Having visited, and lived in, a few of the world's major cities (and I'm not trying to sound "above it" or "snooty" here, really), there are certain things that make a city world class.
First off, size usually palys a role in it, although there are exceptions: (Stockholm is definitely world class and very sophisticated, but no bigger than Vancouver .... HOWEVER ... it IS the
capital of Sweden, which says most of it)....
Most world class cities are the size of Rome or San Francisco on up, and they are often capital cities (which we are not) or major economic centres. (one study says we are, but I found it somehow rather implausible; Seattle is moreso but never made the list)
So economic clout, money, an educated population, and the cultural facilities to serve that population are part of it, as are air connections (look up cities in Wikipedia, check out the airports, and see the number of airlines and destinations; this says a great deal about a city. For example, McCarran Airport in Las Vegas has many more passengers and flights than YVR, but are almost all intra-USA. There may be one overseas destination, two or three if you count Mexico. Las Vegas is in a class by itself, but the airport gives an indication of the type of city it is: not "world class" precisely, but a huge magnet nonetheless).
World class cities are often older than Vancouver, and have a sense of history about them, both in terms of the evolution of the city, and the legacy of historic buildings. Vancouver is a young city with a modest, prosaic history. Not our fault at all!! ... but it doesn't contribute much to the city's character.
World class cities usually have little trouble supporting major arts instutions. Seattle has a renowned opera that runs year-round, and is well supported, a magnificent Opera House, with great classical musicians from the world over, and the Pacific Northwest Ballet. In contrast, not so long ago, the Vancouver Symphony Orchestra had to have a cash injection to avoid going under, the support was so mediocre. That is a really sad, but telling, statement.
Rhetorical question: How do we compare? (Seatlle being in many respects a "sister city")
World class cities are sure of themselves, and don't need to go bragging. Toronto doesn't brag much any more, but in the 1970s and 80s, while "on its way up" the self-boosterism that emanated from there was embarassing.
Vancouver is rather at that "growth spurt" stage" right now, and local politicians spend millions on events (I'm not knocking the events) but whoop and holler, calling Vancouver "The Best Place in The World to Live!!!"
True, our quality of life (cleanliness, safety, public facilities, etc) put us right up there, but other cities are very close: Melbourne, Sydney, Copenhagen ...
A "world class" city can often be judged on the way its citizens dress. Been to Montreal? Need I say more?
World class cities usually have a diverse economic base, and exert a certain economic and/or political clout on the world stage. Does Vancouver? (rhetorical queston: you decide).
Being a "world class" city isn't everything, obviously. But what
isn't good is PRETENDING to be a world class city, when one is not. That's rather the equivalent of adolescent boasting.
In the first post, the one by
Mr. X, with the remarks of the German tourist, much of what was said was, alas, true.
Some of it we cannot change (like the climate), but some of it we CAN, like getting down off our high-horse, ceasing to be "full of ourselves" (another adolescent characteristic), and getting down to studying other great cities, both big and small, learning from them, and incorporating the best they have to offer wherever and whenever we can.
(Pardon the length of this soliloque, but I had to say what I had to say. Thank you all.)
Prev
Linear Mode
