Which countries have a city or cities that dominate more than here?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

No, I think we probably will head for a more rootless society, although it is hard to predict the future.

But the simple fact is if you were in Vancouver in 1900 everybody would have been talking about getting Canadian companies to invest here. Now instead people are talking about Chinese investors or American investors. It doesn't seem to be the case that somebody in Toronto is the mediator for all of the commercial activity that happens in Vancouver and involves someone outside of Canada. I'm not sure it's true in any province outside of Ontario; they all directly look for international trade and investment.

I don't think Toronto dominates Canada like some imperial capital, but I think you're a bit too dismissive of Toronto's importance and influence. I don't think Toronto is merely the Charlottetown of Ontario.

To begin with, how do you know where capital comes from these days? Sure, that condo in Yaletown might have been bought with Chinese money, but the developer probably received financing, and even if that financing came from a foreign bank, who knows whether a Toronto-based financial giant like OMERS or Teachers has a controlling stake?

Secondly, I don't think world cities really are in the business of being centres to their nation states anymore. Well, they are, but I think that's kind of a side job for them now. They're increasingly more just plugged into each other's network. That's sort of why some of them can be city states, and others (Amsterdam, notably) can be pseudo-city states that are much bigger than what their country alone could support (or maybe they have become the country). Toronto is our only city that's in that league. It may not be at that forefront, but it's hardly at the back, either.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Even French-speaking Canada is more like this with Montreal.

I had breakfast at a restaurant in Tracadie NB this summer and on the TVs they had RDI or TVA Nouvelles with Montreal traffic reports and overnight fire and car crash stories from 1000 km away. This is not an exceptional occurrence in Quebec or Acadian parts of NB.

If you go to La Sarre in far NW Abitibi on the border with NE Ontario they're reading Le Journal de Montréal with RDS pumped in from the Bell Centre overlooking them from above, and mostly piped in programming from any number of Montreal-based networks on their car radios.

I don't think it's necessarily because of deliberate magnanimity on its part, but Toronto isn't really that culturally overbearing as far as national metropolises are concerned. For a variety of reasons it leaves a lot of stuff on the table that other regions and cities are free to pick up and run with.

I'm one of the very few non-Quebecker people who visit La Sarre. I can drive there from Timmins and it takes about 2 hours and 15 minutes. The town is definitely more influenced more by Montreal than any other major city even though you can drive to a remote part of Northeastern Ontario by Lake Abitibi in under half an hour. But it is about an 8 hour drive from La Sarre to Montreal.

La Sarre is a good example how Quebec society is different. The town is 100% francophone and has voted Parti Québécois for as long as I can remember. There are amazingly a number of people living there who have never been to Ontario yet Ontario is only about 15kms away! I've spent quite a bit of time there and always ask people where they travel. But most people there have been to Timmins, often for shopping as there are different stores here. And quite a few do have family and friends in Ontario but definitely not most.

Acajack is right about Montreal-based media being dominant in NW Abitibi Quebec. But one exception in English is it's CTV Northern Ontario (Sudbury-based) that you get in the Abitibi-Témiscamingue region. Many businesses in Rouyn-Noranda advertise on that network, usually retail stores. Everybody here knows about the Josée-Nat bridal store in downtown Rouyn and many from here end up buying there.

I've seen some businesses in my region that will have French-language channels on such as RDI, LCN, RDS but it's normally ones where the vast majority of customers are francophone. Often ex-Quebeckers.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by isaidso

The Canadian media are obsessed with the UK. In reality, there should be no more media time allotted to the UK than France, Italy, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Germany, or Indonesia but there's more UK coverage than all of these countries combined.

Is the CBC run by an arm of the British royal family? You'd think it was. Canada may have a large block of people of anglo-saxon stock but that shouldn't mean that they devote so much time to the mother land of this ethnic block. The UK should be treated like every other country.

They could cut back on UK coverage by 90% and it would still be out of whack.

I have to agree with you. Yet so many see the CBC as left-wing, anti-white, only interested in minorities, etc.

[Loco101]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Some of the highest rents in Newfoundland and Labrador are in Labrador City and neighbouring Wabush. Some the cheapest are in far-flung rural communities that are within an hour's commute of downtown St. John's.

I definitely agree Halifax functions as the Toronto at least of the Maritimes, but I'm not sure how to describe its role for Newfoundland and Labrador. We're so isolated, and so self-sufficient in many ways, there really isn't a lot of opportunity for other cities to play a significant role here. But to the extent that they do, I think Halifax does.

Perhaps the best example is This Hour Has 22 Minutes. I don't believe they have a single cast member who isn't from Newfoundland and Labrador. It flowed from CODCO, and Wonderful Grand Band, and our own traditional and style of humour. It is, in every cultural sense, a Newfoundland and Labrador show. But it's filmed in Halifax.

So what does that say? On one hand, it's clear influence. On the other, that show could be filmed absolutely anywhere - from Moncton to Guelph to Kelowna - and nothing about it would change. Halifax isn't determining its style or content - so is that really influence?

My friends in Timmins who are originally from NL always tell me that St. John's is to NL what Toronto is to Ontario. They didn't like how the newscasts often only focused on St. John's and never the rest of the province. We in Timmins often say the same thing about Toronto.

[SaskOttaLoo]

Originally Posted by someone123

No, I think we probably will head for a more rootless society, although it is hard to predict the future.

But the simple fact is if you were in Vancouver in 1900 everybody would have been talking about getting Canadian companies to invest here. Now instead people are talking about Chinese investors or American investors. It doesn't seem to be the case that somebody in Toronto is the mediator for all of the commercial activity that happens in Vancouver and involves someone outside of Canada. I'm not sure it's true in any province outside of Ontario; they all directly look for international trade and investment.

I have 2 quibbles. First, because Canadian companies have been notoriously risk adverse to investing in Canada for most of our history. Many of our major industries were at least initially funded with foreign capital. That includes the development of a lot of our natural resources. Second, I think if you're in Beijing in 2017 you're much more likely to have large sources of domestic capital available to fund projects than you were in 1917. That is probably true for other places as well. The era in which Western sources of capital were the only option are over, and increasingly countries have growing pools of domestic investment capital.

[SaskOttaLoo]

Originally Posted by isaidso

^^ It explains why it happens but it's about time we stopped behaving like an extension of Britain. Looking at the world through a British lens may have made sense in 1917 but not in 2017. We stopped being a British country a long time ago. We're a multi-cultural nation with no state religion. There should be no ethnic or religious pecking order in this country.

We're a nation of the world's people and a strong independent member of the world community. We should start acting like it.



Some still have trouble accepting that the US passed them in economy and influence. When Canada does the same (and we will before the century is out) they'll likely spontaneously combust.

I feel the same about the Canadian media's utter obsession with the US. It's not unusual for me to log onto G&M and find that half or more of the top stories are about relatively arcane events in the US. Hence a big reason that so many Canadians know more about the US than Canada. Side note: try polling your friends on when Canada was founded. Maybe this year will be a bit different given the 150 celebrations, but I was stunned to find how few University educated people knew.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I don't think Toronto dominates Canada like some imperial capital, but I think you're a bit too dismissive of Toronto's importance and influence. I don't think Toronto is merely the Charlottetown of Ontario.

I was not trying to suggest that Toronto is nothing more than the Charlottetown of Ontario. It's somewhere between Charlottetown and imperial capital, probably far removed from either end of that continuum.

To begin with, how do you know where capital comes from these days? Sure, that condo in Yaletown might have been bought with Chinese money, but the developer probably received financing, and even if that financing came from a foreign bank, who knows whether a Toronto-based financial giant like OMERS or Teachers has a controlling stake?

I don't. Do you? Was there a time when we both would have known? My impression is that there was a time when almost all of the capital in Canada was controlled by a tiny circle of businessmen in Montreal or Toronto, and international investment was harder to come by. If that is true then Canada was closer to having an "imperial capital" back then.

They're increasingly more just plugged into each other's network. That's sort of why some of them can be city states, and others (Amsterdam, notably) can be pseudo-city states that are much bigger than what their country alone could support (or maybe they have become the country). Toronto is our only city that's in that league. It may not be at that forefront, but it's hardly at the back, either.

Is it really true that there is an exclusive "world city" network? What is the evidence of this? This is how a lot of people talk; certain cities ascend to the pantheon and others are left out. Toronto got its secret invitation in 2014 or something (and also in 1989 right before the housing bubble burst; the Globe and Mail has been writing "we've arrived!" articles for at least 25 years).

One argument against this idea is that connectivity everywhere in terms of communication and transportation is increasing.

[casper]

Originally Posted by someone123

No, I think we probably will head for a more rootless society, although it is hard to predict the future.

But the simple fact is if you were in Vancouver in 1900 everybody would have been talking about getting Canadian companies to invest here. Now instead people are talking about Chinese investors or American investors. It doesn't seem to be the case that somebody in Toronto is the mediator for all of the commercial activity that happens in Vancouver and involves someone outside of Canada. I'm not sure it's true in any province outside of Ontario; they all directly look for international trade and investment.

I don't understand this thread. However the dominant economic forces at tbe point i ti e would have been tbe Canadian Pacific Railway based out of Montreal at the time as well as the Hudson Bay Company.

This Toronto dominance thing is silly and in decline. In the past there were advantages to using Vancity or HSBC for business banking. Today MOST of these Toronto based co panties are more virtual or they are failing.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by someone123

I don't. Do you? Was there a time when we both would have known? My impression is that there was a time when almost all of the capital in Canada was controlled by a tiny circle of businessmen in Montreal or Toronto, and international investment was harder to come by. If that is true then Canada was closer to having an "imperial capital" back then.

I'm not suggesting I know where capital comes from, and capital has always been much more fluid than people. But capital can be managed and directed from one project to another from certain financial centres, and Toronto is one of those places. In fact, this is an extension of the axiom of my first sentence: while money can move, people generally can't - so the giant support network for a financial industry has to aggregate in one place, as firms generally do. Even if that financial institution has roots and headquarters somewhere else in Canada, they would be remiss not to have at least some presence in Toronto.

Is it really true that there is an exclusive "world city" network? What is the evidence of this? This is how a lot of people talk; certain cities ascend to the pantheon and others are left out. Toronto got its secret invitation in 2014 or something (and also in 1989 right before the housing bubble burst; the Globe and Mail has been writing "we've arrived!" articles for at least 25 years).

I don't think there's some club of cities that met in secret and agreed to run the world, but I think it's pretty clear that most of the wealth and power in the last 40 years has concentrated itself in a handful of cities even more than it was in the past. And I think it's also clear that there's a large group of people who migrate from city to city across the world. Just like society itself, only a handful of them are rich. There are also many professionals who are lured (or are pushed) to work at their multinational's foreign office, of which if one would exist in Canada, it would be automatically in Toronto. Then there are the masses of immigrant service workers who flock to these cities. Their family network may extend to their brothers and sisters who emigrated to similar world cities a continent away; I knew the sons and daughters of Filipino warehouse workers in Toronto who had cousins in Frankfurt, for example. Many of them barely knew of Canada beyond Niagara Falls, and as soon as they earned money (which they all did, very successfully), they went to Montreal and Vancouver, but did all of the rest of their traveling in the US or abroad.

And that leads to another consequence of all this. And that is that Toronto is increasingly - maybe finally - shedding its perception of itself as the centre of Canada. It didn't really do a good job at that, anyway, and it wasn't exactly loved for it. In the last 5 or so year, it has actually been doing a much better job than anyone expected at being more of a global hub.

Incidentally, while Vancouver receives more than its share of global capital flows, I feel that it hasn't received any of the benefits of globalism (they exist). Vancouver is getting screwed over by globalization, but more in the way that Venice is getting screwed over, not in the way that West Virginia or the British Midlands are.

One argument against this idea is that connectivity everywhere in terms of communication and transportation is increasing.

I think the opposite is happening. The spread of transportation links has ironically strengthened the pull of these cities, rather than the other way around. For example, HSR is used in places like France as basically a commuter rail to funnel workers into Paris from the hinterlands, rather than injected new life into the countryside. North America has a decentralized transportation system, but it hasn't stopped firms and people from concentrating in major metropolitan areas.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I have to agree with you. Yet so many see the CBC as left-wing, anti-white, only interested in minorities, etc.

I wouldn't go that far but I do sense there is a pretty strong diversity fetish at the CBC. Especially on the radio network.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I'm not suggesting I know where capital comes from, and capital has always been much more fluid than people. But capital can be managed and directed from one project to another from certain financial centres, and Toronto is one of those places. In fact, this is an extension of the axiom of my first sentence: while money can move, people generally can't - so the giant support network for a financial industry has to aggregate in one place, as firms generally do. Even if that financial institution has roots and headquarters somewhere else in Canada, they would be remiss not to have at least some presence in Toronto.

.

My sense is that oftentimes if in places like Vancouver there is not much attention on establishing ties with Toronto it's because those ties are already well established and mature. To the point where they are just part of the scenery now.

It's highly probably and perhaps even a certainty that those ties are what constitute the backbone of the economy.

[Spocket]

Originally Posted by Loco101

I have to agree with you. Yet so many see the CBC as left-wing, anti-white, only interested in minorities, etc.

I see it that way because it's definitely left-wing. I wouldn't say it was anti-white or only interested in minorities however. On the other hand, only in super-duper-deluxe-mega-tolerant Canada would you get a TV show called Little Mosque on the Prairie where some of the "stars" are allowed to spout hatred towards their adopted country. That's why so many people can't stand the CBC's left-wing politics anymore. That's only one example of course but I stopped watching the CBC a decade before I quit all of it precisely because I got so sick of their pandering.

[SignalHillHiker]

Originally Posted by Loco101

My friends in Timmins who are originally from NL always tell me that St. John's is to NL what Toronto is to Ontario. They didn't like how the newscasts often only focused on St. John's and never the rest of the province. We in Timmins often say the same thing about Toronto.

It is similar.

In some ways, St. John's is more dominant in Newfoundland than Toronto is in Ontario or Canada. We don't have an Ottawa, or even a Hamilton, and certainly no Montreal, or Calgary, or Vancouver. The domination of St. John's over Newfoundland is more complete than that.

But we are much weaker in other ways. I'm not sure how best to explain it but our culture is heavily influenced by rural areas - much like Americans, or Quebecois. Outport Newfoundland defines a lot of what it means to be a Newfoundlander, preserves it. St. John's is still much more, and still important - like an Austin, or if you're feeling generous, a Montreal, wherever. But rural areas have an outsized impact, and that's something Toronto is not impacted by in my estimation.

[kool maudit]

Originally Posted by Acajack

There is still some of that residual mystique in London for sure but (for all its faults and those of the country it is in) it's still hard for me to see any city but New York having "capital of the world" status at this point in history.

I would call it for London. It is much more internationalised than New York due to its smaller national hinterland, its imperial legacy, and its political importance.

You feel its weight in the NGO sphere, in the institutional sphere, and unlike a Geneva it backs it up with real capital, real banks and real oligarchs.

London is the capital of globalisation, of the emerging order.

I find the Square Mile to be one of the more ominous places I've ever been.

[mistercorporate]

Originally Posted by ue

Despite the loss of empire, London is still a very globally connected and influential metropolis. It utterly dominates the UK even in North America -- when was the last time Hollywood set a film in the UK that wasn't set in London, but instead Sheffield or Liverpool or Cardiff? London leaves everything in the dust and it is a huge economic centre within Europe, and still does maintain old colonial ties. Only Paris really compares, and even then, I still think London dominates. Paris works more of a "Metropolis of Europe" but London is more globally-connected.

It's actually kinda surprising, considering industrialization and the high density of Europe that more huge metropoli didn't appear on the continent, as in Asia or even the Americas. There's a lot of cities, sure, but not many above 7-8 million. It's really just London, Paris, and Moscow. And I guess Istanbul, but it seems more Middle Eastern these days. But despite their wealth and influence, Italy, Spain, Germany, the Netherlands never spawned a Paris or London. Meanwhile, East Asia has Tokyo, Seoul, Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Taipei. The Americas have New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Mexico City, Buenos Aires, and Sao Paolo.

Europe exported its poor to the colonies and the new world, tens of millions of them.

[kool maudit]

European settlement patterns are different in a very broad, general sense. Many more large towns and small cities around the 60-120,000 range per capita. This is why train travel works so well.

North America has larger cities with less in between, again very generally.

[kool maudit]

edit: double post

[mistercorporate]

Precisely his point. Small towns that may have been massive cities had tens of millions of Europeans not left (or in some cases kicked out of) Europe's teeming shores for a better life.

[MolsonExport]

The Guardian wrote about this several years back.
The age of the city-state: which cities most dominate their countries?

London, for example, produces more than 30% of Britain's entire GDP. Neither is it the most extreme example: it is just 30th on our list of cities that most dominate their countries (see below).

The ranking is led by the "classic" city-states – Luxembourg, Macau, Hong Kong, Singapore, places where the city essentially is the country. But look at Brussels (59% of national GDP), Copenhagen (55%) or Tel Aviv (54%). Is it time we start calling them city-states, too?

Toronto is not nearly as high up on the list as some might expect.

Luxembourg
1
Singapore
1
Hong Kong
1
Kuwait
0.999
Macau
0.742
San Juan
0.542
Copenhagen
0.535
Brussels
0.513
Tel Aviv
0.503
Seoul-Incheon
0.499
Buenos Aires
0.468
Vienna-Bratislava
0.443
Amsterdam-Rotterdam
0.432
Santiago
0.416
Dublin
0.381
Dubai
0.377
Athens
0.348
Budapest
0.341
Lima
0.336
Helsinki
0.324
Auckland
0.321
Riyadh
0.311
Abu Dhabi
0.31
Oslo
0.305
Lisbon
0.303
Taipei
0.299
Jeddah-Mecca
0.299
Tokyo
0.282
Stockholm
0.274
Aachen-Liège
0.266
Sofia
0.253
Zurich
0.248
London
0.234
Prague
0.232
Cairo
0.227
Paris
0.222
Bogota
0.207
Kuala Lumpur
0.206
Sydney
0.194
Mexico City
0.186
Melbourne
0.182
Porto
0.177
Bangkok
0.175
Istanbul
0.171
Toronto
0.17
Madrid
0.153
Busan
0.144
Milan
0.14
Haifa
0.14
Köln- Düsseldorf
0.128
Bucharest
0.124
Casablanca
0.12
Manila
0.116
Jakarta
0.096
Almaty
0.092
Sao Paulo
0.087

[kirjtc2]

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

I definitely agree Halifax functions as the Toronto at least of the Maritimes, but I'm not sure how to describe its role for Newfoundland and Labrador. We're so isolated, and so self-sufficient in many ways, there really isn't a lot of opportunity for other cities to play a significant role here. But to the extent that they do, I think Halifax does.

I've noticed when CBC does regional programming (late night TV news or the noon radio show), they'll often give Newfoundland their own show while New Brunswick - with a larger population! - has to mooch off Halifax's, which then barely acknowledges we exist.