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
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.
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
Global Power City Index 2014 03
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
Global Power City Index 201404
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
Global Power City Index 2014 05
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
Global Power City Index 201406
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
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.
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
Global Power City Index 2014 07
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
Global Power City Index 201408
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)
5.Daily Life Environment (Ease of Living)
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
6.Daily Life Environment (Ease of Living)
Global Power City Index 2014 09
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
Global Power City Index 201410
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
Global Power City Index 2014 11
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
Global Power City Index 201412
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
Global Power City Index 2014 13
3. GPCI-2014 Results
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
16 Indicators over theDeviation Score of 70
11 Indicators over theDeviation Score of 70
10 Indicators over theDeviation Score of 70
Economy R&D Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility
Global Power City Index 201414
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
GPCI-2010 GPCI-2011 GPCI-2012 GPCI-2013 GPCI-2014
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( )
GPCI-2010 GPCI-2011 GPCI-2012 GPCI-2013 GPCI-2014
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.
Global Power City Index 2014 15
3. GPCI-2014 Results
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?
Global Power City Index 201416
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
Global Power City Index 2014 17
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
Economy R&D Cultural Interaction Livability Environment Accessibility
Global Power City Index 201418
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
Global Power City Index 2014 19
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
Global Power City Index 2014
COPYRIGHT©2014 THE MORI MEMORIAL FOUNDATION. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
2014