Okey, maybe the term is not the most innovative, like the horses were the accelerator of the innovation cluster in Helsinki Metropolitan Area. I'm sure it's something else, like the products of the creative professionals who have concentrated in that cluster (which btw, now in this presentation, looks like a doughnut:).
Be that as it may, a vast majority of the members of the creative class live in that doughnut, or horseshoe, and almost all the knowledge intensive workplaces locate in that one cluster. Only a few tiny concentrations of creative class and innovative firms lay outside the main cluster. I decided to form only one large cluster to the Helsinki Metropolitan Area based on analyses, because it felt the most natural thing to do. Remembering the flows of information it is not hard to see that the neighbourhoods with the high points from the analyses forms not an archipelago but a cluster of chained islands. With the history in master planning it is too the most natural thing to form larger objects from the smaller entities. If policy implications are dear, I could state that every penny invested in that cluster will pay off positive amounts of money and other much seeked products of the information age city: namely innovations and productions. Also, talking about the humans in the cluster, it emerges human capital there, which is essential in producing the just explained benefits of innovative and productive city . Often the talk concerns creative people, but the people outside that class or movement or just a lifestyle or something, are forgotten. But hey, don't worry about the workforce with less or no skills. They benefit from the investments to the cluster too. It is calculated that in American cities every creative job generates five low-skill workplaces! Another recommedetion would be that you can't create a new cluster outside the cluster. They just don't make it (Porter 2010). But, if you are working with Vantaa, you might have noticed first the points of creativity and innovativeness in Vantaa. The former flourish in Western Vantaa and the latter one in the central parts of the city. A cluster formed of one or two neighbourhoods are not bad at all. After all analysis has estimated the creativity and innovativemess of the neighouring areas as well. So the points in Vantaa could be thought of as larger entities than just one district. And if you think of the division of the Helsinki Metropolitan Area, so called "pienalueet" (what on earth it would be in English; minor areas? ;D) are still quite large, despite the name they have. Because these clusters are maybe not so large, they are significant (estimated with spatial statistics), that they are most warmly recommended to be directed all kind of developments in. Also in Eastern Helsinki, widely criticized as socially and ethnically segregated area, has also it's tiny clusters. However, these clusters could grow or merge in the main cluster not so far from them. On the other side of social spectrum, fighting against segregation, the city of Helsinki has pumped loads of money to Eastern Helsinki, but besides some bright stars, like Myllypuro, not much positive has evolved what comes to research I have read. With the results of the paper visible and bearing in minds Porter's wisdom of the theory he created, it is clear that the city of Helsinki could rethink the areas where the funding should be aimed at geographically. It is important to remember that I believe that Porter not by any means meaned that the areas outside the clusters could be left on their own and segregate from the areas belonging to the cluster and funded exclusively. Areas with the ability on innovation or human capital production should of course be funded with different objects than the areas with no significant potential.
Comments
The first article of my PhD thesis was published in Cities journal. You can find it from this link for 50 days, until March 26, 2017.
Juho Kiuru a, Tommi Inkinen b, a University of Helsinki, Department of Geosciences and Geography, Division of Urban Geography and Regional Studies, P.O. Box 64, (Gustaf Hällströmin katu 2a), FI-00014 University of Helsinki, Finland b University of Turku, Centre for Maritime Studies, Brahea-Centre, FI-20014 University of Turku, Finland Highlights • Provides a postal code level visual analysis between human capital and innovation. • Provides a classification of high achieving and potential innovation areas. • Incorporates tolerance variable into empirical innovation studies. • Provides six regression models explaining the relationship between innovation and human capital. • Shows the significance of absolute variables in comparison to relative ones. Abstract Human capital is an essential driver for the growth of national and regional innovation systems. In this study, we can show that also intra-metropolitan innovation clusters locate in, or in proximity to, neighbourhoods with a high level of human capital. Our interpretation of human capital involves an educated, talented, creative and tolerant workforce. Indicators from earlier literature are complemented by identified new propositions. In addition, by using both relative and absolute measures, we conclude that innovations emerge the best in dense and mixed urban structure. After identifying the geography of human capital and innovativeness, we predict also potential growth areas, which could help urban planning of the HMA. The modelling methods used in this study can be implemented and applied in urban studies of other city regions. Keywords
|
Photo by Rob Hurson
Categories
All
Archives
July 2018
AuthorJuho Kiuru, geographer living in Helsinki, Finland. |