Advertisement

Global Innovative Places

  • Edward J. Blakely
  • Richard Hu
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter takes a global perspective on innovative places. It examines 13 different places in the United States, Asia, and Europe. These places are selected as case studies for their diversity in innovation specialties and geography; this diversity allows them to represent a wide spectrum of global innovative places. For each place, the chapter provides background information, explores historical evolutions, identifies driving factors, and seeks best practice planning and policymaking approaches. Each place has a unique setting and history, but they have all achieved international recognition for innovation after several decades of development. Their success in becoming innovative places is dependent on sets of external and internal factors. The chapter summarises these enabling factors for each place to identify converging and diverging patterns. These summaries are not intended as blueprints to be transferred to other settings, but rather they inform a deeper understanding of the factors and approaches that have proven effective in making innovative places.

References

  1. Andersson, J., Andresen, B., Palmehag, A., & Wessman, J. (2017). State of Medicon Valley 2017. Copenhagen: Medicon Valley Alliance.Google Scholar
  2. Arcadis. (2015). Sustainable Cities Index 2015. Amsterdam: Arcadis.Google Scholar
  3. Baily, M. N., & Montalbano, N. (2018). Clusters and Innovation Districts: Lessons from the United States Experience. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  4. Bakici, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A Smart City Initiative: The Case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barber, A., & Eastaway, M. P. (2010). Leadership Challenges in the Inner City: Planning for Sustainable Regeneration in Birmingham and Barcelona. Policy Studies, 31(4), 393–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bloomberg. (2015). The Bloomberg Innovation Index. Retrieved May 20, 2017, from https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-innovative-countries/
  7. Brinkhoff, T. (2017). City Population. Retrieved August 20, 2017, from http://www.citypopulation.de/
  8. Business Tampere. (2016). Facts & Figures. Retrieved December 20, 2017, from https://investtampere.fi/why-tampere/facts-and-figures
  9. Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the World: The Making of Twenty-First-Century Industrial Complexes. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Census Organization of India. (2015). Bangalore (Bengaluru) City Census 2011 Data. Retrieved May 20, 2017, from http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/448-bangalore.html
  11. Charnock, G., & Ribera-Fumaz, R. (2011). A New Space for Knowledge and People? Henri Lefebvre, Representations of Space, and the Production of 22@Barcelona. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 29, 613–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Copenhagen Capacity & Invest in Skane. (2018). Medicon Valley: The Ecosystem. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from http://www.mediconvalley.com/about-medicon-valley/ecosystem
  13. Danish Energy Agency. (2017). Denmark’s Energy and Climate Outlook 2017. Copenhagen: Danish Energy Agency.Google Scholar
  14. Dercon, C. (2015). Why Is Berlin Such a Magnet for Artists? Retrieved October 20, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20150430-the-worlds-most-creative-city
  15. European Commission. (2014). Europe More Innovative but Regional Differences Persist [Press Release]. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
  16. European Commission. (2017). Ten Cities Enter the Final Round of the 2017 European Capital of Innovation Contest. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://ec.europa.eu/research/index.cfm?&na=na-290817&pg=newsalert&utm_campaign=58c985f573a6a3222e00ec4c&utm_content=59a57c653622f1089c012a1d&utm_medium=smarpshare&utm_source=twitter&year=2017
  17. Jung, N. (2013). Relational Governance and the Formation of a New Economic Space: The Case of Teheran Valley, Seoul, Korea. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1233–1253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jutgla, E. D., & Pallares-Barbera, M. (2015). Industrial Heritage, Economic Revitalization and Urban Compactness in Poblenau-22@Barcelona. A New Barcelona Model? Boletín de la Asociación de Geógrafos Españoles, 69, 493–497.Google Scholar
  19. Lonnqvist, A., Kapyla, J., Salonius, H., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2014). Knowledge That Matters: Identifying Regional Knowledge Assets of the Tampere Region. European Planning Studies, 22(10), 2011–2029.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Massro, R., & Jennings, J. (2016). 2016 Silicon Valley Index. San Jose: Joint Venture Silicon Valley.Google Scholar
  21. Mercer. (2017). 2017 Quality of Living Worldwide City Rankings Survey. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from https://www.mercer.com.au
  22. Miao, J. T. (2018). Knowledge Economy Challenges for the Post-developmental State: Tsukuba Science City as an In-Between Place. Town Planning Review, 89(1), 61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Monocle. (2015). The Monocle Quality of Life Survey 2015. Retrieved August 1, 2017, from https://monocle.com/film/affairs/the-monocle-quality-of-life-survey-2015/
  24. Morisson, A. (2015). Innovation Districts: A Toolkit for Urban Leaders. Middletown: CreativeSpace.Google Scholar
  25. OECD. (2014). Education at a Glance 2014: Denmark. Retrieved August 1, 2018, from http://www.oecd.org/education/Denmark-EAG2014-Country-Note.pdf
  26. Pareja-Eastaway, M., & Pique, J. M. (2011). Urban Regeneration and the Creative Knowledge Economy: The Case of 22@ in Barcelona. Journal of Urban Regeneration & Renewal, 4(4), 319–327.Google Scholar
  27. Park, S. C., & Lee, S. K. (2005). The National and Regional Innovation Systems in Finland: From the Path Dependency to the Path Creation Approach. AI & Society: Knowledge, Culture and Communication, 19(2), 180–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Roos, G., Fernstrom, L., & Gupta, O. (2005). National Innovation Systems: Finland, Sweden and Australia Compared. Sydney: Australian Business Foundation.Google Scholar
  29. Schienstock, G. (2004). Embracing the Knowledge Economy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seoul Metropolitan Government. (2017). Changes in Population. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from http://stat.seoul.go.kr/octagonweb/jsp/WWS7/WWSDS7100.jsp
  31. The Economist. (2018). The Geography of Technology: A Victim of Its Own Success. The Economist. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.economist.com/briefing/2018/09/01/silicon-valley-is-changing-and-its-lead-over-other-tech-hubs-narrowing
  32. The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2017). Global Liveability Ranking and Report 2017. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx?fi=Liveability-Ranking-Free-Summary-Report-August-2017.pdf&mode=wp&campaignid=Liveability17
  33. United States Census Bureau. (2010). American FactFinder. Retrieved September 7, 2017, from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=CF
  34. United States Census Bureau. (2017). QuickFacts: Emeryville City, California. Retrieved October 20, 2017, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/emeryvillecitycalifornia/INC110215
  35. Wikimedia Commons. (2017). Venture Capital Investment Silicon Valley. Retrieved October 4, 2018, from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Silicon_Vally_Venture_Capital_investment.png
  36. Wong, K. W., & Bunnell, T. (2006). ‘New Economy’ Discourse and Spaces in Singapore: A Case Study of One-north. Environment and Planning A, 38, 69–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang, F., & Wu, F. (2012). “Fostering Indigenous Innovation Capacities”: The Development of Biotechnology in Shanghai’s Zhangjiang High-Tech Park. Urban Geography, 33(5), 728–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edward J. Blakely
    • 1
  • Richard Hu
    • 2
  1. 1.University of CaliforniaBerkeleyUSA
  2. 2.University of CanberraCanberraAustralia

Personalised recommendations