Dissecting Innovative Places

  • Edward J. Blakely
  • Richard Hu


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.


  1. Alden, A., & Haddad, H. (2017). Blockchain ‘Crypto’ Assistance at WFP. Retrieved March 1, 2018, from
  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
  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
  13. The Economist. (2018). Vienna Overtakes Melbourne as the World’s Most Liveable City. The Economist. Retrieved October 5, 2018, from
  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