Do Cities Control Their Destiny? Lessons from Detroit and Seattle

I often hear from people living in thriving cities that other metropolises should copy their economic policies. Examples? Try these:

Be more business friendly. 

Keep taxes low. 

Tout your city’s unique assets. 

Foster an entrepreneurial culture. 

Make your city a more affordable destination. 

Make your city a more exclusive destination.

Yet, living in the Midwest, a part of the country that’s seen better days, I’m well aware that economic success can be transitory, even ephemeral. Today’s winners might want to think more carefully about how much credit they can claim for their success.

I’ve often wondered – do cities really control their economic destiny? Or are they pawns to broader forces? Was the rise of today’s economic success stories really due to following a particular path? Was the decline of the Midwest’s Rust Belt, say, the result of bad policies or fundamental economic trends?

Some cities certainly can claim to be self-made, their fortunes built on hard work and visionary policies. A case could be made that Los Angeles, blessed by beautiful weather but distant from natural water sources, should never have grown into the metropolis it is now. Similarly, one could argue that Las Vegas should never have existed at all. Both cities capitalized on their initial advantages: sunshine for Los Angeles, gaming for Las Vegas, to establish themselves. Then they actively transformed themselves into leading destinations.

Other cities are what I might call “windswept” cities. These are cities that found themselves swept up by economic forces that converged on them, not necessarily because they actively created them, and took off. Detroit and Cleveland, for example, each exploded in the first third of the 20^th century because manufacturing industries settled in and led the way. One could say they reached their peak in the second third of the century and began their downward slide in the last third, all while relying on the vacillation in the manufacturing economy. Similarly, Orlando and Tampa used consistently warm weather and sunshine to create an economy built on tourism, entertainment and lifestyle. They have yet to budge from a winning formula. 

Some US cities economic success, benefited from shifting economic trends but also enhanced their advantages with smart policy moves. Detroit was the busiest port on the Great Lakes and one of the busiest in the nation, shipping millions of tons of number and iron ore. It was a national leader in shipbuilding and a major center of cast-iron stove manufacturing, earning the title “stove capital of America.” That put Detroit in an enviable position when the automobile took off in the early 1900s. The city had thousands of skilled, mechanically inclined workers. Moving from shipyards and stove plants to auto factories was not a great leap for them. Detroit’s strong auto economy made the city the envy of many U.S. cities for much of the 20^th century.

Compare Detroit with Seattle. Many people might view a comparison of these cities as unlikely, given the paths both have taken over the last 40 years. However, they share much in their early histories. 

Seattle started as a port location that also shipped lumber, but in the Pacific Northwest. Instead of developing a stove industry, Seattle became a commercial and shipbuilding gateway during the Klondike Gold Rush in Alaska, and supported the growth of Boeing, the aircraft manufacturer that defined the city for most of the 20^th century.

Until it didn’t. 

As my co-author Mike Ducker noted, Seattle and Detroit found themselves in very similar positions in 1970s America. Both were manufacturing-dominant hubs that struggled to adapt to new global economic conditions. Seattle adapted and prospered; Detroit, until very recently, did not. 

This book and its stories explore why and how these cities diverged. Mike examines the motivations of entrepreneurs, city leaders, workforce leaders, and executives in both cities and finds that the key difference was how power was distributed. He finds that people in Seattle always felt empowered, and that Boeing's growth and dominance in aviation for 50 years created a culture that supported problem solvers leading the company's growth.  He also finds that aspects of Detroit's centralized power structure of auto executives and the labor union led to a city for an industry and workers but not citizens. 

I come in to dig even deeper into the combustible mix of social challenges facing Detroit beginning in the 1970s, even as economic challenges grew. In fact, it’s only been recently – since Detroit’s infamous bankruptcy filing in 2013 that Detroit’s been able to effectively address the social hurdles that hampered it, and to embrace the changes it needed to make. 

Together, we acknowledge that cities aren’t simply constellations of economic activity. Cities are also places where people seek meaning, purpose and fulfillment while in pursuit of economic growth. If the economic activity is bereft of meaning, purpose and fulfillment for its residents, then decline and collapse will soon follow. 

Get updates on the book here.