Branding Cascadia: Considering Cascadia’s Conflicting ... · places in crisis – corporate...

CanadianPoliticalScienceReviewVol2(2)June2008

BrandingCascadia(57‐83) 57

BrandingCascadia:ConsideringCascadia’sConflictingConceptualizations‐WhoGetsToDecide?

PatrickJ.Smith(SimonFraserUniversity)1

Abstract

Thisarticleexaminesthenotionofbranding–orplacemarketing‐throughtheexperience of Cascadia – the transborder region of Pacific NorthWest NorthAmerica.ItassessestheCascadiacity‐region‘brand’inthecontextofcompetingdefinitions about the cross‐border region, asking whether a multiplicity ofconceptualizations is a definitional disadvantageor strength. It concludes thattheurbanconception is themost sustainable ‘brand’,andone inkeepingwiththeinitialbrandingofCascadiaaroundecologicalimagery.Itexaminessomeofthecooperative–andoccasionally conflictual–activity in theCascadia regionand concludeswith lessons for city regions – particularly thosewhich are not‘top‐ tiered’ in world city terms – from this Mainstreet Cascadia experience,noting that seven ‘globalist’ characteristics stand out as ‘best strategies’ forrebrandinglocal‐globalrelationsintermsotherthan‘globalized.

Introduction:The‘Branding’Approach

Thisarticleexploresthenotionofbranding–orwhatGert‐JanHosperscalls“placemarketing”–inthiscasearoundconceptualizationsofsub‐national/globalcityregions.1It looksatthisideaofbrandingas“imaginedspace”oragreedidentityinthecontextofCascadia–aregioninthePacificNorthwestofNorthAmerica,whichhasamultiplicityofdefinitionalformsorbrands. Itquestionswhetheradegreeofdefinitionalclarityorbranding ispotentiallyadvantageousandwhether this would lead to an argument for more conceptual clarity or agreement for theCascadia region. If so, then the city‐regionaldefinitionorbrandingofCascadia isperhaps themostsustainable/advantageous.Giventhatidea,anassessmentoftheinstitutionalandpolicydeterminants of such an emerging bi‐national, subnational, international global city‐region isposed; and some lessons for any city‐region contemplating ‘going global’ or ‘globalist’ aresuggested.

Amongst the earliest of proponents of ‘place branding’ are Philip Kotler, Donald Haider andIrvingRein ‐ inMarketingPlaces:Attracting Investment, IndustryandTourismtoCities,StatesandNation(1993),andJohnGoldandStephenWard–inPlacePromotion:TheUseofPublicityandMarketingToSellTownsandRegions(1994).Kotlerandcolleaguesprovideda“howto”for

1 Patrick J. Smith, Institute for Governance Studies and Department of Political Science, Simon FraserUniversity,Burnaby,[email protected]



whattheyterm“placeauditing”and“strategicmarketplanning”.2 GoldandWardfocusedon“place image” at various scales and contexts – from festivals and fairs to industrial towns,suburbsandcities,thentonotionssuchas“thecountryside”or“theAmericanWest”andfinallyto a national scale: on Eastern Europe and China.3 Their emphasis throughoutwas on “placepromotion”, starting with creating “a vocabulary” and “grammar” of place promotion usingcommunicationstheory.

The ‘branding approach’ emerged out of the marketing, management, public relations andindustrial location/promotion fields. This early marketing work morphed into creating new‘brands’ for commercialproducts, andbroadened to include crossborder regions suchas theCopenhagen‐centredOresundRegion.4 It also came to cover tourismpromotion,5 and even –outoftheexperienceslikeUnionCarbideexperienceofBhopal,India1984disasterandsimilarplacesincrisis–corporatelessonsincrisismanagementandplacesincrisisbranding.6

By themid 00’s of the 21st century’s first decade, thebrandingnotionhadproduced its ownacademicjournal,7aswellas‘review’articlessuchas“PlaceBranding:AReviewofTrendsandConceptual Models”, The Marketing Review(2005).8 The journal Place Branding and PublicDiplomacydescribesitselfas“thefirsttoconcentrateonthepracticeofapplyingbrandstrategyand othermarketing techniques and disciplines to the economic, social, political and culturaldevelopmentofcities,regionsandcountries.”PerhapsnowherearetheselessonsmoreclearlyappliedthanintheEU’s“Oresund”region.

Before that comparative case,however,briefly, in this article, thenotionofplacebranding isapplied (i) comparatively through the Oresund EU cross‐border region case; (ii) in anexaminationofwhatarecompetingdefinitionsorbrandsoftheCascadiaregion;and,finally,(iii)with an argumentmade for thebenefits of branding consistency via theMainstreet Cascadiaurban‐city region sustainability brand. Conclusions include the idea that while branding isgenerallyaneconomicproject,itispossibletodevelopregionalself‐definitionalongother–inthiscaseenvironmentalandsustainability‐lines.

BrandingtheOresundRegion:ComparativeLessonsforCascadia?

The Oresund experience is perhaps the most relevant example of a fairly single‐mindedbranding of “an imagined space”; this North European example offers useful comparativelessons on cross‐border regional institution‐building for other such territories – like Cascadia.The Oresund region (Map 1) links parts of Denmark (Zealand/Copenhagen) and southernSweden(Scania/Malmo‐Lund)intheEU.Itis20,859sq.kms,halfthesizeofSwitzerland.9

Oresund comparison suggests, competing conceptions or brandings of a region can affectprocessesofinstitutionalization,agendasettinganddevelopingregionalpolicy‐makingcapacity.Thiswas something that the creatorsofOresund sought toavoid. Initial research conclusionsherearethatsometerritorialdefinitionsofCascadiamattermorethanothersanddefinitionalcoherencemayhaveanimpactonglobal‘niche‐ing’.Simplyput,brandingmatters–sowhogetstodecideisnotwithoutconsequence.



Figure1–OresundRegion

As the

IntheOresundcase,whenlocalinterestsbegantocontemplatewaystodevelopmoreregionalcooperationandestablishaclearernichebrandfortheirregioninbothEuropeanandbroaderglobalterms,theyconfrontedseveralobviousobstacles:

economic obstacles: little pre‐existing interdependence in the Danish and Swedish economies existedbeforeregionalentrepreneursandlocalelitesstartedtodiscusslinksandcooperationaswellaswaystodevelopaglobalniche.

geographicobstacles:littleinfrastructuretofacilitateextensiveregionalinteraction‐andamajorbodyofwater‐theOresund‐stoodbetweentheZealandandScaniaareas.

politicalobstacles:thisinitiallyincludedthejurisdictionalfactthatSwedenwasnotamemberoftheEUwhileDenmarkwas.

definitionalobstacles:howtodefineorbrandanewregionintermsthatplaceditwellinEuropeanandworldstandingswasanimportantinitialconsiderationforthelocaleliteswhoundertookthisproject..

ThemajorpoliticalobstaclewasovercomewithSweden’sentry intotheEU.ThatEUumbrellahasallowedformoresignificantcross‐borderrethinkingthanNAFTAhasforCascadians.



In Oresund, the geographic obstacles were overcome next with major investment ininfrastructure improvements. Here two stand out: (1) the mega‐project construction of theOresund Bridge ‐ a $3.5billion CDN, 16km bridge/tunnel to link “the first cross‐nationalintegratedlarge‐cityregionoutsidetheEuropeancentre.”10(2)another$25billionCDNinotherarea improvements ‐ mostly on air/rail/transit/road/bridge transportation improvements(including another new fixed link with Scandinavia and the European continent) and a newairportanduniversity.11

The economic obstacles were grounded in two sub‐regional economies with relatively littleinteraction.ForMatthiessenandcolleagues,theshiftcentredon“transformationsfrompoliticsto economics, from welfare orientation to market orientation, and from spatial equalizationpolicy to a focus on metropolitan competition.”12 In population size, the Zealand region ofDenmark, includingCopenhagenwasabout1.8million; theMalmo‐Lundarea inScania,SouthSwedenhasjust3/4million‐athentotalofabout2.5million,justslightlylargerthanGreaterVancouverandmetropolitanPortlandbutsmallerthanGreaterSeattle.InEuropeanpopulationtables, the combined Oresund urban agglomeration was only 27th in Top 30 rankings ‐ wellbehind Moscow (12 million), Dortmund/Dusseldorf/Cologne (10.8 million), Paris (9.6 million)and London (9.6million). [Oresund’s current population is 3.6million.]13 Individually, neitherCopenhagen norMalmo‐Lundmade the top 30. Thus a strategic decision by the local elitesworking on this rebranding was made to develop more commonalities and synergieseconomically.

That led to a search to overcome what Oresund advocates saw as definitional obstacles: aconsciouseffortwasmade tomake sure conceptualduckswereall linedup inone row–or,simply put, to establish a single Oresund brand. To do so, Oresund proponents examined aseriesofcomparativeEuropeanstandinglists.Thatincludedpopulation‐wherethenewregionranked near the bottom of a top 30 Euro‐list; then top 30 Urban Agglomeration “GrossAgglomerationProduct” (GAP);hereOresundmovedup to11th ‐betweenRomeandMadrid(above) and Stuttgart and Brussels‐Antwerp (below). Oresund’s GAP was $77billion USD.Dortmund‐Dusseldorf‐Cologne, Paris and London were all (in mid 1990’s figures, when theprojectwasearly indevelopment) above$200billionUSD,with theDortmund region close to$300billionUSD. Copenhagenby itselfwouldhavebeen ranked19th in theEU;Malmo‐Lundwouldnothavemadethetop30list.14

Seeking comparative advantage by definitional certainty, other lists were consulted, such asInternational Air Traffic: on this Top 30 Euro list, London, Paris, Frankfurt and Amsterdamregionsrankedasthetop4.Oresundlandedat#9‐withvirtuallyall(96.4%)oftheirnumbersbasedonCopenhagenair traffic.15 Furtherurbanization lists considered included rankingsbyfirms,jobs,infrastructure,finance,culture,meetings,themedia,etc.Combiningmanyofthese,Copenhagen fell into a fourth class set. The one area ‐ given a heavy concentration ofuniversity/research facilities in Copenhagen and Lund ‐ where the Oresund Region came outwellwasasaresearchcentre:ThecombinedOresundresearchoutput‐measuredbyacademicresearchoutput‐placedOresundas5thinEurope’s‘top30’,behindLondon,Paris,MoscowandAmsterdam‐Hague‐Rotterdam‐Utrecht.16 Perhaps, not surprisingly, this research emphasis –particularly research with a medical‐pharmaceutical focus and IT ‐ became the majorcomponentof thenewOresundbrand.With thatdetermined, all other aspectsof the regionwerebroughtintolinewiththisbranding‐onregionalculture,forexample.17



There is one other aspect ‐ size ‐ which raises a question about the variety of definitions ofCascadia. The Oresund region now contains approximately 3.6 million people. The Oresundconurbationlieswithin50kmsofCopenhagenairport;andthedistancebetweenCopenhagenandthemainurbanareasofScaniaisonly18kms.18 Asoneproponentofbuildingthisregionsuggested, the bridgewasmore important symbolically that in reality, but itwould not havebeenbuiltwithoutagreementonwhatthenewregionwastobe.19GreaterSeattle’sgeographicsize is 217 sq. kms; Greater Vancouver itself is just under 3000 sq. kms. Perhaps, moreimportantly, therewas no counter‐definitionwhich challenged this central conception of theOresundregionasoneoftheEU’smajorresearchcentres.SomeofthedefinitionsofCascadia‐fromAlaskatotheCaliforniabordercoverthousandsofsq.kilometers. Evensmalldefinitionssuch as the Georgia Basin/Puget Sound andMainstreet Cascadia take 8+ hours ofmotorwaydrivingtocross.TheseCascadiadefinitionsarenotonlybasedondifferentjurisdictions,butalsohaveincludedoneswhichbeganwithdifferentfoci‐fromenvironmentaltoeconomic.

The Oresund is just one EU global region. The range of such entities varies considerably.However, what the Oresund case suggests is that definitional clarity helps with institutionbuilding. Oresund University is one example of what definitional clarity can produce: with120,000+ students, this virtual university is made up of the major post secondary researchcentresinOresund‐makingitthelargestuniversityintheEU.20

Tosustainitself,theregionalinitiativeknownasCascadiaseemstohavelesscertaintyaboutthepotential value of definitional integrity and clear branding: entities such as the PacificNorthwest Economic Region (PNWER) began with an economic conception of a rather largeCascadia region [5 states, 2 (now‐ as of July, 2008, 3) provinces and one territory]; otherdefinitions such as theGeorgiaBasin Initiative (GBI) aremuch smaller (a small part of BritishColumbiaandWashingtonstate)haveespousedanenvironmentalfocus.Globalregion‐buildingsuccessesmaydependmoreondevelopingeitherbroaderglobalistpolicystancesornarrowerniche’s suchasOresund. In either case, as thebranding literature attests, definitional clarityandidentityhasitsbenefits.

Cascadia’sCompetingBrands

InfewplacesinNorthAmericaissubnational,binational,internationalactivitybeingplayedoutmore fully than in the Canadian‐American West/Pacific NorthWest ‐ Cascadia – region; thiscross‐borderactivityisbeingplayedoutateveryjurisdictionallevel,andinbothgovernmentalandnongovernmentalsettings. IntermsofunderstandingthebrandingofCascadia,thisraisesseveralquestions:

What are thedeterminants of such subnational international activity inNorthAmerica’sWest/PacificNorthWest/Cascadia?

Who is responsible for particular brandings of Cascadia? What interests aremostcentralinCascadiabranding/re‐branding?

Are multiple brandings of the Cascadia region an advantage ordisadvantageous?



Whataresomeofthelessonsfromtheliteratureonplacebranding–andfromthe experiences of other branded sub‐national/bi‐national regions (e.g.,OresundintheE.U.‐forthinkingabouttheCascadiabrand?

Might amore convergent brand –such as exemplified by the emerging,moreurban‐focussedcity‐region,generallyreferredtoasMainstreetCascadiaofferaclearbrand–onewithsignificanthistoricalroots?

Before that analysis, however, a review of definitional differences of the territory calledCascadia‐includingtheCascadia‘brand’‐isuseful.

Cascadia’s“foundingbrand”:AnEcologicalRegion

The initial notion of Cascadia emerged in the 1970’s and 1980’s. It was environmentally‐conceived and referred to that portion of Pacific NorthWest North America between theCascadeMountains and the Pacific Ocean; its initial namewas taken from thewaterswhich‘cascaded’downfromtheCascademountainrangetotheocean.ThisinitialecologicalbrandingwasintroducedandpopularizedbyDavidMcCloskey,andbyJoelGarreau.

DavidMcCloskey, a Seattle University Sociologist, coined the initial term Cascadia in the late1970’s/early 1980’s. According to McCloskey, this “initial’ Cascadia included parts of sevenjurisdictions (Northern California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Western Montana, BritishColumbiaandSouthEastAlaska),runninginthenorthfromthetopoftheAlaskapanhandletoCapeMendicino,Californiainthesouth–andcoveringallthelandand“fallingwaters”fromthecontinentaldivideattheRockyMountainstothePacificOcean.[Map2]McCloskey,founderoftheCascadia Instituteandco‐chairofSeattleUniversity’sNewEcologicalStudiesProgramsawthisCascadiabrandassomethingwhichtranscendspolitical–evengeographic–definitions;itismoreanideologicalnotionwiththeenvironmentatitscentre.21

Figure2–TheCascadiaRegion

MapdesignedbyDavidMcCloskeyoftheCascadiaInstitute



Whileotherconceptionsfollowed,thisfirst‘enviro‐branding’hashadsignificantstayingpowerthanks to being followed shortly after McCloskey by Joel Garreau’s Nine Nations of NorthAmerica(1981):Garreau’sEcotopia[oneoftheNineNationsofNorthAmerica,1981]:includedthePacificNorthwestcoastwestoftheCascadeRangestretchingfromsouthernAlaska inthenorth to coastal areas of British Columbia, down throughWashington state,Oregon and intoCalifornia justnorthofSantaBarbara. Its capital isSanFrancisco, its symbol ‘the tree’and itskeyword‘water’.[SeeMap3].AccordingtoGarreau,Ecotopiaisalandofindividualismandtheenvironment.22ForGarreau,thesenine‘nations’replacedexistingboundariesinNorthAmerica,“eachwithitsowneconomic,politicalandculturalcharacteristics.”23

Figure3‐Ecotopia[andtheother8‘nationsofNorthAmerica]

BothMcCloskeyandGarreau’sworkdrewonearlierconceptionsofNorthAmerica’stemperatewest. These include Berkeley‐based University of California Press editor Ernest Callenbach’sEcotopia novel (1975) and a subsequent prequel Ecotopia Emerging (1981) – both novels



reflecting theenvironmentalemphasiswhichhadgripped theCascadia/Ecotopia region in the1960’sand1970’s.Callenbach’sEcotopiawasofasecededWashington,OregonandNorthernCalifornia–aportraitofafuture,ecologicallysustainablesociety.24Nowherewasthisregionalemerging environmentalism better reflected than in the Berkeley, California‐based PortolaInstitute’sseriesoftheWholeEarthCatalog.Begunin1968withTheLastWholeEarthCatalog:Access to Tools published in 197125 ‐ the intent of the bookswas to allow “the individual toconducthisowneducation,findhisowninspiration,shapehisownenvironment,andsharehisadventurewithwhoever is interested.ToolsthataidthisprocessaresoughtandpromotedbytheWholeEarthCatalog.”26

Other works, such as Raymond Gastil’s Cultural Regions of the United States, offered earlyreflection on similar themes for the region.27 Thesewere followed by a cluster of later andongoingworksonregionaliterationssuchastheNorthwest(music)“sound”28,“cuisine”29,and“architecture”30

Cascadia’sCounter‐Branding:AnEconomicRegion

If Cascadia’s foundingbrandwas environmental, by the late 1980’s/early 1990’s, therewas amuch more conscious effort to re‐brand the region. The emphasis of this re‐branding waspredominatelyeconomic.ThemostsignificantoftheseeffortswasinthecreationofthePacificNorthWest Economic Region (PNWER). Formally established by the seven jurisdictions ofWashington, Oregon, Idaho,Montana and Alaska, plus British Columbia and Alberta, in 1991(Yukon joined in 1994‐and Saskatchewan in 2008), the organization was first posed by AlanBleuchel,thenaWashingtonStateSenator,withwesternCanadianroots,in1988asthePacificNorthWest Legislative Leadership Forum (PNLLP). The PacificNorthWest EconomicRegion (orPNWER) is also the largest definition of Cascadia: it is now a public‐private partnership‘composed of legislators, governments, NGO’s and businesses’ from British Columbia andAlberta (plus Yukon Territory; and as of July, 2008’s 18th PNWER Regional Summit, withSaskatchewan joining)31 in Canada and the states ofWashington, Oregon, Alaska, Idaho andMontana in the USA. It is “the only regional planning and facilitation organization set up bystatute … to deal with transboundary policy and planning in the Pacific Northwest. ThepopulationofPNWERisnowover20million,and itseconomy‐atmorethanUS$700billion‐wouldplaceitasthe10thlargestnationaleconomyintheworld.”32

Figure4‐PacificNorthWestEconomicRegion



ThegoalsofPNWERareto:

Promotegreaterregionalcooperation;

Enhancethecompetitivenessof theregion inbothdomesticand internationalmarkets;

LeverageregionalinfluenceinOttawaandWashington,DC;and

Achieve continued economic growth while maintaining the region’s naturalbeautyandenvironment.33

Neighbouring California, with over 38 million population is the 9th largest economy in theworld.34Thatisnotinsignificantassomeeffortstodefinethislargerregion–asexemplifiedbyrecentjurisdictionalcarbontaxandcarbontradingcooperativeinitiatives‐nowincludeafifth,larger,concentriccirclenotionofanI‐5 ‘Pacifica’corridorfromBritishColumbia(orAlaska) inthenorthtoCaliforniaandevenBaja,Mexicointhesouth.35

Variationsontheeconomicbrandalsoexist.Theseinclude,simply,thePacificNorthWest:Thisregional,more geographic reference includes five jurisdictions – theUS States ofWashinton,Oregon,IdahoandMontanaandCanada’sBritishColumbia:

Figure5–TraditionalCascadia

Then ‘Traditional’ Cascadia: this jurisdictional conception includes the three centralprovincial/statejurisdictionsofOregon,WashingtonandBritishColumbia.(SeeMap5,above)Inthis iteration, ‘Cascadia’ contains over 16million citizens and has a GDP of more than $490billion(USD,2004)36,whichwouldplaceitastheworld’s21stranked‘country’,tiedwithSouth



Africa and aboveArgentina, Chile and theNetherlands.37 There are a number of institutionaliterations of this provincial‐state iteration; interestingly, these focus particularly are aroundenvironmentalprotectiononmatterssuchasoilspills.

TheCascadiaeconomicbrandinghasalsoproducedideasfororganizationssuchasthePacificEnterprise Corridor Commission (PACE) and the Cascade Corridor Commission (C.C.C.) – thelatter “an advisory body of the governments of Canada, the United States, the Province ofBritishColumbia,andthestatesofWashingtonandOregon... [to]developastrategicplan forenvironmentally‐sound economic development and urban management in the Cascadiaregion.”38 The idea for CCC membership ‐ from ‘traditional Cascadia ‐ is to include“representatives from...regional planning agencies, municipal county/city governments; andportdistrictsintheurbanizedCascadiaregion”aswellasfromthenational/stategovernments.While not yet fully in place ‐ as “the commission would involve a federal treaty and wouldrepresenta layerofdecision‐makingthatmightcontradict localplans”‐ theCascadiaCorridorCommissionmandatewasto“addressenvironmental, transportation,growthandtrade issuesinthePortland‐Seattle‐Vancouvercorridor.”39Assuch–totheextentthatitincludesalltheseaspectsof itsmandate ‐ it corresponds toabroaderpolicyphaseevident in the region in thelate1980’s,1990’sand2000’s.

Other Pacific NorthWest economic development initiatives have included the High SpeedGroundTransportationCommittee: this committee recommended to thestateGovernor“thatWashington, in cooperationwithOregonandBritishColumbia,begin immediatelydesigningasystemtohaulpassengersathighspeedbetweenVancouver,B.C.andEugene,Oregon”40–thatis along what is called “Mainstreet Cascadia”. “Studies to date have concluded that HSGT iscompatible with a regional transportation plan, is environmentally friendly, has significantridershippotential,wouldsupportan internationalnorthwesteconomyandwouldcovercostswithin 12 to 15 years, but not capital costs.”41 Prior to the creation of the 240kph railtransportation link, inrelateddevelopmentsAMTRAK reintroduced itsconventional rail link–theCascades– fromEugene,OregonthroughSalemandPortland, thenOlympia,TacomaandSeattleinWashingtonstateandontoVancouver,BritishColumbia,adistanceof466milesalongMainstreetCascadia.42Thiswasnotintroducedwithoutcross‐borderissuessuchastrainspeedthroughurbanareas.However,moreenvironmentally‐friendlytransportationimprovementsarecentraltoavarietyoforganizations,governmentsandinitiativeswithintheregion:forexample,moreeconomically‐focussedgroupssuchasPNWERandtheDiscoveryInstituteinWashingtonworkedon a TransportationNorthWestAction Plan ‐ a so‐called “evergreendocument ‐ as abasis for promoting re‐authorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act(ISTEA). ‘Gateways’ to efficient transportation/trade within and external to the region arecentralhere.43AsthePacificNorthWesthasmanymorevehiclesthandrivers,gettingahandleonthetransportation issue iscentral toefficientmovementofgoodsandtrade for thecross‐borderregion.44 It isalsoessential inresolvingairqualityconcerns.At its lateJuly,200818thAnnualSummit inVancouver,PNWERannouncedthecreationoftwicedailyBNSFRR/AMTRAKtrains by the 2010 Vancouver Olympics along this route and a $4.5million infusion of BCspendingto facilitatere‐alignmentanda ‘passingtrack’ intheprovince,southofVancouver–one of the system bottlenecks.45 This was entirely in keeping with the theme of the 2008PNWERSummit:“GlobalChallenges–RegionalSolutions”.



BacktotheFutureBranding:TheFusionofEconomyandEnvironment?

If there is a Cascadia brand with staying power, then the initial branding – as anenvironmentally‐definedcross‐borderregion– istheimagethatmostconsistentlyhasdefinedCascadia.TheideaofinitialimageryandhistoryasaguidetokeybrandingandbrandimpactisnotnewinthePR/Communicationsliterature.46Thisoriginalenviro‐brandingfindsexpressioninseveral initiatives, many of which involve close governmental‐to‐governmental cooperation.Perhapstwoenviro‐brandingsstandout–eachwithitsownsub‐iterations.

The first is the Georgia Basin / Puget Sound (Map 6): this is largely a bioregional andenvironmentalbrandingcentredontheGulfwatersofthePacific ‐BritishColumbia’sStraitofGeorgia,includingmuchoftheeastsideofVancouverIsland,withtheprovincialcapital,Victoriaand theVancouver‐centred ‘LowerMainland’, combinedwith theWashingtonStatewatersofPugetSound,includingSeattle,TacomaandthestatecapitalofOlympia.Thisdefinitionhasanofficialstatus,with,forexample,BC’sGeorgiaBasinInitiative(GBI),givenpolicyemphasisbyBCPremier Mike Harcourt (1991‐1996), focusing on the environmental sustainability of thisessentially urban bio‐region. This definition of Cascadia hasmuch in keepingwithMcClosky’sandGarreau’sinitialecologicaldefinitionsbutisperhapsmoreurban‐focused.

Figure6–GeorgiaBasin/PugetSound

This brand provides a basis for cross‐border discussions – sometimes on cross border policyareas indispute.Onair andwaterquality, transborder transmissionsof pollutantshave longprovidedirritationonbothsidesoftheCascadiaborder,betweenBCandWashington. Inthe



PacificNorthWest, the impactofGreaterVancouver’sC02’s across intonorthernWashingtonstate counties has been one example.47 Between the Canada‐US Agreement on Air Quality,efforts such as the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990, and local/regional governmentalcooperationoneffortstoimproveairqualityintheGeorgiaBasin/PugetSoundsuchissueshadbecome relative successes in binational and regional cooperation on their commonenvironment,evenwhereairandwaterquality issues remain.48Thecontinuingproposals forelectricitygenerationontheWashingtonstatesideoftheline‐SumasII‐hasthrownsomeoftheseco‐operativecalculationsoffanddemonstratedthatregionalairqualityissuesrunacrossbothsidesoftheborderlandsregion.

The other continuing and equally ecologically‐focussed brand for Cascadia is MainstreetCascadia.MainstreetCascadiaisalsooneofthesmallerdefinitionsofCascadia,emphasizingthe essential urban components of Cascadia as themegalopolis along the Highway 99 / I‐5corridor from theWhistler ski resort, just North of Vancouver, though Seattle, Tacoma andOlympiainWashingtontoPortland,SalemandEugeneinOregon’sWillametteValley.

It isalsosometimescalledtheCascadiaCorridor.FormerSeattleMayorPaulSchellreferredtothis ‘city‐regional’ definition as “an integrated, 400‐mile urban integrated strip” called theCascadiaCorridor,‘DowntownCascadia’orMainstreetCascadia.49

Within this branding of the region,more than 10million people live. Its proponents includesome with the strongest economic/trade concerns.50 It also includes those with the clearestviews on a single regional environment: this is expressed at the provincial‐state level; and inurban/’Mainstreet’ iterations suchas theHighSpeedTrainLink, theCascadiaMayor’sCouncilandjointmeetingsofthePortlandMetro,PugetSoundRegionalCouncilandMetroVancouverboards.As such, the ideaofMainstreetCascadia represents the clearest attempt to combinewhatmightbecompetingbrand identitiesofeconomyorecologyand thestrongest forces tocounteractamoresingularre‐brandingofCascadiaineconomicterms.Fromlocalgovernmentsthrough major metropolitan authorities, there is a considerable focus on environmentalsustainabilityacrossCascadia.51

Theideaofa‘city‐region’waspopularizedbyJaneJacobs.52ItdescribeswhatJacobsidentifies,simply,as“thecityanditsnearbyhinterlands.”Successfulcity‐regionsarethebasesfornationaleconomies,replacingimports(bothdomesticandforeign)with‘goodsoftheirownproduction’and‘improvisinginnovationsonthatfoundation’.53Othershavecalledthis‘thefunctionalcity’.ForSavitchandVogel,forexample,“amoreaccuratedefinitionofa‘cityregion’mightrelyonthe MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) as a regional entity, but this poses other problems.SomeMSA’s run across state lines,MSA boundaries are not often coterminouswith politicalinstitutions,andMSA’sdonotreflectcommunityregional identities.”54One‘wayout’ofthesedefinitional difficulties, according to Savitch and Vogel, is to flexibly tailor city‐regionaldefinitions“to locallyrelevantconditionsandcriteria….Althoughnotofferingfixedandneatlydrawn definitions, this approach ensures that (city‐) regions are a product of local meaning,connected to realities of economic intercourse, social identities, and political institutions.”55That is exactly the approach to defining city‐regions identified by Jacobs: “City‐regions havemany of the characteristics of import‐replacing cities themselves, but they are not cities. Forbetteror forworse, theyare the creaturesof thenuclear cities and they remain so.”56 Suchthinking informs discussion about a Cascadia city‐region – one based on three metropolitancores,andknownasMainstreetCascadia.



Figure7‐“MainstreetCascadia”

CascadiaBranding:IsTheMainstreetBrandTheMostSustainable?

The conclusions about what is now generally referred to as Mainstreet Cascadia ‐ or theCascadiaCorridor, itsbio‐regionalurban‐centredcounterpart, theGeorgiaBasin/PugetSound,andWillametteValley‐challengetraditionalnotionsofboth‘local’and‘global’,thesignificanceof existing boundaries and how we think of city‐regions. Though we are far from Ohmae’sborderlessworld,57 inNorthAmerica,theCascadiacity‐regionrepresentsanewprismthroughwhichtoviewwhatSavitchandVogelhavetermed“post‐citypolitics”58andtheimpactoftheurbantsunamionthe21stcentury.

Bayless Manning calls such city‐based responses to globalization activity ‘intermestic’(“simultaneously ... both domestic and international”) policy development;59 this provides abasis for new understandings of such emerging ‘global city regions’ as urban Cascadia and



elsewhere in terms ofmore traditional conceptions of international, subnational, local‐globalandurbanmultilevelgovernancerelations.

Inseekingtounderstandandgeneralizeaboutthebrandingof‘Cascadia’severalfactorsstandout;someofthesemayevenbeseenaspre‐conditionsinestablishingandenhancingtheurban‐regionaldevelopmentsthathavebecomethecity‐regional“MainstreetCascadia”brand:

along‐standingexperienceinwhatKincaidcalls“constituentdiplomacy”:whilemuchofthisiswithintheregion,agooddealofsuchactivity‐aswithmunicipaltwinningsfromthe1940’sand1950’stothepresent‐isnotdirectedatorthroughtheregion.However,thepolicylearningandinstitutionalcapacitydevelopedbymajorcity jurisdictionswithinCascadiasuchasVancouver,Portland and Seattle, through such international activity were not insignificant factors insubsequentCascadiaregionaldevelopments.Importantly,muchofthisactivitywascity‐centred–beginningwithVancouver’s1944‘twinning’withOdessa,Seattle’s1957sistercityrelationshipwithKobe,Japan,andPortland’s1959‘twinning’withSapporo,Japan.60

an increasing Cascadia‐based interdependence ‐ both internationally and regionally: althoughBritishColumbiaisCanada’sthirdlargestprovinceandWashingtonstateAmerica’s20thstateinpopulation,themain‘PeaceArch’bordercrossingbetweenVancouverandSeattleisoneofthebusiestinNorthAmerica.Thattrafficisindicativeofbothinternationalandintraregionaltradeandeconomiclinkages:tradebetweenOregon,WashingtonandBritishColumbia,forexample,isnowover$20billion. Itgrewbyalmost100%inthepastdecade–andthis tri‐jurisdictionalCascadia has a current population of 16.5million.61Evenwhere, as Cascadia‐skepticMatthewSparke notes, much of the economies of the three central Cascadia jurisdictions – Oregon,WashingtonandbritishColumbia–donotinter‐relate,eachhasasignificantcommonoutlooktowardAsia.62

Anincreasingglobal(or‘globalist’)perspective:theshiftfromresourcedependenteconomiesinthePacificNorthwestofNorthAmericatoincreasinglytertiary(andsomecontinuingsignificantsecondary‐e.g.BoeingorMicrosoftinSeattle)manufacturingsectors,inregionaljurisdictions,has coincided with a more internationalist outlook; British Columbia, for example, despite asignificantUStradelink,likeallpartsofCanada‐andevenwiththeimpactofoften‐problematicsoftwood lumber trade and recent downturns in US housing starts ‐ has the least NorthAmerican‐orientedeconomyinCanada.TerritoriallocationandinclinationhasmadethewholeCascadiaregionverymuchpartoftheAsiaPacificeconomy,evenwhilemuchofitshistorylinksittoEurope.ThisfindstranslationinvariousCascadia‘jointventures’‐suchasSeattle’seffortstosellthefirsttwo‐nationOlympicbid63,theregion’sideaofthe“two‐nationvacation”64orinattemptstosellaregionalenvironmentalcleanupcapacity,byfirmsacrossallofCascadia,asasinglepackagewithin theEUandAsia. ThePortMetroVancouver remainsCanada’s busiest,and with #1 in North America in foreign exports65; Portland now has nine sister cities andSeattle, with more than twenty‐one formal city‐international linkages, leads the way withinCascadiainavarietyofothercity‐basedglobalconnections.

Whensomeofthedeterminantsofsubnationalglobalpolicy‐making–andthedevelopmentofpolicy‐makingcapacity‐inMainstreetCascadiaareexamined,itispossibletoidentifyaseriesofpolicy phases. While not entirely new, this more globalist policy thrust of city‐region‘constituent’actorshasexpandedrapidly,bothintermsofextentandtype:



in extent, for example, significant growthmanagement and environmental concerns (such asthe2000/2008ongoingdebatesoverpossiblecross‐borderpollutionfromaSumas2electricalgeneratingplantacrosstheUSlineinWhatcomCountynearVancouver’sFraserValley‐andC02emissions from BC’smetropolitan centre across theWashington state border), Georgia Basinsustainability,Mainstreet‘fasttrain’connectionsandthepossibilityofasustainableOlympicsin2010standout.Likemanyissues,theresultinginteractionshaveexpandedinnumberandcrosstheborder,transcending localandprovincial/stateperspectives–evenastheystrengthentheCascadiacity‐regionanditsmoreenvironmentalfocus.Similarly,withregardtoothercity‐basedintermestic policy making, there has been a significant expansion in activity; for example,between1944(whenthefirstCanadiancity‐Vancouver‐wastwinned)66and1967,onlynineCanadianmunicipalitieshadtwinnedthemselveswithnon‐Canadiancommunities.Overthepastforty+ years since then, this pattern has accelerated considerably to include several hundredsuch formal subnational internationalexchangesand farmoreglobalist forms.67 In theUnitedStates,therearecurrentlyover1000citieswithmorethan2000sistercityaffiliations,mostofthisextensionsincethemid‐1970s.68Seattlealonehasmorethantwentysuch‘twinnings,andwasoneof the firstUScities toengage insuchactivity.69Portland(1959)wasnot farbehind.Both these initial US twins were with Japanese cities. Vancouver has five formal ‘sister city’relationships anddevelopedanewconnectionwith Frankfurt ‐ in theearly2000’s ‐ added interms of modeling a harm‐reduction vs. war on drugs strategy for dealing with urban drugissues.70Whetherthismostrecent‘link’willsurviveashiftbacktomorerightistcitygovernment–sincetheendof2005–remains lessclear.Vancouverdidhostan internationalgatheringof‘HarmReductioncities’ in2006,priortotheWorldUrbanForum(whichitalsohosted);andIthasjustproposedCanada’sfirst“legalbrothel”toberunbyaco‐operativetobesetupintimefor the Olympics – with Mayor/City support.71 Some have taken to referring to this set ofpositions on issues generally at odds with the rest of North American governments as“Vansterdam‐ization”. More importantly, in terms of Mainstreet branding, this emphasis onsocial aspects of sustainability is entirely in keeping with sustainability as having four legs:environmental,social,economicandpolitical.

in type, more importantly, as the number of subnational – particularly city‐regionalgovernments involved internationally has grown, so too have the types of global activity andexchange; initially, often cultural and educational, these shifted tomore strategic, business‐orientedformsandnow,potentiallytoabroader,more‘globalist’andsustainablepolicyphase.This development of differing ‐ and subsequent ‐ forms represents a maturing of city‐regional/subnational constituent diplomacy and suggests that these territorial redefinitionsmatter. As such, they represent useful lessons for other city‐regions contemplating any re‐thinkingof their global branding. The issueofwho gets to brandCascadia thenbecomes thefinal question.As suggested in concluding, thereare still twomajor competing visionshere –eachwithsignificantimplicationsfortheCascadiabrand.

It is also possible to identify four policy phases in examining subnational city‐regioninternationalistpolicymakinginjurisdictionalsettingsinMainstreetCascadia:72

(i) an ad hoc phase, indicative of relatively immature policy intent and capacity, runningincrementally,inearlyinstances,fromtheSecondWorldWar(andevenbefore)andcontinuinginto the late 1950’s, 1960’s and early 1970’s; here the emphasis was mostly cultural and



educational– inkeepingwithEisenhower’s“people topeopleexchanges” ideawhichbecamethesistercitymovementintheUSA.

(ii) efforts to develop a more rational approach to ‐ and institutional support for ‐ suchinternational activities in the 1970’s and early‐mid 1980’s ‐ particularly at the city level; thisclearly occurred in Seattle,Vancouver andPortlandwherebudgets andongoing internationaloffices/institutionalcapacitydeveloped.

(iii) thedevelopmentofamore strategic subnational internationalistpolicyposition inmanylocal jurisdictions in the mid/late 1980’s/1990’s; here the branding was moreeconomic/business‐defined;and,

(iv)aglobalistpolicystance‐adevelopingfourthphase,withiterationsinthelate1990’sand2000’s–thoughwithsomeearlyantecedentsinthepeaceandenvironmentalmovements;thisphase offers a broader,more prescriptive andmature policy alternative beyond these earlieriterations. This latter – globalist – phase offers perhaps themost useful lessons for any city‐region branding – at least for those not in the top tiers of world city rankings. In terms ofbranding, italsorepresentsapotentialcounter‐offer(basedonanearlierenviro/sustainabilityfocus) to what might be described as Cascadia’s more recent economic‐business brandingefforts.

Each policy phase has reflected a series of choices by appropriate governmental and non‐governmental actors and a different set of policy objectives in keeping with shifting policydeterminants. Each also has represented different policy implications for affected politicaljurisdictionsandtheregion’scitizenry.Theshiftfromincrementaltomorerationalforms‐andthen tomoremature strategic and globalist responses ‐ alsohasbeen reflected in a growinginstitutionalization ofMainstreet Cascadia city‐region global policy‐making process and form.This institutionalizationofglobalactivity intheCascadiacity‐regionhasoccurredinsupportofbothbroadly‐based‘external’internationallinkagesbeyondtheregion‐asexemplifiedbymuchof the city‐based ‘twinnings’ and ‘within region’ responses such as those variations in theMainstreetCascadiaoption, like theCascadia fast train connection, the ‘two‐nationvacation’,andtheGeorgiaBasinInitiative(GBI).Alltheselatteraspectsincludesustainabilitydimensions.

ThisPacificNorthWestregionalconcernontheenvironment,resourceuseandsustainabilityhasemerged from increasing recognition of the limits to growth. On resource use, it foundreflectioninlocalidiomssuchasBraziloftheNorth‐acritiquewhichresultedinreformstoB.C.forest practices.73 It was clearly reflected in the work of the Puget Sound/Georgia BasinInternational Task Force ‐ a BC‐Washington state initiative establishing an EnvironmentalCooperation Council, out of a 1992 Environmental Cooperation Agreement between the twojurisdictions.TheTaskForcemandatewasto“promoteandcoordinatemutualeffortstoensuretheprotection,conservationandenhancementof...sharedmarineenvironment.”74Bythemid90’s, the Task Force had established and considered reports of a Marine Science Panel,75obtained federal funding for a variety of transboundary projects, done research on habitatclassifications, exotic species, met with interests such as the Sound and Straits Coalition,developedsamplingandanalysisprotocolsaswellasanumberofotherinitiatives.76

SuchenvironmentalcooperationbuiltonearlierworksuchaswiththeStates/BritishColumbiaOilSpillTaskForce.77Policyantecedentsofthisecologicaldimensionincludedthe1989Gray’s



Harbor/NestuccaWashingtonandPrinceWilliamSound/ExxonValdezAlaskaoilspills,whichledtothecreationoftheOilSpillTaskForce“formedtodevelopplansforoilspillpreventionalongthe coast and in the Georgia Sound/Puget Basin.”78 The latter reported in 1990; due tojurisdictionalandother issues(e.g.,“lackafederalresourcesfortheCoastGuard”)79,manyoftherecommendationswerenotimplemented–buttheregionalcooperationremained.Intermsofprovincial/stateforeignpolicy‐making,theotherinterestingfeatureofthisinitiativewasthatthe Canadian federal government objected to B.C. proceeding in theway it did with its U.S.regionalneighbours.Theendof1980’sVanderZalmB.C.GovernmentwentaheaddespitetheseFederalGovernmentreservations.80

MorerecentcooperativeventuresinMainstreetCascadiaincludetheCascadiaMayors’Council:“originally formed and convened in 1998 by then Seattle Mayor Paul Schell, the CascadiaMayors’ Council addresses awide range of issues that impact cities and small towns up anddowntheCascadiacorridorandthroughouttheregion”81Itsgoal“istoexpandcooperationonissues of common interest that confront (Cascadia’s) cities and towns.” As the council – likeArtibise and Hill82 ‐ have noted, “existing institutions do not have a broad enough reach toeffectively address the challenges mayors face”, particularly in light of federal andprovincial/state cutbacks, “especially tourban corridors.”83 Itmeets twice a year onCascadiaissues–themajorityofwhichareaboutmattersenvironmentalandre:sustainability.

This mayoral initiative has a metropolitan/regional government counterpart as well in theCascadia corridor: therearenowannualmeetingsof the threemajor ‘regional governments’:Metro Vancouver, the Puget Sound Regional Council and Portland. Metro. Efforts atcomparativeregionalpolicylearningandbestpracticeindicatoridentificationarehighontheiragendas.More importantly, suchdiscussion,however limited, is anecessary stage in regionalconsciousness‐raisingandincreasedglobalcity‐regioncooperationandregionalsustanability.84

Yet while resource concerns are important and have been irritants, environmentalconsiderations now/again compete for agenda space. The Columbia River has spawned legalaction‐suchasbyOregon’sNorthWestEnvironmentalDefenseCenter,initiatedin1994.Onthisfront,morecooperativeeffortsarepossible,however.Transborderenvironmentalcooperation‐suchaswiththedevelopmentofaNorthCascades InternationalPark ‐standout.85BinationalregionalconsensusonthiscomponentoftheNorthernCascadesEcosystemhasbeenpromotedbyavarietyofCascadia regional interestsonboth sidesof the49thparallel line.86 Acrossavariety of policy fronts ‐ forestry, the fisheries, air and water quality, and other overlappingsustainable region concerns ‐ there arewhatGeorgeHoberghas called regional “threats andopportunities”.87

Whatevertheirshape,sizeandbrand,itisclearthatforeignrelationsrealityinthe21stcenturywill includesubstantialcity‐regionalandcross‐border involvement. Thetrickwillbetoensurethat such is more often complementary than conflictual ‐ and not necessarily with seniorjurisdictional priorities. To sustain itself, a city‐regional initiative such asMainstreet Cascadianeeds to think about clarifying its own brand. Success would appear to depend more ondeveloping broader, deeper, globalist policy thrusts such as with environmental and socialsustainability. Thatwould appear tomean a return to politics as part of rethinking the local‐globalnexus‐anappropriateoutcomeforany21stcenturybranding.



For such city‐regions aspiring to develop a clearer globalist (vs. ‘globalized’) brand, there areseveral strategies to consider to become ‘globailist’; many of these are found within theMainstreetCascadiaexperience–evenifSparkeisrightonwhohasbeenmostresponsibleforcurrenteconomicbranding:

Table1‐Smith’sGlobalistpolicycomponents:sevenkeyelements:

1: An Economic/Development component ‐ No world city, globalist orglobalized, can fail to include an economic/development component. Thequestion is what kind of economics is central: in globalized city‐regions, socalled20:80communities,major sectionsof the localpopulationareexcludedfrommostofthebenefitsofurbanglobalparticipation.Marketsdodistribute,butnotequitablywithoutsomedirection..Astateroleinsteeringisneeded,ifeconomicsustainabilityisthegoal.

2:AForeignAidcomponent ‐Though international twinningsattest toa localglobal outreach, a more globalist approach – including elements identifiedbelow ‐ would facilitate such connections with more emphasis on globalsustainability.TheseexistinMainstreetCascadia.

3: A Global Ecological component ‐ Global city links and policy initiatives onmatters suchas recycling, automobile‐alternative transportation,newerwastedisposalforms,andalternativeenergycomponentsinpublictransitsystems,allreflectaspectsofthiscomponent.Thepolicypushisforpreservinglivability incitiesandglobally.MainstreetCascadiashowseffortsinthisregard..

4: A Social Equity component ‐ Increasingly, because of senior governmentaldown‐andoff‐loading,citiesareconfrontingmoreoftheimplicationsofsocialpolicy abandonment: everything from homelessness, de‐institutionalization ofmentalhealthpatientspreviously incare,povertyandfamilybreakdown,drugand alcohol abuse, un‐/under‐employment, crime and other iterations ofincreasedsocialbifurcation.88Manyglobalistcomponentswhichdonotinitiallyappear‘international’canprovideglobalexposureforacity‐region.Therelativesafetyofharmreductionvswarondrugs, thequalityofpubliceducation, theembracingof growing city diversity all reflect aspects of a city‐regional ‘socialequity’inventory.

5:ACommunity/CulturalDiversitycomponent‐Globalistcitiesembracetheirdiversityratherthanconfront it.Heretheglobalistresponserepresentsashiftfrompolistometropolistowardscosmopolis.Itincludesmorethanrecognitionand empowerment of ethnic diversity, to civil society and a more gender‐sensitivecommunity.Anyglobalistcityismulticulturalandcelebratesdiversity.

6: AWorld Peace/Disarmament component ‐ Much of the impetus for city‐basedtwinningsgrewoutoftheexperienceofWorldWarII.InEurope,Canada,Japan and the United States, promotion of world peace through improvedinternational understanding via people based exchanges began in the decade



following 1945 – with the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Itcontinuedintothe1950'sand1960'sbutbythe1970'swasbeginningtotakeona different ‐ more business‐oriented ‐ direction. In the 1980's, the originalpurposebegantobere‐asserted.

7: AGoodGovernance component ‐ Finally, it is increasingly recognized thatmany solutions to service delivery and equity issues are precluded without‘good governance’. As the 4th leg in an economic, environmental and socialequity equation of sustainable community development, good governance isessential.

It is important tonote thateven inmajor city‐regionsonedoesnot findevery componentofsuch globalist thinking and policy. Going Globalist offers themost in opportunities for moreintermediatecity‐regionsconsideringabrandingoftheirpositioninginanyworldorder.Thisisespeciallyso,forcity‐regionswhichcannotaspireto‘commandandcontrol’statusintheworldeconomy.Findinganichebyutilizingmanyof theglobalistelements identifiedabove iswhatsuccessful city‐regions can do. 89 In so doing, they also confront efforts at boosterismwhichseektotruncatethegloablcityandsubnational regionbrandingtobenomorethanbusinessand economics. Of all the efforts to challenge this view,Mainstreet Cascadia offers the bestprospectsforamorecreativeandsustainablebrand.

ConcludingThoughts–onCascadiaandonBranding

Who brands? And Why? And what does the Cascadia case say about the notion of placebranding?ThesequestionsarecentraltoassessingcompetingbrandsofCascadiaandtheideaof place branding itself. The literature on branding suggests understanding the history ofbrandings is important. Earlybrandeffortstendtohavestayingpower. InCascadia, it isclearthat the early imagery was essentially ecological. According to Seattle Sociologist DavidMcCloskey, “I would put ecology as the foundation of a new social order ‐ and not power,politicsoreconomics.”90ForMcCloskey,“iftheprimaryconcernofCascadiaistointegratetheeconomies ‐ branch offices, for instance ‐ that’s the old story....I think a lot of people aren’tinterested in imperialism being extended under a new guise. We have to restore the eco‐system,that’sthefirstobligation.”91Withsubsequestliterarytreatmentsandanenvironmentalinfluxof like‐mindedpopulation in the1960’s and1970’s,Cascadia’s firstbrandingwas clear;more importantly, it was understandable. As a result ‐ and with ongoing iterations likeMainstreetCascadia’ssustainability focus ‐ this initialecologicalbrandcontinuestocutacrosswhatsomehaveseenaspotentialdownsidesofincreasedB.C./CanadianeconomicintegrationwithlargerU.S.regionalneighbours.Someindeedseetherebrandingeffortsofthe1980’sand1990’sasaco‐optationoftheenviro‐brnadbyeconomics:

The University ofWashington’sMatthew Sparke, for example, offers a continuing critique ofwhat he sees as this co‐optation of the ecological Cascadia brand by the region’s businesselite92:

To the extent that Cascadia is an invention of economic boosters, or at leastrepresents their cooptation and reworkingof anolder ecotopian imaginingof



the region, we need to examine why they are using such a complextransnationalconceptwhentheycouldorganizeboosterismineachofthethreemain urban regions north and south of the border. Surveying the region it isclear that a certain amount of such individualized urban boosterism stillcontinues,andCascadiaismoreofasupplementtotheseefforts.However,thequestionremains:whybotherwithallthedifficultiesoftransnationalorganizingand put financial and political capital into Cascadian collaboration at all? Theanswer, it seems to me, has to be more than just economic. Or, to put myhypothesisanotherway,theanswermustreflectafarmorecomplexpolitical‐economic reality that the simple economic integration imperatives advertisedbytheboosters.Thisintegrationitselfneedstobefurtherinterrogated,becauseclearlytheBCforestproductsindustries,Washington'saerospaceindustry,andOregon's evolving hi‐tech sector share very little except a common outwardorientation across the Pacific to Asianmarkets and investors. In otherwords,despitealltheadvertisedadvantagestoregionaltrademadepossiblebyCUFTAand NAFTA, the core of the so‐called Cascadian economy is utterly un‐integrated. The degree to which hoped‐for cross‐border agglomerationeconomiesmaybegrowingneedstobeinvestigated,andthisiswhywecansaythat the boosters at least open‐up a research question. But the singularizedpicturepaintedbyPNWERofthe10thlargesteconomyintheworldistotallyatodds with the currently diverse and disarticulated local economies. Even the'window on the Pacific' commonality is superficial, for as David Edgington(1995)93hasshown,AsianinvestorslikethelargeJapaneseSogoShoshadonotintegrate their Cascadian distribution centers. This implies that there are fewknock‐on integrative effects of such Asian‐oriented trading relations runningthroughtheregion.Inshort,thedepictionofCascadiaasawould‐beeconomicpower‐house,opensupmanymorequestionsthanitanswers.

The points made by Sparke may go some way in explaining the continuing investment incommonenvironmentalandsustainabilityissuesacrossMainstreetCascadia.Evenatthemoreeconomically‐focussed Discovery Institute, Cascadia Project Director Bruce Agnew, refers toCascadiaas“analliancebetweenthetwocountriesaddressingsuchissuesassuburbansprawlandauto‐oriented transportationpoliciesneeds tobe formed todealwith the root causesoftheseairandwaterqualityproblems.”94 Andwithcity‐regional initiativessuchastheGBI, itspolicy goals, established under former VancouverMayor/then BC PremierMike Harcourt areconsistentwithabroader ‘globalist sustainabilitybranding ‐ includingcreating (a) “acommonvision around shared resources ‐ the land, water and air....”; (b) integrating “sustainabilityprinciples in decision‐making, which recognizes that issues concerning the environment,economyandsocialwell‐beingareinextricablylinkedandthatsolutionstoproblemsinanyoneoftheseareaswilllikelyimpactontheothers;and(c)“defineprioritiesandtakestrategicstepsonabroadfronttowardaviablesustainablefuturefortheRegion.”95AllthiscontinuestooccurundertheMainstreetCascadiabrand.

Whatdoesthissayabouttheideaofbrandingitself?Severalpointsareclear:



the roots of place branding are economic. They come from the fields ofmarketing,management,publicrelationsandindustriallocation/promotion.

As such, their “usual” applications are “marketing”96, crisis management intourismpromotion97, retailing98, goodsandservices99,nationalbranding100or,indeed,theideological–andhistorical‐basisofbrandingitself.101

Can such an economic emphasis be ‘adjusted’ to reflect a non/less economicfocussed branding? The Mainstreet Cascadia experience ‐ and the historicalversionsofCascadia‐wouldsuggestYES.

Brandingmayhaveitslimitations;itmayalsohaveitsnon‐economicuses.Ifso,thenotionofbrandingmayneedtomorphitself.

SomeMainstreetCascadiaLessons

Thepolicyimplicationsofthesealternative/competingbrandsoftheCascadiaregion‐andtheirlinks to the increasingly interdependent global political economy ‐ are apparent. Moreimportantly,intermsofbranding,someofthisMainstreetCascadiaactivityhastakenonamoreglobalistthrustandonewhichisre‐iteratingtheoriginalenviro‐focusoftheregion–aswellassuggestingalternativeusesfromthetraditionalbrandingliterature.

As defined above, themore globalist city‐region stance ofMainstreet Cascadia draws on theearliestbrandingsoftheregion:initiatedasEcotopia102,thenviatheeco‐culturalmovementasCascadia103andPacifica.104Cascadiahaspracticalglobalistpolicylessonsforgovernmentalandnon‐governmentalactorswithinthiscross‐borderregion.

Havingsaidthat,thereareseveralconsiderationsthatresult:

Many city‐regions have identified an economic component as central to theirinternationalstrategy.Thiswillnotbeenough.

Moreperipheral cities – certainly including all inCascadia ‐mustplay amoremulti‐facetedinternational–andcross‐border‐game.Eachmustbuildlinkagesaroundaseriesofrationales–evenwhereeconomic/infrastructureinvestmentisonecomponent.HereamoreGlobaliststrategy–asnotedabove–offersthebestbrandingopportunity.

It is possible to develop a failed ‘going global’ city brand. Cities such asBaltimoreandseveralfailedeffortsinAtlantaareillustrative.105

Formalorganizationsand institutional capacity‐building–as longasbuiltonalocal‐regional community – form the best basis for ensuring long‐term andcontinual cross‐border and international exchange. Mainstreet Cascadia’sseveralvenuesforsuch–fromstate/provincialandlocal‐regionalperspectives–helpensurecontinuingstrengthintheCascadiasustainabilitybrand.



Having clear operational goals – certainly beyond mere civic/city‐regionalboosterism‐helpssellsuchcivicinternationalismtoasometimesskepticallocalpopulation.106

Having a clear organizational centre for such city‐based activity is alsoimportant.HereSeattle’sInternationalOfficestandsout.

Not leaving out the local population in the benefits of “going cross‐borderregional’andbroaderinternationalisalsoessentialtosustainingthisciviceffortover the long haul. This cannot occur without sharing benefits. Again, theeconomyaloneisnotenough.

With a clearer globalist strategy, city‐regions like Mainstreet Cascadia cansustain their broader global outreach and maximize both benefits andcontributions to regional and global betterment; In Cascadia sustainabilityremainscentral..

GoingGlobalistoffersaclearbasisforensuringholisticadvantagesofthecity‐region’sinternationalistandcross‐borderbrandingaccruelocallyandcontributemostglobally.

Endnotes

1Gert‐JanHospers, “Borders,BridgesandBranding:TheTransformationof theOresundRegion IntoanImaginedSpace”,EuropeanPlanningStudies,vol.14,no.8,September,2006,pp.1015‐1033.

2SeePhilipKotler,DonaldHaiderandIrvingRein;MarketingPlaces:AttractingInvestment,IndustryandTourismtoCities,StatesandNation(NewYork:FreePress,1993),

3 JohnR.GoldandStephenV.Ward,eds.,PlacePromotion:TheUseofPublicityandMarketingToSellTownsandRegions,(Chichester,England:JohnWiley,1994)

4 See ChristianMatthiessen, AnnetteWinkel Schwartz and Bengt Streiffert, “Copenhagen andMalmo‐LundUnitedbytheOresundBridge:AnIntegrationProjectontheEuropeanMetropolitanLevel”,inCaroline Andrew, Pat Armstrong and Andre Lapierre, eds,World Class Cities: Can Canada Play?,(Ottawa:UniversityofOttawaPress,1999),pp.321‐.;PeterMaskellandGunnarTornqvist,Buildinga Cross‐Border Learning Region – The Emergence of the North European Oresund Region,(Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School Press, 1999). and Patrick Smith and Kennedy Stewart,Global Calgary: A Globalist Strategy for the City of Calgary, (Ottawa: Canadian Policy ResearchNetworks,April2006)foradiscussiononthisOresundcase(andthere‐brandingofAtlanta,Georgia;)pp.11‐15.

5 See NigelMorgan, Annette Pritchard and Roger Pride, eds,Destination Branding: Creating a UniqueDestinationProposition,(Oxford,England:ButterworthHeinemann,2002).

6SeeUnionCarbide’scontinuingUnionCarbide‐Bhopalwebsite;andEliAvrahamandEranKetter,MediaStrategiesforMarketingPlacesinCrisis,(Oxford,England:ButterworthHeinemann,2008).

7InNovember,2004,thejournalPlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacywaslaunched,fromtheUK.8SeeM.Kavaratzis,“PlaceBranding:AReviewofTrendsandConceptualModels”,TheMarketingReview,

vol.5,#4,2005,pp.329‐342.9Hospers,op.cit.,p.1019.Seealsowww.oresundsregion.org/c5000c,accessed,July25,2008.



10ChristianMatthiessen,AnnetteWinkel SchwartzandBengt Streiffert, “CopenhagenandMalmo‐LundUnited by the Oresund Bridge: An Integration Project on the European Metropolitan Level”, inCaroline Andrew, Pat Armstrong and Andre Lapierre, eds,World Class Cities: Can Canada Play?,(Ottawa:UniversityofOttawaPress,1999),p.321..

11Ibid.12Ibid.,p.322.13Seewww.oresundsregion.org/c5000c,accessed,July25,2008.14Matthiessen,et.al,op.cit.,p.325..15InternationalCivilAviationYearbook,1996.16SeeMatthiessen,etal.,Table4,p.329ff.17On this, see SorenBuhlHornskov, “On TheManagement ofAuthenticity: Culture in theBrandingof

Oresund”,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.3,no.4,October,2007,pp.317‐331.18Ibid.,pp.332‐334.19 Author conversationwith Bengt Streiffert, Rector, Lund University, Sweden, in Vancouver, BC,May,

2001.20Ibid.BengtStreifferthasservedasOresundUniversityPresidentaswellasLundUniversityRector.21See,forexample,www.seattleu.edu;andHistoryandLiteratureofthePacificNorthwest,Essay:ASense

of where we are: “David McCloskey, ‘Cascadia’ (1988)” @www.washington.edu/uwired/outreach/cspn/website/Hist%20n%20LitPart(accessed,Oct1,2007).

22JoelGarreau,TheNineNationsofNorthAmerica,(Boston:HoughtonMifflin,1981).23www.csiss.org/classics/content/18(AccessedJuly25,2008).24Seewww.ernestcallenbach.com/books.htm. includingEcology:APocketGuide, (Berkeley,CA.: Banan

Books, 1995) and Ecology: A Pocket Guide, [Revised and Expanded] (Berkeley, CA.: Banan Books,2008).

25The1968editionwasinitiallyeditedbyStewartBrand;sowasthelastoneinSpring1971(Berkeley,CA;PortolaInstitute/RandomHouse,1971).ItseditorsalsoincludedKenKesey.

26 See Stewart Brand, ed, The Last Whole Earth Catalog: Access to Tools, (Berkeley, CA.: PortolaInstitute/RandomHouse,1971),“Purpose”,p.1.

27 Raymond D Gastil, Cultural Regions of the United States, (Seattle: University of Washington Press,1975).

28 See, for example,Warren Gill, “Regional Agency and PopularMusic: The North‐West Sound, 1958‐1966), The Canadian Geographer, vol.37, no.2, 1993, pp.120‐131, and Clinton Heylin, Babylon’sBurning:FromPunktoGrunge,(NewYork:Conongate,2007)

29 See, for example, Linda Stradley, American Regional Foods ‐ Pacific Northwest Region, @whatscookingamerica.net/AmericanRegionalFoods/PacificNorthwest.htm(accessedJuly12,2008).

30 See, for example,www.arthurerickson.com/i_nort.htmor Lawrence Kreisman andGlennMason,TheArtsandCraftMovementinthePacificNorthwest,(Portland,TimberPress,2007).

31 See Press Release, Saskatchewan Joins Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, Government [email protected]/news?newsld,datedJuly,21,2008.

32 See Pacific NorthWest Economic Region, @ www://pnwer.org/background.profile2.htm (Accessed.March3,2006)andwww.pnwer.org(accessed,November1,2007andJune7,2008).

33Ibid.34Seewww.uselectionatlas.org/Forum/index.php.topic–asofJanuary1,2008.Accessed,July28,2008.35On this, seeKatherineG.Morrissey,MentalTerritories: Mapping the InlandEmpire–TerraPacifica:

PeopleandPlaceintheNorthwestStatesandWesternCanada,(Ithaca,NY.:CornellUniversityPress,1997).

36SeeGreaterSeattleDataSheet,2005,CityofSeattle:IntergovernmentalRelations,2005),p.1andAlanDurning,“CascadiaOvertakesChileandKazakstan”,@www.sightline.org/daily_score;

This‘Sightline”CascadiadefinitionincludesNorthernCaliforniabutnotpartsofMontana,orallofYukonandSaskatchewan,andAlaska.Accessed,July28,2008.



37Onsuchrankingssee [email protected]/g/r.aspx?c=as&v=65(Accessed,march3,2006). See also French Chamber of Commerce and Industry Abroad, @www.ccife.org/usa/seattle/infocountry/data/geography.htm(AccessedMarch2,2006)

38 Bruce Agnew, "Overview ofWashington State and Perspective on Cross‐Border Issues", DiscussionPaper fortheBritishColumbiaRoundTableontheEnvironmentandtheEconomy(henceforthB.C.RoundTable),December,1992,p.9;anddiscussionwithauthor,February,2007.

39DickNelson,WashingtonStateRepresentative,"Puget/GeorgiaBasinForum:AProposal",DiscussionPaperfortheB.C.RoundTable,November30,1992,p.12.

40 See John Magnano, Committee Chair/Clark County Commissioner, "Transportation: Faster Than ASpeedingBullet‐WillThePacificNorthWestEverBeLinkedByHigh‐SpeedRail",VANCOUVERSUN,January19,1993,p.A15.

41 "Sustainability In The Georgia Basin/Puget Sound Region", Background Paper, B.C. Round Table,GovernmentofBritishColumbia,December,1992,p.15.

42 On initial discussion on the restoration of Amtrak service, see HaroldMunro, "Train Travel: AmtrakWoo‐Wooing B.C. for Seattle‐Vancouver Run", VANCOUVER SUN, March 30, 1992, pA1, A16. Formore on AMTRAK’s Cascades service, see also,www.amtrakcascades.com/routesAndDestinations.aspx(AccessedMarch4,2006).Seealso“AmtrakCascadesQuickFacts”–Asecond‘conventional‘trainistobeaddedpre2010Olympicsaswell.Seewww.amtrakcascades.com/equipment.aspx(accessedNov.3,2007).

43 Final Report of the Transportation Working Group, PNWER, Summer, 1996. See also “The Cascade Corridor”, The Discovery Institute, a Cascadia think tank based in Seattle @ www.discovery.org/cascadia/cascadia/Corridor (Accessed Feb 9, 2006)

44 See Alan Durning and Christopher Crowther, “Vehicles Outnumber Drivers in NorthWest”, New Indicator, (Seattle: NorthWest Environment Watch, January 11, 1995). pp.1-4. See also “Cascadia Scorecard”, Northwest Environment Watch, 2005, @ www.northwestwatch.org/scorecard/cascadia.asp. (Accessed Feb 21, 2006).

45 See Press Release,”Second Cascadia Passenger train will be reality before the 2010 Olympics”, @www.pnwer.org/news/pressroomdatedMarch2,2008,PNWER,Seattle.

46 See, for example, Jamez Damjan, “Development of Slovenian Brands¨ Oldest are the Best”, PlaceBranding and Public Diplomacy, vol.1, no.4, November, 2005, pp363‐372.and Alastair Durie, Ian S.YeomanandUnaMcMahon‐Beattie,“HowtheHistoryofScotlandCreatesaSenseofSpace”,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.2,no.1,January,2006,pp43‐52.

47 Author discussion withWashington State Senator (since 2002) Dale Brandland, (Senate RepublicanWhip),formerWhatcomCountySheriff(1992‐2001),@Olympia,Wa.,March17,2004.

48 On this issue in Greater Vancouver, see David Bates, “Sustaining Clean Air”, in P. Smith et.al., Urban Solutions To Global Problems:..., (Vancouver: UBC Centre for Human Settlements, 1996), pp.20-26.

49 Paul Schell, (former) Mayor of Seattle, in Crossroads, vol.VII, no. 3, Summer, 1998, (Seattle, TradeDevelopmentAllianceofGreaterSeattle).

50 See, for example, The Greater Seattle Datasheet: 1999-2000, and annually – to 2008 (Seattle: City of Seattle, Office of Intergovernmental Relations,1999-2008), p.1.

51 See for example, the Livable Region Strategic Plan and the Sustainable Region Initiative in MetroVancouver @ www.metrovancouver.org/about/publications/Publications/MV‐SustainabilityFramework.pdf (accessed July 27, 2008) or Puget Sound Regional Council RegionalTechnical Forum – Climate Change and Sustainability, January 16, 2008 @psrc.org/boards/advisory/RTF_Agenda_011608.pdf.

52JaneJacobs,CitiesandtheWealthofNations:PrinciplesofEconomicLife,(NewYork:RandomHouse,1984)

53Ibid.,p.41,plusCh.3“CitiesOwnRegions”,pp.45‐58.



54HankSavitchandRonVogel,eds.,“RegionalPatternsinaPost‐CityAge”RegionalPolitics:AmericainaPostCityAge,(ThousandOaks,CA.:Sage,1996)UrbanAffairsAnnualReview,vol.45,p.16.

55Ibid.56JaneJacobs,op.cit.,p.58.57 Kenichi Ohmae, The Borderless World: Power and Strategy in the Interlinked Economy, (New York:

HarperBusiness,1990/revised,1999).58HankSavitchandRonVogel,eds.,“RegionalPatternsinaPost‐CityAge”RegionalPolitics:Americaina

PostCityAge,(ThousandOaks,CA.:Sage,1996)UrbanAffairsAnnualReview,vol.4559 Bayless Manning, “The Congress, The Executive and Intermestic Affairs”, International Journal,

vol.55, 1977, pp.306-24. 60UnderPresidentDwightEisenhower,theUSSisterCityprogramwasestablishedin1956toencourage

“people‐to‐people”exchanges.See,forexample,www.sister‐cities.org61Seewww.cityofseattle.net/oir/datasheet/Datasheet2007.62SeeMatthewSparke,“CascadiaandtheEndoftheNation‐State:InterrogatingtheBasesofTransborder

Boosterism”@sparke&uwashington.edu.Accessed,May14,2007andMay31,2008..63AuthorconversationwithBruceAgnew,Director,TheCascadiaProject,SeattleWa.,March200764See,forexample,“TwoNationVacation”@www.tourismvictoria.com/Content/EN/699.asp(accessed

July23,2006)65OnthenewlyamalgamatedPortMetroVancouver(akatheVancouverFraserPortAuthority),seeKevin

GinnellandP.Smith,“Making theBiggestBigger: PortAmalgamations inVancouver” inCanadianPoliticalScienceReview,vol2,no.4,December,2008,forthcoming.

66 Formoreon this seeP. Smith, “TheMakingof aGlobal City: TheCaseofVancouver, 1943‐1992” inCanadian Journal of Urban Research, vol.1, no.1, June 1992, pp.90‐112. Simon Fraser University’sInstituteofGovernanceStudiesisworkingona65thAnniversaryconferenceon“GlobalVancouver”inautumn,2009.

67 On such city-based constituent diplomacy in Cascadia, see P.J. Smith, "The Making of a Global City: The Case of Vancouver", Canadian Journal of Urban Research, vol.1, no.1, pp.90-112. For a recent list and some of the range of sustainability projects involved, see also www.fcm.ca (the website of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.

68AuthorcorrespondencewithSisterCitiesInternationalWashington,DC,January7,2006.69 Sister Cities International, Washington, DC, 2006. 70 On this Vancouver initiative – the first North American ‘harm‐reduction’ approach to Drug

Treatment/relatedCrimeaspredominantlyahealthissue,see.PatrickJ.SmithandKennedyStewart,“LocalWholeofGovernmentPolicymakinginVancouver”,inRobertYoungandChristianLeuprecht,eds, Canada: The State of the Federation, 2004, (Kingston: Queen’s University IntergovernmentalRelations, 2006), “Beyond Formal City Limits: Vancouver’s Eager Beavers” – “Urban Drug Policy:Vancouver’sSafeInjectionSite”.

71 See Jeff Lee, “Coalition Pushes For Legal Brothel: Ottawa’s support sought for safe, prostitute‐runfacilitythatwouldcatertoOlympicvisitors”,TheVancouverSun,Monday,November12,2007,pp.A1‐2.

72 For a full discussion of these policy phases, particularly at the state/provincial level, see also P.J. Smith, “Policy Phases, Subnational Foreign Relations and Constituent Diplomacy in the United States and Canada: City, Provincial and State Global Activity in British Columbia and Washington”, in Brian Hocking, ed., Foreign Relations and Federal States, (London: Leicester University Press, 1993), pp.211-35.

73BritishColumbiawassodescribedina36pageGreenpeaceNewsletter,Vancouver,B.C.,1990;seealsoNatalieMinunzie, The Chainsaw Revolution: Environmental Activism and the BC Forestry Industry,M.A.Thesis,DepartmentofPoliticalScience,SimonFraserUniversity,June,1993,foradiscussionofenvironmental‐resourceorganizationsandpublicpolicyinB.C..

74PugetSound/GeorgiaBasinInternationalTaskForce,BROCHURE,July,1996.



75 See, for example, The Shared Marine Waters of British Columbia and Washington, (Report to the BC/Washington ECC, August, 1994, pp.120; and Shared Waters: The Vulnerable Inland Sea of British Columbia and Washington, (BC/Washington ECC Marine Science Panel Report, November, 1994, pp.26.

76 Puget Sound/Georgia Basin International Task Force,WORK GROUP STATUS REPORT, June‐August,1996,pp.1‐5.

77 For example, David Anderson’s Report to the Premier on Oil Transportation and Oil Spills (Victoria,November, 1989), pp.162 and Final Report, States/British Columbia Oil Spill Task Force, October,1990,pp.127.

78BruceAgnew,op.cit.,pp.8.79Ibid.,p.980Interview,B.C.GovernmentOfficial,OfficeofthePremier,February,1990.81 See “CascadiaMayors Council”@ www.discovery.org/cascadia/cascadiaCorridor (accessedMarch 4,

2006)82 See Alan Artibise and Jessie Hill,Governance and Sustainability in the Georgia Basin: A Background

Paper,Victoria:B.C.RoundTableontheEnvironment,1993.83CascadiaMayors’Council,op.cit..84See,forexample,“GeorgiaBasin/PugetSoundResearchConferenceCo‐Sponsorship”,ReporttoGVRD

PlanningandEnvironmentCommittee,January10,2005,HughKellasManager.85 See, for example, Nature Has No Borders: A Conference on the Protection and Management

of the Northern Cascades Ecosystem, (Washington, DC). 86 SeeNature Has No Borders, Newsletter of the Cascades International Alliance, 1994 through 1996,

various.87 George Hoberg, “Environment and Resources in Canadian-American Relations” in Neil

MacFarlane, ed., Problems and Opportunities in Canadian-American Relations, (Ottawa: Foreign Affairs, Report, 1994), pp.37-42.

88 On this, see Mario Polese and Richard Stren, The Social Sustainability of Cities: Diversity andManagement of Change, (Montreal/Toronto: INRS/Urbanization and the Centre for Urban andCommunityStudies,1998).

89 On the comparative experience of Copenhagen/Malmo‐Lund’sOresund region, Atlanta, Georgia andCalgary,Alberta–allalsonottop‐tieredcity‐regions,seeP.J.SmithandK.Stewart,GlobalCalgary:AGlobalistStrategyForTheCityofCalgary,Ottawa:CanadianPolicyResearchNetworkReport,April,2006.

90CitedinGill,op.cit.91Inibid.92 “Cascadia and the End of the Nation‐State: Interrogating the Bases of Transborder Boosterism” @

sparke&uwashington.edu.Accessed,May14,2007.93David Edginton, "Trade, Investment and the New Regionalism: Cascadia and its Economic

Links with Japan," Canadian Journal of Regional Science, vol. XVIII, no. 3, 1995, pp.333-356. 94BruceAgnew,op.cit.,p.8.95Ibid.,pp.1‐2.96See,forexample,SimonAnholt,“PlaceBranding:IsItMarketing,orIsn’tit?”,Editorial,.PlaceBranding

andPublicDiplomacy,vol.4,no.1,February,2008,pp.1‐6.97 See, for example, Krittinee Nuttavuthisit, “Branding Thailand: Correcting the Negative Image of Sex

Tourism”,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.3,no.1, January, 2007,pp.21‐30; andMichaelGould and Heather Skinner, “Branding on Ambiguity? Place BrandingWithout a National Identity:Marketing Northern Ireland as a Post‐Conflict Society in the USA”, Place Branding and PublicDiplomacy,vol.3,no.1,January,2007,pp.100‐113.

98 See, for example, Gary Warnaby and David Bennison, “Reciprocal Urban Space Marketing and Co‐Branding?RetailApplications”,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.2,no.4,October,2006,pp.



297‐310;andGaryWarnaby, “MarketingRetailProvision inUKTownsandCities:PresentPracticesandFutureProspects”,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.2,no.3,July,2006,pp.195‐209..

99 Here, see, Brenda Parkerson and John Saunders, “City Branding: Can Goods and Services BrandingModelsBeUsed tobrandCities”,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.1,no.3, July, 2005,pp.242‐264.

100 For example, see Simon Anholt, “The Anholt Nation Brands Index: Special Report on Europe’sInternationalImage”,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.2,no.3,July,2006,pp.263‐270.

101SimonAnholt,“IsPlacebrandingaCapitalisticTool?”,Editorial,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.2,no.1,January,2006,pp.1‐4;andJozsefBeracs,RitaClifton,HughDavidson,YvonneJohnston,Creenagh Lodge, Jan Melissen, Nigel Morgan, Karl‐Erik Norrman, Dipak R. Pant, Jonathan Porritt,SeppoRainistoandOlleWastberg, “HowHasPlacebrandingDevelopedDuring theyear thatPlaceBrandingHasBeeninPublication”,PlaceBrandingandPublicDiplomacy,vol.2,no.1,January,2006,pp.6‐17.

102 See for example, Ernest Callenbach, Ecotopia, 1975 and Joel Garreau, The Nine Nations of NorthAmerica,1981.

103Forexample,byDavidMcCloskey,Chair,Departmentof Sociology, SeattleUniversity. MacCloskeyproduceda'map'ofCascadia‐seeIanGill,"AGreenIslandInASeaofEnvy:WelcometoCascadia,theWestCoastEcotopian'sDreamState"THEGEORGIASTRAIGHT,June5‐12,1992,pp.7‐9.].

104See,forexample,MarkMoseley,"WelcomeToTheRepublicOfPacifica",VANCOUVERSUN,March7,1991, p.A 11.) [ See alsoWarrenGill, "Region, Agency and PopularMusic: TheNorthWest Sound,1958‐1966",THECANADIANGEOGRAPHER,vol.37,no.2,1993,pp.120‐131,‐onregionalcultureandmusic;seealsotheinauguraleditionofthejournalTHENEWPACIFIC.AnearlyeditiondevelopedacontestforaCascadiaflag.Onewasagreed.

105 See, for example, Levine, in Caroline Andrew, et.al., eds., World Class Cities: Can Canada Play?,(Ottawa:University ofOttawa Press, 1999) and Smith/Stewart, CPRN Study for Calgary, op.cit., onthis.

106OnthisseeKincaid,“RainClouds,1989,op.cit.

Branding Cascadia: Considering Cascadia’s Conflicting ... · places in crisis – corporate...

Documents

Transcript of Branding Cascadia: Considering Cascadia’s Conflicting ... · places in crisis – corporate...