Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I read the article, and it doesn't really explain how Seattle actually diversified and Detroit did not. He mentions education, like University of Washington, but fails to recognize the educational powerhouses in Southeast Michigan.
He also compares the automotive industry in Michigan to Boeing in Washington. While I "sort of" get what he's saying, it's really apples to oranges. The automotive industry in Michigan built up into a powerhouse that dwarfed Boeing's presence in Washington. Not to mention that almost every automaker on the planet has some kind of presence in Oakland County, be it design centers, testing labs, supplier relations, engineering centers, etc.. Add on to that hundreds of thousands of workers at automotive suppliers like Lear, Magna, Johnson Controls, Delphi, Visteon, Bosch, Borg Warner, yada yada, and it's way bigger than Boeing in Washington. Plus, Boeing I believe is still struggling and is looking to lay off thousands of more people. And they moved their headquarters to Chicago about ten years ago because it was tired of the anti-business climate in the city of Seattle.
So it's not so easy to diversify away from automotive when it's so large here. If you're a tech company in Southeast Michigan, chances are you'll end up with customers who work in automotive. If you're an accounting firm, same thing. Law practice, same thing. Advertising agency, same. But I think Michigan has diversified away from automotive. In fact, the membership in the UAW in Michigan is about 1/4 of what it was just 10 years ago. But that has resulted in average earnings in Michigan going down, so people are quick to latch onto that.
Should Detroit have invested more in mass transit, as the author claims? Absolutely. But then he trails off into talking about Seattle allowing taller buildings? I'm not sure if that would have helped Detroit.
But with all of the challenges that Detroit has faced over the past 50 years, I just don't see it being even reasonable to compare Detroit and Seattle.
I read the article, and it doesn't really explain how Seattle actually diversified and Detroit did not. He mentions education, like University of Washington, but fails to recognize the educational powerhouses in Southeast Michigan.
He also compares the automotive industry in Michigan to Boeing in Washington. While I "sort of" get what he's saying, it's really apples to oranges. The automotive industry in Michigan built up into a powerhouse that dwarfed Boeing's presence in Washington. Not to mention that almost every automaker on the planet has some kind of presence in Oakland County, be it design centers, testing labs, supplier relations, engineering centers, etc.. Add on to that hundreds of thousands of workers at automotive suppliers like Lear, Magna, Johnson Controls, Delphi, Visteon, Bosch, Borg Warner, yada yada, and it's way bigger than Boeing in Washington. Plus, Boeing I believe is still struggling and is looking to lay off thousands of more people. And they moved their headquarters to Chicago about ten years ago because it was tired of the anti-business climate in the city of Seattle.
So it's not so easy to diversify away from automotive when it's so large here. If you're a tech company in Southeast Michigan, chances are you'll end up with customers who work in automotive. If you're an accounting firm, same thing. Law practice, same thing. Advertising agency, same. But I think Michigan has diversified away from automotive. In fact, the membership in the UAW in Michigan is about 1/4 of what it was just 10 years ago. But that has resulted in average earnings in Michigan going down, so people are quick to latch onto that.
Should Detroit have invested more in mass transit, as the author claims? Absolutely. But then he trails off into talking about Seattle allowing taller buildings? I'm not sure if that would have helped Detroit.
But with all of the challenges that Detroit has faced over the past 50 years, I just don't see it being even reasonable to compare Detroit and Seattle.
If Detroit's blue collar work force, in partnership with the local colleges, had maintained a better-educated workforce, Michigan manufacturing employees would have a far more robust skill set than they do. It's a lack of skill set as much as anything else that is holding back a significant percentage of the laid off workers from better-paying jobs.
The comparison of "taller buildings" only makes sense in Seattle, where there is no land to grow. Boundaries like the Puget Sound and the mountains pretty much limit significant growth to north and south; I think the author's point is that the city had to, by these restrictions, establish a more centralized downtown core, which by turn attracts people to LIVING in the downtown...a point the author neglected to make, or fully develop.
I would submit the challenges facing Seattle and Dcetroit circa 1970 were virtually identical.
Having lived in Seattle, and being new to Michigan, I'm not sure I have enough history here to make a credible argument, but a few things that must be factored in, is Weyerhaeuser, the fact that Seattle is a genetic lottery winner in the form of the Gates family, and other corporations who's local founders based their operations there, and the corporations proceeded to blow up like a huge balloon. Frankly, I'd compare Seattle to Grand Rapids, not Detroit. I'd compare Portland to Detroit, wood products were Portland's Big Three. They however are the geographic lottery winner, in that the B2B migration from bloated Seattle has been a boon to Portland's economy. As bad as things are there now, it would be 10 times worse without Portland's start ups and Mini-Microsofts....
That said, I think that looking at diversification and education is a smart step in this state. Now is the time to act. I don't ever want to see Michigan on the ropes again, and I firmly believe this can be the last time, if we learn from the past, face the challenges unflinchingly, and act.
But there was a crucial difference between Seattle and Detroit. Unlike Ford and General Motors, Boeing employed highly educated workers.
Well, not quite. The Big3 employed highly educated workers as well. And like the Big3, Boeing outsourced to foreign countries, and Airbus competes with Boeing like the foreign automakers compete with the Big3.
Maybe what he meant to say is that the city of Seattle retained highly educated workers whereas Detroit lost them to the suburbs. That would be a more accurate assesment. He could have also mentioned that Seattle does not have the racial divide that Detroit has.
Race and ethnicity: Seattle | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4981415821/ - broken link)
Race and ethnicity: Detroit | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/4982034696/ - broken link)
The lifestyle in Metro Detroit sucks as it does all over Michigan.You have no jobs,no roads,no mass transit just snow and potholes.Its so hopeless here.Metro Detroit was designed for cars great but unemployment and chinese wages cant afford them.
If Detroit's blue collar work force, in partnership with the local colleges, had maintained a better-educated workforce, Michigan manufacturing employees would have a far more robust skill set than they do. It's a lack of skill set as much as anything else that is holding back a significant percentage of the laid off workers from better-paying jobs.
The comparison of "taller buildings" only makes sense in Seattle, where there is no land to grow. Boundaries like the Puget Sound and the mountains pretty much limit significant growth to north and south; I think the author's point is that the city had to, by these restrictions, establish a more centralized downtown core, which by turn attracts people to LIVING in the downtown...a point the author neglected to make, or fully develop.
I would submit the challenges facing Seattle and Dcetroit circa 1970 were virtually identical.
I still don't think so. There are so many differences between the two, even back in 1970, that again its apples to oranges. Seattle's geography and location helped it draw a lot more people. It was those newcomers who helped transform the economy there, not any initiative taken on by the powers that be.
But I do agree that it will be a resurgence of the urban core of Detroit, not in the suburbs, that will eventually turn it around.
I haven't read the article, and quite frankly hate city-to-city comparisons. Living in Pittsburgh, and in SE Michigan, I here a lot of- "Detroit can come back like Pittsburgh". Detroit and Pittsburgh are incredibly different. Ok, they had a blue-collar work force, and!?
School District-ing, cultures (age, race, etc.) that are willing to live by someone of another color, geography and climate are the primary shapers of urban areas and suburbs. Down the line is proximity to a university, mass transit, etc.
Let's look into this- Seattle actually has successful public schools that a middle-class family would, in their right mind would send their children to. All cities have issues with living next to people of another color, especially black-white, so that is a wash. The geography is breath-taking and the coastline, lakes, hills and mountains bound and shape the city into dense neighborhoods and clusters, providing a sense of local-ness and community (like Pittsburgh). Detroit is flat and expansive. The climate is more desirable than Detroits. Mass transit attracts young people. I keep on telling people in Michigan this and everyone laughs- outside of Royal Oak and Ferndale, not too many successful and creative young people are going to want to live in the miles and miles of Detroit's current 'upper class and middle class' suburbs. Seattle's suburbs can actually be urban and offer mass transit- injecting vibrancy and 'place' into bedroom communities..
I haven't read the article, and quite frankly hate city-to-city comparisons. Living in Pittsburgh, and in SE Michigan, I here a lot of- "Detroit can come back like Pittsburgh". Detroit and Pittsburgh are incredibly different. Ok, they had a blue-collar work force, and!?
School District-ing, cultures (age, race, etc.) that are willing to live by someone of another color, geography and climate are the primary shapers of urban areas and suburbs. Down the line is proximity to a university, mass transit, etc.
Let's look into this- Seattle actually has successful public schools that a middle-class family would, in their right mind would send their children to. All cities have issues with living next to people of another color, especially black-white, so that is a wash. The geography is breath-taking and the coastline, lakes, hills and mountains bound and shape the city into dense neighborhoods and clusters, providing a sense of local-ness and community (like Pittsburgh). Detroit is flat and expansive. The climate is more desirable than Detroits. Mass transit attracts young people. I keep on telling people in Michigan this and everyone laughs- outside of Royal Oak and Ferndale, not too many successful and creative young people are going to want to live in the miles and miles of Detroit's current 'upper class and middle class' suburbs. Seattle's suburbs can actually be urban and offer mass transit- injecting vibrancy and 'place' into bedroom communities..
Seattle's schools are rather poor. Not Detroit-poor, but bad enough to warrant sending the kids elsewhere. The best schools are on the east side (Suburbs) and I pay tuition to send my granddaughter to a provate school in Seattle.
I haven't read the article, and quite frankly hate city-to-city comparisons. Living in Pittsburgh, and in SE Michigan, I here a lot of- "Detroit can come back like Pittsburgh". Detroit and Pittsburgh are incredibly different. Ok, they had a blue-collar work force, and!?
School District-ing, cultures (age, race, etc.) that are willing to live by someone of another color, geography and climate are the primary shapers of urban areas and suburbs. Down the line is proximity to a university, mass transit, etc.
Let's look into this- Seattle actually has successful public schools that a middle-class family would, in their right mind would send their children to. All cities have issues with living next to people of another color, especially black-white, so that is a wash. The geography is breath-taking and the coastline, lakes, hills and mountains bound and shape the city into dense neighborhoods and clusters, providing a sense of local-ness and community (like Pittsburgh). Detroit is flat and expansive. The climate is more desirable than Detroits. Mass transit attracts young people. I keep on telling people in Michigan this and everyone laughs- outside of Royal Oak and Ferndale, not too many successful and creative young people are going to want to live in the miles and miles of Detroit's current 'upper class and middle class' suburbs. Seattle's suburbs can actually be urban and offer mass transit- injecting vibrancy and 'place' into bedroom communities..
You're totally right. You can see it here on city-data (and I've heard it elsewhere), of people asking if they can live in CityX, Michigan without a car. It's really, really difficult to do that in Michigan. Not only the lack of good, fast mass transit, but the lack of any kind of non-motorized alternatives like bike lanes (although that is slowly being recognized and acted upon by Grand Rapids and Detroit).
I always bring this up too, but take a look at cities like Chicago, and wherever the transit lines stop (CTA, Metra, etc.), the housing markets around the stations are the most desirable and most expensive, and the fastest growing with new developments.
But then people say mass transit won't work here. Yeah, because expanding the highway system has served Michigan so well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.