Does Seattle know how to grow?
You’d think so, with all those construction cranes back and so many mega-projects underway. We’re about to get expanded light rail, a new waterfront, a massive downtown tunnel, a super-sized 520 bridge, and a Mercer Mess that has been tidied up after 50 years of complaining. Growth would seem to be the least of our problems.
But there are some who think these endeavors are not enough. We could do more, do it bigger, do it better and, they believe, we had better get to it because we’re facing big economic challenges. Boeing, for example, has become a constant worry. The company is doing a slow retreat from Puget Sound, and keeping key parts of Boeing's work here is getting increasingly expensive for taxpayers. Some $9 billion in new tax breaks have been offered to keep 777X work here. Even so, without a major transportation package and with major union concessions just voted down, Boeing is looking for a better deal elsewhere.
Another foundation of our economy is showing signs of change, and age. Microsoft has reached maturity and experienced enough marketplace failures (Vista, Zune, Surface) that a major management shift is underway. We’ve grown accustomed to Redmond being a perennial powerhouse and millionaire-generator in the Gates-Ballmer era, but will that roll continue?
Seattle sees itself as a special incubator of the next big commercial success — and the new Bezos family-funded “Center for Innovation” at the Museum of History and Industry that opened this fall is a shrine to this self-image. We’ve scored with Starbucks, Nordstrom, Costco and Amazon, for example. But in the tech sector there’s some thought that we haven’t reached our silicon potential, that we're over-due for a new major success a la Google or Facebook.
Sure, we’re a pretty good place for start-ups, but Seattle tech booster Chris DeVore recently wrote that while Seattle is pretty good at launching companies, “It’s been a long time since a new Seattle-based company produced a huge windfall.” He means a company, like Microsoft or Amazon, that lifted employees and investors by generating lots of wealth. “If I had to put my finger on the one thing we could do to improve our weak ‘startup rate,’ it would be to produce more explosive wins in Seattle…” he wrote. That would benefit start-ups and companies all up and down the food chain and generate money to invest in new ventures. Apparently, the tech sector needs a new blockbuster.
Another voice encouraging Seattle and Washington to take it to the next level is Microsoft executive vice president and general counsel Brad Smith. In October, he addressed the Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce’s annual Leadership Conference, an appropriate place for business leaders to inspire the team with a growth-oriented Gipper speech. I also had a chance to talk with him afterwards. In his speech, he said “[I]f there is a moment in time when we can come together and focus on raising our ambition, I think that moment is now.” With the state recovering economically, with greater global competition ahead (China, Brazil, South Carolina…), and with so much potential here, we need to get going, and set our sights higher.
To that end, his Gipper — or maybe "Skipper" — speech cited a nautical example. It was inspirational achievement of the University of Washington rowing crew who beat the odds to win a gold medal in 1936. These were local boys who had to raise their own money during the Depression to go to Germany, who had to race under rules that favored Hitler’s rowing team, and who took on the task of making America proud at the Nazi’s infamous Olympic Games. “It’s a reminder of what nine young men from humble background could achieve when they reached beyond themselves and worked as a team,” he said.
In this era of city-states competing globally, of a national government tackling less and local governments having to fill the gaps, the pressure is on us to find a way forward. Can we perform in the global marketplace like the heroes of Montlake?
Smith’s vision involves attracting more Fortune 500 companies to the region — we have too few Nintendos, he told me. We could, for example, focus on attracting more major companies from Asia, and we must do a better job of retaining successful companies, which can move, fail big or morph (think Boeing, WaMu and McCaw). He also says we need to up our game in education. Each year we produce 6,500 too few college graduates to meet local demand. That’s roughly equivalent to an entire University of Washington senior class. We need to take more advantage of our increasing diversity and our proximity to Asia, becoming a modern gateway where East and West can combine in economically powerful ways.
The Pacific orientation isn’t a new vision. Our connections to Asia and the Pacific and their potential have been a recognized opportunity since the days of the fur trade and Thomas Jefferson. But Smith worries that we're too distracted by “big” projects that don’t take us far enough. The re-do of the SR-520 floating bridge, for example, is still only partially funded and slowed by problems. Expensive and big though it might be, and as much as Smith and Microsoft pushed for it, it isn’t a game-changer in the way the Lake Washington ship canal was when it was built a century ago, an example Smith evoked in his talk. That link connected the resource economy (coal, timber, iron ore) with the Pacific, opened markets, put Seattle on the map as a major maritime center and boosted industrial capacity. It was an ambitious, transformative project.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!