Upload
others
View
1
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
20132013
1 London
2 New York
3 Paris
4 Tokyo
5 Singapore
6 Seoul
7 Amsterdam
8 Berlin
9 Vienna
10 Frankfurt
11 Hong Kong
12 Shanghai
13 Sydney
14 Beijing
15 Zurich
16 Stockholm
17 Madrid
18 Toronto
19 Barcelona
20 Copenhagen
21 Brussels
22 Los Angeles
23 Osaka
24 Vancouver
25 Geneva
26 Washington D.C.
27 Istanbul
28 San Francisco
29 Chicago
30 Milan
31 Boston
32 Bangkok
33 Taipei
34 Kuala Lumpur
35 Fukuoka
36 Moscow
37 Mexico City
38 Sao Paulo
39 Mumbai
40 Cairo
London
New York
Paris
Tokyo
Singapore
October 2013
2013
2013
Considering the �erce global competition between cities, the Global Power City Index (GPCI)evaluates and
ranks the major cities of the world according to their ‘magnetism,’ ie. their comprehensive power to attract
creative people and business enterprises from around the world.
Since the release of the �rst Global Power City Index in 2008, the Institute for Urban Strategies at The Mori
Memorial Foundation has been actively promoting its �ndings worldwide via the media and its website. This
has led to numerous invitations to present at international symposiums in the U.S., China, South Korea and
many other countries. The GPCI’s �ndings have been well-received within the international community, stimu-
lating active discussion and creating the opportunity to share ideas with the world’s leading research institutes
on the topic of urban competition.
The 2013 edition of the Global Power City Index includes data from newly conducted surveys on the resi-
dents of all the cities included in the index to re�ect most recent trends. A careful review of the data of some
indicators was also performed.
In addition, every effort was made to assess the ‘Intangible Urban Value’ of cities, a new value that will affect
the urban power of a city in the future and which appeals to human sensitivities such as ef�ciency, accuracy,
speed, cleanliness and security and safety of urban management, rather than just the city’s physical aspects.
It is hoped that these results will provide a benchmark in better understanding the strengths and weaknesses
that Tokyo and other global cities possess, while offering a valuable resource to the public sector in the devel-
opment of urban policy planning and private sector corporate strategies.*Currently scheduled for publication, the ‘GPCI YEAR BOOK 2013’ includes more detailed data from indicators and analyses by city
1. The GPCI is the �rst attempt made by a research institute in Japan to analyze and rank the
comprehensive power of the world’s major cities.
2. As opposed to limiting the ranking to particular areas of research such as ‘Finance’ and ‘Liv-
ability,’ the GPCI focuses on a wide variety of functions in order to assess and rank the global
potential and comprehensive power of a city.
3. Forty of the world’s leading cities were selected and their global comprehensive power evalu-
ated based on the following viewpoints; six main functions representing city strength (Econo-
my, Research and Development, Cultural Interaction, Livability, Environment and Accessibility),
four global actors who lead the urban activities in their cities (Manager, Researcher, Artist and
Visitor) as well as one local actor (Resident), thus providing an all-encompassing view of the
cities.
4. The challenges that Tokyo must address in order to overcome the weaknesses revealed by this
survey have been clari�ed.
5. This ranking has been produced with the involvement of Professor Sir Peter Hall, a global au-
thority in Urban Studies, as well as other academics in this �eld. It has been peer reviewed by
third parties, all international experts from both the public and private sectors.
Features of the Global Power City Index (GPCI)
Global Power City Index 2013 01
Preface
Key Messages
Economy : As with last year, Tokyo is again ranked No.1, but as some indicators were affected by
previous strong phases in the Japanese yen, Tokyo only appears to be maintaining its position at the
top. In contrast, Beijing at No.3 has recorded a high score for World’s Top 300 Companies and closed
the gap on New York in 2nd place. Seoul has moved up from 13th place last year to No.8 this year. This is
due to increased scores for Wage Level and Level of Political, Economic and Business Risk.
Research and Development : No major changes have taken place in rankings and scores, but Los
Angeles has moved up from No.6 last year to No.4.
2.Function-Specific Ranking
◆ London’s Livability score has fallen, but due to increases in other functions, the city ultimately
continues to be ranked No.1, further widening the gap in overall score from last year with 2nd
place New York.
◆ Tokyo maintains its No.4 position and has closed the gap with 3rd ranked Paris, but its gap with
London No.1 and New York No.2 has grown. At the same time, the gap between Tokyo and
Singapore, in 5th position, has shrunk.
◆ Led by Frankfurt, EU cities are showing signs of a recovery, while scores and rankings of North
American cities are also on the rise.
◆ The score increase in Economy of the two Chinese cities still stands out, particularly for Bei-
jing. Shanghai’s scores in Cultural Interaction and Accessibility have increased and the
city is now placed 12th, ahead of Beijing in the comprehensive ranking.
As with last year, London, New York, Paris and Tokyo are ranked as the top four cities respectively in
the 2013 GPCI comprehensive rankings.
London’s Livability score has been lowered, but due to increased scores in Economy, Research and Development and Environment, the overall score difference between London and New York has
widened. Paris and Tokyo have seen a signi�cant decrease in their scores and the gap between them and
2nd place has grown larger, while the score difference between 4th placed Tokyo and 5th placed Singa-
pore has shrunk. Looking only at the relationship between Tokyo and Paris, the difference in score has
shrunk from last year and the possibility has emerged that Tokyo could move into 3rd place on the back
of the announcement that the city will play host to the Olympic Games.
As for trends in comprehensive rankings for cities placed 5th and lower, 6th placed Seoul has largely
closed the gap on Singapore at No.5, while Frankfurt and Vienna have risen in the rankings. In particular,
Frankfurt’s scores for Environment and Accessibility increased, which contributed to a move in
comprehensive ranking from 12th to 10th.
Meanwhile, there has been marked growth in Economy for both of the Chinese cities. More speci�-
cally, in Economy, Beijing is still ranked No.3 but its score has risen while scores for the cities ranked
1st and 2nd have seen a major decline. Despite trailing Beijing in Economy, Shanghai’s scores for Cul-tural Interaction and Accessibility have risen signi�cantly and the city has overtaken Beijing, in 14th
place, to be now ranked 12th in the comprehensive rankings.
1.Overall Trends
Global Power City Index 201302
Findings of the GPCI-2013
From the perspective of actors that play active roles in cities, urban attractiveness is not necessarily
limited to just physical elements. It is thought that being able to evoke feelings of comfort, excitement or
pride in a city’s residents is due to the fact that all cities have the ‘power to appeal to human sensitivity.’
Accordingly, this power has been de�ned as Intangible Urban Value and is an attempt to evaluate
and portray from a fresh viewpoint the future urban power of 10 cities in the GPCI, namely, Barcelona,
London, Paris, Vienna, Istanbul, Singapore, Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo and New York.
As part of the framework for conducting new evaluations from the perspective of Intangible Urban Value, the Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics of a city have been established with the
three elements of Spatial Setting, Activities and Spatial Management, while the Sense of Values
of a city have been established with the three elements of Universal Value, Regional and Cultural Value and Individual Value. Analyses were then performed based on this framework.
Analyses were applied to some of the indicator groups in the GPCI by contrasting the GPCI evaluation
axis with the Intangible Urban Value evaluation axis.
As a result, for example, in the GPCI indicator group of “International Transportation Network,” despite
not having the best international �ight network, compared with other major global cities Tokyo has a
high score for the Intangible Urban Value of Flight On-time Rate and demonstrates superior manage-
ment capabilities, which indicates that there is a new value that cannot be assessed solely by the physi-
cal aspects of a city.
4.Intangible Urban Value
Manager : China’s two cities have climbed higher in the rankings from last year with Shanghai and
Beijing taking 3rd and 4th places respectively, while Tokyo has slipped from 7th to 9th .
Researcher : In addition to Los Angeles jumping from 7th last year to 5th and surpassing Boston, Osaka
has risen from 17th to 13th.
Artist : New York has earned a good score in “Cultural Stimulation” and improved from 5th to 2nd.
Visitor : With relative rating decreases for “Dining (Variety of Cuisines, Prices, etc.)” and “Shopping
(Environment, Prices, Attractiveness, etc.)” Tokyo has slipped from 6th position to 9th.
Resident : As a result of lower scores for Tokyo, Osaka, Fukuoka and some North American cities for
“Environment to Purchase Goods (Prices and Easiness to Get Products),” multiple EU cities have moved
up in ranking.
3.Actor-Specific Ranking
Cultural Interaction : Continuing on from last year, London has recorded a considerable gap against New York
and maintains its top position. Indicator scores based on surveys on Level of Satisfaction for Dining and
Level of Satisfaction for Shopping etc. have risen for Shanghai, which jumps from 22nd to 16th in this function.
Livability : Due to the effects of the weak US dollar last year, scores for Price Level and Average House Rent have �uctuated considerably in some cities. Scores for London, New York and Tokyo have fallen,
but of the top four cities only Paris has achieved a high score and as a result maintains its top position.
Environment : Tokyo maintains its No.1 position from last year and there have been no changes in the
top �ve positions. Frankfurt has improved from No.10 last year to No.6 with a particular increase in its
score for Percentage of Renewable Energy Used.
Accessibility : Frankfurt has climbed from No.6 to No.3. The city has recorded high scores for Number of Cities with Direct International Flights and Number of Cities with Direct International Freighter Flights.
Global Power City Index 2013 03
This ranking is created under the GPCI Committee,comprised of �ve members, including Sir Peter Hall,
Professor at The Bartlett University College London as Principal Advisor, and Heizo Takenaka, Chairman of
Institute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation, Professor at Keio University and Director of the
Global Security Research Institute, as Chairman. The Committee provides supervision of the ranking creation
process at key points.
The Working Group, headed by Hiroo Ichikawa, Executive Director of The Mori Memorial Foundation, Profes-
sor and Dean of the Graduate School of Governance Studies at Meiji University, as its Principal, performed the
necessary research and analysis in order to create the rankings for the cities, and sought advice from expert
partners worldwide regarding the perspective of global actors to help in the creation of the ranking.
In order to ensure the impartiality of the ranking creation process and its results, a third-party peer review is
undertaken to validate the contents and provide suggestions for improvement.
The GPCI-2013 has been created under the organization shown below.
Working Group・Fundamental Research of Cities・Analysis of Data・Creation of Draft Rankings
Hiroo Ichikawa
Principal
Institute for Urban Strategies,The Mori Memorial Foundation
Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc.
Member
CommitteeSupervision ofCreating Rankings
Saskia SassenProfessor, Columbia University
Member
Hiroo IchikawaProfessor and Dean, Graduate School of GovernanceStudies, Meiji University
Executive Director of The Mori Memorial Foundation
Member
Heizo TakenakaProfessor, Keio UniversityThe Director of the Global Security Research Institute
Chairman, Institute for Urban Strategies,The Mori Memorial Foundation
ChairmanSir Peter HallProfessor, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London
Principal Advisor
Richard BenderProfessor and Dean Emeritus,University of California, Berkeley
Member
Peer Reviewers
Allen J. ScottDistinguished Professor,University of California, Los Angeles
Review and Comment on the Ranking
Peter NijkampProfessor, VU University AmsterdamFellow, Tinbergen Institute
Expertise PartnersCooperation on Ranking
Intellectuals and Professionalswith International Experiencesas Global Actors
Fig.1-1 Research Organization
GPCI-2013 Research Organization1-1
Global Power City Index 201304
1.GPCI-2013 Methodology
The Criteria for Selection
● Cities found in the top ten of existing, in�uential city rankings (The Global Financial Centres Index, World-
wide Centers of Commerce Index and Cities of Opportunity)
● Major cities of countries which are in the top ten in terms of competition according to in�uential international
competiveness rankings (created by World Economic Forum, and International Institute for Management
Development)
● Cities which do not meet the above criteria but which are deemed appropriate for inclusion by the GPCI
committee or its working group members.
Region City
EuropeMadrid, Barcelona, London, Paris, Brussels, Amsterdam, Geneva, Frankfurt, Berlin, Zurich, Milan, Copenhagen, Vienna, Stockholm, Istanbul, Moscow
Africa Cairo
AsiaMumbai, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Singapore, Hong Kong, Beijing, Shanghai, Taipei, Seoul, Fukuoka, Osaka, Tokyo
Oceania Sydney
North AmericaVancouver, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, Toronto, Washington, D.C., New York, Boston
Latin America Mexico City, Sao Paulo
Tokyo Tokyo New York New York Boston Boston
Mexico City Mexico City
San Francisco San Francisco
Chicago Chicago
Seoul Seoul Toronto Toronto
Sydney Sydney
Mumbai Mumbai
Taipei Taipei
Hong Kong Hong Kong
Beijing Beijing
Shanghai Shanghai
Bangkok Bangkok
Kuala Lumpur Kuala Lumpur
Singapore Singapore
Moscow Moscow
Madrid Madrid
Milan Milan
London London Paris Paris
Vienna Vienna Berlin Berlin
Amsterdam Amsterdam
Zurich Zurich
Geneva Geneva Brussels Brussels
Copenhagen Copenhagen
Frankfurt Frankfurt
Sao Paulo Sao Paulo
Cairo Cairo Fukuoka Fukuoka Osaka Osaka
Vancouver Vancouver
Istanbul Istanbul
Barcelona Barcelona
Stockholm Stockholm
Los Angeles Los Angeles Washington, D.C. Washington, D.C.
Fig.1-2 Selected Forty Cities
Cities for GPCI-20131-2
Global Power City Index 2013 05
Economy
Research andDevelopment
CulturalInteraction
Livability
Environment
Accessibility
Co
mp
rehensive Ranking
2
2
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
3
2
2
4
3
3
Total 70Indicators
3
3
2
2
3
3
Function Indicator Group Indicator
Market Size
Academic Resources
Trendsetting Potential
Ecology
International Transportation Network
Economic Vitality
Business Environment
Regulations and Risks
Research Background
Research Achievement
Cultural Resources
Facilities for Visitors
Attractiveness to Visitors
Volume of Interaction
Pollution
Natural Environment
Infrastructure of International Transportation
Market Attractiveness
Human Capital
Transportation Service of Inner-city
Trafc Convenience
Working Environment
Cost of Living
Security and Safety
Living Environment
Living Facilities
Fig.1-3 Creation Flow for Function-based Ranking
The Ranking Creation Method1-3
Global Power City Index 201306
1.Accumulation of Enterprises and Business Deals
2.Potential of Business Growth
3.Ease of Doing Business
4.Business Environment
5.Richness in Human Resources
6.Accumulation of Industry to Support Business
7.Favorable Environment for Employees and their Families
8.Political and Economic Risk, and Disaster Vulnerability
1.Qualities of Research Institutions, Researchers and Directors
2.Accumulation of Research Institutions & Researchers
3.Opportunities that Stimulate Researchers In Conducting Academic Activities
4.Readiness for Accepting Researchers (Research Funding, Support with Living Expenses etc.)
5.Career Opportunities for Researchers
6.Environment for Daily Life (Ease of Living)
1.Cultural Stimulation
2.Accumulation of Artists
3.Accumulation of Art Markets
4.Environment for Creative Activities (Studio Rent and Spaces)
5.Environment for Daily Life (Ease of Living)
1.Environment to Purchase Goods (Prices and Easiness to Get Products)
2.Environment for Daily Life (Ease of Living)
3.Work Environment (Income and Employment Opportunities)
4.Educational Environment
5.Leisure Activities6.Public Safety7.Quality of Medical
Treatment
1.Cultural Attractiveness and Opportunities for Interaction
2.Public Safety3.Richness in
Tourist Spots4.High-class
Accommodations5.Dining (Variety of
Cuisines, Prices etc.)
6.Shopping (Environment, Prices, Attractiveness etc.)
7.Mobility (Travel Time and Fares to Destinations)
Fu
nc
tion
Actor
Actor‐Speci�c Ranking
Economy
Research &Development
CulturalInteraction
Livability
Environment
Accessibility
ManagerScore
ResearcherScore
ArtistScore
VisitorScore
ResidentScore
Manager Researcher Artist Visitor Resident
Important Factors Demanded by Each Actor
13
2
7
6
12
9
49indicators
2
7
7
5
9
4
34indicators
2
-
7
5
8
2
24indicators
-
-
12
-
6
8
26indicators
5
2
7
8
12
5
39indicators
Fig.1-4 Flow of Creation for Actor-Specific Ranking
Global Power City Index 2013 07
【GPCI-2013】Total score and rank by Functions
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
London(1457.9)[1(1452.5)]
New York(1362.9)[2(1376.6)]
Paris(1291.8)[3(1349.6)]
Tokyo(1275.4)[4(1324.9)]
Singapore(1113.3)[5(1118.6)]
Seoul(1104.4)[6(1081.1)]
Amsterdam(1061.8)[7(1068.3)]
Berlin(1039.6)[8(1047.3)]
Vienna(1015.0)[10(1016.7)]
Frankfurt(995.3)[12(966.7)]
Hong Kong(985.8)[9(1038.2)]
Shanghai(975.2)[14(964.5)]
Sydney(965.0)[15(962.8)]
Beijing(965.0)[11(978.3)]
Zurich(964.8)[18(937.9)]
Stockholm(948.4)[16(961.2)]
Madrid(923.7)[22(908.6)]
Toronto(921.5)[21(925.6)]
Barcelona(919.8)[13(964.6)]
Copenhagen(919.5)[20(929.7)]
Brussels(905.9)[19(931.3)]
Los Angeles(900.8)[23(890.7)]
Osaka(879.8)[17(942.1)]
Vancouver(879.0)[24(890.1)]
Geneva(872.5)[26(867.8)]
Washington D.C.(843.5)[30(836.5)]
Istanbul(841.6)[25(875.4)]
San Francisco(839.3)[31(833.3)]
Chicago(833.7)[28(854.1)]
Milan(830.3)[29(850.5)]
Boston(827.2)[27(858.4)]
Bangkok(810.6)[35(781.4)]
Taipei(755.8)[32(807.9)]
Kuala Lumpur(749.8)[34(788.1)]
Fukuoka(735.6)[33(790.3)]
Moscow(726.2)[37(760.2)]
Mexico City(716.0)[36(781.0)]
Sao Paulo(689.9)[38(667.7)]
Mumbai(633.9)[39(608.1)]
Cairo(579.9)[40(601.0)]*Numbers in [ ] are scores/ranks from the GPCI-2012
Economy R&D Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility
Fig.2-1 Comprehensive Ranking
Function-Speci�c Comprehensive Ranking2-1
Global Power City Index 201308
2.GPCI-2013 Results
Table.2-1 Function-Specific Ranking
Ran
kTo
tal S
co
re
1Lo
ndo
n1
45
7.9
2N
ew Y
ork
13
62
.93
Par
is1
29
1.8
4To
kyo
12
75
.45
Sin
gap
ore
11
13
.36
Seo
ul1
10
4.4
7A
mst
erd
am1
06
1.8
8B
erlin
10
39
.69
Vie
nna
10
15
.01
0Fr
ankf
urt
99
5.3
11
Ho
ng K
ong
98
5.8
12
Sha
ngha
i9
75
.21
3S
ydne
y9
65
.01
4B
eijin
g9
65
.01
5Z
uric
h9
64
.81
6S
tock
holm
94
8.4
17
Mad
rid
92
3.7
18
Toro
nto
92
1.5
19
Bar
celo
na9
19
.82
0C
open
hage
n9
19
.52
1B
russ
els
90
5.9
22
Los
Ang
eles
90
0.8
23
Osa
ka8
79
.82
4Va
nco
uver
87
9.0
25
Gen
eva
87
2.5
26
Was
hing
ton
D.C.
84
3.5
27
Ista
nbul
84
1.6
28
San
Fran
cisc
o8
39
.32
9C
hica
go
83
3.7
30
Mila
n8
30
.33
1B
ost
on
82
7.2
32
Ban
gko
k8
10
.63
3Ta
ipei
75
5.8
34
Kua
la L
umpu
r7
49
.83
5Fu
kuo
ka7
35
.63
6M
osc
ow
72
6.2
37
Mex
ico
City
71
6.0
38
Sao
Pau
lo6
89
.93
9M
umb
ai6
33
.94
0C
airo
57
9.9
Ac
ce
ssib
ility
Lond
on
25
2.2
Par
is2
40
.8Fr
ankf
urt
22
5.6
Am
ster
dam
21
7.6
Ho
ng K
ong
20
9.4
Seo
ul2
08
.2N
ew Y
ork
20
4.3
Sin
gap
ore
18
3.7
Ista
nbul
17
8.6
Toky
o1
74
.6S
hang
hai
16
8.5
Bru
ssel
s1
63
.0M
adri
d1
59
.3M
ilan
15
7.4
Bar
celo
na1
56
.9B
ang
kok
15
1.5
Vie
nna
15
0.6
Mo
sco
w1
49
.0To
ront
o1
45
.9C
open
hage
n1
45
.5B
erlin
14
3.2
Zur
ich
13
9.0
Taip
ei1
38
.8C
hica
go
13
6.2
Bo
sto
n1
31
.8S
ydne
y1
30
.7B
eijin
g1
28
.5O
saka
12
5.6
Kua
la L
umpu
r1
23
.9S
tock
holm
12
0.1
Vanc
ouv
er1
15
.3Sa
n Fr
anci
sco
11
5.1
Mex
ico
City
11
3.3
Los
Ang
eles
10
6.7
Was
hing
ton
D.C.
10
6.3
Cai
ro1
05
.9Fu
kuo
ka9
9.1
Gen
eva
91
.2M
umb
ai8
7.8
Sao
Pau
lo7
1.6
En
viro
nm
en
t
Toky
o2
08
.9S
tock
holm
20
5.3
Gen
eva
20
3.4
Zur
ich
20
0.3
Sao
Pau
lo1
97
.1Fr
ankf
urt
19
0.6
Mad
rid
18
9.1
Sin
gap
ore
18
6.8
Lond
on
18
6.3
Ber
lin1
84
.5V
ienn
a1
82
.0S
eoul
18
1.6
Cop
enha
gen
18
0.7
Fuku
oka
17
3.1
Am
ster
dam
17
2.5
Syd
ney
16
5.6
Par
is1
63
.9Va
nco
uver
15
8.7
Bar
celo
na1
55
.8O
saka
15
4.5
Los
Ang
eles
15
1.9
Was
hing
ton
D.C.
15
0.0
New
Yo
rk1
48
.5Sa
n Fr
anci
sco
14
8.1
Mila
n1
45
.9B
ang
kok
14
0.4
Toro
nto
13
9.8
Kua
la L
umpu
r1
37
.0B
ost
on
13
4.8
Bru
ssel
s1
34
.1H
ong
Ko
ng1
33
.6M
umb
ai1
33
.6M
exic
o C
ity1
19
.4S
hang
hai
11
7.6
Chi
cag
o1
12
.8Is
tanb
ul1
08
.6C
airo
10
6.4
Taip
ei1
05
.1B
eijin
g1
00
.3M
osc
ow
75
.0
Liv
ab
ility
Par
is2
95
.6V
ienn
a2
93
.0A
mst
erd
am2
83
.1B
arce
lona
28
1.5
Vanc
ouv
er2
81
.2B
erlin
27
5.0
Cop
enha
gen
27
1.6
Zur
ich
26
8.9
Sto
ckho
lm2
68
.1G
enev
a2
68
.1M
ilan
26
6.4
Toro
nto
26
4.2
Mad
rid
26
3.5
Bru
ssel
s2
61
.4O
saka
25
9.5
Fuku
oka
25
4.9
Fran
kfur
t2
54
.4Ta
ipei
25
4.0
Sha
ngha
i2
50
.5To
kyo
24
3.9
Kua
la L
umpu
r2
39
.1Lo
ndo
n2
34
.5S
eoul
22
9.1
Bei
jing
22
2.7
Mum
bai
21
9.6
Ban
gko
k2
18
.4S
ydne
y2
17
.1M
exic
o C
ity2
10
.2C
airo
20
5.0
San
Fran
cisc
o2
02
.8Is
tanb
ul2
00
.9H
ong
Ko
ng
20
0.0
New
Yo
rk1
97
.9S
ing
apo
re1
97
.7C
hica
go
19
5.2
Sao
Pau
lo1
94
.5W
ashi
ngto
n D.
C.1
84
.2Lo
s A
ngel
es1
79
.2B
ost
on
17
7.0
Mo
sco
w1
58
.1
Cu
ltu
ral I
nte
rac
tio
n
Lond
on
34
8.0
New
Yo
rk2
73
.8P
aris
24
3.9
Sin
gap
ore
17
8.5
Ber
lin1
66
.2B
eijin
g1
55
.0V
ienn
a1
51
.9To
kyo
15
0.3
Los
Ang
eles
14
8.9
Ista
nbul
14
6.4
Syd
ney
14
5.7
Bar
celo
na1
43
.4B
russ
els
13
7.5
Seo
ul1
28
.3A
mst
erd
am1
27
.0S
hang
hai
12
3.9
Mad
rid
12
3.9
Ban
gko
k1
20
.8M
exic
o C
ity1
14
.1M
osc
ow
11
3.2
Chi
cag
o1
09
.6M
ilan
10
5.7
Was
hing
ton
D.C.
10
2.2
San
Fran
cisc
o1
00
.9To
ront
o9
8.4
Ho
ng K
ong
96
.3S
tock
holm
90
.3B
ost
on
80
.0Fr
ankf
urt
75
.8C
open
hage
n7
4.7
Osa
ka7
3.2
Vanc
ouv
er7
2.0
Zur
ich
66
.3S
ao P
aulo
61
.7K
uala
Lum
pur
57
.2C
airo
56
.2M
umb
ai4
9.0
Gen
eva
34
.2Ta
ipei
23
.9Fu
kuo
ka2
1.5
R&
D
New
Yo
rk2
18
.9To
kyo
16
2.7
Lond
on
15
2.7
Los
Ang
eles
14
2.6
Bo
sto
n1
21
.8S
eoul
11
7.2
Par
is1
16
.6S
ing
apo
re1
10
.8C
hica
go
10
0.0
Ho
ng K
ong
89
.5Sa
n Fr
anci
sco
88
.6O
saka
83
.6W
ashi
ngto
n D.
C.7
1.4
Syd
ney
70
.3B
erlin
63
.3S
hang
hai
60
.0To
ront
o5
8.8
Zur
ich
57
.9S
tock
holm
57
.1M
osc
ow
53
.5A
mst
erd
am5
0.3
Bei
jing
49
.0Va
nco
uver
46
.4Ta
ipei
45
.9V
ienn
a4
1.4
Gen
eva
40
.8Fu
kuo
ka4
0.1
Fran
kfur
t3
8.5
Cop
enha
gen
36
.8B
russ
els
35
.0Is
tanb
ul3
4.6
Bar
celo
na3
0.5
Mad
rid
29
.9M
ilan
26
.3B
ang
kok
23
.6S
ao P
aulo
21
.3K
uala
Lum
pur
17
.7M
umb
ai1
2.4
Mex
ico
City
12
.4C
airo
3.3
Ec
on
om
y
Toky
o3
35
.0N
ew Y
ork
31
9.5
Bei
jing
30
9.4
Lond
on
28
4.2
Ho
ng K
ong
25
7.0
Sin
gap
ore
25
5.9
Sha
ngha
i2
54
.5S
eoul
24
0.0
Syd
ney
23
5.6
Gen
eva
23
4.8
Zur
ich
23
2.5
Par
is2
31
.0W
ashi
ngto
n D.
C.2
29
.4To
ront
o2
14
.3A
mst
erd
am2
11
.2Fr
ankf
urt
21
0.4
Cop
enha
gen
21
0.3
Ber
lin2
07
.6S
tock
holm
20
7.4
Vanc
ouv
er2
05
.5V
ienn
a1
96
.2Ta
ipei
18
8.1
San
Fran
cisc
o1
83
.8O
saka
18
3.4
Bo
sto
n1
81
.7C
hica
go
17
9.8
Mo
sco
w1
77
.4K
uala
Lum
pur
17
4.9
Bru
ssel
s1
74
.9Is
tanb
ul1
72
.4Lo
s A
ngel
es1
71
.4M
adri
d1
58
.1B
ang
kok
15
5.8
Bar
celo
na1
51
.7Fu
kuo
ka1
46
.9M
exic
o C
ity1
46
.6S
ao P
aulo
14
3.8
Mum
bai
13
1.6
Mila
n1
28
.7C
airo
10
3.2
Function-Speci�c Ranking2-2
Global Power City Index 2013 09
Table.2-2 Actor-Specific Ranking
Ra
nk
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Re
sid
en
t
Par
is6
2.6
Lond
on
54
.3N
ew Y
ork
53
.0To
kyo
52
.1Z
uric
h5
1.5
Vie
nna
51
.0B
erlin
50
.5Fr
ankf
urt
49
.5S
tock
holm
48
.9A
mst
erd
am4
8.7
Mila
n4
7.2
Co
pen
hag
en4
6.9
Gen
eva
46
.7W
ashi
ngto
n D
.C.
46
.2M
adri
d4
5.7
Vanc
ouv
er4
5.4
Bar
celo
na4
5.0
Osa
ka4
4.8
San
Fra
ncis
co4
4.7
Bo
sto
n4
4.6
Bru
ssel
s4
4.5
Toro
nto
44
.4H
ong
Ko
ng4
4.2
Seo
ul4
4.1
Syd
ney
44
.0S
hang
hai
42
.1B
eijin
g4
2.1
Sin
gap
ore
41
.1Fu
kuo
ka4
1.0
Taip
ei4
0.2
Los
Ang
eles
38
.9C
hica
go
38
.3M
exic
o C
ity3
4.5
Mo
sco
w3
4.5
Sao
Pau
lo3
1.6
Ban
gko
k3
1.1
Ista
nbul
30
.5K
uala
Lum
pur
28
.9M
umb
ai2
7.4
Cai
ro2
7.2
Vis
ito
r
Lond
on
58
.4N
ew Y
ork
54
.4P
aris
51
.3S
hang
hai
44
.0Is
tanb
ul4
2.9
Bar
celo
na4
2.2
Bei
jing
41
.5B
erlin
41
.1To
kyo
40
.4S
ing
apo
re4
0.0
Vie
nna
38
.5B
ang
kok
38
.3A
mst
erd
am3
8.2
Mad
rid
37
.9H
ong
Ko
ng3
7.5
Seo
ul3
7.0
Toro
nto
34
.4B
russ
els
34
.0Fr
ankf
urt
33
.1M
ilan
32
.3S
ydne
y3
2.2
Chi
cag
o3
1.3
Vanc
ouv
er3
1.1
Mex
ico
City
31
.0C
airo
30
.2Z
uric
h3
0.1
San
Fra
ncis
co2
9.8
Osa
ka2
9.8
Bo
sto
n2
9.7
Was
hing
ton
D.C
.2
9.2
Sto
ckho
lm2
9.0
Co
pen
hag
en2
8.9
Los
Ang
eles
28
.8Ta
ipei
27
.5K
uala
Lum
pur
27
.3M
osc
ow
25
.0M
umb
ai2
3.8
Fuku
oka
23
.0G
enev
a2
2.7
Sao
Pau
lo1
9.5
Art
ist
Par
is5
5.2
New
Yo
rk5
2.3
Ber
lin5
0.2
Lond
on
49
.6V
ienn
a4
7.7
Toky
o4
5.9
Bar
celo
na4
5.7
Los
Ang
eles
45
.0A
mst
erd
am4
4.7
Bei
jing
44
.1M
adri
d4
2.7
Mex
ico
City
40
.3S
hang
hai
39
.0C
hica
go
38
.8M
ilan
38
.1To
ront
o3
8.0
Vanc
ouv
er3
7.3
Bru
ssel
s3
6.9
Fran
kfur
t3
6.9
San
Fra
ncis
co3
6.8
Sto
ckho
lm3
6.8
Co
pen
hag
en3
6.3
Was
hing
ton
D.C
.3
6.0
Ban
gko
k3
5.5
Ista
nbul
34
.9C
airo
34
.4O
saka
34
.3S
ydne
y3
3.5
Mum
bai
33
.4S
ao P
aulo
33
.0Fu
kuo
ka3
2.4
Kua
la L
ump
ur3
1.7
Seo
ul3
0.8
Zur
ich
30
.5M
osc
ow
30
.4B
ost
on
28
.7Ta
ipei
26
.9G
enev
a2
5.1
Sin
gap
ore
22
.4H
ong
Ko
ng1
6.5
Re
sea
rch
er
New
Yo
rk6
3.5
Toky
o5
3.2
Lond
on
50
.6P
aris
46
.4Lo
s A
ngel
es3
8.1
Bo
sto
n3
6.3
Seo
ul3
6.2
Sin
gap
ore
34
.5S
an F
ranc
isco
33
.7S
ydne
y3
0.4
Was
hing
ton
D.C
.3
0.4
Chi
cag
o2
9.4
Osa
ka2
8.9
Bei
jing
27
.7H
ong
Ko
ng2
7.5
Ber
lin2
7.0
Zur
ich
26
.5V
ienn
a2
5.9
Am
ster
dam
25
.6Va
nco
uver
24
.9S
tock
holm
24
.8To
ront
o2
4.4
Co
pen
hag
en2
3.4
Gen
eva
22
.8M
osc
ow
21
.7B
russ
els
20
.8Fr
ankf
urt
19
.5S
hang
hai
19
.2M
exic
o C
ity1
9.0
Mila
n1
8.7
Fuku
oka
18
.5Ta
ipei
18
.5M
adri
d1
8.4
Bar
celo
na1
7.5
Ban
gko
k1
7.1
Ista
nbul
15
.9S
ao P
aulo
14
.9K
uala
Lum
pur
14
.4M
umb
ai1
2.2
Cai
ro6
.6
Ma
na
ge
r
Lond
on
56
.1S
ing
apo
re5
2.7
Sha
ngha
i4
9.1
Bei
jing
48
.4H
ong
Ko
ng4
7.9
New
Yo
rk4
6.8
Seo
ul4
5.5
Par
is4
5.1
Toky
o4
3.7
Zur
ich
42
.3A
mst
erd
am4
1.5
Ber
lin4
1.4
Gen
eva
40
.1V
ienn
a3
9.9
Sto
ckho
lm3
9.9
Kua
la L
ump
ur3
9.6
Syd
ney
39
.6Va
nco
uver
39
.3To
ront
o3
9.1
Taip
ei3
8.7
Ista
nbul
38
.4Fr
ankf
urt
38
.3C
op
enha
gen
38
.0B
arce
lona
36
.0B
ost
on
35
.4B
russ
els
35
.3M
adri
d3
4.6
Ban
gko
k3
4.3
Was
hing
ton
D.C
.3
3.3
Osa
ka3
2.9
Chi
cag
o3
1.5
San
Fra
ncis
co2
9.9
Fuku
oka
29
.8Lo
s A
ngel
es2
9.4
Mum
bai
29
.4M
ilan
27
.8M
osc
ow
26
.5S
ao P
aulo
25
.3C
airo
25
.3M
exic
o C
ity2
4.1
Actor-Speci�c Ranking2-3
Global Power City Index 201310
As in the past, Tokyo’s strengths lie in “Market Size,” “Economic Vitality” and “Human Capital” under Econo-my, as well as in all the indicator groups of the “Research and Development” function. Tokyo also displays
strength with “Living Facilities” under Livability, “Ecology” under Environment, and “Transportation Service
of Inner-city” under Accessibility. Conversely, as with last year, Tokyo’s weaknesses lie in “Market Attractive-
ness” and “Regulations and Risks,” under Economy, “Cultural Resources” under Cultural Interaction, “Cost
of Living” under Livability, and “International Transportation Network” and “Traf�c Convenience” under Acces-sibility. Looking at the number of indicators by deviation score for Tokyo and the top four cities, Tokyo, with
nine, has the fewest number of indicators in which it holds an advantage with a deviation score of 70 or higher,
which is one reason why Tokyo is still ranked 4th.
Cultural InteractionR&DEconomy Livability Environment Accessibility
2030405060708090
100
Mar
ket S
ize
Mar
ket A
ttrac
tiven
ess
Eco
nom
ic V
italit
y
Hum
an C
apita
l
Busin
ess
Envir
onm
ent
Regu
latio
ns a
nd R
isks
Acad
emic
Res
ourc
es
Rese
arch
Bac
kgro
und
Rese
arch
Ach
ieve
men
t
Tren
dset
ting
Pote
ntia
l
Cul
tura
l Res
ourc
es
Faci
litie
s fo
r Vis
itors
Attra
ctive
ness
to V
isito
rs
Volu
me
of In
tera
ctio
n
Wor
king
Env
ironm
ent
Cos
t of L
ivin
g
Sec
urity
and
Saf
ety
Livi
ng E
nviro
nmen
t
Livi
ng F
acilit
ies
Eco
logy
Pol
lutio
n
Nat
ural
Env
ironm
ent
Inte
rnat
iona
l T
rans
porta
tion
Netw
ork
Infras
tructu
re of
Intern
ation
al Tr
ansp
ortat
ionTr
ansp
orta
tion
Ser
vice
of I
nner
-city
Traf
�c C
onve
nien
ce
Fig.2-2 Tokyo’s Indicator Group-specific Deviation
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Under 20 20~30 30~40 40~50 50~60 60~70 70~80 80~90 Over 90
3
13
26
14
74 3
London
14 Indicators over the Deviation Score of 70
11 Indicators over the Deviation Score of 70
9 Indicators over the Deviation Score of 70
18 Indicators over the Deviation Score of 70
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Under 20 20~30 30~40 40~50 50~60 60~70 70~80 80~90 Over 90
New York
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Under 20 20~30 30~40 40~50 50~60 60~70 70~80 80~90 Over 90
Tokyo
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Under 20 20~30 30~40 40~50 50~60 60~70 70~80 80~90 Over 90
Paris
13
2017
10 11
52
1
17
30
119
1 14
16
29
12
3 3 3
(Indicators)
(Indicators)
(Indicators)
(Indicators)
Economy R&D Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility
Fig.2-3 Indicator Number of Top 4 cities by Deviation Score
Analysis of Tokyo’s Strengths and Weaknesses2-4
Global Power City Index 2013 11
GDP(Top 4 cities) GDP(Major Asian Cities)
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
Lond
on
New
Yor
k
Par
is
Toky
o(billion U.S. $) (billion U.S. $)
Toky
o
Sing
apor
e
Seo
ul
Hong
Kon
g
Bei
jing
Shan
ghai
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
GPCI-2009 GPCI-2010 GPCI-2011 GPCI-2012 GPCI-2013
Fig.2-4 GDP – Periodical Change
1)GDPCompared with the top four cities and leading cities of Asia, Tokyo remains dominant. However, it should be
noted that nominal GDP was affected by the use of an exchange rate during the yen’s appreciation against the
dollar. In addition, even though the GDP growth rate for both Beijing and Shanghai is remarkable, when com-
pared with previous year-on-year growth rates, the period between GPCI-2012 and GPCI-2013 indicates
sluggish nominal GDP.
2)Number of Visitors from AbroadTokyo ranks the lowest among the top four cities and the major Asian cities in this indicator. Of the top four
cities, London, fresh from hosting the Olympic Games, is recovering, while among the leading cities of Asia,
�gures are steadily increasing for Singapore and Seoul.
Number of Visitors from Abroad(Top 4 cities) Number of Visitors from Abroad(Major Asian Cities)
Lond
on
New
Yor
k
Par
is
Toky
o
Toky
o
Sing
apor
e
Seo
ul
Hong
Kon
g
Bei
jing
Shan
ghai
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000(1000 persons)
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000(1000 persons)
GPCI-2009 GPCI-2010 GPCI-2011 GPCI-2012 GPCI-2013
Fig.2-5 Number of Visitors from Abroad – Periodical Change
Over Year Trends2-5
Global Power City Index 201312
In order to assess the comprehensive power of cities, the GPCI employs 70 indicators from both quantitative
and qualitative perspectives. Using these indicators, but excluding the qualitative indicators based on surveys,
the so-called physical appeal of cities is evaluated.
At the same time, from the perspective of actors that play active roles in cities, urban attractiveness is not
necessarily limited to just physical elements. It is thought that being able to evoke feelings of comfort, excite-
ment or pride in a city’s residents is due to the fact that all cities have the ‘power to appeal to human sensitivity.’
This power has been de�ned as Intangible Urban Value and is an attempt to evaluate and portray from a
fresh viewpoint the future urban power of 10 cities in the GPCI, namely, Barcelona, London, Paris, Vienna,
Istanbul, Singapore, Beijing, Seoul, Tokyo and New York.
As part of the framework for conducting new evaluations from the perspective of Intangible Urban Value,
Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics and Sense of Values have been established.
Quantitative and Qualitative Characteristics : Characteristics of a city are evaluated from the
viewpoints of Spatial Setting, Activities and Spatial Management.
▶ Spatial Setting :
Layout and geographical features of various elements that constitute urban space, such as
social infrastructure, housing, commercial facilities, natural environment and risk of disaster.
▶ Activities :
Value generated by human activity and consumption, such as daily life, business, movement,
entertainment and transmission of information in urban spaces.
▶ Spatial Management :
Management and operational ability for realizing the facilitation and promotion of the activities
carried out in a city with a certain spatial setting.
Sense of Values : How actors perceive city characteristics is evaluated from the viewpoints of Univer-sal Value, Regional and Cultural Value and Individual Value.
▶ Universal Value :
Value felt by any person regardless of area of residence and individual attributes like cultural
background, gender, age or occupation.
▶ Regional and Cultural Value :
Unique value felt by people in�uenced by area of residence or cultural background.
▶ Individual Value :
Value determined by standards of value each individual possesses.
Global Power City Index 2013 13
3.Intangible Urban Value
As shown below, analyses are applied to some of the indicator groups in the GPCI by contrasting the GPCI
evaluation axis with the Intangible Urban Value evaluation axis.
GPCI
6 Functions
Intangible Urban Value
Economy
R&D
CulturalInteraction
Livability
Environment
Accessibility
Manager
Researcher
Artist
Resident
Visitor
Quantitative andQualitative
CharacteristicsSense of Values
Universal Value:Value felt by any person regardless of area of residence and individual attributes like cultural background, gender, age or occupation.
Regional and Cultural Value:Unique value felt by people in�uenced by area of residence or cultural background.
Individual Value: Value determined by standards of value each individual possesses.
Spatial Setting:Layout and geographical features of various elements that constitute urban space, such as social infrastructure, housing, commercial facilities, natural environment and risk of disaster.
Activities:Value generated by human activity and consumption, such as daily life, business, movement, entertainment and transmission of information in urban spaces.
Spatial Management:Management and operational ability for realizing the facilitation and promotion of the activities carried out in a city with a certain spatial setting.
5 Actors
Fig.3-1 Evaluation Image of Intangible Urban Value and Differences with GPCI
Global Power City Index 201314
1)Evaluation of “Market Attractiveness” from the viewpoint of ActivitiesThe GPCI uses GDP Growth Rate and Level of Economic Freedom to assess the “Market Attractiveness” of
cities from the perspective of economic growth potential and market environment, but in terms of Intangible Urban Value, ”New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability”* is utilized to evaluate whether
or not a new value has emerged with respect to urban activities.
Singapore stands out with a high “Market Attractiveness (GPCI)” rating, but its rating for “New Creative
Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability (Intangible Urban Value)” is low. This suggests that even
though Singapore’s strengths lie with its high economic growth and robust market environment, the city still
has certain issues it must address from the aspect of new business creation activity and acceptability.
In contrast, New York, Tokyo and Paris have low scores for “Market Attractiveness (GPCI),” but their ratings
for “New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability (Intangible Urban Value)” are high. Owing to
the fact that these cities are mature, they trail other cities particularly in terms of economic growth potential
with low GDP Growth Rate, but they continue to maintain a strong resilience due to a high level of attractive-
ness from the standpoint of new business activity and creation.
20
30
40
50
60
70
80(Deviation Score)
Bei
jing
Toky
o
Sin
gapo
re
Lond
on
Seo
ul
Ista
nbul
Bar
celo
na
New
Yor
k
Vie
nna
Par
is
Market Attractiveness (GPCI) New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability (Intangible Urban Value)
Fig.3-2 “Market Attractiveness (GPCI)” and “New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability (Intangible Urban Value)”
*Note : Cities are listed in order of deviation score for “Market Attractiveness (GPCI).”The deviation score for “Market Attractiveness (GPCI)” represents the relevant indicator group deviation score (of 10 cities) in the GPCI-2013.The deviation score for “New Creative Activities and Business Creativity/Acceptability (Intangible Urban Value)” represents the deviation score (of 10 cities) calculated with data related to Creation of New Culture, Art, Entertainment and Business and Acceptability of New Culture, Art, Entertainment and Business collected from The Mori Memorial Foundation’s ‘Survey on Urban Attractiveness’ conducted on the residents of each city.
Global Power City Index 2013 15
2)Evaluation of “Facilities for Visitors” from the viewpoint of Spatial ManagementThe GPCI uses the three indicators of Number of Theaters and Concert Halls, Number of Museums and
Number of Stadiums to assess whether or not there are enough “Facilities for Visitors,” but in terms of Intan-gible Urban Value, the indicator of “Diversity of Entertainment”* is utilized to evaluate the variety of entertain-
ment, recreation and streetscape from the perspective of spatial management.
In terms of “Facilities for Visitors (GPCI)” London and New York are separated by the slimmest of margins and
there follows a slight gap between those two cities and Paris, but looking at “Diversity of Entertainment (Intan-
gible Urban Value),” Paris greatly exceeds both London and New York. In addition to having an abundance of
facilities for visitors, this result shows that Paris is an extremely diverse city from a spatial management view-
point.
Of the 10 cities evaluated, Istanbul and Barcelona have low scores for “Facilities for Visitors (GPCI)” but are
ranked strongly for “Diversity of Entertainment (Intangible Urban Value)” after Paris and New York.
At the same time, the Asian cities of Tokyo, Beijing, Singapore and Seoul tend to have low scores for “Diver-
sity of Entertainment (Intangible Urban Value).” Tokyo has received a reasonable score for its number of facili-
ties for visitors, but a lack of diversity is one of the city’s weaknesses.
20
30
40
50
60
70
80(Deviation Score)
New
Yor
k
Sin
gapo
re
Lond
on
Par
is
Vie
nna
Toky
o
Bei
jing
Ista
nbul
Bar
celo
na
Seo
ul
Facilities for Visitors (GPCI) Diversity of Entertainment (Intangible Urban Value)
Fig.3-3 “Facilities for Visitors (GPCI)” and “Diversity of Entertainment (Intangible Urban Value)”
*Note : Cities are listed in order of deviation score for “Facilities for Visitors (GPCI).” The deviation score for “Facilities for Visitors (GPCI)” represents the relevant indicator group deviation score (of 10 cities) in the GPCI-2013.The deviation score for Diversity of Entertainment (Intangible Urban Value) represents the deviation score (of 10 cities) calculated with data related to Diversity of Entertainment and Recreation, Diversity of Seasonal Entertainment and Recreation and Diversity of Streetscape collected from The Mori Memorial Foundation’s ‘Survey on Urban Attractiveness' conducted on the residents of each city.
Global Power City Index 201316
20
30
40
50
60
70
80(Deviation Score)
Ista
nbul
Bei
jing
Lond
on
Seo
ul
Par
is
Sin
gapo
re
Vie
nna
New
Yor
k
Toky
o
Bar
celo
na
International Transportation Network (GPCI) Flight On-time Rate (Intangible Urban Value)
Fig.3-4 “International Transportation Network (GPCI)”and Flight On-time Rate (Intangible Urban Value)
*Note : Cities listed in order of deviation score for “International Transportation Network (GPCI).”The deviation score for “International Transportation Network (GPCI)” represents the relevant indicator group deviation score (of 10 cities) in the 2013 GPCI.The deviation score for Flight On-time Rate (Intangible Urban Value) represents the deviation score (of 10 cities) calculated with data from ‘Flight Stats On-time Report, May 2013’.
3) Evaluation of “International Transportation Network” from the viewpoint of Spa-tial Management
The GPCI uses Number of Cities with Direct International Flights and Number of Cities with Direct Inter-national Freighter Flights to assess the “International Transportation Network” of cities from the perspective
of how well developed the networks are between cities. However, in terms of Intangible Urban Value, Flight On-time Rate* is utilized to evaluate the strength of network administration and management capabilities from
the perspective of spatial management.
London, Istanbul, Seoul and Paris all score highly for “International Transportation Network (GPCI),” but not
so for Flight On-time Rate (Intangible Urban Value). Despite well-developed international �ight networks for
these cities, poor �ight punctuality is their weakness.
Conversely, Singapore, Vienna, Tokyo and Barcelona all score poorly for “International Transportation Net-
work (GPCI)” compared with other cities such as London, but are rated highly for Flight On-time Rate (Intan-gible Urban Value). Tokyo, in particular, does not have such a well developed international �ight network
among the 10 cities evaluated, but it has the highest score for Flight On-time Rate (Intangible Urban Value) and ensures a certain level of punctuality by demonstrating its superior management capabilities.
Global Power City Index 2013 17
Published in October, 2013Edited and published byThe Mori Memorial Foundation
For inquiry about this report, please contact directly to :
Chiharu Hirota, Yasuyuki Miwa, Yuko Hamada
ARK Mori Building
1-12-32 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo
107-6004 JAPAN
Facsimile : +81-3-3224-7227
Email : [email protected]
Copyright © 2013 The Mori Memorial Foundation All Rights Reserved.Unauthorized reproduction of this document is forbidden.
2013
2013
1 London
2 New York
3 Paris
4 Tokyo
5 Singapore
6 Seoul
7 Amsterdam
8 Berlin
9 Vienna
10 Frankfurt
11 Hong Kong
12 Shanghai
13 Sydney
14 Beijing
15 Zurich
16 Stockholm
17 Madrid
18 Toronto
19 Barcelona
20 Copenhagen
21 Brussels
22 Los Angeles
23 Osaka
24 Vancouver
25 Geneva
26 Washington D.C.
27 Istanbul
28 San Francisco
29 Chicago
30 Milan
31 Boston
32 Bangkok
33 Taipei
34 Kuala Lumpur
35 Fukuoka
36 Moscow
37 Mexico City
38 Sao Paulo
39 Mumbai
40 Cairo
London
New York
Paris
Tokyo
Singapore
October 2013
2013
2013