U i 204. University it

10.00

101. Population 619. Airport Access

103. Company

30.00

516. Green & Water

309. Int'l School

0‐10km

620. Airport Performance

102. Building

70.00 50 00 50.00 

617. Station

310. Embassy

412. Restaurant

0‐5km

619. Airport Access 618. Highway 617. Station

70.00 50.00 

102. Building 103. Company 204. University 205. Theater

30.00

516. Green & Water

206. Museum

10.00

207. Stadium

515. Hospital 514 Sh 514. Shopping i

308 C 308. Convention i

413. Brand

310. Embassy

412. Restaurant

309. Int'l School 411. Hotel


ANALYSIS OF CITIES

SINGAPORE

HONG KONG

0‐10km

0‐10km

0‐5km

101. Population 620. Airport Performance 619. Airport Access 618 Hi h 618. Highway

101. Population 102. Building

70.00

620. Airport Performance

103. Company 204 U i 204. University it

50 00 50.00

617. Station

205. Theater

30.00

516. Green & Water

206. Museum

10.00

515. Hospital

207. Stadium

514. Shopping

308. Convention

413. Brand

618 Hi h 618. Highway

516. Green & Water

618. Highway 617. Station

50.00

207. Stadium

514. Shopping

308. Convention

413. Brand

310. Embassy

412. Restaurant

309. Int'l School 411. Hotel

0‐5km

0‐10km

103. Company 204. University 205. Theater

206. Museum

10.00

207. Stadium

515. Hospital 514 Sh 514. Shopping i

308 C 308. Convention i

413. Brand

310. Embassy

412. Restaurant

309. Int'l School 411. Hotel

0‐5km

101. Population 620. Airport Performance

102. Building

619. Airport Access 618. Highway 617. Station

70.00 50.00 

102. Building 103. Company 204. University 205. Theater

30.00

516. Green & Water

206. Museum

10.00

207. Stadium

515. Hospital 514 Sh 514. Shopping i

308 C 308. Convention ti

413. Brand

310. Embassy

412. Restaurant

309. Int'l School 411. Hotel

The next city to examine is Singapore. The graph for Singapore is compact overall with the red area almost completely p y encompassing p g the blue area. In other words, the urban strength of Singapore's 5km target area is comparatively greater than that of its 10km target area, indicating the compact nature of its inner‐city. The only indicator where the score for the 10km target area is higher is "Green and Water Coverage" and, as just pointed out, it is because the inner‐city is so compact, going only a short distance out puts one in the great outdoors. This is a distinctive characteristic of Singapore. g p Hong Kong is similar to Singapore in that it is a compact city; however, it has higher scores overall than Singapore. In particular, of the eight cities surveyed, only Hong Kong has a red area almost completely encompassing the blue area, i.e., its 5km target area scores higher in most of indicators than its 10km target area. This shows that the city has a strong and compact inner‐ city.

SHANGHAI

30.00

516. Green & Water

206. Museum

515. Hospital

101. Population 70.00 

205. Theater

10.00

SEOUL

619. Airport Access

204 U i 204. University it

30.00

411. Hotel

620. Airport Performance

103. Company

50 00 50.00

617. Station

309. Int'l School

0‐10km

102. Building

70.00

619. Airport Access

310. Embassy

412. Restaurant

0‐5km

The next city examined is Tokyo. Of the eight city graphs, Tokyo's is the most irregularly shaped, with the red and blue areas overlapping in a jumbled fashion. For the 5km target area, "Top Companies," "Stadiums," "Top Restaurants," and "Highway" score extremely high. For the 10km target area, "Embassies and Consulates," "Brand‐name Shops," "Large‐scale Shopping Centers," "Large‐scale Hospitals," and "Subway and Rail Transit" have quite high scores. On the other hand, its 5km and 10km target areas are weak in "Population," "Buildings over 100mh," "Theaters and Concert Halls," "Convention Centers," "International Schools," "5‐star Hotels," "Green and Water Coverage," "Airport Access," "Airport Performance," etc., which fits with the weaknesses in such areas as cultural and international interaction and international airports which are brought out in the GPCI as well. Furthermore, when compared with the other cities, weaknesses characteristic of Tokyo's inner‐city, including the population of inner‐city residents, the lack of high‐rise buildings and the lack of greenery, come into sharp relief.

The next city to look at is Seoul. It shows inner‐city characteristics completely different to those of Singapore and Hong Kong. Only in the case of Seoul are nearly all scores for the 10km target area equal to or above the 5km target area, meaning that Seoul's inner‐city demonstrates overall urban strength in the 10km target area. Of particular note is that, amongst the eight cities, Seoul has extremely high scores in "Population," "Top Universities," "Brand‐name Shops," etc., for the 10km target area; this provides a glimpse off the th extent t t off human h activity ti it presentt in i Seoul S l from f th city the it center t allll the th way out to the city periphery. The last city for examination is Shanghai. Its graph shows similar characteristics to Tokyo, in that it is irregularly shaped with strengths and weaknesses jumbled between the 5km and 10km target areas. The scores for "Population" and "Buildings over 100mh" are extremely high for both the 5km and 10km target areas, indicating the massive nature of Shanghai's inner‐city. Furthermore, a notable characteristic is the large‐scale concentration of facilities in the 10km target area, as indicated by the high scores in "Stadiums," "Convention Centers," "Large‐scale Shopping Centers," etc.; this suggests an expansion of urban power from the city center out towards the suburbs.

GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  71


ANALYSIS OF CITIES Finally, an attempt is made here to physically locate all of the factors, comprising the twenty indicators of the GPICI, on a map. What can be gleaned from this attempt is that this gives a 'surface' view of each city's urban power. In other words, the patterns indicated by each map show where the center of each city lies and what urban power it possesses. For New York, it is obvious that urban power is concentrated in Midtown and Downtown Manhattan. Downtown is outside the 5km target area; thus, New York's intrinsic urban strength does not stem solely from the 5km target area, demonstrating again what makes it difficult to define what constitutes an 'inner‐city.' Next is London. d There h is an extreme concentration off factors f somewhat h to the west of Trafalgar Square, which is set as the city center. In addition to this, the concentration of factors is extremely high in the 5km target area as a whole, and there are numerous concentrations to the north of the River Thames. In the case of Paris, the largest concentration is found in the area from the Musée du Louvre, located northwest of the city center at Cathédrale Notre‐ Dame de Paris, to the Arc de Triomphe. Concentrations are seen spread out in other areas as well, and from the 5km target area, the concentrations shift further westward. The trend seen in London of a central river dividing concentrations into large and small is not seen in Paris; from the Cathédrale Notre‐Dame de Paris, numerous concentrations of factors exist on both sides of the Seine. Moreover, to the west and within the 10km target area is the sub‐center of La Défense, which has a more pronounced presence than London's Docklands sub‐center located on the eastern side of London. In the case of Tokyo, the area around the city center located at the Imperial Palace is a large green space; however, just to the east, from Tokyo Station to Ginza and Shinbashi, is an extremely dense concentration. Furthermore, towards the southwest and extending beyond the 5km target area is a series of concentrations. Additionally, on the periphery of the 5km target area can be seen concentrations which indicate the presence of sub sub‐ centers, such as Shinagawa, Shibuya, Shinjuku, Ikebukuro and Asakusa; these spots can be seen as origins for dispersed factors stretching further out to the periphery of the city. For Singapore, dense concentration can be seen around the city center set at Orchard Road; however, further dense concentrations can be seen between the Marina Bay area and the City Hall. The great majority of factors are concentrated within the 5km target area, area providing evidence of the compact nature of the city. The level of concentration in Hong Kong is extremely high compared to the other cities. At a glimpse, it can be seen that the concentration that runs along the coast of Hong Kong Island facing Kowloon is many times the size of the concentration found in the city center of Tsim Sha Tsui in Kowloon side. Furthermore, on the Kowloon side there are also high concentrations found from the 5km through 10km target areas; hence, this can be seen as a reason why Hong Kong demonstrates urban strength not only in its 5km target area but in its 10km target area as well.

72 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 

New York e o Paris

London o do Tokyo


ANALYSIS OF CITIES Seoul's city center is located in the Itaewon; however, its largest concentrations are found in the old city area, which contains the City Hall and the downtown. Compared with the other cities, Seoul's concentrations of factors are found in large part in its three sub‐centers: the old city, Yeouido, and Itaewon. Additionally, despite the large impediment to access presented by the Han River, the distribution of factors shows a certain uniform density overall. Currently, Itaewon is seemed to be a cavity in the center of Seoul; however, the decision to relocate the U.S. military base means that Itaewon can soon be developed as the center of Seoul in not only name but in actual fact. Finally in the case of Shanghai, Finally, Shanghai with People People’ss Square as the center of the city, the majority of concentrations are found along Yan'an Road, which serves as a major east‐west urban axis. In other words, there is still large potential for growth to the north and south, despite these areas being located in the inner‐city. The fact that the venue for Expo 2010 Shanghai China, the largest Expo ever, could be placed within the 5km target area is due to the city’s possession of the potential in its inner‐city. The future development p of Shanghai's g sub‐centers thus bears watching. g

SSingapore gapo e Seoul

Hong Kong o g o g Shanghai

GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX  73


CONCLUSION This survey was conducted on the assumption that the majority of the driving force behind the strength of the world's foremost cities is found in their inner‐cities. The results show that, of the cities surveyed, Paris has the highest overall score, as well as the smallest urban size. Furthermore, the results show that, with the exception of New York barely securing third place overall for the 10km target area, New York and London, which are the top two cities in terms of the Global Power City Index (GPCI), did not make it into the top three in terms of comprehensive GPICI score. Tokyo, which is in fourth place in GPCI ranking, ranks second in GPICI for both the 5km and 10km target areas. Another distinctive result is that Hongg Kong, g, which continues to p place around tenth in GPCI ranking, comes in third in GPICI ranking for 5km target area; this and other examples demonstrate the distinctive comprehensive power results for inner‐cities. On the other hand, taking a broader look at the rankings shows that New York, London, Paris and Tokyo, which have been the top four cities overall in GPCI rankings for the past three years, all rank within the top five on this survey for both the 5km and 10km target areas. areas This is an evidence of the tremendous urban power concentrated in the inner‐ cities of these four cities. Inner‐cities play a central role in the development of the larger city, which is evident in the history of many cities. Moreover, when people think of a particular city, their first thought tends to be of the inner‐city. In such an important location, particularly in Asian cities, the possibility should exist for further development. Over the next five to ten years, the development of the inner‐cities surveyed here will likely contribute greatly to the global perception of the larger city in which they exist. It is safe to say that as global inter‐ urban competition intensifies, the most important area to focus will undoubtedly be inner‐cities.

74 GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 


GPICI Working Group / The Mori Memorial Foundation Heizo Takenaka

g Chairman of  the  Institute for  Urban Strategies Professor at Keio University and the Director of the Global  Security Research Institute

Hiroo Ichikawa

Director of the Mori Memorial Foundation Professor and Dean of the Graduate School of Governance  Studies Meiji University

Takayuki Kubo

Senior Researcher at the Institute for Urban Strategies

Yasuyuki Miwa

Senior Researcher at the Institute for Urban Strategies

Kaori Mita

The Institute for Urban Strategies

Ayumi Ishii

The Institute for Urban Strategies

Manami Takanashi

The Institute for Urban Strategies

世界の都⼼総合⼒インデックス 世界 都⼼総合⼒インデ ク GLOBAL POWER INNER CITY INDEX 2010 2011年5⽉6⽇ 2011年7⽉1⽇

第1版発⾏ 第2版発⾏

Published on 6th May 2011 Revised on 1st July 2011

編 著 Compilation

財団法⼈ 森記念財団 都市戦略研究所

発⾏所 Publishing office

財団法⼈ 森記念財団

Institute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation

The Mori Memorial Foundation 

〒106-6110

東京都港区六本⽊6-10-1

六本⽊ヒルズ森タワー

Roppongi Hills Mori Tower 6‐10‐1, Roppongi, Minato‐ku, Tokyo, 106‐6110

電話 03(6406)6800(代表) Phone   +81‐3‐6406‐6800  Email morimfoundation@mori.miinet.jp http://www.mori-m-foundation.or.jp p // jp ISBN978‐4‐905249‐03‐0 無断転載を禁じます。

定価:本体2,000円+税 JPY ¥2000+TAX

本書掲載内容の使⽤により第三者が損害を受けた場合、森記念財団はその責任を負いません。 Unauthorized reproduction p of this document is forbidden.

The Mori Memorial Foundation is not, in any way, responsible for any damages or losses caused to third parties by your use of the information in this book. Copyright © 2011 The Mori Memorial Foundation All Rights Reserved.


Profile for 財団法人森記念財団

Global Power Inner City Index 2010 [Sample]  

The Institute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation

Global Power Inner City Index 2010 [Sample]  

The Institute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation

Advertisement

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded

Recommendations could not be loaded