Walt Disney Was Right; Our Cities’ Problems Are Our Biggest Problems
"I don't believe there is a challenge anywhere in the world that's more important to people everywhere than finding solutions to the problems of our cities" - Walt Disney
Urban Challenges Are Critical: Cities are focal points of modern life but face widespread issues like high housing costs, poor infrastructure, and social problems. Addressing these challenges is crucial for overall societal well-being.
Quality Management in Urban Governance: Applying Quality Management principles to urban governance could significantly improve city management and residents' quality of life. Despite myths, American governments (from local cities to the federal level) were once great at it.
Successful Case Studies: Examples like Houston's homelessness reduction and Akashi City's population growth demonstrate that applying quality management principles can significantly improve urban areas, even in areas traditionally considered outside a city's scope.
Leadership and Implementation Challenges: Despite the potential benefits, many leaders (at every level and every party) choose not to focus on city quality, often due to short-term political considerations.
Cities are the focal point of modern life; they serve as de facto hubs for government services at all levels, employment, and innovation. They're where most people spend their time and where most research and development activities occur. However, the state of American cities has become more than just 'a bit' of an issue (and by a bit, I mean massive), with widespread dissatisfaction across the political spectrum.
Almost everyone is frustrated (for decades now) with skyrocketing housing costs, rising commute times, and declining urban infrastructure. Progressives struggle to address homelessness and preserve communities. Across the aisle, conservatives decry urban areas as filthy, crime-ridden, and lacking in social trust. (Notably, conservative-run cities often fare no better and sometimes worse.)
Decades ago, Walt Disney fought with urban planners about how to run and design cities. Despite how you feel about him, Walt was a massive supporter of building walkable, human-centric cities long before modern YIMBYs and the idea that cities should be run well. He didn't just want cities managed like 'McKinsey implementing cutbacks to ride maintenance,' but rather with the same level of care that kept Disney parks spotless and safe for decades until McKinsey was hired to "improve operational excellence."
Disney was right—our cities are indeed our biggest challenge. As I see it, the main issue is that cities often prioritize other goals over simply being run well. I mean, just look out the window to see crumbling infrastructure, inefficient institutions, and poor urban planning.
The Horrible Consequences of Horrible Urban Experiences
This widespread urban decay has far-reaching consequences. Poorly managed cities lead to negative experiences for residents and erode trust in good governance, especially for those who use consulting groups' services. This erosion creates a dangerous vacuum, potentially allowing those with extreme views to promote policies that worsen the situation.
Some famous examples include:
Imprisoning innocent homeless who don't have safe shelter (and sometimes shelter for their pets) while refusing to provide help and treatment for the mentally ill creates an even worse environment for all.
It didn't take long for Governor Newsom, to the point you would think he’s Jesse Watters, to start cracking down, with gusto, after failing to implement reforms to build more homes.
They are cutting maintenance spending or refusing to invest in public transit and walkability projects. Even when funds are allocated, they're often given to fraud-ridden nonprofits or (even worse) consulting groups (*cough* McKinsey *cough*), ensuring project failure.
Blocking market-rate, affordable housing, and transitional housing projects while crying out for more affordable housing projects.
The stark contrast between American cities and their counterparts in other developed nations has not gone unnoticed. Late-night host Jimmy Kimmel recently highlighted this disparity after a trip to Japan. He expressed shock at the cleanliness and efficiency he encountered, particularly in public spaces like bathrooms. Kimmel's experience underscores a growing awareness that many American cities need to catch up to global standards for urban living. He remarked, "It's like the whole country is Disneyland, and we're living at Six Flags." This comparison might be more spot-on than Kimmel thinks, especially given the history of American urban planning and who shaped the vision of American cities in the 20th century.
Disney vs. Moses: Competing Visions of Urban Planning
While Kimmel's analogy of Disneyland versus Six Flags contrasts Japan and the U.S., it inadvertently touches upon the fundamental tension between Disney and Moses' approach to urban design.
Robert Moses, an urban planner bigger than the governor at the time, championed the car-centric approach in New York. As head of many city and state agencies, Moses reshaped New York's landscape over several decades (with the power that Disney wished he had when building EPCOT), prioritizing automobiles and highways over pedestrians and communities and the rich over the middle and lower classes.
While Disney had his issues, we see through his theme parks and EPCOT that Disney envisioned a people-centric urbanism focusing on community design and livability. It aimed to integrate technology with human needs, creating a self-sustaining community balancing residential, commercial, and recreational spaces. Disney emphasized modern public transportation systems like monorails and PeopleMovers as alternatives to car-dependent infrastructure.
Moses' New York was characterized by large-scale car-focus infrastructure projects often executed at the expense of established communities and pedestrian-friendly spaces (or even with public transit projects, as Robert Moses was hellbent on ending public transit).
The Kicker?
Moses focused on creating his own Disneyland, Flushing Medows in New York City, his way, for the people he thought deserved it: the upper class of New York and no one else. He planned his projects to exclude the middle and working classes explicitly. His approach may have been one of the root causes of New York City's (and others') decades-long decline and the rise of suburbs, mainly as his practices and viewpoints spread like a disease to other American cities.
What is the point?
The contrast between American cities and their global counterparts, as highlighted by Kimmel's experience, underscores a crucial point: effective urban planning isn't a matter of political ideologies. Writing "American Singapore" and "Miyazaki Might Be Right" reminds me that successful urban environments and programs result from efficient governance rather than some ideological commitment to the modern left, right, and center.
In "American Singapore," we saw how cities like Carmel, Houston, and Las Vegas achieved remarkable results by focusing on quality control and competent management, regardless of political leanings. "Miyazaki Might Be Right" showed us how consistent, family-friendly policies focusing on improving the quality of life for families in places like Nagareyama and Nagi led to demographic turnarounds, again transcending traditional political divides.
The closest thing to an ideology that explains everything I saw, read, and heard on what is causing the problems with our cities, the successes of a few case studies, and what Walt Disney was talking about is an old-school business philosophy called Total Quality Management.
Whether addressing homelessness, water conservation, promoting families, or creating livable urban spaces, the common thread in successful initiatives is a commitment to effective feedback governance, careful (not total) use of metrics, and a willingness to invest in long-term solutions—things that affiliated with Total Quality Management.
(Buckle up, Buckaroo, we are going to bring in a lot of historical, business, and historical business examples throughout the article)
Hypothesis: Lack of Quality Management or Care About Quality May Be One of the Root Issues
Many argue that the government cannot be efficient or produce quality results for ideological reasons. People would say, both on the left, the center, and the right, that businesses are just more efficient or effective (just that the left would argue because of all the wrong reasons)
Yet, everything I've seen and read, from Carmel's infrastructure investments to Houston's homelessness reduction and the successes we've observed, all share a common thread: a focus on quality (meeting or exceeding residents' expectations) and long-term outcomes. Something that people from all sides of the political spectrum would say shouldn't happen, let alone local government. Also, what do you mean by quality management? Aren't those MBAs always talking about lean Six Sigma or defect reduction?
However, it's crucial to understand what we mean by quality management in an urban context. It doesn't mean some failed defect reduction programs are popular with MBAs. It doesn't mean some NIMBYesque pandering to an obnoxious few homeowners, fraud-filled nonprofits, lunatics in charge of school boards, or screaming activists; it means working to provide an excellent experience to almost everyone who works and/or lives in the city across several different services.
We have seen how pandering to those few has worked out since the time of Robert Moses; it doesn't, not even for the upper crust, regardless of ideology.
What is Quality Management, and Why Should I Care?
We must look back to understand the potential impact of quality management on our cities. I could delve into how Sewer Socialism transformed Milwaukee into the jewel of the Great Lakes, explore Singapore’s groundbreaking urban policies, discuss how Auburn, Maine, created housing abundance through zoning reform, or even highlight the successes of 'the Internet’s favorite town,' Carmel, Indiana. But I want to go deeper to illustrate my point.
The story begins with a name that might surprise you in this context: the U.S. Military During World War II. Yes! That's right—the U.S. Military used to be the king of quality nearly a century ago!
After entering World War II, the United States enacted legislation to help gear the civilian economy to military production. Quality became a critical component of the war effort and a significant safety issue during this period. Unsafe military equipment was unacceptable (because it was getting harder and harder to field recruits for a massive war), and the U.S. armed forces inspected virtually every unit produced to ensure it was safe for operation. This practice required massive inspection forces and caused problems recruiting and retaining competent inspection personnel.
To ease the problems (without compromising product safety), the armed forces began using sampling inspection to replace unit-by-unit inspection. With the aid of industry consultants, the leading figure being Walter A. Shewhart, they adapted sampling tables and published them in a military standard known as Mil-Std-105. The U.S. military used to incorporate these tables into contracts so suppliers clearly understood what they were expected to produce and to produce them with better processes.
This wartime focus on quality control sparked a broader evolution in quality management practices.
Key developments included:
Military boost: Armed forces sponsored training for suppliers in Shewhart's statistical quality control (SQC) techniques.
Process focus: The early 20th century saw "processes" added to quality practices.
A "process": Activities that take input, add value, and produce output.
Shewhart's impact: In the mid-1920s, the focus was shifted to controlling processes.
Shewhart made quality relevant for both the product and production process.
Shewhart recognized industrial processes generate data (it seems obvious, but many industrial leaders at the time didn't).
The Secret Sauce: Industrial process data could be analyzed statistically to:
Check if a process is stable and in control.
Identify special causes affecting the process.
Shewhart clarified that these tools are just tools; management and process improvement are required to produce quality. Otherwise, the tools will only improve quality a little. A flawed process is flawed at the end of the day, and error or defect reduction can only do so much.
After the war was won and the Cold War started, U.S. businesses largely abandoned the quality control techniques they had learned during the war effort. However, W. Edwards Deming, a statistician with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and Census Bureau, evangelize Shewhart's SQC methods (and, more importantly, his ideology). Demings took these abandoned practices, improved upon them, and taught them in Japan.
Edward Deming's Influence
The Japanese government invited industrial leaders to learn how to compete with American firms on higher-value products like cars and T.V.s. Deming uses this once-in-a-lifetime chance to teach quality control and help with government policy. Well, the results speak for themselves.
The emphasis on quality control, employee involvement, and iterative improvement led to significant advancements in Japanese manufacturing. Companies like Toyota and Sony became global leaders, known for their high-quality products and efficient processes.
The "Japanese Miracle"—the country's rapid economic growth post-war—owes much to Deming's principles. Japan's cities benefited from this focus on quality and continuous improvement at the time. The cleanliness and efficiency that impressed Jimmy Kimmel are partly a legacy of Demings and Total Quality Management. Tokyo was considered a futuristic city for decades, and some would argue (myself included) that it is still futuristic.
Governments not only practiced quality management; they standardized, taught, and even enforced these standards. We continue to see the results across multiple contexts. Yet, despite its proven effectiveness, we've also witnessed the abandonment of quality management as a philosophy and practice.
This stuff still works.
Okay, you think this is ancient history, and we live in modern times.
Well, guess what skippy? Without these principles, the phone or computer you're reading this article on wouldn't be a thing.
Steve Jobs invited another TQM leader, Joseph Juran, to visit him at his NeXT Computers headquarters a few times around 1991. If the year is correct, Dr. Juran was then 87 years old, and Steve would stay on NeXT (and Pixar) for another six years before re-joining Apple.
"One of the things we learned from Dr. Juran was to look at everything as repetitive processes,…find out how it's running,…and take it apart and put it back together in ways that will tremendously improve its effectiveness. A very straightforward way. No magic, no pep rallies".
"Most of the quality stuff, as I understood it, is really about reengineering your repetitive processes. To make them much more effective; combining them, eliminating some, strengthening others…".
For decades, Toyota and its luxury brand Lexus have been rated the most reliable car manufacturers in the world. They consistently attributed their success to the concept of TQM and created their flavor, the Toyota Production System.
Nintendo Switch beat the higher-spec Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 platforms. Why? This is attributed to Nintendo's long-term handling of their gaming I.P. and brands, focusing on solid gameplay and fundamentals rather than chasing trends. Also, unlike Sony (who moved their gaming division to America) and Microsoft, Nintendo retained key staff over regular layoffs.
While Total Quality Management (TQM) consistently produces results, many businesses have paradoxically abandoned it after World War II and in the modern era.
Now, here's the kicker. Despite Edward Demings and his TQM's track record and business leaders repeatedly recognizing that TQM produces results, many businesses have jumped ship. They've cooked up alternatives, hoping to cherry-pick TQM's benefits without the total commitment (stuff like employees not fearing for their jobs because of layoffs). We're talking:
"Lean" manufacturing (derived from Toyota's just-in-time system, but unlike Toyota's, "lean" collapsed during the COVID crisis),
"Lean Six Sigma," which attempts to fuse all of these TQM replacement practices into one poorly designed practice, also failed to deliver.
These alternatives are often about pushing quality responsibility down the ladder, letting the bigwigs off the hook. They cherry-pick the stats and inventory tricks from TQM but conveniently forget the parts about layoffs being a management failure, the need for constant improvement, long-term planning, and the fact that quality starts at the top.
TQM demands long-term thinking, trust between people, and a process focus from everyone, especially the head honchos. But that's a tough sell in a world obsessed with quick layoffs and stock buybacks.
Suppose profit-driven businesses need help with this quality vs. quick-buck dilemma. Is it any wonder our cities are a mess regardless of whether they have progressive, conservative, or even "centrist" leadership? Urban planning has the same problem—short-term political wins trump quality and long-term development (almost) every time.
"Quality Management is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural."
As shown in American Singapore, Houston had the sixth-largest homeless population in the country a decade ago. According to its annual point-in-time count, about 8,500 people were identified as homeless on a given night in 2011. Looking back at Japan, we see that managing cities and towns can even do what people say is impossible. As seen in 'Miyazaki Might Be Right,' towns like Nagareyama and Nagi use some basics to revitalize their communities and increase birth rates.
Quality management principles extend beyond traditional ideas about what cities should do. This is stuff that most people would say is entirely out of scope or even “unnatural” for a city or town to accomplish
Houston's The Way Home
Returning to Houston, the city’s The Way Home model has housed over 26,000 people since 2012, with 90% remaining for two or more years.
Results: Before the COVID-19 pandemic, HUD point-in-time data showed that no other central U.S. metro area had matched Houston's success in addressing homelessness over the past decade. The greater Houston area saw a 53% decrease in its homeless population between 2011 and 2020. During that time, the homeless population in the city and county of Los Angeles grew by 84%, New York City by 52%, and Dallas by 26%.
Houston leaders and others working to address homelessness in the city cite three factors in Houston's success. (Remember that Demings' definition of quality is meeting or exceeding expectations)
Housing comes first. The city employs a housing-first model that prioritizes providing permanent housing to people experiencing homelessness as quickly as possible with no barriers to entry.
Baseline needs and expectations are met straight out of the box. The person gets a home and a period of stability; the stated progressive goal of quality, stable housing and the conservative goal of keeping the homeless off the streets are met.
The city then provides wraparound support services to ensure they remain housed. Those services include assigned case managers, food assistance, mental health counseling, and detox and substance abuse treatments. The stability and certainty of having a home multiply the effectiveness of wraparound services.
The region operates as a single continuum of care with a steering committee that distributes all funding. Houston, its surrounding counties, and a host of agencies and service providers in the homeless space, including soup kitchens, all function under a single federal Continuum of Care program called The Way Home in Greater Houston.
Houston's The Way Home continuum is managed by the Coalition for the Homeless, which includes the city, counties, and various partners working together toward a common goal.
The Way Home's steering committee arranges all funding, including federal, state, and county funds, grants to individual agencies, and philanthropic contributions.
It makes it easier to manage funding and the requirements attached to it while limiting the ability of others to use said requirements to gum up the work.
The steering committee uses data and feedback to drive its decision-making regarding funding distribution, resource allocation, and program selection.
It makes it easier to mop up the low-hanging fruits of policy improvements.
Planning for the long term and adjusting when needed is more straightforward.
Bottomline: Okay, so everyone should be focused on homelessness! But here's the thing - many programs meant to help fail. Why? Sometimes, it's because people's goals need to line up. Other times, it's just messy organization. And sometimes, some folks don't care about fixing the problem; they want to indulge in their worst impulses.
Revisiting Japan
Their success highlights the power of simple yet effective strategies—such as community engagement and local family policy —to create welcoming environments that naturally encourage population growth. Rather than revisiting Nagareyama and Nagi, as we did with Houston, we will bring another case study: Akashi City in Hyogo.
A decade ago, Akashi City in Hyogo Prefecture, Japan, faced a population decline, a financial deficit, and a declining urban center. When Mayor Fusaho Izumi took office in 2011, the city needed help to bring back growth; rather than trying the regular toolbox of building more roads and other clichés, Izumi chose to focus on what people, especially families, expected and what they wanted from Akashi.
Results: Akashi City has achieved population growth for over a decade. The birth rate in 2020 was 1.62, significantly higher than the national average of 1.33. Akashi went from deficits in 2011 to regular budget surpluses in 2014 until the COVID Crisis.
Akashi leaders cite three factors in the city's success (aligned with Demings' definition of quality as meeting or exceeding expectations):
Priotorization of Resources:
The government rather than spending money on commuter infrastructure projects (like more roads), Izumi decided that the city needed to attract families, especially young families.
The city wants these families to spend, and Izumi thought the best way is to reduce the financial and time burden on families.
This approach created a virtuous cycle: Supporting families increased business for local businesses, generated more support for Izumi’s family policies, and generated more tax revenue for the city.
The economic benefits extended beyond just families, turning opponents into supporters from businesses because of the increased business and elderly residents seeing people move back into their city.
Izumi’s "5 Free Services" Model to exceed families’ expectations of a city:
The city implemented a "5 Free Services" model, covering medical care, childcare fees, diapers, school lunches, and play areas.
This model immediately meets baseline needs and expectations. Families receive financial relief and stability, meeting both the progressive goal of supporting kids and the conservative goal of economic growth.
The city provides these services without means testing and ensuring broad accessibility.
A Commitment Towards Continuous, Long-Term Support Over One-Time Benefits:
Akashi City focuses on providing ongoing support rather than one-time cash benefits.
This approach creates a sense of security and stability for families, encouraging them to have more children and remain in the city.
The city views itself as a "large family," providing support in various aspects of child-rearing, including emergency childcare.
Challenges: Despite its success, Akashi City faces challenges due to rapid population growth, including increased demand for childcare and schools, traffic congestion, and rising real estate prices. This highlights the need for continual adaptation and scaling of services to meet growing demands.
Bottomline: Akashi City's local family policy, along with those of Nagareyama, Nagai, etc., showcases something about quality management in local governance. You may be shocked at how much you can do, even when others expect it to be out of scope, and how focusing on providing quality services and benefits brings in more than you expect.
The Dream of EPCOT
The tragedy is not that people don't want better cities — on the contrary, the results are highly valued. The tragedy is that implementing and maintaining better quality in our cities is often avoided or abandoned.
Remember, Robert Moses disagreed with Walt Disney but loved Disney's work. He just refused to adopt Disney's methods or underlying viewpoints. Moses wanted his own Disneyworld, but only for those he thought deserved it.
History doesn’t repeat itself; it rhymes and rhymes a lot.
Similar stories often play out in progressive California and its cities, with activists trying to prevent middle- and upper-income people from moving into the city in a misguided attempt to protect low-income residents or conservative and centrist forces trying to prevent students, low-income and middle-income folks from living near them. This isn't just a thing in California.
Off the top of my head, I can think of:
“Centrist” NY Governor Hochul's impact on the MTA and congestion pricing illustrates how political decisions often prioritize dealerships over effective solutions, rejecting said solutions as extreme and progressive.
Conservative Texan Governor Greg Abbott and Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick refuse to resolve issues with Texas's energy grid, particularly regarding the local monopoly CenterPoint. They allow CenterPoint to neglect maintenance, resulting in weeks-long blackouts in the Greater Houston Area, the Energy Capital of America, costing the state's businesses and economy billions of dollars.
Ron DeSantis's little war with the current Disney leadership and actively breaking down one of the critical pillars of Walt Disney’s dream of EPCOT, the Reedy Creek Improvement District, primarily as his appointments seek to strip it to the bone.
The current Disney leadership also constantly and continuously spit on Walt’s grave for many reasons, including bringing consultants into cutback maintenance and investment (which caused deaths) and jacking up prices to exclude the people that Walt wanted to be included
Bottomline
Hardly anyone is satisfied with the current state of our cities. Governor Hochul certainly isn’t pleased with the budget crisis she’s created for the MTA; Governor Abbott isn’t thrilled that Texas businessmen are furious over frequent power outages. In California, discontent is widespread across the political spectrum. Despite his immense influence, even Robert Moses never turned New York City into the “Disneyland” he envisioned because of his methods and priorities.
These leaders possess a level of power that Walt Disney, with all his wealth and visionary ideas, never had to complete his dream of EPCOT. Yet, they consistently refuse to adopt the methods, practices, or policies needed to improve the quality of their cities. Why? It’s not because these are technically difficult to pull off, or that cities need a tremendous amount of capital for projects.
Often, they are driven by short-term political goals, a narrow vision that excludes large segments of the population, or, perhaps most troubling, simple indifference. They are not ignorant of the positive outcomes of better quality management. They choose not to implement them, simple as that.
Some might accuse me of taking a cop-out by avoiding a solid stance on specific policies. They would be mistaken. My reluctance to prescribe detailed general policies in this article is intentional—it’s to keep the focus on the real issue at hand: the need for effective management and long-term thinking.
Good governance transcends ideological boundaries. It isn’t about paying lip service to hollow slogans like 'balanced budgets,' ‘Our neighborhoods are not a commodity for your profit‘, 'shared sacrifice,' 'eat the rich,' or 'government is bad'—often little more than malicious clichés.
Good governance demands leaders committed to quality—leaders who aspire to reform cities into meeting and exceeding people’s expectations, becoming so well-run that they seem like a dream.