Does place matter in the creation of clusters?

Clusters and their physical manifestations in specific buildings or places sometimes have a close relationship but it’s often not an entirely simple one. The annual summit of TCI, the global network of cluster practitioners, is a good example: it always starts with a day of tours to explore the host city’s clusters. But where do you actually go when you want to visit a cluster? 

In some cases, it is easy. In Singapore, there’s Biopolis at one-north, the iconic hub for biomedical research and innovation. It is clearly at the heart of the Singaporean government’s effort to develop life sciences. But the cluster is both more, including activities across other parts of the island, and different, representing the linkages across institutions and individuals much more than their physical homes. 

In fact, for many of the world’s clusters there is no single address. Be it movies in Hollywood, IT in Bangalore, finance in London or Stuttgart’s automotive industry, there are no focal buildings or places. Over the past few years there has been a growing recognition of the intricate relationship between clusters and their physical surroundings. The Korea Industrial Complex Corporation (KICOX) illustrates this from its starting point as a developer. At first it provided industrial sites, but over time its tenants asked for more. To achieve true cluster dynamics KICOX launched “mini-clusters”, organising efforts to actively connect and link the related activities within their sites.

The mirror image of this played out in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where an actual cluster of water-related businesses had existed for decades, if not centuries. The Water Council then emerged between 2007 and 2009 as the cluster organisation to mobilise and strengthen the cluster. Finally, the cluster “got a home” in 2013 when the Global Water Centre opened its doors. Where does this debate stand today? 

On the one hand, there is a clearer understanding that buildings and physical sites are a critical aspect of cluster-specific business environments. They not only enable specific activities within the cluster to be conducted more productively, they also enable (or hinder) collaboration and linkages that move a cluster from co-location to dynamism. And as a symbol of organised collaboration they can play an important role in attracting external resources and mobilising collective action.

On the other hand, there is also more appreciation for the fact that placemaking or iconic buildings are seldom enough to trigger sustained cluster dynamics alone. Healthy clusters are characterised by collaboration, knowledge flows, and market dynamics driven by proximity. The physical characteristics of a place or building can help: think about how New York City changed its zoning rules to enable the growth of key business districts. And about the critical role that joint transport infrastructure planning across the tri-state region played to improve connectivity – a key factor that allows a cluster to develop. But while these features of the built environment are necessary, other actions are needed to encourage businesses to leverage the opportunities they create.    

What we need is more collaboration between those that understand clusters and their potential as a tool in driving economic development, and those that understand the role of buildings and physical sites in the way they shape and enable human behaviour and economic activity. A partnership, perhaps, in which the World Built Environment Forum community could get engaged?