A city’s ability to be considered a global player is no longer entirely dependent on its size and its standing as a financial centre. Even Derby, if it plays its cards right, could become a world city.
That was the conclusion of a Savills-sponsored debate on the power of global cities at MIPIM last week.
The panel of experts said that the nature of global cities was changing, with more and more of the world’s smaller conurbations taking centre stage.
Savills’ world research director Yolande Barnes said that it was the softer issues that were making cities global now, rather than just their financial clout. She said that human capital – the ability of an area to attract people – was what separated global cities from the pack.
“Some smaller cities are punching way above their weight now,” she said.
Barnes singled out Austin, Texas, as one such city. It is the fastest-growing city in the US because of its digital and creative economies.
She said that we should not underestimate the fact that we are undergoing an economic shift, and that we have been used to selling to the baby boomers but that the future lay with the millennials.
“In London in 20 years’ time,” she said, “the tech sector will be as big as the finance sector.”
She said that this demographic and economic shift was playing a major role in the future of the global cities. “Who your city is, is what makes it,” said Barnes, adding that this meant that some of the smaller cities were starting to have value.
“We should not write off the smaller cities,” she added.
Greg Clark, adviser to the OECD and author of Making of a World City: London 1991 to 2021, said there were now three types of global cities: the established cities of London, New York, Paris and Hong Kong, the financial world powerhouses; the new world cities, which were growing through their focus on different sectors such as science and technology, digital marketing, medical and education; and the emerging cities, such as Shanghai, Istanbul and São Paulo.
He said that the new, or smart, cities were growing fastest, while the emerging cities had slowed slightly.
Barnes added: “Growth of the first-tier mega cities has reached a high plateau in real estate terms, which means there is an opportunity for second-tier and alternative cities to come up.
“We are at a very interesting moment in the global city hierarchy and how cities are growing.”
While it was agreed that London was the only city in the UK that could be currently ranked as a global city, there was some concern that its dominance could be threatened, particularly by some of the emerging cities. Istanbul in Turkey, which was on a promotional offensive at MIPIM, was singled out as one such threat, albeit it over the long term.
“London is at the pinnacle and all it can do is fall down the mountain,” said Barnes. “It will have to work hard to maintain its position.”
But Clark was very much for the emergence of more leading cities. He believed that Europe needed more world cities and said that the continent would not succeed if only London and Paris were its global cities. He reckoned Europe needed 30-40 world cities if it was to compete on an international level.
And the UK, too, needed more. He said that the country could have three world cities – London, Manchester and Glasgow – and that cities including Bristol, Birmingham and Edinburgh could also be internationally successful.
And while there was agreement that the Northern Powerhouse project was creating the UK’s second global city, the consensus remained that London was number one.
