(New York), Mission District (San Francisco), Shoreditch (London), and Silicon Sentier (Paris). The innovative startups and creative companies decided to locate ...
A Framework for Defining Innovation Districts: Case Study from 22@ Barcelona A. Morisson
Mediterranean University of Reggio Calabria, Reggio Calabria, Italy
ABSTRACT: Innovation districts are being implemented as urban regeneration strategies in cities as diverse as Barcelona (Spain), Boston (Massachusetts), Chattanooga (Tennessee), Detroit (Michigan), Medellín (Colombia), and Montréal (Canada). Little however, is known about the concept. This paper aims to provide a framework to define innovation districts. The research methodology is based on a qualitative approach using 22@ Barcelona as single case study. 22@ Barcelona was the first planned innovation district and has been a model for the innovation districts of Medellín (Colombia) and Boston (Massachusetts) among others. The paper finds that innovation districts based on the 22@ Barcelona’s model are designed around four strategic axes, namely urban planning, productive, collaborative, and creative, all coordinated under a strong leadership. An innovation district is a place-based urban development strategy that aims to regenerate an under-performing downtown neighborhood into a desirable location for innovative and creative companies and workers. 1 INTRODUCTION Urban policymakers are jumping on the innovation district bandwagon. It seems that every city in the United States is working toward having its own version of an innovation district. The concept was popularized by the Brookings Institution as the next local economic development strategy (Katz & Wagner, 2014). Urban leaders are designing innovation districts in cities around the world despite the fact that little research has been done on the concept. The City of Barcelona is a leader in urban experimentation. Scholars have coined the term “Barcelona model” to describe the city’s avant-gardism with respect to urban innovation (Garcia-Ramon & Albet, 2000). In this tradition, Barcelona, under Mayor Joan Clos, launched—22@ Barcelona—in 2000, becoming the first city in the world to have a planned innovation district (Barcelona, 2000). The development of the innovation district was motivated by the urban transformations happening in knowledge cities around the world (Barceló & Oliva, 2002; Trullén, 2001). The project quickly became an iconic urban strategy being replicated around the world. Boston, Medellín, and Montréal have implemented innovation districts modeled on 22@ Barcelona. 22@ Barcelona aims to transform the city of Barcelona into a knowledge city and a reference in technological innovation in Europe (Barceló & Oliva, 2002; Oliva, 2003; Trullén, 2011). A municipal company, 22 ARROBA BCN S.A., was created by the Mayor Joan Clos with the sole purpose to transform the Poblenou district into an innovation district (Barcelona, 2000). The paper investigates the definition of an innovation district. The innovation district—22@ Barcelona—was selected as single case study. The research conducted for this paper is based on three sources of data: semi-structured interviews, secondary data, and direct observation. The paper is highly relevant for urban policymakers who wish to foster knowledge-based policies through the creation of an innovation district in their cities. The concept of an innovation district is the policy-response to the increasingly spatial and urban dimensions of the knowledge economy. The concept of an innovation district combines innovation theories with socio-economic trends that have emerged in the knowledge economy.
2 THE EMERGENCE OF INNOVATION DISTRICTS In the 1990s, capitalist countries started to undergo an economic transition towards post-Fordism or knowledge-based economies (Amin, 1994; Drucker, 1998). In the knowledge economy, technological innovation is a precondition for high standard of living and economic prosperity (OECD, 1996). The academic literature provides, both across nations and over time, a solid theoretical background linking technological innovation to the progress of countries, regions, cities, and firms (Fagerberg, 1988; Freeman, 1987; Rosenberg, 1982, 2004; Schumpeter, 1934; Solow, 1957; and many more). In this economic transition, with the rise of the global economy and the revolutionary nature of information and communication technologies, cities are the key units to produce technological innovations (Castells, 1989; Florida, Adler, & Mellander, 2017). The concept of an innovation district derives from territorial innovation models such as, regional innovation system (Braczyk, Cooke, & Heidenreich, 1998), learning region (Florida, 1995; Morgan, 1997), innovative milieu (Aydalot & Keeble, 1988), cluster (Porter, 1990), and industrial district (Becattini, 1992), all pointing out the importance of the spatial dimension of innovation. Indeed, geographical proximity favors knowledge spillovers and the spread of tacit knowledge, both of which are critical, for the development of technological innovations (Acs & Audretsch, 1988; Bathelt, Malmberg, & Maskell, 2004; Carlino, 2001; Gertler, 1995; Jaffe, Trajtenberg, & Henderson, 1993). Storper and Venables (2004) emphasize the importance of local buzz, which refers to the information and communication ecology created by face-to-face contacts, co-presence and co-location of people and firms within the same industry and place or region, that as for consequence to facilitate knowledge spillovers and the exchange of tacit knowledge. Indeed, the exchange of knowledge can occur from serendipitous encounters and intellectual diversity, both of which, are likelier in dense urban neighborhoods (Jacobs, 1961). Urban policies have had to evolve to novel technologies and socio-economic paradigms in order to be relevant. Technological innovations, namely radical and disruptive ones, greatly influence urban planning and urban policies (Hall, 1998). In the late 1990s, best practices in urban economic development shifted from suburban greenfield developments towards urban regeneration projects (Castells & Hall, 1994; Smith, 2002). In the knowledge economy, urban planning has for objectives to promote mixed-use zoning, diversity, density, sustainability, the preservation of heritage buildings, smart and sustainable infrastructures, compactness, and iconic buildings (Duany, Speck, & Lydon, 2009; Jacobs, 1961; Kenworthy, 2006). In innovation districts, urban planning has for objectives to strengthen urban competitiveness while promoting quality of life. While in the 1970s to the 1990s, local and regional governments were building technology parks outside cities, such as Sophia-Antipolis in France or the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, since 2000s however, innovation-driven developments are urban initiatives that involve public institutions, universities, and private firms (Castells & Hall, 1994; Etzkowitz, 2015). Urban policies increasingly incorporate strategies to attract innovative companies and creative workers since innovation is seen as one the most critical components for competitiveness and prosperity (Florida, 2002). The paradigm-shift from mass production to knowledge-based, which was initiated by technological innovations, has deeply modified socio-economic structures (Castells, 1989). The shift toward the knowledge economy is ending the boundaries that once separated innovation from production, the laboratory from the factory, and is reshaping the whole organization of production (Florida & Kenney, 1993). Along with a technological paradigm-shift favoring knowledge-based activities for wealth creation, there is a preference shift from suburban to urban in lifestyle and consumption. Indeed, the rise of the experience economy, the rise of the creative economy and creative class, changing family structures, disinterest in the automobile, and the blurring line between work and leisure remake inner-city living an exciting and transformative experience (Florida, 2002; Klinenberg, 2012; Landry, 2008; Neff, 2010; Pine & Gilmore, 1998; Speck, 2013). Regional and local policy-makers are thus adopting strategies to facilitate the transition from mass production to the knowledge economy and from suburban to urban in order to strengthen economic competitiveness. As a result, innovation districts participate in a reflection of how innovation is created at the urban level.
3 METHODOLOGY The research methodology was based on a qualitative single case study approach, using primary and secondary data in order to create a framework for defining the concept of an innovation district. This paper uses a case study “out of the desire to understand a complex social phenomenon” (Yin, 2014, p. 4). The intrinsic case selected is 22@ Barcelona, a 198.26 hectare urban regeneration project, initiated in 2000 by Mayor Joan Clos (Molas & Sabata, 2011). The intrinsic case allows for an in-depth and detailed description of the case (Stake, 2013). Indeed, 22@ Barcelona has unusual interest since it was the first fully implemented innovation district by policymakers and has since served as a best practice for other innovation districts around the world. The paper investigates a contemporary phenomenon in which the researcher has no control on the actual phenomenon, making the case study the most appropriate qualitative approach. The framework constructed can be defined as a tool that “[e]ncompasses many variables and seeks to capture much of the complexity of actual situations. Frameworks identify the relevant variables and the questions which the user must answer in order to develop conclusions tailored to a particular industry and company” (Porter, 1991, p. 98). The framework was constructed in order to organize within a conceptual approach the extensive collection of data from multiple sources of information (Creswell, 2013). The research conducted for this paper is based on three sources of data: semi-structured interviews, secondary data, and direct observation. The semi-structured interviews were conducted in Barcelona and over the phone with some of the key stakeholders who have participated in the design and/or implementation of 22@ Barcelona. In total, five interviews were conducted with experts who participated in the design of the innovation district and with former 22@ Barcelona’s employees and director. The secondary data that were used for the research are, but were not limited to: 22@ Barcelona websites, the City of Barcelona’s websites, peer-reviewed articles, books, articles in newspaper, articles in magazines, and official planning documents. A number of these secondary data were consulted at the Barcelona City Hall’s library. The direct observations involved non-participatory observations in 22@ Barcelona. In total, the researcher conducted about 16 hours of informal observations. The data were then converged in a triangulating fashion in order to “assure that the right information and interpretations have been obtained” (Stake, 2013, p. 36). 4 THE FRAMEWORK The paper finds that innovation districts based on the 22@ Barcelona’s model are designed around four strategic axes, namely urban planning, productive, collaborative, and creative, all coordinated under a strong leadership. An innovation district is a place-based urban development strategy that aims to regenerate an under-performing downtown neighborhood into a desirable location for innovative and creative companies and workers. Collaborative
Urban Planning
Leadership
Creative
Productive
Figure 1. The innovation district’s framework.
4.1 Leadership 22@ Barcelona is a strategic program that was initiated in 2000 under Mayor Joan Clos (Barcelona, 2000). The innovation district had for objectives to regenerate Poblenou, a former industrial
district, to accelerate Barcelona’s transition into the knowledge economy, and to attract innovative companies and workers. The innovation district was the outcome of two working papers: the “Digital City” and “Barcelona, City of Knowledge,” authored by a multidisciplinary team of urban planners, public managers, social scientists, and economists (Barceló & Oliva, 2002; Trullén, 2001). The main stakeholders who participated in the creation of the innovation district are: Mayor Joan Clos; urban leaders such as Miquel Barceló and Joan Trullén; the City of Barcelona; Barcelona’s urban planning department; various committees (advisory, technical, and heritage); private companies, among which Indra, T-Systems, RBA, Telefonica, Mediapro, and Lavini; the residents of the district who voted to approve the project; private landowners; and real estate development companies (Barceló & Guillot, 2013; López, Romani, Sagarra, & Piqué, 2011). The municipal company, 22@ incorporated as 22 ARROBA BCN S.A., was specifically created in 2000 by the municipal government in order to supervise and pilot the transformation of the Poblenou district into an innovation district (Barcelona, 2000). Indeed, the municipal company was in charge of delivering zoning permits, the urban planning, coordinating social, networking, and training activities, and branding the district to national and international companies and workers. 4.2 Urban Planning The urban planning dimension at 22@ Barcelona is the outcome of three decisive documents: the MPGM22@, which modifies zoning laws, the Special Infrastructure Plan, which plans future infrastructures, and the Special Plan for Historical/Artistic Architectural Heritage (Barcelona, 2000; Barceló & Guillot, 2013; López et al., 2011). In 22@ Barcelona, urban planning has four goals: to foster the development of new activities though zoning laws, to create diversity, to encourage density, and to generate a good quality of life. The zoning regulations had to evolve in order to better respond to the productive imperatives of the knowledge economy. The MPGM22@ provides incentives to the landowners to build more intensively at the condition of favoring the development of knowledge-based companies (Barcelona, 2000; Barceló & Guillot, 2013). The zoning laws that were adopted in 2000, change the zoning from “22a” to “22@,” that is, from an industrial zoning to a mixed-use zoning (Barcelona, 2000; Battaglia & Tremblay, 2012; Molas & Sabata, 2011). The zoning laws requires developers to contribute to the special infrastructures plan and to transfer thirty percent of the built area to the municipal company, 22@ (Barceló & Guillot, 2013; Barcelona, 2012). The municipal company then divides the land transferred into allocating social housing, 7@ amenities, and green spaces (Barceló & Guillot, 2013; Barcelona, 2012). The zoning regulations aim to create a mixed-use, diverse, compact, and dense neighborhood. Productive activities, research centers, training centers, technology transfer offices, residential, offices, green areas, and urban facilities are mixed together in the 22@ district (Barcelona, 2012). The 22@ district regulations protect historical buildings, and promote density and diversity of activities and socioeconomic backgrounds (Barceló, 2005). The special infrastructure plan aims to upgrade 37 km of streets; to upgrade public transportation; to build underground galleries; to include district heating and cooling; to upgrade public transportation; and to implement pneumatic waste collection systems, fiber optics, and water management systems (Barcelona Activa, 2012; Espelt-Lleonart, 2012). The special infrastructure plan aims to create a new centrality in the City of Barcelona and to favor public transports (Barcelona, 2012; Oliva, 2003, Sabaté & Tironi, 2008; Trullén, 2011). 4.3 Productive 22@ Barcelona aims to attract, retain, and facilitate the creation of knowledge-based companies. The OECD working paper on science, technology, and industry, published in 1991 was used to define what constitute a knowledge-based company in the 22@ district (Trullén, 2011). Knowledge-based companies are characterized by an intensive use of ICT, a high employment density (workers per surface), the generation of knowledge, the high value added, and their urban features (Barcelona, 2000; Trullén, 2011). In 2004, 22@ Barcelona has adopted a cluster-based urban development approach, which focused on four clusters: media, ICT, medical technologies, and energy (López et al., 2011). The design cluster was added to the list in 2008 (López et al., 2011). The clusters were selected on the basis of potential growth and prior capabilities (Battaglia
& Tremblay, 2012). The objective is, for each cluster, to reach a competitive position internationally. As of 2017, the media cluster is the most advanced. The media cluster intends to have 115,000 m2 for businesses and 60,000 m2 for facilities, which will include public institutions, private companies, the Pompeu Fabra communication campus, the Barcelona Media Park, the Barcelona Media Innovation Centre, private residences, incubators, and an innovation center, the Barcelona Growth Center (Barceló & Guillot, 2013). 22@ Barcelona aims to attract, retain, and create entrepreneurs. Barcelona has launched 22@ Emprendedores (entrepreneurs) to create the suitable conditions for the 22@ Barcelona startup ecosystem to become a magnet for entrepreneurs (Barceló, 2005). The 22@ district launched many projects and initiated incentives to foster entrepreneurship, such as Barcelona Activa, which is the largest public business incubator in Europe; the Barcelona Growth Center, a building that provides spaces to facilitate interactions between entrepreneurs and incubators, consultants, and accelerators; the 22@ landing platforms where startups can rent offices or desks on a weekly or monthly basis; and the residences for entrepreneurs (Barcelona Activa, 2012). 4.4 Collaborative 22@ Barcelona aims to promote collaboration, the spread of tacit knowledge, and face-to-face interactions between diverse actors. The triple helix model of innovation is incorporated in each cluster where private companies, universities, and public institutions collaborate together to achieve breakthrough innovation (Etzkowitz & Piqué, 2011). In the media cluster for instance, the innovation district aims to favor the collaboration between a public university (Universidad Pompeu Fabra), a leading private company in the Catalonian audiovisual sector (Mediapro), several entities from the Barcelona City Hall (Department for Culture, Local Development Agency, 22@ Barcelona), and the regional government (Centre for Corporate Innovation and Development) (Barceló, 2005). The “7@ amenities,” which are defined as training activities and centers of diffusion of new technologies, involve university research centers, R&D laboratories, and training centers (Barcelona, 2000). Their goals are to prevent a digital divide in the population and to promote collaboration (Oliva, 2003). The building Barcelona Growth Center, which is the flagship 7@ amenities inaugurated in 2010, covers an area of 14,000 m2 and serves as a communication hub and meeting point for businesses, students, entrepreneurs, R&D centers, and institutions in the Media and ICT clusters (Barcelona Activa, 2012). The building includes private companies, entrepreneurs, incubators, accelerators, landing platforms; and the Cibernarium, which a digital training center (Barcelona Activa, 2012). 22@ Barcelona has launched a number of activities in order to promote interactions between different innovative actors such as, 22@ Synergys, 22@ Breakfast, 22@ Urban Labs, and 22@ Networking. The 22@ Synergys provides open platforms for conferences, debates, and collaboration for the scientific and industrial community (Granados, 2011). The 22@ Urban Labs are platforms for citizens’ testing of new products and urban services (Almirall & Chesbrough, 2011; Granados, 2011; Majó, 2011). In this context, the urban labs serve as a medium for open innovation (Almirall & Chesbrough, 2011; Majó, 2011). The 22@ Breakfast and 22@ Networking offer opportunities for networking and social interactions (Barcelona, 2012). 4.5 Creative 22@ Barcelona aims to regenerate Poblenou into a neighborhood attractive for the creative class and for creative companies. The zoning laws provide incentives to create urban features that are highly valued for the creative class, such as the architectural diversity; the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings into offices, museums, lofts, bars, and restaurants; and the preservation of historical buildings (Barcelona, 2012). More importantly, the zoning laws favor the creation of a 24/7 mixed-use live, work, and play neighborhood. The old factories, such as the emblematic Can Ricart or Can Framis factory, are converted into lofts, museums, and public spaces (Sabaté and Tironi, 2008). Barceló and Guillot (2013) describe the strategies that have been adopted in activating 22@ Barcelona as a creative district such as, to foster international culture and networks with the IN22@, to open museums (e.g., Museum of Design of Barcelona, and Vila Casas Foundation in Can Framis), and to promote cultural events (e.g., exhibitions, concerts, festivals); to
reinforce a strong district identity and sense of community within the 22@ Poblenou; to promote quality of life with green areas (e.g., Barcelona Central Park) and sport activities (e.g., Can Ricart, shared bicycles); to create shared spaces for entrepreneurs, professionals, and students (e.g., landing platforms, Melon district residences); to attract talents with the 22@ Creatalent and 22@ Staying in Company; and to promote an innovative and digital culture with educational programs (Barceló, 2005; Barceló & Guillot, 2013; Granados, 2011; Pareja-Eastway, 2011). 5 DISCUSSION Innovation districts are the latest trend in knowledge-based urban development, as used to be the technology parks in the 1980s and 1990s (Castells & Hall, 1994). Regional and urban policymakers used technology parks, such as Research Triangle Park in North Carolina or Sophia-Antipolis in France, as a strategy to emulate the success of the Silicon Valley, which spontaneously grew through market forces around Stanford Research Park founded by Stanford University’s dean in 1951 (Castells & Hall, 1994). In the late 1990s, thanks to innovations in information and communication technologies (ICT), Internet startups and creative companies started to cluster in neighborhoods such as, Silicon Alley (New York), Mission District (San Francisco), Shoreditch (London), and Silicon Sentier (Paris). The innovative startups and creative companies decided to locate in these districts, which were often former manufacturing districts, due to their centrality, high urban amenities, and low rents (Barceló & Oliva, 2002). Innovation districts intend to replicate the spontaneous growth of the above-mentioned innovation districts, which emerged through market forces, without any formal planning and/or strategy from the city’s authority. In contrast with spontaneous innovation districts, 22@ Barcelona and its brainchild innovation districts are led by municipal and/or other public organizations. As a result, while market-led innovation districts are self-sustaining, municipal leadership is needed to pilot the transformation of the public-led innovation district into a self-sustaining innovation district. Much like technology parks, urban and regional policymakers aim with innovation districts to mimic market-led innovation districts in order to create the needed agglomeration economies to foster a self-sustaining and cumulative causation growth. Collaborative
Urban Planning
Leadership
Productive
Collaborative
Creative
Urban Planning
Creative
Productive
Figure 2. From public-led innovation districts to market-led innovation districts.
In the innovation district’s framework, each dimension interacts with one another, creating a feedback loop that reinforces the district’s innovative capacity. These feedback loops and cumulative processes strengthen the innovative capacities of both the firms and the individuals located in the innovation district. Local governments developing innovation districts can, in turn, affect the sophistication of the framework, and thus their cities’ innovative capacities, by upgrading the different processes in any of the five dimensions of the framework. 6 CONCLUSION Innovation districts are place-based urban policies that aim to take advantage of the revolutionary nature of information communication technologies and of the spatial dimension of innovation in the knowledge economy. The paper finds that innovation districts based on the 22@ Barcelona’s model are designed around four strategic axes, namely urban planning, productive, collaborative,
and creative, all coordinated under a strong leadership. An innovation district is a place-based urban development strategy that aims to regenerate an under-performing downtown neighborhood into a desirable location for innovative and creative companies and workers. As the concept of an innovation district becomes the next trend in urban development, urban and regional policymakers should adopt the framework developed in this paper in order to assess the strengths and weaknesses of designing their own version of an innovation district. The framework developed in this paper is however, only generalizable to large cities with a critical mass of knowledge-based companies. Market-led innovation districts have proven to greatly contribute to gentrification (Mirabal, 2009). Public-led innovation districts should, as a result, find ways in providing social benefits and services in order to limit the negative externalities arising from gentrification. Despite the success of 22@ Barcelona in achieving to regenerate more than 70% of the industrial areas in Poblenou, which represent more 3,000,000-meter-squares of new productive, collaborative, and housing spaces, and in adding 4,500 companies, the municipal company, 22 ARROBA BCN., was dissolved after the election of Barcelona’s new Mayor Xavier Trias in 2011 (22@ Barcelona, 2011; Battaglia & Tremblay, 2012). Future work should investigate the possible strategies to mitigate the innovation district’s dependence on the municipal government in the leadership dimension for the viability of public-led innovation districts. 7 REFERENCES 22@ Barcelona. 2011. Estado Actual. Retrieved from http://www.22barcelona.com/content/blogcategory/34/438/lang,es/ Acs, Z. J., & Audretsch, D. B. 1988. Innovation in Large and Small Firms: An Empirical Analysis. The American Economic Review, 78(4): 678–690. Almirall, E., & Chesbrough, H. 2011. Open Innovation en el Sector Publico: El Caso de Urban Labs. Revista Económica de Cataluña, (64): 100-109. Amin, A. 1994. Post-Fordism: A Reader. Oxford: Blackwell. Aydalot, P., & Keeble, D. 1988. High Technology Industry and Innovative Environments: The European Experience. London: Routledge. Barceló, M. 2005. Barcelona; 22@ Barcelona: A New District for the Creative Economy. In Waikeen, N. G, & Ryser, J., Making Spaces for the Creative Economy. Madrid: International Society of City and Regional Planners (ISoCARP). Barceló, M., & Guillot, S. 2013. Gestión de Proyectos Complejos. Madrid: Piramide. Barceló, M., & Oliva, A. 2002. La Ciudad Digital. Pacto Industrial de la Región Metropolitana de Barcelona. Barcelona: Beta. Barcelona Activa. 2012. Barcelona Smart City Tour. Retrieved from http://w42.bcn.cat/web/es/mediaroom/presentacions/index.jsp?componente=221-95513 Barcelona. 2000. Modificación del PGM para la Renovación de las Zonas Industriales del Poblenou - Districte d’Activitats 22@bcn. Barcelona: Ayuntamiento de Barcelona. Retrieved from www.22barcelona.com/content/blogcategory/39/125/lang,ca. Barcelona. 2012. El Plan 22@ Barcelona. Retrieved from http://www.22barcelona.com/documentacio/Dossier22@/Dossier%2022@Castellano_p.pdf Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A., & Maskell, P. 2004. Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation. Progress in Human Geography, 28(1): 31-56. Battaglia, A., & Tremblay, D. G. 2012. 22@ and the Innovation District in Barcelona and Montreal: A Process of Clustering Development between Urban Regeneration and Economic Competitiveness. Montréal: University of Quebec at Montréal. Becattini, G. 1992. Le District Marshallien: Une Notion Socio-Economique. In Benko G. & Lipietz, A. Les régions qui Gagnent: 35-55. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Braczyk, H. J., Cooke, P. N., & Heidenreich, M. 1998. Regional Innovation Systems: The Role of Governances in a Globalized World. London: University College London Press. Carlino, G. A. 2001. Knowledge Spillovers: Cities’ Role in the New Economy. Business Review Q, 4: 1724. Castells, M. 1989. The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring, and the Urban-regional Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
Castells, M., & Hall, P. 1994. Technopoles of the World: The Making of the 21st Century Industrial Complexes. London: Routledge. Creswell, J. W. 2013. Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Approaches. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. Drucker, P. F. 1998. The Discipline of Innovation. Harvard Business Review, 76(6): 149-157. Duany, A., Speck, J., Lydon, M., 2009. The Smart Growth Manual. New York: McGraw-Hill. Espelt-Lleonart, P. 2012. Building Barcelona’s 22@ Innovation District: A Technical Review. The Journal of the Constructed Environment. 2(3): 113-134. Etzkowitz, H. 2015. Making a Humanities Town: Knowledge-Infused Clusters, Civic Entrepreneurship and Civil Society in Local Innovation Systems. Triple Helix, 2(1): 1-22. Etzkowitz, H., & Piqué, J. M. 2011. 22@ Barcelona: Una Ciudad del Conocimiento más allá de los Parques Científicos y Tecnológicos. Revista Económica de Cataluña, (64): 175-183. Fagerberg, J. 1988. International Competitiveness. The Economic Journal, 98(391): 355-374. Florida, R. 1995. Toward the Learning Region. Futures, 27(5): 527-536. Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community, and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books. Florida, R., & Kenney, M. 1993. The New Age of Capitalism: Innovation-mediated Production. Futures, 25(6): 637-651. Florida, R., Adler, P., & Mellander, C. 2017. The City as Innovation Machine. Regional Studies, 51(1): 8696. Freeman, C. 1987. Technical Innovation, Diffusion, and Long Cycles of Economic Development. In Vasko, T. (Eds.). The Long-Wave Debate:295-309. Berlin: Springer. Garcia-Ramon, M. D., & Albet, A. 2000. Pre-Olympic and post-Olympic Barcelona, a ‘Model’ for Urban Regeneration Today?. Environment and Planning A, 32(8): 1331-1334. Gertler, M. S. 1995. “Being There”: Proximity, Organization, and Culture in the Development and Adoption of Advanced Manufacturing Technologies. Economic Geography, 71(1): 1-26. Granados, F. 2011. 22@ Barcelona y la Gestion del Talento Innovador y Emprendedor. Revista Económica de Cataluña, (64): 80-89. Hall, P. 1998. Cities in Civilization, Oxford: Blackwell. Jacobs, J. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House. Jaffe, A. B., Trajtenberg, M., & Henderson, R. 1993. Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as Evidenced by Patent Citations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3): 577–598. Katz, B., Wagner, J. 2014. The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America. Washington: Brookings Institution. Kenworthy, J. R. 2006. The Eco-City: Ten Key Transport and Planning Dimensions for Sustainable City Development. Environment and Urbanization, 18(1): 67-85. Klinenberg, E. 2012. Going Solo: The Extraordinary Rise and Surprising Appeal of Living Alone. City of Westminster: Penguin. Landry, C. 2008. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators. London: Earthscan. López, A., Romani, A., Sagarra, R., Piqué, J. H. 2011. 22@Barcelona: Exportando el Modelo. Revista Económica de Cataluña, (64): 70-79. Majó, A. 2011. 22@ Urban Labs el Ejemplo de Barcelona. Revista Económica de Cataluña, (64), 100-109. Mirabal, N. R. 2009. Geographies of Displacement: Latina/os, Oral History, and the Politics of Gentrification in San Francisco’s Mission District. The Public Historian, 31(2): 7-31. Molas, O., & Sabata, M. P. 2011. 22@: 10 Años de Transformación Económica. Revista Económica de Cataluña, (64): 13-21. Morgan, K. 1997. The Learning Region: Institutions, Innovation, and Regional Renewal. Regional Studies, 41(S1): S147-S159 Neff, J. 2010. Is Digital Revolution Driving Decline in US Car Culture. Advertising Age, 31. OECD. 1996. The Knowledge-Based Economy. Paris: OECD Publishing. Oliva, A. 2003. 22@ BCN Activities District. Aula Barcelona Management Booklets 15. Barcelona: Aula Barcelona. Pine, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. 1998. Welcome to the Experience Economy. Harvard Business Review, (76): 97-105. Porter, M. E. 1990. The Competitive Advantage of Nations. Harvard Business Review, 68(2): 73-93. Porter, M. E. 1991. Towards a Dynamic Theory of Strategy. Strategic Management Journal, 12(S2): 95117.
Rosenberg, N. 1982. Inside the Black Box: Technology and Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rosenberg, N. 2004. Innovation and Economic Growth. Innovation and Economic Growth. Paris: OECD Publishing. Sabaté, J., & Tironi, M. 2008. Rankings, Creatividad y Urbanismo. EURE (Santiago), 34(102): 5-23. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. The Theory of Economic Development: An Inquiry into Profits, Capital, Credit, Interest, and the Business Cycle. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. Smith, N. 2002. New Globalism, New Urbanism: Gentrification as Global Urban Strategy. Antipode, 34(3): 427-450. Solow, R. M. 1957. Technical Change and the Aggregate Production Function. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 312-320. Speck, J. 2013. Walkable city: How Downtown can save America, One Step at a Time. London: Macmillan. Stake, R. E. 2013. Multiple Case Study Analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Storper, M. 2013. Keys to the City: How Economics, Institutions, Social Interaction, and Politics Shape Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Storper, M., & Venables, A. J. 2004. Buzz: Face-to-Face Contact and the Urban Economy. Journal of Economic Geography, 4(4): 351-370. Trullén, J. 2001. El Projecte Barcelona. Ciutat del Coneixement desde L’Economia. Monogràfics de Barcelona Metropolis Mediterrània, 1: 16-25. Trullén, J. 2011. El proyecto Barcelona Ciudad del Conocimiento y el 22@Barcelona. Revista Económica de Cataluña, (64): 22-30. Yin, R. K. 2014. Case Study Research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks/London/New Delhi: Sage publications.
