Urban Entrepreneurship and City Planning: Seattle’s Revitalization
It was an era of war, it was an era of peace, it was the dawn of love and hope, it was dusk of bigotry and racism. The 1960s were one of the great transition periods of American history, marked by its internal turmoil and the emergence of America as global power. By the end of the 1960s, many American cities –once bastions of heavy manufacturing for America’s recent military exploits– found themselves struggling economically as demand for manufactured goods declined or were outsourced for cheaper labor. Cities such as Detroit never really recovered from the depression and is now a husk of its former self. As the 1970s rolled in, both local and federal governments desperately attempted to stabilize the stagnating economy.
Their solution? Urban Entrepreneurialism
By investing heavily in local infrastructure and creating an attractive urban imagery, cities sought to produce conditions that will result in profitability and increased economic activity. Due to this form of urban entrepreneurialism, modern cities aim to create an economic advantage over other cities for industries to invest in their region, leading to increased growth of the city’s tax base. Seattle is a prime example of a previously manufacturing focused city that made the transition into one of the fastest growing cities for service jobs (Morrill). The capitol city of Washington state prides itself on its high quality of life, higher than average wages, well developed infrastructure, and its attractive business climate.
The pre-war Keynesian system of government, while providing basic needs and accommodations to urban cities, would only help sustain any current economic activity rather than encouraging further growth. Coupled with the economic crises of the 1970’s, cities with primarily manufacturing economies, such as Seattle, experienced massive economic stagnation, leading to urban decay and increased poverty.
As a response to such problems, neoliberal policies — supported by President Ronald Reagan and the federal government — aimed to stimulate urban economies by actively and aggressively encouraging public sector investments into infrastructure. The goal is to create “attractive urban imagery” that would entice entrepreneurs to bring business to cities and increase economic development (Harvey). Thus, cities changed gears to become “growth machines” that provided the infrastructure and policies to create business friendly atmosphere (Molotch). By attracting business and jobs, cities would solve their fiscal problems by the increased economic activity and tax base.
With the goal of urban entrepreneurialism in mind, cities would now have to utilize their local resources and advantages to compete with other cities for business investments. Traditionally, urban governments could attract industries through their proximity to natural resources, markets, and transportation. Prior to the 1970s, Seattle’s location in Puget Sound and its access to the shipping lanes in the Pacific made it the ideal city for manufacturing and shipping, hosting notable companies such as Boeing (Wessels). While these advantages were important to manufacturing industries, modern businesses are focused on service and tech industries, requiring less physical and geographical advantages than before.
In the contemporary economy, high tech businesses are replacing manufacturing as core industries for cities. Advances in technology and communications have created a new class of “brain-driven, knowledge industries [with] a high degree of locational flexibility” (Short & Kim). With this “growing pool of mobile capital”, cities must instead provide attractions for economic activity, rather than being the source of it (Short & Kim). Thus, urban governments are focused on projecting their city as “a vibrant, growing place with accessible locations, reconstructed city center, and sunny business climate” (Short & Kim). By promoting “appealing quality of life” and incentivizing a good business climates such as cheap, well-trained labor, efficient infrastructure, and innovations from local institutions, cities have transformed themselves into products to be invested in by corporations and industries (Short & Kim).
The central component of Seattle’s economic growth and success is due to its highly efficient neighborhood planning and Urban Village Strategy. Urban villages are mixed-use neighborhoods that emphasize pedestrianism and public space. To deliver goods and services to its residences and businesses, Seattle separates its urban villages into four categories: high-density urban centers, manufacturing/industrial centers, medium-density hub urban villages, and residential urban villages “aimed to provide goods and services for residents” (Planning Seattle).
By designating certain zones, Seattle can create “greater proximity of jobs to housing and efficient investment in transportation and other infrastructure” (City of Seattle). Each of these urban villages end up as self-contained communities with easy accessibility to jobs downtown or in industrial centers, cultural and historic attractions, public transit, park space, retail centers, and entertainment districts. Such an environment is highly attractive to businesses seeking high quality of life for its employees. Not only does the Urban Village strategy allow for a happy healthy workforce, but it also solves the problem of urban sprawl as “future growth is directed to [these] areas that are supported by strategic investments in facilities and services to support this growth” (City of Seattle).
In addition to optimizing urban land use, Seattle strives foster an ideal workforce by investing in local education and vocational training. As part of its Comprehensive Plan for Economic development, Seattle employs several policies to encourage organizations and educational institutions to “provide all Seattle residents opportunities for academic and professional education, training and retraining”. Seattle seeks to promote relationships between existing businesses and educational institutions to create “competency-based education and training programs … that are targeted to the needs of business” (City of Seattle). By directly training its residents to meet the needs of businesses, the City creates the conditions for a self-sustaining workforce for its existing industries and increases retention of capital within the city.
Like the University of Texas at Austin, Seattle’s University of Washington has major contributions to the city’s economic development (Morrill). Such higher education institutions are important sources of skilled and educated workers as well as providing research and development for “the establishment, retention, and expansion of high-technology industries in the city” (City of Seattle). As a sign of Seattle’s awareness of sustainable global economy, the city is committed to creating employment and training opportunities for “low income youth and adults, people of color, women, individuals with disabilities, and the homeless” as well as education in “foreign languages, geography and international affairs in order to enable people to better function in the international economy” (City of Seattle). Thus, businesses find Seattle to be a prime source of localized skilled labor with high potential for sustainable future growth and development.
Seattle provides a wide variety of entrepreneurial support programs as part of their goal to promote a positive business climate between the government, residents and businesses. The primary policies of this goal are to establish “partnerships between government and business” and creating a “common understanding of issues” related to economic growth (City of Seattle). Such a close working relationship between these entities appeals to businesses as they can coordinate with the city to achieve economic goals that benefit both parties.
A reoccurring theme in Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan involves the creation of living wage jobs that can “stimulate new economic activity, supply capital to the local economy, develop and promote advanced technology, and provide substantial public benefits and needed services”. Since April 1st, 2015, Seattle’s Minimum Wage Ordinance will gradually increase to $15 per hour, with the goal of creating disposal income that may be spent on local businesses. The City of Seattle also works to periodically analyzes and reviews the “effects of City policies” to adapt to changing market needs.
There are several similarities between Seattle and Austin’s approaches to urban entrepreneurialism and economic development. Through my correspondence with officials at Austin City Council, I’ve learn that Austin has several policies and initiatives to attract businesses to the city. Like Seattle, Austin has a heavy emphasis on quality of life and amenities for its residents. Examples of this include the myriad of park services, trails, and entertainment venues that Austin is renowned for. In 2012, Austin gave Apple over $35 million in tax incentives to set up two campuses in Austin. Most recently, Austin is bidding to be the host of Amazon’s second headquarters, matching the original headquarters in Seattle.
Seattle utilizes its competitive advantages of efficient infrastructure, local skilled workforce, and high quality of life to promote a friendly, positive business climate to attract business to the city. As Seattle lost its manufacturing edge when Boeing left in the economic crises of the 1970’s, it sought to recover by adopting neoliberal policies. Seattle’s urban entrepreneurialism is well recognized by the rest of America, consistently ranking as one of the fastest growing cities in the nation. By investing in local education systems and infrastructure, Seattle ensures its sustained economic growth into the future.
Bibliography
Alvarado, Elizabeth. “10 People You’ll See In UW’s Quad — College Magazine”. College Magazine, 2018, https://www.collegemagazine.com/10-people-youll-see-uws-quad/. Accessed 14 Apr 2018.
Brownstein, Ronald. “Can Seattle Handle Its Own Growth?”. The Atlantic, 2017. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/can-seattle-handle-its-success/546053/.
City of Seattle, “Economic Development Element” Seattle’s Comprehensive Plan, January 2005. Pp 7.1–7.10
Harvey, D. From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, 1989, Series B, Human Geography 71 (1):3–17.
“Higher Wages A Surprising Success In Seattle”. CNBC, 2018, https://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/31/higher-wages-a-surprising-success-for-seattle-restaurant.html. Accessed 14 Apr 2018.
Molotch, Harvey. “The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place.” American Journal of Sociology, vol. 82, no. 2, 1976, pp. 309–332.,
Morrill, Richard. “The Seattle Central District (CD) Over Eighty Years”, The Geographical Review, 2013, vol. 103, pg. 315–335.
Planning Seattle, “Planning Today (2000S-Present)”. History Of Urban Planning In Seattle, 2018, https://seattleplanning.weebly.com/planning-today-2000s-present.html. Accessed 2 Apr 2018.
Seattle Municipal Archives. “Aerial Of World’s Fair Grounds, 1962”. Flickr, https://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives/6715534789.
Short, J. R., and Y.-H. Kim. “The Entrepreneurial City: Geographies of Politics, Regime and Representation.” Urban Crises/Urban Representations: Selling the City in Difficult Times, eds. T. Hall and P. Hubbard 1998., 55–75. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Wessels, Anne T., “Urban Blue Space and ‘The Project of the Century’: Doing Justice on the Seattle Waterfront and for Local Residents”, Buildings, 2014, 4, pg. 764–784; doi:10.3390/buildings4040764
