Towards Innovation Environments in Shanghai
I am writing from our second workshop on ‘Urbanised Innovation Environments’ in Shanghai, organised around the Fenglin Biomedical Centre , a project we have been working on together with HPP International for the Xuhui District Authority since 2004. Forming part of the Hubs & Regions research activities, the workshop is conducted jointly with two world-class academic institutions, the Architectural Association Housing & Urbanism department and Diploma Unit 10 (London) and Tongji University’s Urban Planning Department in Shanghai. It involves 15 professors from Europe and China, as well as more than 40 post-graduate students from both institutions. 
After the final review, it is worth reflecting on a number of issues related to the urbanisation of innovation environments which have emerged from projects and discussions in 5 groups. A core question emerging is the issue of leadership and the changing discipline of urbanism in the light of economic transformations. User-centric innovaton environments – be they biomedical, health or mobile solutions related – have a communality their need for successful leadership structures. Whilst urbanism as a discipline is primarily pre-occupied with the spatial and infrastructural (as well as socio-technical) facilitation of economic and social development and accessibility, it cannot be disassociated from the need of institutional transformation. Unless cities, related agencies, universities and companies acquire the managerial capacity to manage an innovation environment, urban transformation and regeneration will not only be without effect, but will also remain reduced to traditional instruments which add at most limited value to innovation processes. Such leadership relies on prioritisation and continuity. Prioritisation as to set the sectorial specificities (in this case Biomedical) and giving priority in all decisions to activities conducive to this cluster. In the implementation, continuity in such prioritisation is critical – often this is the point where short-term interests lead to a break with continuity – i.e. when housing developments or generic office types promise quicker response from the market. This points us to a second issue, the ability of urban development strategies to evolve and absorb change over time. Here, our latest observations in Shanghai as well as Singapore and Barcelona have shown that in all cases governance has (or is) gradually shifting from centralised (public) leadership to inclusive stakeholder models. In our global comparative review of biomedical centres, we have identified 4 primary governance models – with differing degrees of ability to evolve strategy. Such transformation is now underway at Singapore’s One North – working towards a model that is more closely resembling that of the Orestad Group (Copenhagen) or the Life Sciences Cluster ‘ Medicon Valley Academy ’ (Oresund).Living Labs form part of these discussions, as their stakeholder, end-user and urban development focus provide an important reference to future management models for urban change. Independent sectorial platforms to brand, strategically manage and vision the cluster are ideally placed to provide continuity (especially independent of election cycles) and dedicated focus to the needs of emerging innovative industries. Where changes happen fast and commitment from a variety of stakeholders is required, non-institutionalised governance models seem to have a leading edge.