Seattle, toward a 'MetroNation'
Brookings' Bruce Katz argues in a UW talk that this "metro" can help lead the U.S. toward a new, more prosperous economy.
Bruce Katz, the founding director of the Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program and a frequent visitor to this region, opened a series of four public lectures on sustainable urbanization Tuesday night at the University of Washington. Titling his talk “The Great Recession: What Comes Next for our MetroNation,” Katz began by quoting United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s comment about global challenges today: “This is not a time for tinkering. It is a time for transformation.”
Katz’s argument was that Seattle can take advantage of a serious recession to drive innovations that would advance a new economic model, different from the one now failing the nation. He echoed other thinkers in saying that low-carbon energy must now fuel economic growth, and that this would change transportation and information technologies, the homes and communities we live in, and the products we manufacture. The new economy, he said, will be shaped more by exports than by the consumption of goods produced domestically.
But the most important message Katz wanted Seattle to hear is that the city can help lead the transformation. As a past and present magnet for technological innovation, as the home of a university whose research wins more public funding than any other facility in the country, as a port city that is a hub of international trade, and as an attractive place to live that is “teeming with well educated people,” Seattle “has the stuff that will drive prosperity” in a new world economy.
Metropolitan areas or “metros” like greater Seattle are the economic entities that will lead the nation forward, Katz said. “We are no longer Jefferson's nation of small hamlets. The U.S. emerged as the world's power because our metros are connected with metros all over the globe.” Katz didn’t mention Jane Jacobs, but he follows her Cities and the Wealth of Nations in asserting that prosperous economies depend not on nations but on the cities within them. Wealth is created where human capital converges, resources can be gathered on a large scale, mixtures of enterprises can fertilize each other, and major infrastructure projects can be communally developed not only to support these enterprises but to link them with enterprises elsewhere. Katz’s key term is metros instead of cities, he said, because “cities are not the places they were 50 years ago. The assets that the metro needs to compete economically are spread throughout the region,” beyond the city, in its suburbs and exurbs. “Only when you include parks, air, rail, transit, and roads does an economy get the necessary cumulative impact.”
So, Katz said, “We're a metro nation. Do we act like it? Do we organize our resources?” In the Seattle metro, not yet. Transportation problems, among many others, sorely need solutions, and quickly. "There's no reason why metropolitan Americans shouldn’t have rapid, frequent, reliable transportation.” Most important, governance of such matters throughout the region is “overly fragmented, with stovepipes and silos. It’s time to forge a common vision for the region and to put state, city, and local policy in service of that vision.” But resources still tend to be “allocated as if they were peanut butter to be spread on bread, instead of targeted to give the best return on investment. We must find a new pattern of spending, and move toward metropolitan governance.”
Groups such as the Puget Sound Regional Council and Cascade Land Conservancy have made a start on regional collaboration. However, Katz said, even if a cohesive regional vision was developed on which to base policy and budget decisions, and even if a regional system made coordinated collective efforts, Seattle’s metro “can’t do it alone.” The federal government must help by setting standards for metros and by directing funds to them so that standards can be met. For instance, the national government should lead, as it did in the 1930s, in improving the movement of goods between metropolitan areas. “There’s no way Seattle’s and Tacoma’s ports can succeed without this kind of investment,” especially (as Katz has written elsewhere) given the global competition with port-city metros beyond our borders that are building sophisticated transportation networks.
Still, Katz insisted, “Hard times are the right times to set ambitious goals. And the country has enormous potential. I don't want to minimize the impediments, but I’ll put our system up against any other system, just from the potential of its diffusion of power to unleash innovation in the private sector.”
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Thu, Oct 15, 8:47 a.m. inappropriate
Those of you interested in a quick look at some of the data behind Bruce's talk might want to take a look at some notes from a talk I gave 9 months ago extracted from his various reports in the "Metro Nation" series.
See http://lazowska.cs.washington.edu/metro.pdf
Posted Thu, Oct 15, 9:53 a.m. inappropriate
It might be true that America is "urban" if you define it by population and GDP (although a lot of what is encompassed as "urban" we would define as suburban sprawl). I worry that this mindset will lead to marginalizing everything that is not urban, including populations and activities and resources that are essential to all (recreation, resource economies, agriculture, wilderness, access). Some of these things are worthy subsidizing and supporting and will appear to receive more than their fair share of resources, but they are essential to the nation's economic and cultural ecosystem. Saving a forest is not just about big trees, but the whole ecosystem.
Second, I don't think we can simply define priorities by what share of population and GDP cities represent. We have to change the economic system. it won't be enough to provide mass transit and sell millions of electric cars if we are still focussed on endless growth. We need to revamp the economic system to be one in which we never take more than what we put back. Sustainability is not achievable by simply pouring coals onto urban development. If we measure by GDP, we'll never find happiness or limits on consumption.
Third, rural life is romanticized, but what people value in it is more than nostalgia. You can disparage small town America, but the values it symbolizes are the ones urban planners are trying to recreate when they design "urban villages," which are intended to be places where people know one another, there is relative safety, community, trust, vitality, and a generally wholesome environment. These can be found (or lost) anywhere, city, suburb or rural setting, but no one place has a monopoly on it, and people want a choice in where they look for it.
Posted Thu, Oct 15, 11:03 a.m. inappropriate
Mr. Berger has offered some excellent observations. While it is inarguably true that the world’s fastest growing and most economically viable urban entities are in fact “metro regions” as opposed to traditional cities, it is important to keep in mind that the protection of the rural areas adjoining these metro regions is vitally important to the well being of the urban populations they support. Throughout history, cities which sustained growth at the expense of their rural periphery did so at their peril.
While our region has developed and implemented some relatively advanced planning mechanisms and environmental protections, we have unfortunately failed to develop any meaningful methods of measuring or quantifying “success”. Relying solely on abstract indicators such as GDP will only insure that our future is nothing more than an inflated version of our present.
Washington’s Growth Management Act espouses some laudable goals; reducing sprawl, conserving resource lands, protecting critical areas, fostering economic development etc. However, at present there is no requirement that jurisdictions demonstrate any measurable success in achieving these goals. The future of the Puget Sound metro region will depend on our ability to adopt meaningful bench marks of environmental and social well being, and holding our selves and our leaders accountable for achieving these goals
Posted Thu, Oct 15, 11:39 a.m. inappropriate
I was there, & I heard Mr. Katz saying these things. However, I also heard him calling for an added layer of government at the "metro" level - keep the cities and counties as they are, he said, this would be above that level - & had the impression he meant that this authority should be handed to PSRC. It didn't make me comfortable that he then had some kind of invitation-only event involving PSRC, Sound Transit & others the following day.
With his comment about spreading the peanut butter all over the bread, he was referring specifically to WSDOT doing transpo projects all over the state. There, I was left with the impression that he thought all or most of the eggs should go into the Seattle basket - or, to follow his metaphor, glop the peanut butter on the west side of the bread & don't spread it around. Yeah, that would play well with, say, the people in Yakima as they try to deal with the landslide obliterating SR410.
I left the lecture less than impressed; in fact, feeling quite wary that an outsider with not just no appreciation for, but apparently blatant disregard for, political realities might unduly influence policy choices in our area.
Posted Thu, Oct 15, 12:02 p.m. inappropriate
I think the peanut butter issue is a critical point though. Metro and WSDOT spending would be much more efficiently used in Seattle and other regional population centers (ei. Bellevue, Kirkland, Everret) instead of spread out over the entire area. When we subsidize a bunch of public amenities in places like Snoqualmie it not only takes that funding away from the vast majority of people, it also encourages people to move out there and exacerbates our problems. The easiest way to meet our GMA Goals is to start allocating funding more efficiently, and less politically. This would both increase the cost of living in sub/exurbs and lower the cost of living in the denser areas. so that they were more equitable.
I also think this isn't an argument about Seattle vs. the rest of the county. It is about population nodes in a metro area. I think Bellevue's Bel-red Corridor plan is an fantastic example of trying to plan for concentrated amenities. The problem is when you have places like Maple Valley that limit the ability to create efficient resource systems by forcing people to spread out.
Overall though, we should have green space, farmlands, and urban spaces intermixed throughout the region to create the most efficient system possible.
Posted Thu, Oct 15, 12:13 p.m. inappropriate
Just to hammer home this point, take this metaphor:
Suppose a small village has one central well. The area directly surrounding that well would be the most heavily concentrated because its the easiest way to get water. More density, taller buildings, etc. As you move away from the well it becomes less dense, more open. The people living in the outskirts have the benefit of more openness and probably less expensive land, but the trade off becomes the higher cost of getting water and other goods, which have concentrated around the well. A limit is quickly reached because one cannot be outside walking distance from this well, and soon you are in untouched natural lands. The pattern of course would be circular but everyone is easily within reach of both greenspace, urbanness, and in-betweeness.
Posted Thu, Oct 15, 12:22 p.m. inappropriate
The well represents ALL public amenities and we should have lots of little wells throughout the region. The rail system we are building is a good start for this (and should be concentrated around already centralized areas) because it can move both people and goods far more efficiently than vehicle roads can.
Posted Thu, Oct 15, 2:03 p.m. inappropriate
An arguably fatal flaw in Bruce Katz reasoning is his 'leap' from regional economics to global economics. This bypasses and subordinates state and national economies. In addition, regional economics as well are not improved by a focus on global exports.
One way to consider economics is by their scale, which can be 'simplified' as local, regional, state, national, and global in scale. Within large metropolitan regions, dozens of local economies make up the immediate neighborhood and community which most people intimately relate.
New Urbanism attempts to balance community/district purposes with mixed-use economics by design. Because such neighborhoods and districts cannot readily achieve a fully self-sufficient economy, they interact and depend upon the nearest metropolitan area districts for any lack. Thus a regional economy is defined. The most successful regional economy depends less upon input from other metropolitan regions and locales within the state. That said, a state economy is still necessary to structure followed by national structures to transport such goods only available from distant providers.
Bruce Katz notion of continued reliance upon exports finally disables local economies within metropolitan regions as well. He's right about light rail systems holding an important key to rebuilding a regional economy. But his theories lead to urban transport systems that are no different from those we've built over the last 100 years - using light rail to commute from suburbs to centralized production and export facilities. In short, Bruce Katz represents the last descendents of economic dinosaurs, particularly the T-Rex Humanis in Armani.
Posted Fri, Oct 16, 12:20 p.m. inappropriate
I was at the speech as well.
I bused down in the name of sustainability. My bus back home from the biggest university in the region (UW) to the densest population in the state (Capitol Hill.. #2 now?) never showed up. The next one was 5 minutes late. I could have driven to Lynnwood in the time I was waiting for the bus, and could have driven to perhaps Marysville in the time it took me to get home.
If we want to get people out of their cars, we need to create a legitimate alternatives for getting between nodes. The bus system only supports people with lots of time or little money.
THAT'S what Bruce Katz meant about spreading the peanut butter. I stood their waiting with 30 other people for a bus to another hot spot, while I know buses drove empty in Snoqualmie. How many of those 30 people will jump at the opportunity to get a car of their own and not be subjected to the whims and humiliation of the bus system?
I went back to the UW for an errand the next day. I needed predictability in my arrival time, so I drove and paid a buck for parking.
Posted Fri, Oct 16, 12:26 p.m. inappropriate
Well, gee wiz. My previous comment is too complicated? Too unconventional? Too radical? Challenges too many assumptions? Went completely over your heads? I was hoping it would be an Editors Pick. It's simple economics that completely disrupts the contemporary understanding of globalization.
Look at it another way: New Urbanism also prescribes multi-modal means of travel - cars/trucks, walking, bicycling, mass transit all have to function. Currently, cars/trucks dominates the other modes, and in so doing is an impediment to its own function. Globalization is an impediment to its own function when it dominates the other scales of economy. Get it? Huh? Got it? Can I summarize the situation any simpler? Too complicated? Have I offended your tender sensibilities or your pride?
Posted Sat, Oct 17, 7 a.m. inappropriate
I was at the talk, and since Geography sponsored Bruce Katz’ talk, I also attended a faculty workshop. I agree with comments that the talk was mainly a paean to the metropolitan dominance cliché. But a few healthy points snuck through, including the importance of a resurgence in making stuff (!), that is manufacturing, and the need for more overt and direct federal regulation, especially of the finance sector.
Donning my economic geography hat, I shouldn’t have to but will remind everyone that the entire US economy is utterly spatially interdependent—rural, small town and city, as well as metropolitan. Our vaunted metropolises couldn’t survive a week without the resources of the hinterland, and the fact that about 1/5 of the GDP of cities is from their trade surplus with the non-metropolitan US (Marx wrote about this exploitative relation long ago, and it is still correct).
And, sorry folks, cities and metropolitan areas are not, not, not, not “more efficient” or “more environmentally sustaining” than non-metropolitan America. Little Snoqualmie is very likely more efficient than green Seattle.
Of course metropolitan areas are the locus of much innovation, as they have been for centuries. But it is interesting that a lot of innovation and growth is occurring in the nation’s smaller metropolitan areas. It would be unjustified and foolish to put federal and state investment disproportionally into the largest places.
Katz put surprising emphasis on the need for metropolitan governance, suggesting empowering PSRC. While in earlier years I was a big proponent of metropolitan government, I admit to some hesitation, based on our record of elected leadership, and the example of area-wide authorities like Sound Transit. It seems that conservative Republicans want to dictate our morality (while often behaving the opposite), while liberal Democrats want to dictate how we live and work (the built environment and how we use it), (while still being able to retreat to their second home, and its SUV).. I’m not comfortable with either.
Posted Sat, Oct 17, 11:18 a.m. inappropriate
Interesting dialogue. This clearly is a place which cares about what it is and can become.
A couple thoughts: First, there are things we can do regionally but they cannot be separated from what is going on in the global and national economies. Katz, for example, stresses exports as an engine for regional growth. They certainly can be---but they must take place in a framework of liberalized global trade in which, as JFK put it, "a rising tide lifts all boats." That means international removal of barriers to movement of goods, capital, technology, services and people rather than reliance on subsidies (as in the Boeing model) leading to short-term export growth and, down the road, trade wars leading to reduced global commerce.
Second, there will be different strokes for different folks. I have been amazed, since my return to Seattle nearly 9 years ago, by the degree to which elected and private-sector leaders here have bought
into a hugely expensive light rail system which will move far fewer people to fewer destinations, at far greater expense, than alternative bus or bus rapid transit systems would. In some locales---with pre-existing track, without water crossings or tunneling, and with commuting patterns compatible with construction of a few fixed-point stations---light rail makes sense. Here it does not but we are investing billions in it. There is nothing magic about rail. Nationally, we would benefit from revival of inter-city rail systems. Otherwise, metro area by metro area, leaders should weigh costs and benefits of alternative transportation modes and choose those most appropriate to their situations.
Here, as in most places, metro-area cooperation and even governance can be productive. But we will be mistaken if we believe that process, in the end, will be more important than policy. Policy always overrides process. Good policy flows from wise decisions made by conscientious elected officials and a well informed, engaged electorate. Where there is no vision, the people perish, etc.
Posted Sat, Oct 17, 6:01 p.m. inappropriate
Morrill is likely right about Snoqualmie being more efficient than Seattle - dumping money into Seattle is not unlike dumping deficit funds into Wall Street bonuses - bad investments which are likely only to make the financial problems and inequities more severe.
Regionally, nationally, are markets are skewed to those who have regulatory power.
Make my peanut butter chunky, and don't tear the bread while you are spreading around. Hey, if we can add a few chocolate chips, so much the better.
Posted Tue, Oct 20, 2:30 p.m. inappropriate
Aha, I recognize some of the people leaving comments, and I must also give kudos to the author here Judy Lightfoot. She was many of my friend's favorite teacher in high school, and I'll have to point them to this article! Great to see your name again, and so glad you are writing pieces for our city's media folks. Go Lions (of yore)!!! Hope you're checking your comments...
Anyway, so I love this article, and am happy to see the two sides of our city getting recognition (the natural as well as the metropolitan) from a well-informed individual.
EXCLAIM, the marketing company I work for branded the city's CVB with "metronatural" as a way to depict the balance between these two regional strengths, so we're all very sensitive to discussions around this topic, and are still writing about it 3 years later. If your curious see EXCLAIM's blog post after the Seattle Rotary meeting two weeks ago http://the-exclaim-point.blogspot.com/2009/10/side-car.html
My take-away from this article leaves me with a question, and I want to credit Ted_Van_Dyk for leading me into it... in your opinion, which of our two mayoral candidates do you think can cover both sides of our proverbial fence? One seems metropolitan. The other natural. Both guys seem to spend all their time emphasizing one of these two camps, but we need both. What do you think?
Best,
Ian Redman
Lakeside'01