In The New Geography, writer Joel Kotkin examines a number of different ways in which major (or once major) cities have been affected by the shift from the industrial age to the information age. Perhaps the most interesting analysis he makes is of those cities, whether former mercantile or manufacturing centers, that have reinvented themselves as smaller, boutique “hubs” within larger, thriving regions of new industries.

It’s that regional aspect that should catch your attention—and that might hold a key to the revitalization of Northeast Ohio cities like Cleveland, Akron, Canton and Youngstown.

Youngstown has already been getting a lot of press over its attempts to adapt to being a smaller city. But as Kotkin points out, it takes more than just being small to be a boutique:

“Cities are becoming highly specialized places almost totally dependent on the information industries, high-end services, and tourism. The most successful of these are typically smaller, attractive, single-friendly, largely deindustrialized cities…

“These cities long ago developed a strong white-collar orientation and boast among the highest percentages of college graduates among American metropolitan areas. As a result, the recent shift to the high-technology and information industries has disproportionately aided these regions, and they boast among the highest concentrations of technology-oriented companies in the country.”

What’s most interesting about Kotkin’s observations is the cities he points to as examples, cities like Boston, Denver, Seattle, and San Francisco, none of which are the true center of the economic revitalization from which they have benefited. Instead, they have become the boutiques within a regional economy. As Kotkin continues:

“Although most of this growth has taken place in the periphery of the burgeoning technology regions—such as Redmond, Route 128, the Colorado front range, and Silicon Valley—the boutiques thrive by providing financial and other luxury services as well as restaurants, art galleries, and other entertainments for the well-heeled technological elite. This helped the central cores of San Francisco and other boutiques, such as Boston, Denver, and Seattle, to thrive in the 1990s…

“Arguably the most complete adoption to the boutique model can be found in San Francisco. Once the unquestioned center of the Bay Area economy, San Francisco now simply represents one node, and arguably not the most important, within a series scattered throughout the region. [emphasis mine]

“In the 70’s, San Francisco was the largest employer in its region. By the 90’s, while San Francisco retained roughly the same number of jobs as it had 20 years before, it was now San Jose, in the heart of the Valley, that was the largest city, “and by 1998, roughly half the Bay Area’s 500 largest public companies were located in Santa Clara County, more than five times the number for San Francisco.” Kotkin goes on to quote economist Lynn Sedway, who trenchantly observed while watching the growth that occurred all around the core city that “everyone realized that San Francisco had to become a subsidiary of Silicon Valley. There’s really no choice if we want to grow.”

Words worth bearing in mind as we pursue the economic development of our region. The branding of the city still dominates–it is far easier to picture San Francisco in your mind than it is to picture Silicon Valley–but the two are parts of a whole that work together well, each playing its own unique role.