research and development researcher artist visitor los angeles 21 istanbul 22 vanouer 23 brussels 24...

1 London

2 New York

3 Paris

4 Tokyo

5 Singapore

6 Seoul

7 Amsterdam

8 Berlin

9 Hong Kong

10 Vienna

11 Frankfurt

12 Zurich

13 Sydney

14 Beijing

15 Shanghai

16 Stockholm

17 Toronto

18 Copenhagen

19 Madrid

20 Los Angeles

21 Istanbul

22 Vancouver

23 Brussels

24 Washington, D.C.

25 Milan

26 Osaka

27 Barcelona

28 Geneva

29 Bangkok

30 Boston

31 Chicago

32 San Francisco

33 Taipei

34 Kuala Lumpur

35 Moscow

36 Fukuoka

37 Mexico City

38 Sao Paulo

39 Mumbai

40 Cairo

Summary

October 2014

20141

2

35

London

Paris

Singapore

New York

GlobalPower CityIndex 2014

4Tokyo

Major cities around the world today are caught up in intense and complex competition. The stakes in these processes

of global inter-city interaction are extremely high. The Global Power City Index (GPCI) evaluates and ranks the major cities

of the world according to their “magnetism,” i.e. their comprehensive power which allows them to attract creative individ-

uals and business enterprises from every continent and to mobilize their assets in securing economic, social and environ-

mental development.

The Mori Memorial Foundation’s Institute for Urban Strategies �rst released its Global Power City Index in 2008 and has

continued to update its rankings every year based on new research. Currently, the GPCI is highly regarded as one of the

leading city indices and is utilized as reference material for policy and business strategies not only by the Japanese Gov-

ernment and Tokyo Metropolitan Government, but also by numerous professional and academic organizations worldwide.

Moreover, at conferences and lecture events worldwide the Institute actively engages with leading global research institu-

tions in the exchange of ideas on the topic of urban competitiveness and change.

The GPCI continues to evolve as information is updated and improvements are made in data collection methods. In

GPCI-2014, a number of indicators and associated data were carefully examined and improved, beginning with the Envi-

ronment. Additionally, “Urban Intangible Values” which focus on elements such as ef�ciency, accuracy and speed, and the

safety and security of cities, were also experimentally incorporated into the GPCI and calculated in the form of a “GPCI+”

ranking.

These research results highlight the challenges faced by Tokyo and other global cities, as well as con�rm what makes

them appealing. It is hoped that these results can assist in the formulation of future urban policies and corporate strate-

gies.

More detailed results of the research conducted for this ranking are scheduled to be published in December 2014 in the

Global Power City Index YEARBOOK 2014. That report provides speci�c details on the methods of research used, scores

and ranking analyses for each city, de�nitions of indicators, and lists of data sources.

1. The GPCI is the �rst attempt made by a research institute in Japan to analyze and rank the compre-

hensive power of the world’s major cities.

2. As opposed to limiting the ranking to particular areas of research such as �nance and livability, the

GPCI focuses on a wide variety of functions in order to assess and rank the global potential and com-

prehensive power of a city.

3. Forty of the world’s leading cities were selected and their global comprehensive power was evaluated

according to six main functions representing city strength (Economy, Research and Development, Cultural Interaction, Livability, Environment and Accessibility). Additionally, the same cities were

examined based on the viewpoints of four global actors (Manager, Researcher, Artist and Visitor) as well as one local actor (Resident) who are themselves personi�cations of combinations of relevant

and representative factors of citizens who might lead the urban activities in their cities, thus providing

an all-encompassing view of the cities.

4. The GPCI reveals both the strengths and weaknesses of each city and at the same time uncovers

problems that need to be overcome.

5. This ranking was produced with the involvement of the late Professor Sir Peter Hall, a global authority

in urban studies, as well as other academics in this �eld. It has been peer reviewed by international

third parties who are experts in their �elds.

Features of the Global Power City Index (GPCI)

In this report, the names of the GPCI functions are marked in bold, those of the indicators in italics, and those of the indicator groups and the factors are en-closed in quotation marks (“ ”).

Global Power City Index 2014 01

Preface

Boston Boston

Mexico City Mexico City

San Francisco San Francisco Chicago Chicago

Toronto Toronto

Sydney Sydney

Mumbai Mumbai

Taipei Taipei

Beijing Beijing

Shanghai Shanghai

Bangkok Bangkok

Kuala Lumpur Kuala Lumpur

Moscow Moscow

Madrid Madrid Milan Milan Zurich Zurich FrankfurtFrankfurt

Geneva Geneva

Brussels Brussels Copenhagen Copenhagen

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.

◆ London retains its place at the top of the comprehensive ranking from last year and further increases its

score to widen the gap with New York at No. 2.

◆ Tokyo stays at No. 4 place this year in the comprehensive ranking, but jumps from No. 8 to No. 6 in

Cultural Interaction, hitherto an area of weakness for the city. This is mainly due to a considerable

increase in the number of tourists visiting Japan in 2013.

◆ In the comprehensive ranking, high-ranking cities, Singapore at No. 5 and Seoul at No. 6, both continue

to increase their scores this year and close the gap on Tokyo at No. 4.

◆ In the “GPCI+” ranking, which emphasizes the “intangible values” (elements that appeal to human sens-

es) of cities, Tokyo comes in at No. 3 in the comprehensive ranking. This can be attributed to Tokyo’s

high scores for the Sense of Safety in Public Places, Kindness of Residents, On-Time Performance of

International Airport and Ease of Transportation, among others.

Fig. 1-1 Top 10 Cities by Function

Key Findings

1(Rank)

10

20

30

40

No.4

No.3

No.1

No.21

No.7

No.1

1 London

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank)

No.12

No.7

No.3

No.1

No.16

No.2

3 Paris

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank)

No.27

No.25

No.8

No.4

No.6

No.20

10 Vienna

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank)

No.19

No.16

No.5

No.3 No.

10 No.17

8 Berlin

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank)

No.6

No.8

No.4

No.37

No.5 No.

8

5 Singapore

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank)

No.5 No.

12No.26 No.

34

No.19

No.6

9 Hong Kong

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank)

No.18 No.

23

No.15

No.8 No.

13

No.3

7 Amsterdam

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank)

No.11

No.6 No.

12No.23

No.11

No.5

6 Seoul

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank) No.1

No.2 No.

6No.17

No.9

No.10

4 Tokyo

Global Power City Index 201402

1. Key Findings of the GPCI-2014

Boston Boston


San Francisco San Francisco Chicago Chicago

Toronto Toronto

Sydney Sydney

Mumbai Mumbai

Taipei Taipei

Beijing Beijing

Shanghai Shanghai

Bangkok Bangkok


Moscow Moscow

Madrid Madrid Milan Milan Zurich Zurich FrankfurtFrankfurt

Geneva Geneva

Brussels Brussels Copenhagen Copenhagen

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.

As with last year, London, New York, Paris and Tokyo are ranked as the top four cities respectively in the GPCI-2014 comprehensive ranking.

Scores for London in Economy and Livability further improve, while scores in other functions also remain high. On the other hand, scores for New York in each function change slightly, but the city’s comprehensive score is mostly unchanged from last year, which means that its gap with London widens.

Tokyo’s ranking in its hitherto weak function of Cultural Interaction improves. In addition to the fact that Tokyo was visited by more than 6.8 million foreign tourists in 2013, Number of Visitors from Abroad, Number of International Confer-ences Held, Number of World Heritage Sites and Number of Luxury Hotel Guest Rooms boost Tokyo’s score in this func-tion. Tokyo is burdened by weak scores for “Market Attractiveness” and “Traf�c Convenience”, but should bene�t from an increase in urban power in connection with its future hosting of the Olympic Games, therefore it is conceivable that the city could overtake Paris at No. 3 in the comprehensive ranking sometime in the future.

Looking at trends in the rest of the ranking, Singapore at No. 5 and Seoul at No. 6 close the gap on Tokyo at No. 4 af-ter once again increasing their scores this year. Hong Kong at No. 9 also climbs higher this year and clearly demonstrates the steady progress these cities are making.

Up until last year, the Chinese cities of Beijing at No. 14 and Shanghai at No. 15 had managed to improve their respec-tive comprehensive rankings primarily through improvements in indicators within Economy, but in GPCI-2014 their overall scores fall. Beijing maintains the same position in the rank-ings as last year, but Shanghai slips from the No. 12 spot.

Economy CulturalInteraction

Environment

R&D

Livability Accessibility

Selected Forty Cities

1

10

20

30

40

(Rank) No.2

No.1

No.2

No.29

No.25

No.7

2 New York

1-1 Overall Trends

Fig. 1-2 Top10 Citiesin Overall Ranking1700

Vienna

London

New York

Paris

Tokyo

Singapore

Seoul

Amsterdam

Berlin

Hong Kong

1,004.3

1,485.8

1,362.8

1,292.4

1,276.1

1,138.6

1,117.8

1,055.5

1,054.9

1,012.8

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600

10

123456789


There have been no changes from last year to the top seven ranked cities and Tokyo retains its posi-

tion at No. 1. In Tokyo, a decrease in the corporate tax rate due to the abolishment of Japan’s special reconstruction income tax contributes

to a higher score. Madrid and Barcelona see their scores drop for such indicators as GDP Growth Rate and Level of Political, Economic and Business Risk, with their rankings in this function slipping from No. 32 to No. 35 and from No. 34 to No. 38, respectively.

On the whole, no major changes take place in the rankings and all of the top nine cities from

last year retain their places. New York at No. 1 sees an increase in scores for such indicators as World’s Top 200 Universities and Number

of Registered Industrial Property Rights (Patents) and further widens the gap with Tokyo at No. 2.

London at No. 1 opens up a considerable lead over New York at No. 2. Scores improve in all in-

dicator groups for Tokyo other than “Facilities for Visitors”, which helps Tokyo climb from No. 8 last year to No. 6. In particular, scores increase

for Number of Visitors from Abroad, Number of International Conferences Held, Number of World Heritage Sites and Number of Luxury Hotel Guest Rooms.

Vancouver at No. 2, Berlin at No. 3 and Geneva at No. 6 all surge in the rankings this year. Tokyo

moves up to No. 17 from No. 20 with higher scores in the indicator groups of “Working Environment” and “Living Facilities”. The changes in

this function are in�uenced by the collection of more detailed data for Total Unem-ployment Rate for GPCI-2014.

Tokyo plummets from No. 1 last year to No. 9. All of the top four places are now occupied by Euro-

pean cities, namely Geneva, Stockholm, Zurich and Frankfurt. In GPCI-2014, the de�nitions of Percentage of Waste Recycled and Water

Quality have been revised, while the index also incorporates more detailed data on Density of Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) and Density of Sulfur Dioxide (SO2), Density of Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). As a result, signi�cant changes in the rankings occur in this function.

Overall, few position changes take place in this function and the cities that comprise the top 10

remain the same as last year. The top four places are occupied by European cities, namely London, Paris, Amsterdam and Frankfurt, with

the leading Asian cities such as Seoul, Hong Kong and Singapore following them.

Research andDevelopment

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

1-2 Function-Speci�c Ranking

Economy

Cultural Interaction


Although London at No. 1 and Singapore at No. 2 main-tain their respective positions, Hong Kong jumps from No. 5 up to No. 3 and Istanbul surges from No. 21 to No. 7. Both of these cities boost their

scores for “Potential of Business Growth”.

There have been no major ranking changes since last year, but New York at No. 1 improves its score and widens the gap with Tokyo at No. 2.

London’s scores in almost all factors increase and the city’s ranking rises from No. 4 to No. 2. As with last year, Berlin again demonstrates its strength in “Accumulation of Artists” and “Accumulation of

Art Markets” and is ranked No. 4 overall, after Paris, London and New York.

London has again opened up a good lead over New York at No. 2 to maintain its No. 1 ranking from last year. With a higher score in factors such as “Dining (Variety of Cuisines, Prices, etc.)”, Tokyo

jumps from No. 9 last year to be ranked No. 6 overall.

In similar fashion to last year’s index, Paris at No. 1 has a considerable lead over London at No. 2. While European cities maintain their high rankings from last year, Washington, D.C. moves up from No. 14

to No. 9 on the back of a higher score for “Public Safety”.

Many of the indicators employed in the GPCI evaluate the physical attractiveness of cities. However, a city’s appeal is

not generated solely through such values. Some of the things people feel when living in a city, such as comfort, tranquility

or excitement, are probably due to the fact that urban spaces have “powers to appeal to human senses”.

Accordingly, these powers have been de�ned as “Urban Intangible Values” (UIV) and every effort was made to evalu-

ate the role of cities from this fresh perspective.“Ef�ciency”, “Accuracy and Speed”, “Safety and Security”, “Diversity”, “Hospitality” and “Change and Growth” were

established as the six elements that constitute “intangible values” and indicators that correspond to these elements were

gathered and evaluated. 11 indicators were then selected from among the approximately 40 indicators that assess “intan-

gible values” and added as new indicators in the existing GPCI indicator groups. Subsequently, the 40 cities were evaluat-

ed once again in order to create a new GPCI+ ranking.

As a result, Tokyo jumps ahead of Paris in the comprehensive ranking to claim the No. 3 spot. This change in ranking

re�ects Tokyo’s outstanding safety and security as well as its excellence for hospitality and punctuality of public transport.

Meanwhile, The Institute for Urban Strategies has collected and analyzed indicators pertaining to “intangible values”

to create a global city ranking, which is scheduled for publication in December 2014 in the Global Power City Index

YEARBOOK 2014.

1-3 Actor-Speci�c Ranking

1-4 Urban Intangible Values and GPCI+

Manager

Researcher

Artist

Visitor

Resident


1. Key Findings of the GPCI-2014

This ranking has been produced with the late Sir Peter Hall, Professor at the Bartlett School of Planning, University

College London, as principal advisor. A committee, headed by Heizo Takenaka, Professor at Keio University, Director of

the Global Security Research Institute and Chairman of the Mori Memorial Foundation’s Institute for Urban Strategies, has

supervised the ranking creation process at key points.

The Working Group, headed by Hiroo Ichikawa, Executive Director of The Mori Memorial Foundation, Professor 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-2014 has been created under the organization shown below.

2-1 Research Organization

Fig. 2-1 GPCI-2014 Research Organization

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 of Ranking Creation

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 Hall(1932-2014)

Professor, Bartlett School of Planning, University College London

Principal Advisor

Richard BenderProfessor and Dean Emeritus,University of California, Berkeley

Member

Peer Reviewers

Allen J. ScottDistinguished Research 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


2. Methodology

The Criteria for Selection

1. Cities found in the top ten of existing, in�uential city rankings, such as the Global Financial Centres Index (GFCI), Global

Cities Index (GCI), and Cities of Opportunity

2. Major cities of countries which are in the top ten in terms of competition according to in�uential international competive-

ness rankings, such as those created by World Economic Forum and International Institute for Management Develop-

ment

3. Cities which do not meet the above criteria but which are deemed appropriate for inclusion by the GPCI committee or

its working group members

2-2 Target Cities

Fig. 2-2 Forty Selected Cities

Tokyo Tokyo New York New York Boston Boston


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


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.

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


2-3 The Ranking Creation Method

Fig. 2-3 Flow of Creation for Function-Based Ranking

Economy

Researchand

Development

CulturalInteraction

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

Co

mp

rehe

nsiv

e R

anki

ng

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

International Transportation Infrastructure

Market Attractiveness

Human Capital

Inner-city Transportation Services

Traf�c Convenience

Working Environment

Cost of Living

Security and Safety

Living Environment

Living Facilities


Fig. 2-4 Flow of Creation for Actor-Speci�c Ranking

1.Environment to Purchase Goods (Prices and Access to Products)

2.Daily Life Environment (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 of

Tourist Attractions

4.High-class Accommodations

5.Dining （Variety of Cuisines, Prices etc.）

6.Shopping （Environment, Prices, Attractiveness etc.）

7.Mobility （Travel Time and Fares to Destinations）

1.Cultural Stimulation

2.Accumulation of Artists

3.Accumulation of Art Markets

4.Environment for Creative Activities （Studio Rent and Spaces）


1.Accumulation of Enterprises and Business Deals

2.Potential of Business Growth

3.Ease of Doing Business

4.Business Environment

5.Richness of 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

Fun

ctio

n

Actor

Actor‐Speci�c Ranking

ResidentScore

VisitorScore

ArtistScore

ResearcherScore

ManagerScore

ResidentVisitorArtistResearcherManager

Important Factors Demanded by Each Actor

5

2

7

8

12

5

－

－

12

－

6

8

2

－

7

5

8

2

2

7

7

5

9

4

13

2

7

6

12

9

Economy

Researchand

Development

CulturalInteraction

Environment

Livability

Accessibility

39indicators

26indicators

24indicators

34indicators

49indicators

1.Qualities of Research Institutions, Researchers and Directors

2.Accumulation of Research Institutions and Researchers

3.Opportunities That Stimulate Researchers to Conduct Academic Activities

4.Readiness for Accepting Researchers （Research Funding, Support with Living Expenses etc.）

5.Career Opportunities for Researchers



2. Methodology

3-1 Comprehensive Ranking

Fig. 3-1 Comprehensive Ranking

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（1485.8）［1（1457.9）］

New York（1362.8）［2（1362.9）］

Paris（1292.4）［3（1291.8）］

Tokyo（1276.1）［4（1275.4）］

Singapore（1138.6）［5（1113.3）］

Seoul（1117.8）［6（1104.4）］

Amsterdam（1055.5）［7（1061.8）］

Berlin（1054.9）［8（1039.6）］

Hong Kong（1012.8）［11（985.8）］

Vienna（1004.3）［9（1015.0）］

Frankfurt（988.1）［10（995.3）］

Zurich（973.8）［15（964.8）］

Sydney（968.7）［13（965.0）］

Beijing（960.3）［14（965.0）］

Shanghai（958.3）［12（975.2）］

Stockholm（954.3）［16（948.4）］

Toronto（938.5）［18（921.5）］

Copenhagen（921.7）［20（919.5）］

Madrid（914.8）［17（923.7）］

Los Angeles（912.0）［22（900.8）］

Istanbul（901.2）［27（841.6）］

Vancouver（894.1）［24（879.0）］

Brussels（884.6）［21（905.9）］

Washington, D.C.（884.4）［26（843.5）］

Milan（874.3）［30（830.3）］

Osaka（872.5）［23（879.8）］

Barcelona（869.3）［19（919.8）］

Geneva（860.4）［25（872.5）］

Bangkok（851.0）［32（810.6）］

Boston（846.7）［31（827.2）］

Chicago（840.9）［29（833.7）］

San Francisco（832.0）［28（839.3）］

Taipei（816.3）［33（755.8）］

Kuala Lumpur（786.7）［34（749.8）］

Moscow（760.3）［36（726.2）］

Fukuoka（747.4）［35（735.6）］

Mexico City（711.7）［37（716.0）］

Sao Paulo（692.8）［38（689.9）］

Mumbai（615.3）［39（633.9）］

Cairo（537.5）［40（579.9）］

*Numbers in [ ] are ranks and scores from the GPCI-2013

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

Economy R&D Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility


3. GPCI-2014 Results

3-2 Fluctuation in Comprehensive Ranking

Fig. 3-2 Fluctuation in Comprehensive Ranking (GPCI 2010-2014)

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

GPCI-2010 GPCI-2011 GPCI-2012 GPCI-2013 GPCI-2014

London

New York

Paris

Tokyo

Singapore

Seoul

Amsterdam

Berlin

Hong Kong

Vienna

Frankfurt

Zurich

Sydney

Beijing

Shanghai

Stockholm

Toronto

Copenhagen

Madrid

Los Angeles

Istanbul

Vancouver

Brussels

Washington, D.C.

Milan

Osaka

Barcelona

Geneva

Bangkok

Boston

Chicago

San Francisco

Taipei

Kuala Lumpur

Moscow

Fukuoka

Mexico City

Sao Paulo

Mumbai

Cairo


3-3 Function-Speci�c Ranking

Table 3-1 Function-Speci�c Ranking

Ran

kTo

tal S

core

Eco

nom

yR

&D

Cul

tura

l Int

erac

tion

Liva

bili

tyE

nviro

nmen

tA

cces

sib

ility

1Lo

ndon

1485

.8

Toky

o34

5.9

New

Yor

k22

3.2

Lond

on34

7.2

Par

is30

7.1

Gen

eva

205.

8 Lo

ndon

248.

52

New

Yor

k13

62.8

N

ew Y

ork

312.

8 To

kyo

155.

7 N

ew Y

ork

260.

9 Va

ncou

ver

290.

7 S

tock

holm

198.

9 P

aris

234.

63

Par

is12

92.4

B

eijin

g30

9.5

Lond

on14

9.4

Par

is24

3.3

Ber

lin28

8.5

Zuric

h19

6.9

Am

ster

dam

222.

94

Toky

o12

76.1

Lo

ndon

307.

7 Lo

s A

ngel

es13

4.8

Sin

gapo

re18

8.1

Vie

nna

285.

7 Fr

ankf

urt

194.

5 Fr

ankf

urt

217.

95

Sin

gapo

re11

38.6

H

ong

Kon

g26

7.7

Bos

ton

118.

4 B

erlin

160.

6 B

arce

lona

280.

8 S

inga

pore

190.

5 S

eoul

213.

86

Seo

ul11

17.8

S

inga

pore

265.

9 S

eoul

111.

6 To

kyo

159.

8 G

enev

a27

6.0

Vie

nna

189.

5 H

ong

Kon

g20

9.2

7A

mst

erda

m10

55.5

S

hang

hai

252.

7 P

aris

111.

5 B

eijin

g15

8.7

Zuric

h27

5.4

Lond

on18

9.0

New

Yor

k20

4.8

8B

erlin

1054

.9

Zuric

h24

6.7

Sin

gapo

re10

7.1

Vie

nna

154.

6 A

mst

erda

m27

4.2

Cop

enha

gen

183.

3 S

inga

pore

191.

49

Hon

g K

ong

1012

.8

Syd

ney

239.

5 C

hica

go93

.4

Ista

nbul

152.

4 M

ilan

273.

1 To

kyo

180.

9 Is

tanb

ul18

7.3

10V

ienn

a10

04.3

To

ront

o23

9.2

San

Fra

ncis

co84

.9

Syd

ney

150.

2 S

tock

holm

273.

1 B

erlin

179.

9 To

kyo

175.

811

Fran

kfur

t98

8.1

Seo

ul23

7.4

Osa

ka79

.8

Los

Ang

eles

145.

7 M

adrid

272.

4 S

eoul

175.

3 S

hang

hai

175.

512

Zuric

h97

3.8

Par

is23

3.4

Hon

g K

ong

78.1

S

eoul

142.

2 O

saka

267.

9 M

adrid

171.

6 B

angk

ok15

7.8

13S

ydne

y96

8.7

Was

hingt

on, D

.C.

229.

1 W

ashin

gton

, D.C

.68

.3

Bru

ssel

s13

7.4

Cop

enha

gen

267.

8 A

mst

erda

m16

7.2

Mila

n15

7.7

14B

eijin

g96

0.3

Vanc

ouve

r22

6.4

Syd

ney

64.7

B

arce

lona

133.

9 To

ront

o26

7.5

Syd

ney

164.

8 M

adrid

157.

515

Sha

ngha

i95

8.3

Sto

ckho

lm22

2.3

Sha

ngha

i63

.1

Am

ster

dam

130.

4 Fu

kuok

a26

3.7

Sao

Pau

lo16

4.4

Bru

ssel

s15

4.8

16S

tock

holm

954.

3 G

enev

a22

1.5

Ber

lin62

.5

Ban

gkok

124.

4 Fr

ankf

urt

260.

0 P

aris

162.

5 B

arce

lona

154.

217

Toro

nto

938.

5 C

open

hage

n21

5.4

Toro

nto

56.4

M

adrid

121.

6 To

kyo

257.

9 W

ashin

gton

, D.C

.16

1.0

Ber

lin15

3.1

18C

open

hage

n92

1.7

Am

ster

dam

214.

9 Ta

ipei

54.5

M

osco

w11

7.5

Taip

ei25

5.8

Mila

n15

7.5

Mos

cow

150.

119

Mad

rid91

4.8

Ber

lin21

0.3

Mos

cow

53.5

S

hang

hai

117.

3 S

hang

hai

250.

1 H

ong

Kon

g15

7.1

Taip

ei14

9.5

20Lo

s A

ngel

es91

2.0

Fran

kfur

t20

6.8

Sto

ckho

lm52

.3

Mex

ico

City

112.

4 B

russ

els

247.

9 Lo

s A

ngel

es15

2.2

Vie

nna

148.

021

Ista

nbul

901.

2 Is

tanb

ul19

8.1

Bei

jing

51.4

C

hica

go10

9.4

Lond

on24

4.0

Ban

gkok

151.

7 C

open

hage

n14

2.2

22Va

ncou

ver

894.

1 O

saka

192.

4 Zu

rich

50.9

M

ilan

105.

9 K

uala

Lum

pur

243.

5 Fu

kuok

a15

0.2

Toro

nto

139.

923

Bru

ssel

s88

4.6

Taip

ei19

1.2

Am

ster

dam

46.0

W

ashin

gton

, D.C

.10

0.1

Seo

ul23

7.5

Vanc

ouve

r14

8.0

Zuric

h13

7.6

24W

ashin

gton

, D.C

.88

4.4

San

Fra

ncis

co18

9.9

Vanc

ouve

r41

.9

Toro

nto

98.3

B

eijin

g22

8.5

San

Fra

ncis

co14

5.5

Chi

cago

136.

725

Mila

n87

4.3

Kua

la L

umpu

r18

8.0

Vie

nna

40.0

S

an F

ranc

isco

97.6

M

umba

i22

7.1

New

Yor

k14

5.1

Kua

la L

umpu

r13

4.7

26O

saka

872.

5 B

osto

n18

7.4

Fuku

oka

39.7

H

ong

Kon

g96

.6

Ista

nbul

222.

3 To

ront

o13

7.3

Bos

ton

131.

927

Bar

celo

na86

9.3

Vie

nna

186.

5 G

enev

a39

.0

Sto

ckho

lm90

.0

Syd

ney

219.

8 B

osto

n13

7.0

Bei

jing

130.

528

Gen

eva

860.

4 B

russ

els

185.

0 Fr

ankf

urt

35.1

B

osto

n79

.5

Ban

gkok

219.

2 Ta

ipei

134.

4 S

ydne

y12

9.7

29B

angk

ok85

1.0

Chi

cago

184.

5 B

russ

els

34.9

C

open

hage

n79

.4

New

Yor

k21

6.0

Kua

la L

umpu

r13

2.9

Osa

ka12

9.0

30B

osto

n84

6.7

Los

Ang

eles

175.

7 Is

tanb

ul34

.1

Osa

ka74

.1

Was

hingt

on, D

.C.

214.

0 O

saka

129.

2 S

tock

holm

117.

731

Chi

cago

840.

9 M

osco

w17

3.5

Cop

enha

gen

33.5

Fr

ankf

urt

73.9

M

exic

o C

ity21

2.5

Bar

celo

na12

5.7

San

Fra

ncis

co11

6.0

32S

an F

ranc

isco

832.

0 B

angk

ok17

0.5

Mad

rid30

.9

Vanc

ouve

r73

.7

Sao

Pau

lo20

6.3

Bru

ssel

s12

4.7

Vanc

ouve

r11

3.4

33Ta

ipei

816.

3 S

ao P

aulo

168.

1 B

arce

lona

29.2

S

ao P

aulo

68.9

C

hica

go20

4.4

Chi

cago

112.

4 W

ashin

gton

, D.C

.11

1.9

34K

uala

Lum

pur

786.

7 Fu

kuok

a16

6.2

Ban

gkok

27.4

Zu

rich

66.4

H

ong

Kon

g20

4.2

Mum

bai

107.

3 C

airo

110.

935

Mos

cow

760.

3 M

adrid

160.

8 K

uala

Lum

pur

26.2

K

uala

Lum

pur

61.4

Lo

s A

ngel

es19

8.8

Ista

nbul

106.

9 M

exic

o C

ity10

9.2

36Fu

kuok

a74

7.4

Mex

ico

City

160.

0 M

ilan

25.7

C

airo

57.1

S

an F

ranc

isco

198.

1 M

exic

o C

ity10

6.7

Los

Ang

eles

104.

737

Mex

ico

City

711.

7 M

ilan

154.

4 S

ao P

aulo

17.4

M

umba

i47

.6

Sin

gapo

re19

5.6

Sha

ngha

i99

.5

Fuku

oka

103.

538

Sao

Pau

lo69

2.8

Bar

celo

na14

5.5

Mex

ico

City

11.0

G

enev

a31

.9

Bos

ton

192.

5 M

osco

w98

.3

Mum

bai

88.9

39M

umba

i61

5.3

Mum

bai

133.

6 M

umba

i10

.8

Taip

ei30

.9

Cai

ro18

3.4

Cai

ro81

.7

Gen

eva

86.2

40C

airo

537.

5 C

airo

101.

1 C

airo

3.2

Fuku

oka

24.1

M

osco

w16

7.4

Bei

jing

81.7

S

ao P

aulo

67.6


3-4 Actor-Speci�c Ranking

Table 3-2 Actor-Speci�c Ranking

Ran

kM

anag

erR

esea

rche

rA

rtis

tV

isito

rR

esid

ent

1Lo

ndon

58.1

N

ew Y

ork

65.1

P

aris

56.6

Lo

ndon

58.0

P

aris

62.0

2

Sin

gapo

re55

.8

Toky

o51

.4

Lond

on52

.6

New

Yor

k53

.6

Lond

on54

.9

3H

ong

Kon

g51

.2

Lond

on51

.1

New

Yor

k51

.9

Par

is51

.1

New

Yor

k54

.0

4B

eijin

g48

.2

Par

is45

.9

Ber

lin49

.6

Ista

nbul

44.2

Zu

rich

52.2

5

Sha

ngha

i47

.9

Los

Ang

eles

40.2

V

ienn

a48

.6

Sha

ngha

i43

.8

Toky

o51

.8

6N

ew Y

ork

47.4

B

osto

n37

.2

Am

ster

dam

45.8

To

kyo

42.8

B

erlin

51.6

7

Ista

nbul

47.1

S

eoul

35.2

Lo

s A

ngel

es45

.7

Bei

jing

41.4

Fr

ankf

urt

51.2

8

Par

is47

.0

San

Fra

ncis

co35

.1

Toky

o45

.6

Bar

celo

na41

.4

Vie

nna

50.9

9

Toky

o46

.6

Sin

gapo

re34

.5

Bar

celo

na44

.1

Sin

gapo

re41

.3

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

.49

.1

10To

ront

o45

.7

Was

hing

ton,

D.C

.32

.9

Bei

jing

43.2

B

erlin

41.2

S

tock

holm

48.4

11

Seo

ul44

.9

Chi

cago

30.6

M

adrid

42.2

B

angk

ok39

.2

Am

ster

dam

47.0

12

Vanc

ouve

r43

.9

Syd

ney

29.7

W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.

40.1

V

ienn

a38

.4

Mila

n46

.7

13K

uala

Lum

pur

43.4

O

saka

29.0

M

ilan

39.4

A

mst

erda

m38

.3

Vanc

ouve

r46

.3

14A

mst

erda

m42

.5

Bei

jing

28.9

M

exic

o C

ity39

.1

Mad

rid37

.9

Gen

eva

46.0

15

Sto

ckho

lm42

.3

Ber

lin28

.6

Chi

cago

39.0

S

eoul

37.6

C

open

hage

n46

.0

16B

erlin

42.2

H

ong

Kon

g26

.4

Vanc

ouve

r38

.0

Hon

g K

ong

35.4

M

adrid

45.7

17

Zuric

h41

.8

Vanc

ouve

r25

.8

Sha

ngha

i38

.0

Toro

nto

33.6

B

osto

n45

.0

18Ta

ipei

40.9

Zu

rich

25.5

To

ront

o38

.0

Bru

ssel

s33

.1

Seo

ul44

.7

19V

ienn

a40

.8

Sto

ckho

lm25

.3

Fran

kfur

t37

.3

Mila

n33

.0

Osa

ka44

.5

20S

ydne

y40

.2

Vie

nna

25.0

C

open

hage

n36

.8

Fran

kfur

t32

.1

Hon

g K

ong

44.3

21

Cop

enha

gen

39.9

M

osco

w24

.7

Sto

ckho

lm36

.8

Syd

ney

31.6

To

ront

o43

.8

22G

enev

a38

.7

Toro

nto

24.4

B

russ

els

36.4

Va

ncou

ver

30.9

S

an F

ranc

isco

43.5

23

Fran

kfur

t38

.0

Am

ster

dam

23.7

Is

tanb

ul35

.6

Osa

ka30

.6

Syd

ney

43.5

24

Bos

ton

37.4

G

enev

a22

.6

Ban

gkok

35.5

W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.

30.3

B

arce

lona

43.1

25

Ban

gkok

37.2

C

open

hage

n22

.6

Osa

ka34

.2

Mex

ico

City

30.3

B

eijin

g42

.8

26B

russ

els

36.9

Fr

ankf

urt

20.6

S

ydne

y33

.8

Zuric

h29

.9

Bru

ssel

s42

.5

27W

ashi

ngto

n, D

.C.

35.8

M

ilan

20.1

S

ao P

aulo

33.2

C

hica

go29

.8

Sha

ngha

i41

.9

28O

saka

34.6

Fu

kuok

a19

.8

Cai

ro32

.9

Bos

ton

29.2

Fu

kuok

a41

.6

29M

adrid

34.4

S

hang

hai

19.7

Fu

kuok

a32

.7

Taip

ei28

.8

Sin

gapo

re41

.5

30B

arce

lona

33.6

Ta

ipei

19.4

S

an F

ranc

isco

32.6

S

an F

ranc

isco

28.7

Ta

ipei

41.0

31

Mila

n33

.5

Mad

rid19

.2

Mum

bai

32.5

C

open

hage

n28

.5

Los

Ang

eles

39.4

32

Chi

cago

33.1

Is

tanb

ul18

.8

Mos

cow

32.0

S

tock

holm

28.2

C

hica

go38

.2

33Fu

kuok

a32

.6

Bru

ssel

s18

.3

Kua

la L

umpu

r31

.7

Cai

ro28

.2

Mos

cow

37.1

34

San

Fra

ncis

co31

.5

Mex

ico

City

18.1

Zu

rich

31.4

K

uala

Lum

pur

27.9

M

exic

o C

ity33

.8

35Lo

s A

ngel

es31

.2

Ban

gkok

17.2

S

eoul

31.4

Lo

s A

ngel

es27

.8

Ban

gkok

32.2

36

Mum

bai

29.8

B

arce

lona

16.1

B

osto

n30

.8

Mos

cow

24.9

Is

tanb

ul32

.2

37S

ao P

aulo

28.5

K

uala

Lum

pur

15.6

Ta

ipei

27.7

Fu

kuok

a23

.4

Sao

Pau

lo31

.4

38M

osco

w27

.1

Sao

Pau

lo15

.4

Gen

eva

26.6

M

umba

i23

.3

Kua

la L

umpu

r30

.5

39M

exic

o C

ity25

.9

Mum

bai

12.3

S

inga

pore

20.0

G

enev

a21

.6

Mum

bai

27.3

40

Cai

ro23

.5

Cai

ro9.

2 H

ong

Kon

g18

.4

Sao

Pau

lo19

.5

Cai

ro26

.8



An analysis of Tokyo’s deviation scores for each indicator group sheds light on the city’s strengths and weaknesses. To-kyo’s strengths lie in the indicator groups “Market Size”, “Economic Vitality” and “Human Capital” within Economy, as well as in all the indicator groups of the Research and Development. Tokyo also scores highly with “Living Facilities” under Livability and “Inner-city Transportation Services” in Accessibility.

Conversely, Tokyo’s weaknesses lie in “Market Attractiveness” and “Regulations and Risks” under Economy, “Cultur-al Resources” under Cultural Interaction, “Cost of Living” in Livability, “Natural Environment” within Environment and “International Transportation Network” and “Traf�c Convenience” in Accessibility.

In GPCI-2014, even though Tokyo has increased its score for Cultural Interaction, its deviation scores in all of the indicator groups remain below 60. Tokyo should be able to enhance its urban power in the future if improvements can be made in these areas.

Looking at the number of indicators by deviation score, Tokyo has 10 indicators in which it holds an advantage with a deviation score of 70 or higher. Paris is much the same with 11 such indicators. Both London and New York, however, boast 16 indicators with deviation scores of 70 or higher.

3-5 Analysis of Tokyo’s Strengths and Weaknesses

Fig. 3-3 Tokyo Indicator Group Deviation Scores

Fig. 3-4 Top 4 Cities Indicator Numbers by Deviation Score

Cultural InteractionR&DEconomy Livability Environment Accessibility

Mar

ket S

ize

Mar

ket A

ttrac

tiven

ess

Eco

nom

ic V

italit

y

Hum

an C

apita

l

Bus

ines

s En

viron

men

t

Reg

ulat

ions

and

Risk

s

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 Vi

sito

rs

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

lTr

ansp

orta

tion

Netw

ork

Inte

rnat

iona

lTra

nspo

rtatio

n Infr

astru

cture

Inne

r-ci

ty T

rans

porta

tion

Serv

ices

Traf

�c C

onve

nien

ce

2030405060708090

100

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 Over90

2

13

26

1310

24

1

19

27

128

2 13

19

25

13

4 3 3

2 1

1822

118

62

London

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 Over90

New York

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Under20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 Over90

Paris

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

(Indicators) (Indicators)

(Indicators) (Indicators)

Under20 20-30 30-40 40-50 50-60 60-70 70-80 80-90 Over90

Tokyo

16 Indicators over theDeviation Score of 70






1） World’s Top 300 CompaniesOver the past �ve years, the comprehensively highly ranked cities of New York and Tokyo have both seen a decline in

their respective number of �rms listed among the top 300 worldwide. At the same time, the leading Asian cities of Beijing, Seoul, Hong Kong and Shanghai have shown an increase in the number of such companies and Beijing now sits almost level with Tokyo, which has been ranked No. 1 thus far.

Note: At the time of publication of GPCI-2013, data on the number of foreign visitors for 2012 could not be obtained; therefore data for 2011 was used in the rankings. In this graph, however, data for 2012 has been inserted in GPCI-2013.

2） Number of Visitors from AbroadForeign visitor numbers for all of the top four cities in the comprehensive ranking have increased. Tokyo, in particular,

has demonstrated signi�cant growth. Last year, the number of overseas visitors to Japan exceeded 10 million and 6.81 million of those tourists visited Tokyo. In addition to diminished concerns regarding the effects of the Great East Japan Earthquake, factors such as a weaker Japanese yen and easing of visa requirements for visitors from South East Asian countries are thought to have contributed to this increase. Within the leading cities in Asia, Tokyo receives more visitors from abroad than Beijing and Shanghai, despite still falling short of London, New York and Paris.

3-6 GPCI Periodic Changes

Fig. 3-5 World’s Top 300 Companies: Periodic Change

Fig. 3-6 Number of Visitors from Abroad: Periodic Change

0

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

0

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Lond

on

New

Yor

k

Par

is

Toky

o

Toky

o

Seo

ul

Shan

ghai

Sing

apor

e

Number of Visitors from Abroad:Top 4 Cities

Number of Visitors from Abroad:Major Asian Cities

ThousandPeople( ) Thousand

People( )

Hong

Kon

g

Bei

jing


World’s Top 300 Companies:Top 4 Cities

World’s Top 300 Companies:Major Asian Cities

0

20

15

10

5

25

30

35

40

Number ofCompanies

Lond

on

New

Yor

k

Par

is

Toky

o

Toky

o

Seo

ul

Hong

Kon

g

Bei

jing

Shan

ghai

Sing

apor

e0

20

15

10

5

25

30

35

40( ) Number of

Companies( )


Note: In the GPCI’s World’s Top 300 Companies, a score is assigned to a city according to the number of companies they have and where they rank among the top 300 of the Fortune Global 500.



Fig. 4-1 Elements and Examples of Indicators Used in Evaluation of Urban Intangible Values

UrbanIntangible

ValuesHospitality

Change and Growth

Ef�ciency

Safety and Security

The city not only has business functions and an accumulation of information and transportation networks, but adequate administra-tion to ensure that business and movement is ef�cient.

Indicator examples:Distance between Of�ce Area and Government Of�ces, Minimum Subway Train Interval, and Railway Congestion Rate

The city ensures accuracy and speed in movement and commercial activities.

Accuracy and Speed

Indicator example:On-Time Performance of International Airport

The city has a culture of hospitality and an environment welcoming of foreign people.

Indicator examples:Cost Performance of Services and Kindness of Residents

Indicator examples:Presence of Creative Activities, Tolerance and Support for Creative Activities, and Stress-free Life.

The city has good public safety, little environment pollution and a stable infrastructure, ensuring a comfortable lifestyle.

Indicator example:Sense of Safety in Public Places

Diversity

The city not only has many facilities, but a diverse range of inexpensive services and events.

Indicator examples:Diversity of Leisure and Recreational Activities, Variety of Streetscapes and Neighborhoods, and Diversity of Seasonal Leisure and Recreational Activities

The city is vibrant and ever changing; its transformation does not lead to ‘distortion’.

In the GPCI, 70 indicators are employed to evaluate the “comprehensive power” of cities. Many of these indicators as-sess the attractiveness of cities based on material criteria (excluding some survey-based qualitative indicators), for exam-ple, the indicators of Corporate Tax Rate, Research and Development Expenditure and CO2 Emissions. However, a city’s appeal is not generated solely through such material values.

What kind of results, then, can we obtain if we re-evaluate urban spaces in light of the “non-material values” sought after by people living in cities?

People feel comfort, tranquility and excitement through living in a city. In other words, urban spaces have the “power to appeal to human senses”.

Accordingly, these powers have been de�ned as “Urban Intangible Values” (UIV) and every effort was made to cap-ture the essence of the ideal city from this fresh perspective.

Ef�ciency, Accuracy and Speed, Safety and Security, Diversity, Hospitality and Change and Growth were estab-lished as the six elements that constitute intangible values and indicators (surveys and statistics, etc.) that correspond to these elements were gathered and evaluated.

These indicators were selected in consideration of the two perspectives of “Space and Activities” and “Sense of Values” found in cities. First of all, for the criteria of “Space and Activities”, the three categories of “Spatial Setting”, “Activities” and “Spatial Management” of cities were established and indicators were selected based on their association with urban space and activity. Meanwhile, for the viewpoint of “Sense of Values”, the three categories of “Universal Value”, “Regional and Cultural Value” and “Individual Value” were established and indicators were selected in consideration of the universali-ty and particularity of values.

4-1 What are Urban Intangible Values?


4. Urban Intangible Values and GPCI+

In this summary of the GPCI, a new method for evaluating the attractiveness of cities was examined by experimentally incorporating the concept of “intangible values” into the existing GPCI. More speci�cally, some indicators associated with “intangible values” were picked out and integrated into corresponding indicator groups in the GPCI-2014. By doing so, the cities in the GPCI were newly evaluated in order to create a new “GPCI+” ranking.

In the GPCI+, 11 indicators (10 based on surveys and On-Time Performance of International Airport) from among the approximately 40 that assess intangible values for which data is currently collected were incorporated into the most rele-vant 11 indicator groups in the GPCI so that scores could be recorded for each of the 40 cities. However, because of the lack of a corresponding intangible value indicator within Research and Development the evaluation is the same as in the GPCI-2014 ranking.* The Institute for Urban Strategies is currently working on a global city ranking based on intangible values. This is scheduled for publication in December 2014 as part of the Global Power City Index YEARBOOK 2014.

4-2 Global Power City Index with Partial Addition of Urban Intangible Values (GPCI+)

Fig. 4-2 Relationship between Indicators and Indicator Groups Added to GPCI+

Economy

R&D

Cultural Interaction

Livability

Environment

Accessibility

Co

mp

rehe

nsiv

e R

anki

ng

Function Indicator Group

Global Power City Index

Market Size

Academic Resources

Trendsetting Potential

Ecology

InternationalTransportation Network

Economic Vitality

Business Environment

Regulations and Risks

Research Backgound

Research Achievement

Cultural Resources

Facilities for Visitors

Attractiveness to Visitors

Volume of Interaction

Pollution

Natural Environment

InternationalTransportation Infrastructure

Market Attractiveness

Human Capital

Inner-city Transportation Services

Traf�c Convenience

Working Environment

Cost of Living

Security and Safety

Living Environment

Living Facilities

ElementIndicator

Urban Intangible Values

Presence of Creative Activities

Tolerance and Support forCreative Activities

Stress-free Life

Ef�ciency

Safety andSecurity

Accuracy andSpeed

Hospitality

Change andGrowth

Diversity

Sense of Safety in Public Places

Quick Service at Public Facilities

Ease of Transportation

On-Time Performance ofInternational Airport

Variety of Streetscapes and Neighborhoods

Diversity of Leisure andRecreational Activities

Diversity of Seasonal Leisure and Recreational Activities

Kindness of Residents


In the GPCI+, a ranking that partially re�ects the results of surveys on intangible values under the GPCI-2014, scores

were recalculated, which consequently led to changes in ranking.

In the GPCI+ comprehensive ranking, Tokyo rises to the No. 3 spot by overtaking Paris. This can be attributed to To-

kyo’s high scores for the intangible value indicators of Sense of Safety in Public Places, Kindness of Residents, On-Time

Performance of International Airport and Ease of Transportation, This change in ranking once again re�ects Tokyo’s out-

standing safety and security and excellent hospitality, re�ected in the Japanese word “Omotenashi”, as well as its punctu-

ality of public transport.

In GPCI+, each of the six American cities either rises in the ranking or remains in the same position as in GPCI-2014,

typically improving their positions in such functions as Economy and Cultural Interaction. This re�ects the fact that these

cities, achieving both growth and maturity, are highly evaluated in terms of their readiness for creative activities (Change

and Growth) and diversity in streetscapes and recreational activities (Diversity).

4-3 GPCI+ Ranking Results

Fig. 4-3 GPCI+ Comprehensive Ranking by Function

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940

London （1 → 1）New York （2 → 2）

Tokyo （4 → 3）➡Paris （3 → 4）➡

Singapore （5 → 5）Seoul （6 → 6）

Berlin （8 → 7）➡Amsterdam （7 → 8）➡

Hong Kong （9 → 9）Sydney （13 → 10）➡Vienna （10 → 11）➡Frankfurt （11 → 12）➡

Zurich （12 → 13）➡Stockholm （16 → 14）➡Beijing （14 → 15）➡Shanghai （15 → 16）➡Los Angeles （20 → 17）➡Toronto （17 → 18）➡

Copenhagen （18 → 19）➡Madrid （19 → 20）➡

Washington, D.C. （24 → 21）➡Vancouver （22 → 22）Osaka （26 → 23）➡Milan （25 → 24）➡Istanbul （21 → 25）➡Brussels （23 → 26）➡Chicago （31 → 27）➡Bangkok （29 → 28）➡Barcelona （27 → 29）➡Boston （30 → 30）San Francisco （32 → 31）➡

Geneva （28 → 32）➡Taipei （33 → 33）

Kuala Lumpur （34 → 34）Moscow （35 → 35）

Fukuoka （36 → 36）Sao Paulo （38 → 37）➡Mexico City （37 → 38）➡

Mumbai （39 → 39）Cairo （40 → 40）

*Changes in ranking between GPCI-2014 (before) and GPCI+ (after) shown in parentheses.Ranking increase: Blue ➡　Ranking decrease: Red➡

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800



Table 4-1 Comparison of GPCI+ and GPCI-2014 Function Rankings

Ran

king

incr

ease

: Blu

e　R

anki

ng d

ecre

ase:

Red

GPCI+

Ran

k

Tota

l Sco

reE

cono

my

R&

DC

ultu

ral I

nter

actio

nLi

vab

ility

Env

ironm

ent

Acc

essi

bili

ty

City

GPCI-2014

Ran

kC

ityGP

CI-2014

Ran

kC

ityGP

CI-2014

Ran

kC

ityGP

CI-2014

Ran

kC

ityGP

CI-2014

Ran

kC

ityGP

CI-2014

Ran

kC

ityGP

CI-2014

Ran

k1

Lond

on1

Toky

o1

New

Yor

k1

Lond

on1

Par

is1

Gen

eva

1 Lo

ndon

1 2

New

Yor

k2

New

Yor

k2

Toky

o2

New

Yor

k2

Ber

lin3

Sto

ckho

lm2

Par

is2

3To

kyo

4 Lo

ndon

4 Lo

ndon

3 P

aris

3 Va

ncou

ver

2 Zu

rich

3 A

mst

erda

m3

4P

aris

3 B

eijin

g3

Los

Ang

eles

4 S

inga

pore

4 V

ienn

a4

Fran

kfur

t4

Fran

kfur

t4

5S

inga

pore

5 S

inga

pore

6 B

osto

n5

Ber

lin5

Am

ster

dam

8 V

ienn

a6

Seo

ul5

6S

eoul

6 H

ong

Kon

g5

Seo

ul6

Toky

o6

Mad

rid11

Lo

ndon

7 N

ew Y

ork

7 7

Ber

lin8

Par

is12

P

aris

7 Is

tanb

ul9

Osa

ka12

S

inga

pore

5 H

ong

Kon

g6

8A

mst

erda

m7

Syd

ney

9 S

inga

pore

8 V

ienn

a8

Fran

kfur

t16

To

kyo

9 S

inga

pore

8 9

Hon

g K

ong

9 Zu

rich

8 C

hica

go9

Bei

jing

7 M

ilan

9 C

open

hage

n8

Toky

o10

10

Syd

ney

13

Sha

ngha

i7

San

Fran

cisc

o10

Lo

s A

ngel

es11

C

open

hage

n13

B

erlin

10

Sha

ngha

i11

11

Vie

nna

10

Toro

nto

10

Osa

ka11

S

ydne

y10

B

arce

lona

5 M

adrid

12

Bar

celo

na16

12

Fran

kfur

t11

W

ashin

gton

, D.C

.13

H

ong

Kon

g12

B

russ

els

13

Toro

nto

14

Seo

ul11

M

adrid

14

13Zu

rich

12

Seo

ul11

W

ashin

gton

, D.C

.13

S

eoul

12

Sto

ckho

lm10

S

ao P

aulo

15

Mila

n13

14

Sto

ckho

lm16

S

tock

holm

15

Syd

ney

14

Bar

celo

na14

S

hang

hai

19

Syd

ney

14

Ber

lin17

15

Bei

jing

14

Vanc

ouve

r14

S

hang

hai

15

Mad

rid17

Zu

rich

7 P

aris

16

Ista

nbul

9 16

Sha

ngha

i15

A

mst

erda

m18

B

erlin

16

Mos

cow

18

Gen

eva

6 A

mst

erda

m13

Ta

ipei

19

17Lo

s A

ngel

es20

B

erlin

19

Toro

nto

17

Am

ster

dam

15

Fuku

oka

15

Mila

n18

B

angk

ok12

18

Toro

nto

17

Gen

eva

16

Taip

ei18

M

exic

o C

ity20

To

kyo

17

Was

hingt

on, D

.C.

17

Vie

nna

20

19C

open

hage

n18

C

open

hage

n17

M

osco

w19

B

angk

ok16

Ta

ipei

18

Ban

gkok

21

Bru

ssel

s15

20

Mad

rid19

Fr

ankf

urt

20

Sto

ckho

lm20

S

hang

hai

19

Mum

bai

25

Hon

g K

ong

19

Cop

enha

gen

21

21W

ashin

gton

, D.C

.24

Is

tanb

ul21

B

eijin

g21

C

hica

go21

Lo

ndon

21

Vanc

ouve

r23

O

saka

29

22Va

ncou

ver

22

San

Fran

cisc

o24

Zu

rich

22

Was

hingt

on, D

.C.

23

Seo

ul23

N

ew Y

ork

25

Zuric

h23

23

Osa

ka26

Ku

ala

Lum

pur

25

Am

ster

dam

23

Mila

n22

B

eijin

g24

Lo

s A

ngel

es20

To

ront

o22

24

Mila

n25

Ta

ipei

23

Vanc

ouve

r24

To

ront

o24

B

russ

els

20

Fuku

oka

22

Chi

cago

24

25Is

tanb

ul21

O

saka

22

Vie

nna

25

San

Fran

cisc

o25

Ku

ala

Lum

pur

22

San

Fran

cisc

o24

S

ydne

y28

26

Bru

ssel

s23

B

osto

n26

Fu

kuok

a26

H

ong

Kon

g26

S

ydne

y27

B

osto

n27

B

osto

n26

27

Chi

cago

31

Chi

cago

29

Gen

eva

27

Sto

ckho

lm27

B

angk

ok28

To

ront

o26

M

osco

w18

28

Ban

gkok

29

Bru

ssel

s28

Fr

ankf

urt

28

Bos

ton

28

Ista

nbul

26

Kual

a Lu

mpu

r29

S

tock

holm

30

29B

arce

lona

27

Sao

Pau

lo33

B

russ

els

29

Cop

enha

gen

29

Chi

cago

33

Taip

ei28

Sa

n Fr

anci

sco

31

30B

osto

n30

Lo

s A

ngel

es30

Is

tanb

ul30

Ku

ala

Lum

pur

35

Los

Ang

eles

35

Bar

celo

na31

B

eijin

g27

31

San

Fran

cisc

o32

B

angk

ok32

C

open

hage

n31

Fr

ankf

urt

31

Was

hingt

on, D

.C.

30

Osa

ka30

Ku

ala

Lum

pur

25

32G

enev

a28

V

ienn

a27

M

adrid

32

Vanc

ouve

r32

H

ong

Kon

g34

B

russ

els

32

Fuku

oka

37

33Ta

ipei

33

Mos

cow

31

Bar

celo

na33

S

ao P

aulo

33

New

Yor

k29

C

hica

go33

Va

ncou

ver

32

34Ku

ala

Lum

pur

34

Mex

ico

City

36

Ban

gkok

34

Zuric

h34

S

ao P

aulo

32

Mex

ico

City

36

Was

hingt

on, D

.C.

33

35M

osco

w35

M

ilan

37

Kual

a Lu

mpu

r35

O

saka

30

Mex

ico

City

31

Ista

nbul

35

Cai

ro34

36

Fuku

oka

36

Fuku

oka

34

Mila

n36

C

airo

36

San

Fran

cisc

o36

M

osco

w38

Lo

s A

ngel

es36

37

Sao

Pau

lo38

M

adrid

35

Sao

Pau

lo37

M

umba

i37

C

airo

39

Mum

bai

34

Mex

ico

City

35

38M

exic

o C

ity37

B

arce

lona

38

Mex

ico

City

38

Gen

eva

38

Sin

gapo

re37

S

hang

hai

37

Gen

eva

39

39M

umba

i39

M

umba

i39

M

umba

i39

Ta

ipei

39

Bos

ton

38

Bei

jing

40

Mum

bai

38

40C

airo

40

Cai

ro40

C

airo

40

Fuku

oka

40

Mos

cow

40

Cai

ro39

S

ao P

aulo

40


4. Urban Intangible Values and GPCI+

October 2014

Edited and published byInstitute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation

Translated by Alex YeomanDesigned and Produced by Nikkei Printing, Inc.

For more information on this report:[email protected]

Norio Yamato, Koji Sasaki, or Yuko Hamada

Institute for Urban Strategies, The Mori Memorial Foundation

www.mori-m-foundation.or.jp/english/ARK Mori Building, 1-12-32 Akasaka, Minato-ku, Tokyo

107-6004 JAPANFax: +81-3-3224-7227

COPYRIGHT©2014 The Mori Memorial Foundation. All Rights Reserved.This content is for general information purpose only. Unauthorized reproduction of this document is forbidden.

1 London

2 New York

3 Paris

4 Tokyo

5 Singapore

6 Seoul

7 Amsterdam

8 Berlin

9 Hong Kong

10 Vienna

11 Frankfurt

12 Zurich

13 Sydney

14 Beijing

15 Shanghai

16 Stockholm

17 Toronto

18 Copenhagen

19 Madrid

20 Los Angeles

21 Istanbul

22 Vancouver

23 Brussels

24 Washington, D.C.

25 Milan

26 Osaka

27 Barcelona

28 Geneva

29 Bangkok

30 Boston

31 Chicago

32 San Francisco

33 Taipei

34 Kuala Lumpur

35 Moscow

36 Fukuoka

37 Mexico City

38 Sao Paulo

39 Mumbai

40 Cairo


COPYRIGHT©2014 THE MORI MEMORIAL FOUNDATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

2014

research and development researcher artist visitor los angeles 21 istanbul 22 vanouer 23 brussels 24...

Documents