Abstract

This article critically investigates the global trend toward urban innovation districts, a distinctly 21st-century spatial form. Innovation districts are a place-based, economic development strategy to concentrate the actors, entities, and infrastructure considered essential to process and product innovation. Built on the idea that today's innovation requires continuous interaction, the design of innovation districts incorporates a density of living and working amenities to accommodate a 24-7 live–work–play environment. At the heart of the innovation district strategies are the entrepreneurs meant to benefit from the built-in supports that help them scale their ideas and introduce products to the market. Despite an embrace by policymakers, to date, there has been little systematic analysis and critique of innovation district strategies or attempts to understand them as tools of neoliberal urban economic development. This article tracks how planners and other city development officials endorsed innovation districts during the Global Financial Crisis. The districts were a stopgap policy measure to accumulate economic benefits while waiting for market activity to resume. Furthermore, this paper argues that the emergence of innovation district strategy points to new governance arrangements that shift the burden of urban revitalization onto entrepreneurs who catalyze growth through their consumption and production activities. The findings are based on content analysis, site observations, and interviews with the creators, implementers, stakeholders, and users of innovation districts in Boston, St. Louis, and Dublin.

Highlights

  • Urban innovation districts have become a core tool of economic development policy for economic developers, planners, and city officials

  • I argue that the innovation district is a 21st-century spatial form brought about by city builders to catalyze growth at a juncture when urban development was in crisis

  • Innovation districts succeed in catalyzing growth by attracting entrepreneurs to activate development, they fall short in supporting them

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Urban innovation districts have become a core tool of economic development policy for economic developers, planners, and city officials. Fiber-optic cables are embedded in the infrastructure to enable continuous public access to wireless connectivity, while the physical supporting entrepreneurial activity such as incubators and accelerators, research hospitals and universities, and legal and financial services create an amenity-rich, transit-oriented community that attracts younger, high-skilled workers and the firms that employ them (Clark et al, 2002; Florida, 2002; Lloyd, 2008) The reliance on these amenities to create a live–work–playground means that innovation districts are firmly rooted in demarcated geographical places. These individuals market the innovation district brand and activate it by orchestrating workrelated events (e.g. seminars to learn from established entrepreneurs, “office hours” with venture capitalists), as well as nonwork-related events (e.g. fun runs, yoga in the park) to provide networking opportunities Such spatialized programming facilitates the blurring of boundaries between working, living, and playing. The innovation district “captures” the enhanced public life generated from the entrepreneurial activity contained within it, and this serves to promote the city for further capital investment

Research methods
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call