Difference between revisions of "Defining Innovation Districts"
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
1) High-tech, high growth entrepreneurship should be central to an innovation district, but there's no evidence for high concentrations. Essentially these are redevelopment plans for medical centers. In most cases, there's no example of high-tech, high-growth in the innovation district. | 1) High-tech, high growth entrepreneurship should be central to an innovation district, but there's no evidence for high concentrations. Essentially these are redevelopment plans for medical centers. In most cases, there's no example of high-tech, high-growth in the innovation district. | ||
| − | 2) Most successful examples -- which Katz & Wagner do not study in depth -- do not involve medical centers (Kendall Square, South Lake Union). These also don't see to have involved extensive use of public funds or centralized urban planning | + | 2) Most successful examples -- which Katz & Wagner do not study in depth -- do not involve medical centers (Kendall Square, South Lake Union). These also don't see to have involved extensive use of public funds or centralized urban planning (need more research to be sure). |
3) Innovation Districts Katz & Wagner study extensively seem to be determined by donor support. (All reports include disclaimer that donors do not influence report.) | 3) Innovation Districts Katz & Wagner study extensively seem to be determined by donor support. (All reports include disclaimer that donors do not influence report.) | ||
Revision as of 18:10, 23 May 2017
 | |
| Blog Post | |
|---|---|
| Title | Defining Innovation Districts |
| Author | Anne Dayton |
| Series | Entrepreneurial Ecosystems |
| Content status | Idea |
| Publication date | |
| Notes | |
| Image | |
| © edegan.com, 2016 | |
Outline / Major topics
1) High-tech, high growth entrepreneurship should be central to an innovation district, but there's no evidence for high concentrations. Essentially these are redevelopment plans for medical centers. In most cases, there's no example of high-tech, high-growth in the innovation district.
2) Most successful examples -- which Katz & Wagner do not study in depth -- do not involve medical centers (Kendall Square, South Lake Union). These also don't see to have involved extensive use of public funds or centralized urban planning (need more research to be sure).
3) Innovation Districts Katz & Wagner study extensively seem to be determined by donor support. (All reports include disclaimer that donors do not influence report.)
4) Katz & Wagoner claim Innovation Districts can reduce social inequality. Do not present any evidence to support this claim. Evidence in "audits" of Oklahoma City and Philadelphia that stakeholders either allowed or deliberately constructed geographic barriers between lower income areas and medical centers. Katz & Wagoner set a low bar for inclusion, claiming that 50% of "STEM careers" in innovation districts do not require bachelor's degrees, suggesting they are counting low-level medical assistants as STEM careers.
Notes
Research of Bruce Katz and Julie Wagner, Brookings Institute
Broad net •Any U.S. urban neighborhood in proximity to major medical centers could qualify regard less of geography, infrastructure, or presence of any high-tech, high-growth firm. Examples studied by group led by Katz include:
Philadelphia
Oklahoma City
Fort Worth
Houston (not extensively)
•Include some genuine success stories: Kendall Square, South Lake Union private-sector development where local government got out of the way, but do not focus on these examples.
•Include urban redevelopment projects. For example:
Detroit
South Boston Seaport ♣Original plan included high-tech, high-growth entrepreneurs ♣Subsequent development seems to have priced startup firms out ♣Some of the original members of entrepreneurial ecosystem relocated
•Includes research parks, so definition can include Research Triangle Park which a new design plan proposes to “urbanize”
•City profiles cheer a variety urban renewal development that can fit within this broad definition. For example: Chattanooga Fort Worth
•Brookings receives donor support from institutions involved in innovation district projects it accesses, For example: Philadelphia & OKC reports
Also New York Times article supporting documents included discussions of connecting KKR (real estate developers) to contacts in Detroit and Philadelphia Philadelphia & OKC report include disclaimers about donors influencing outcomes.
•Makes claim that innovation districts can mitigate income inequality.
oWhen describing “Innovation districts” near medical centers, claims that 50% of STEM careers in these locales do not require bachelor’s degrees, suggesting that they are counting medical techs, nurse’s aids, etc. as “STEM careers”
oMany of jobs most accessible to less well-educated workers would be in the service sector. No evidence that these would be well-paying.
oClose examinations of Philadelphia and Oklahoma City suggest that residents from nearby impoverished zip codes are not taking jobs in the “innovation district.”
"Innovation Districts can grow better and more accessible jobs at a time of rising poverty and social inequality" (p.4) "platform for regenerating adjoining neighborhoods" (p.19) "Practitioners noted the need to be purposeful in hiring, training, and supporting local talent, with the ultimate goal of giving low-income workers economically-mobile career paths with family-sustaining wages." (p. 19)
Zip codes to compare for "Innovation Districts"
Detroit
(Quicken Loans 48226, Henry Ford Health Sys (48202), Wayne State (48202), "downtown and midtown", Kresge Foundation (donor), Invest Detroit (Community Development Financial Institution), American Lightweight Materials Manufacturing Innovation Institute 48216)
Philadelphia
(,Comcast Innovation and Technology Center 19103, UPenn 19104, Drexel 19104, Univ. City Sci Center 19104)
St. Louis
(Cortex 63108, Wash U 63130, St. Louis U 63103, Barnes Jewish Hospital 63110, CorTex West Development Corporation, )BioGenerator 63108 "St. Louis will clustering five innovation centers, with the purpose of generating 'collision points" between smart people." Danforth founded BioSTL Coalition (p. 15)
Seattle South Lake Union
(Amazon 98109) See Vulcan Real Estate (Paul G. Allen) ; Univ. of Washington medical research campus 98109
Cambridge, MA
(Kendall Square 02139, MIT 02139, Cambridge Innovation Center 02142)
Boston
(South Waterfront) Babson College 02210 & Fraunhofer Center for Sustainable Energy Systems 02210, Mass Challenge 02210, District Hall 02210, GreenTown Labs (moved to Somerville in 2013, 02143), Battery Ventures 02210 http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2014/01/10/rents-soaring-city-innovation-district/nqeKNcRiLJiyjKEEGog8GP/story.html Arnault Morisson book titled "Innovation Districts: a Toolkit for Urban Leaders"
Texas Medical Center
TMC one of several "leading edge innovation districts" (p. 14)
Chattanooga
(Electric Power Board of Chattanooga, Lyndhurst and Benwood Foundations (funders), Univ. of Tenn at Chattanooga 37403, The Enterprise Center 37402, Edney Innovation Center 37402, GigTank (program of the Company Lab 37402)
Fort Worth
(Sundance Square 76102, near medical center Cook Children's 76104, JPS 76104, Harris Methodist 76132, Baylor Scott 76104, HCA's Plaza 786104, Moncrief 76104)
Oklahoma City
audit slides: http://www.okcinnovation.com/Websites/okcid/files/OKCAuditDeck_revised4-28reduced.pdf
73104
OKC VA Medical Center, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, OU Med Center, Dean McGee Eye Institute, Oklahoma School of Science and Mathematics (high school), Harold Hamm Diabetes Center, GE Global Research (oil & gas), i2E "innovation to enterprise", Oklahoma Health Center Foundation, Presbyterian Health Foundation
73117
College of Allied Health, College of Pharmacy, Young Biomed Research Ctr
