From the 2012 report “America’s Metro Regions Take Center Stage” by the Citistates Group:
Collectively, metros now represent an overwhelming share (the largest 100 alone are 66 percent) of the United States’ population — and even more of its economy. They’re home to all but a few corporate headquarters and financial institutions. They’re centers of innovation, the site of most of the nation’s great universities, the 21st century’s hotbeds of innovation and talent building. Without them, the United States would be a pale shadow of its present self.
But — metros are also well described as “messy.” Regional problem-solving is usually complicated, difficult, frustrating and full of surprises. Each multi-jurisdictional issue has its own scale and scope, its own “region” — sometimes the same as, sometimes quite different from regions designated by state governments.
Regional accords don’t always come easily — they’re more often the fruit of grit and public interest vision. They’re about working through competing interests and values, dealing with disagreements but also searching out new synergies, compatible goals. An essential component: broad-minded regional leadership — political, business, university, foundation or other, that can see beyond differences to mutual gain.
The challenge requires having “all hands on deck” — each region’s metropolitan chambers of commerce, universities, lead corporations and community foundations, working collaboratively to define and then create the conditions that invite investment and prepare people with the knowledge and skills they need to participate.
This doesn’t mean that the existing issues of metropolitan region’s governance, the ties and conflicts among cities, counties, regions and states, have disappeared. But they’re not getting the headlines they once did. Hit by the economic downturn of recent years, regions across the United States have placed priority, more than ever, on the bottom line — developing industries, creating jobs, fighting off decline. And in one sense regions should be well-positioned because they’re more coherent as economic entities than either their entire states or their individual cities or suburbs.
Economic competitiveness has emerged as a great unifier for regions, a rallying point for individuals with different political affiliations and groups with different agendas.
Collaboration is the key, but leadership remains critical.
