A pointed exchange between Cleveland’s mayor and a guest columnist set off a wider debate over how U.S. cities should learn from each other as they rebuild downtowns, grow jobs, and tackle housing costs. The conversation began when a tech publication warned Seattle not to repeat mistakes seen in Ohio’s largest lakefront city. Cleveland’s leader pushed back, arguing that the two cities share more common ground than the headline suggested.
Cleveland’s mayor responded to a GeekWire guest column warning Seattle not to repeat the Ohio city’s mistakes — but the two sides may have more in common than the headline suggests.
The dispute highlights a larger question facing many metros: what lessons travel well from one city to another, and what ideas fail when local facts differ? The answer has consequences for budgets, transit plans, and how workers return to offices. It also affects how cities support startups and attract investment in a slower economy.
What Sparked The Exchange
The flashpoint was a guest column that framed Cleveland as a cautionary tale for Seattle. It suggested that choices on economic development and downtown management had weakened Cleveland’s recovery. Cleveland’s mayor countered that the comparison missed key context. He argued that both cities face similar pressures, from office vacancies to changing commuting patterns, and should trade solutions, not barbs.
He pointed to shared goals: safer streets, more housing near jobs, and stronger neighborhood businesses. He also argued that labels like “success” and “failure” hide the day-to-day work of keeping city services running while adapting to new realities.
Shared Challenges, Different Starting Points
Seattle entered the pandemic with a large tech sector and fast-rising housing costs. Cleveland faced a slower-growing economy but lower rents and home prices. Both saw office use fall and retail struggle downtown. Both are seeking to convert empty offices to housing, speed up permits, and fill storefronts with services that draw regular foot traffic.
- Reactivating downtowns with more housing and arts venues
- Upgrading transit to connect workers to job centers
- Supporting small businesses with grants and technical help
- Reassessing tax incentives and accountability for outcomes
The argument over “what not to do” masks a bigger task: aligning incentives so public money buys public results. That includes setting clear targets for job creation, wage growth, and neighborhood impact, and reporting progress in plain language.
Economic Development Under Review
City leaders across the country are rethinking how they measure success. Instead of only counting total projects or square feet, they are asking whether new jobs are accessible to local residents and whether projects diversify the economy. In that shift, Cleveland and Seattle may agree more than they disagree.
Advocates for the cautionary view warn against large, open-ended subsidies tied to uncertain returns. Supporters of a more collaborative stance say targeted incentives tied to performance can still work, especially for conversions, life sciences labs, and industrial reuse where financing gaps are real.
Public Safety, Perception, And The Downtown Experience
Both cities face the perception challenge: visitors judge downtown health by what they see on sidewalks and transit stops. The mayor’s response emphasized balanced strategies—visible outreach teams, cleaner streets, reliable transit, and crowd-drawing events—to build everyday confidence. Business groups in both cities have pushed for quicker responses to quality-of-life issues, while social-service providers call for sustained investment in treatment and housing.
Experience elsewhere suggests the most durable gains come from routine programming. Farmers markets, pop-up retail, youth sports, and night markets can restore foot traffic faster than one-off festivals. Those efforts often depend on tight coordination between city halls, improvement districts, and arts groups.
Housing Affordability And Office Conversions
Seattle’s pressure point is high housing costs near job centers. Cleveland’s challenge is different: renovating aging buildings and adding homes at rents that support upkeep. Both are testing office-to-residential conversions, but financing remains tough when construction costs rise and lending conditions tighten.
Policy analysts say conversions succeed when cities reduce red tape, adjust zoning for mixed-use, and streamline code compliance for older structures without weakening safety. Clear rules and predictable timelines help lenders price risk and keep projects moving.
What To Watch Next
The exchange matters less for who “won” the argument and more for what ideas get tested next. Cities will likely track:
- Whether new incentive policies link public dollars to measurable results
- How quickly permitting timelines fall for infill and conversions
- Improvements in transit reliability and street safety
- Growth in small-business openings and survival rates
If Cleveland and Seattle compare notes on these steps, they may find common cause. The guest column offered a warning. The mayor’s response invited a conversation. Both point to a simple idea: cities learn faster when they share what works, admit what does not, and adjust in public.
For readers, the takeaway is clear. Watch the metrics that matter—housing completions, job access, safer commutes, and active streets. Progress will show up there first.
