Here is an excerpt from a Guardian article that was published last year (by Tim Burrows) about Grimsby, England:

In Grimsby’s 1930s heyday, fishermen used to head to Freeman Street as soon as they were off the trawler, straight to the Lincoln or the Corporation Arms to spend their bountiful earnings. A century previously, Grimsby had been a fairly sleepy fishing village, but by the 1890s it was on the way to becoming the biggest fishing port in the world. In the mid 20th-century, trawlers were bringing in 500 tonnes of fish a day.

Today, Grimsby still has a thriving indoor market (paid for by the EU and the Enrolled Freemen of Grimsby, an organisation that dates back to the 13th century), but the further north towards the docks you walk, the emptier and more dilapidated things get. A local businessman says sex workers wait around at night for lorries to take them to the deserted docks. “It’s a legacy of the old fishing days.”

There is scant legacy to be found elsewhere. After a long decline, the fishing industry died in the mid 1980s, its owners selling their trawlers to companies in Aberdeen or Japan. Unlike Hull across the river, currently basking in its year as Capital of Culture, Grimsby is the Humber city that never was.

More than 70% of people in Grimsby, England voted to leave the European Union in the 2016 "Brexit" referendum. It was one of the highest shares in the country. But with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country, that outcome is not all that surprising.

Supposedly, at its peak, there were eight onshore jobs for every one at sea in Grimsby. And like all thriving cities, there were economies of agglomeration, which resulted in things like the largest ice factory in the world. The fishing fleets needed crushed ice -- and lots of it.

The Grimsby story is, of course, not a unique one. You just have to replace fishing with some other industry. Many cities have managed to diversify their economies either out of necessity or because they saw the writing on the wall. But for others it has been a real struggle.

It's one of those things that is perhaps simple, but far from easy.

Between 2001 and 2010, Detroit lost more than 200,000 jobs. It went from over 900,000 jobs to a low of about 690,000 jobs. All of this was happening while the United States was experiencing – up until 2008 at least – an economic growth cycle.

But we all know that Detroit is now a city on the move. According to City Observatory, Detroit has exhibited 5 consecutive years of job growth. And 2016 looks to be no different. Since bottoming out, Detroit has added more than 50,000 jobs.

The above chart is based on federal data for Wayne County, Michigan. It includes Detroit, Dearborn, and Livonia, but does not include any other counties within the Detroit metro area. (The above chart and stats are all via City Observatory.)

Of course, the big question is: Has Detroit made the requisite structural changes to its economy to keep this trend line continuing or is this simply a case of a rising tide lifting all boats?

I have visited Detroit basically every two years since 2009 and you can certainly feel the change, even in that short period of time.

And if you look at total non-farm employment growth over the last year (June 2015 to June 2016) for the entire Detroit metro area, you see that some of the fastest growing industries include: professional and business services (+14,200 jobs); leisure and hospitality (+10,500 jobs); education and health services (+9,300 jobs); and financial activities (+5,500 jobs). In fact, many of these industries are growing faster than national averages.

In case you were wondering, manufacturing added 1,200 jobs and government lost 1,800 jobs.

I’ve heard some people complain that the city, at least downtown, is now too controlled by one entity (Dan Gilbert). But that’s probably what had to happen to really kickstart the city’s renaissance. Somebody had to seed it before you could get the cool coffee shops, bars, restaurants, and coworking spaces.

There’s still heavy lifting to do, but the data suggests that the city is now headed in the right direction.

What are your thoughts? Also, if any of you are working on interesting projects in Detroit, I would love to hear from you.

I love cities. We all love cities right now. 

Everyone, for good reason, seems to be fixated on both people returning to cities (like those narcissistic Millennials) and people urbanizing for the very first time. This latter scenario is happening rapidly across the developing world and in many cases – but not all cases – it is helping to lift people out of extreme poverty.

But by most measures, urban areas represent only about 2-3% of the world’s land area, despite housing over 50% of our population. So here’s an interesting thought for this morning: What is happening and what will happen with the remaining 97-98%?

In this recent talk by architect Rem Koolhaas, he attempts to dissect the future of living, loving, and working through the lens of architecture. However, he starts by saying that architecture is, in fact, too slow to properly capture the zeitgeist of any time period. It is, “an unbelievably slow art.” That said, Koolhaas has a remarkable ability to identify what is happening (see Delirious New York) and then call it out in a way that you probably haven’t thought about. 

In the above talk, he hones in on the impact of Silicon Valley – certainly the spirit of our time – on the rural landscape outside of our cities. Interestingly enough, he also talks about how the tech industry has begun to borrow terminology from architecture in order to describe itself.

Screenshot from the video:

Despite their ethereal appearance, technology giants still have large physical footprints for servers, production, logistics, and so on. But there’s no reason – or way – to accommodate them inside of our cities and so they cluster outside, in the 97-98% areas. These are places like the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Center, which is the home of Tesla’s new Gigafactory.

Because of sheer scale and because there’s no need for them to possess much in the way of humanistic qualities, these are spaces which are void of architecture, urbanism, and, in some cases, a light spectrum beyond what is absolutely necessary for the specific function of the building (discussed in the video).

Of course, the periphery has long serviced the core. But Koolhaas’ thinking has, as it often does, made me consider this phenomenon in a slightly different way. He paints a picture of a spiky world where we are all crammed into sensor and app-driven cities (the front-end), all of which are then powered by big mechanistic boxes that many of us may be naive to (the back-end). In some ways it feels like the Matrix. What we see and experience could just be the tip of the iceberg.

Architecture may be unbearably slow, but as a society we have always built what matters to us most at the time. At one point it was places of worship. But today, at least for part of our landscape, it is boxes not intended for us to really experience. Maybe that’s not really architecture. Maybe it is simply the back-end for our cities.