Advertisement

Dissecting Innovative Places

  • Edward J. Blakely
  • Richard Hu
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter draws insights from the global innovative places examined in the previous chapter. It outlines four major approaches to innovative place making: the anchor approach, the hub approach, the community approach, and the stand-alone approach; and identifies five key attributes that define innovative places: cluster, anchor, brand, social good, and governance. An innovation ecosystem is conceptualised in the form of a triple helix system comprising collaboration, acceleration, and urbanism. These approaches, attributes, and the ecosystem constitute a holistic mechanism for the making and functioning of successful innovative places. The chapter draws several lessons for the Australian context, focusing on the importance of a leading anchor, good urban design and place making, the role of government, the need to attract human capital, and the significance of an open-minded and risk-taking culture. These lessons are drawn from global best practices and have been chosen as a focus with a view to Australia’s competitive strengths and weaknesses in the global innovation race.

References

  1. Alden, A., & Haddad, H. (2017). Blockchain ‘Crypto’ Assistance at WFP. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from http://innovation.wfp.org/
  2. Brookings. (2017). Advancing a New Wave of Urban Competitiveness: The Role of Mayors in the Rise of Innovation Districts. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  3. Comunian, R. (2011). Rethinking the Creative City: The Role of Complexity, Networks and Interactions in the Urban Creative Economy. Urban Studies, 48(6), 1157–1179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Feldman, M. P. (2014). The Character of Innovative Places: Entrepreneurial Strategy, Economic Development, and Prosperity. Small Business Economics, 43(1), 9–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hollanders, H., & van Cruysen, A. (2009). Design, Creativity and Innovation: A Scoreboard Approach. Amsterdam: Inno Metrics.Google Scholar
  6. Hospers, G. J. (2003). Creative Cities: Breeding Places in the Knowledge Economy. Knowledge Technology & Policy, 16(3), 143–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hu, R. (2016). Concentration and Mobility of Knowledge Workers: An Intercity Analysis of Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. Journal of Urban Technology, 23(1), 11–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Microsoft. (2015). Accelerating Australia’s Innovation Ecosystem: Lessons from Boston and Recommendations for a Unique Path Forward. Retrieved September 14, 2018, from https://enterprise.microsoft.com/en-au/articles/roles/it-leader/accelerating-australias-innovation-ecosystem/
  9. Palacio, H., & Banks, S. (2015). Turning the Tide on Homelessness in New York City. New York: The City of New York.Google Scholar
  10. Porter, M. E. (2000). Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 14(1), 15–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Pratt, A., Gill, R., & Spelthann, V. (2007). Work and the City in the E-society: A Critical Investigation of the Sociospatially Situated Character of Economic Production in the Digital Content Industries in the UK. Information, Communication & Society, 10(6), 922–942.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Rosler, K., Lohoar, S., Moore, S., & Robinson, E. (2015). Participatory Action Research. Retrieved September 21, 2017, from https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/participatory-action-research
  13. The Economist. (2018). Vienna Overtakes Melbourne as the World’s Most Liveable City. The Economist. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/08/14/vienna-overtakes-melbourne-as-the-worlds-most-liveable-city
  14. Wu, W. (2005). Dynamic Cities and Creative Clusters. Bangkok: World Bank DECRG.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