NY Times' Economix: We're Smart, and We're Growing

Our fair city is still small enough that it's exciting when we get a mention in the New York Times. It's especially exciting when our history is dissected into what's basically a glowing review of our priorities and way of life.

Citing our census data, Harvard economics professor Edward L. Glaeser examines why we're one of the few, non-sunny cities experiencing significant population growth -- and why we haven't experienced the same fate as cities with similar early growth patterns, especially Detroit. The bottom line? We're growing because we're smart.

Both Seattle and Detroit, partially due to their plentiful lumber, experienced a boom during World War I due to their ship and car manufacturing, respectively. This also aided early airplane construction. But as Glaeser points out, having an entire city carried by one or two companies -- Boeing, Ford, General Motors -- is not good for the long-term in a growing, changing city. This led to a decline in both Detroit and Seattle. But Seattle snapped out of it:

Unlike Ford and General Motors, Boeing employed highly educated workers. Almost since its inception, Seattle has been committed to education and has benefited from the University of Washington, which is based there. Skills are the source of Seattle’s strength.

During our Boeing growth, the company valued skilled workers, and the city made education a priority. The presence of University of Washington, Gaesler says, was also an asset. We recruited smart people, and we educated our future generations. This made Seattle a skilled labor, and educated workforce, magnet -- hence Amazon, Nordstrom’s, Starbucks, and, of course, Microsoft. "[G]lobalization and technological change have increased the returns on being smart, and humans get smart by being around other smart people," he explains. "Dense, smart cities like Seattle succeed by attracting smart people who educate and employ one another."

That density, he says, is another reason for our success by "enabl[ing] ideas to flow freely" while "maintain[ing] a relatively high level of public transportation use and a relatively low level of carbon emissions."

"Skilled, tall cities" like ours, he says, emphasize the "creation of knowledge," and ideas created in cities like ours "are likely to be the economic mainstay of America in the next century."

Obviously, there are lessons here: Hold onto our college and university funding for dear life. Make public transportation -- it's ability to navigate, pay for itself and gain ridership -- a priority. Keep building up, not out. The return of some of these investments, especially public transportation, will become more obvious in the long-term.