Cleveland, Seattle; Short term, Long term

This applies to Seattle along with many other big cities, but I'm going to concentrate on a comparison between Seattle and the greater Cleveland area.Seattle, without a doubt, is a real city. Real, in this case, is a city that's healthy and viable. Other cities that are similarly real include places like Chicago and Columbus. (Plenty more cities would qualify, but I'm picking normal midwest towns)So, what's a big difference between Columbus and Cleveland? (I would actually argue that this is the defining difference)Size. Unification.Columbus grew by annexing outlying cities and bringing them into the fold. Seattle did the same thing early last century. Cleveland, on the other hand, is surrounded -- and locked in -- by suburbs. The suburbs battle amongst themselves and with Cleveland for revenue and prestige.A big city can define itself. A city like Cleveland is defined by others. Columbus can afford to do big things. Columbus can make globally sound decisions.Cleveland and the burbs, in contrast, bicker. A great example is the Walmart in Cleveland Heights. The next town over, South Euclid, has a defunct golf course. So, what's the plan? Let's level the greenspace to move the Walmart over half a mile.What's that going to do?Nothing.No, wait. I lied. Instead there will be an empty space in Cleveland Heights and less greenspace in South Euclid.How is that a win?No doubt S. Euclid lured them with taxes (or, abatements). Cleveland Heights loses. S. Euclid doesn't really win. The community as a whole loses.Why?Because no one is steering the ship. Everyone is arguing.Now, I'm not saying Columbus or Seattle is perfect. Far from it. What I am saying is that a city that's not busy fighting its neighbors can afford to make longer-term decisions. That long-term thinking is what can make a city thrive.Does anyone else have any thoughts?