Part X is here, the final part, the one post to explain it all: How did Pittsburgh reinvent itself?
I've already answered that question in large part. Pittsburgh didn't reinvent itself at all. Reinvention has happened. The difference between those two statements is important, and that difference is the theme that I want to touch on here and use to close this series. "Pittsburgh," if that name means "the government, business, and educational leaders of the city and region," didn't decide upon and execute a strategy of economic diversification and real estate development. Some cities are born to diversification; some cities have diversification thrust upon them. Pittsburgh is one of the latter.
The people of Pittsburgh, over a long period of time and in fits and starts involving people who were already here, people who moved in, and people who have since moved on, invested time and money in things that they were and are passionate about. Some of that is scientific and technological research; some it is the arts; some of it is starting and growing businesses; some of it is building institutions; some of it is building buildings; some of it is nurturing communities and families. Some of it is an intense desire to get rich; some of it is an intense desire to give back. That collective energy is no longer tethered to the fact or the mythos of the steel industry. The literal tethers largely disappeared by the mid-1980s. The metaphorical and emotional tethers have been fraying for some time. That collective energy is now tethered instead to the idea of a new Pittsburgh, built on the foundations of the old Pittsburgh. Revitalization is bottom up, not top down.
As usual, I have more help than I need in making this case from writers who are paid to serve up at least bits and pieces of the big picture. The Post Gazette recently pointed out the transformative impact on Pittsburgh's economy of women entering the workforce in large numbers. That's a classic piece of bottom-up data, and the overall impact of the development is undeniable yet undeniably incremental. It is no surprise that the recent Wall Street Journal gloom-and-doom perspective on Pittsburgh simply does not account for the phenomenon; the change in the demographics of the local workforce is something that happened while a lot of armchair commentators weren't looking.
As important as the raw number of women in the workforce is something that's missing from the PG story but in greater evidence today than ever before: The number of women in leadership positions around the region, in government and especially in business and in not-for-profits. I don't think that it's a coincidence that Pittsburgh's recent flourishing has been accompanied by a very visible diversification in the offices of the CEO, president, and executive director. More women in leadership positions mean that fewer histories are keeping talented people from bringing their skills to the public table. That's a good thing.
The other piece of essential evidence here is Pittsburgh's start-up and entrepreneurial economy, which often focuses on high tech ventures and which is starting to mature, at long last. When CM's Luis von Ahn sold his company to Google the other day, there was a distinct lack of "rats! there goes another future savior of Pittsburgh" crying in local boosters' beer. That's progress, whether or not Google takes the technology to California. (I have no idea what will happen, but my guess is that Google bought the company in part to keep it here.)
The poster child cited most often as the engine behind the gradual emergence of Pittsburgh's start-up scene is Innovation Works, the state-supported early investment fund and business mentoring organization. The Economist, for example, called out IW for its role in Pittsburgh's economic resurgence. IW, though, is a great example of the wrestling between top-down and bottom-up when it comes to Pittsburgh's future.
As welcome as IW's success in recent years has been, and as welcome as contributions from the many other economic development organizations often are, it's important not to overstate either their role in getting the region to this point or, more important, their roles going forward. If Pittsburgh's entrepreneurial / high-tech community is going to have real traction, if it is going to scale, then IW and its counterparts either should become comparatively unimportant, or they should find new missions, or both. What Pittsburgh should want, and what Pittsburgh needs for its nascent "revitalization" to take hold and grow on its own, is for the entrepreneurial economy to become self-sustaining: ideas, entrepreneurs, and capital find each other without federal, state, or local government-sponsorship. This doesn't happen by magic; it takes work, and folks in Pittsburgh who want to see this happen need to build -- and in some cases, are starting to build -- the infrastructure that will support it. The entrepreneurship community needs to become more authentically bottom-up, and less supported from the top down.
Read more at Pittsblog.
[Part I is here] [Part II is here] [Part III is here] [Part IV is here] [Part V is here] [Part VI is here] [Part VII is here] [Part VIII is here] [Part IX is here] [Part X is here]
