Why business clusters are an increasingly urban affair

Silicon Valley: the cluster effect in action. Image: Getty.

Below a kebab shop in Shoreditch, at the end of a corridor covered with old Czech newspapers, an appointment-only establishment serves cocktails with a theatrical twist. Holy Smoke is essentially cognac, but comes hidden in a bible accompanied by smouldering frankincense and myrrh; Old Castro is rum poured over dissolving candy floss. Reviews of Lounge Bohemia on social media range from hip to hype.

Sustained by the well-paid workers of the East London tech scene, such bars are increasingly en vogue. They might not seem like an obvious magnet for productivity, yet some firms have located in or re-located to the area to recruit or retain the talented people who drink in them. A technology hub has emerged, which the government has branded “Tech City”.

The attraction of city living for the workers of the digital economy helps explain a shift in the innovation landscape. Rather than building on green-field sites, as the Silicon Valley pioneers did in the 1940s, a rising number of high-growth companies are choosing to locate and congregate in the core of cities, which offer advantages such as access to skilled labour and knowledge sharing.

“We are seeing the biggest rural urban migration in history,” said Peter Madden, chief executive of the Future Cities Catapult, a government-funded program to stimulate innovation. “Fashions have ebbed and flowed, but the last 150 years has been very urban.”

Competition for talent pits cities against each other: from Berlin, New York and Paris, to Beijing, Tel Aviv and even new upstart tech scenes such as Beirut. Investment brochures boast about a creative scene with art galleries, bars, restaurants and temporary “pop-up” installations. Eased visa restrictions, investment programs and direct incentives complete the offer.

This has led to a revived interest in business clusters – geographic concentrations of interlinked businesses – as a means of attracting mobile investment to stimulate growth. But building expensive out-of-town facilities would be unsuitable for footloose digital economy firms, many of whom require little more than a good internet connection. The new tools of economic development are downtown co-working spaces, and start-up incubators and accelerator programs.

Research by the Centre for Cities think tank and McKinsey, a consultancy, identifies 31 “economically significant clusters” in the UK: from financial services in London to Scottish whisky. Accounting for 8 percent of UK business but 20 percent of output, they are a “major contributor to growth”, and offer high salaries.

Centre for Cities Analyst Edward Clarke says it’s not possible to classify all of the 31 clusters as either urban or rural: many, such as Motorsports Valley in the Midlands, straddle large areas which include both. But he insists the most productive clusters “benefit from the fact that they are in cities”.

While fast-growing digital economy firms hog media attention, however, research-oriented firms in other industries – bioscience, for example, or motorsports – still require access to purpose-built facilities. “It depends where the focal point or the node is,” says Nigel Walker, head of access to finance at the Innovate UK agency. “Shoreditch is a village with artistic flair, and that wouldn’t work on a campus. But something that needs access to experimentation facilities, then maybe a campus is necessary.”

Governments continue to invest in them, from Russia’s Skolkovo Innovation Centre on the outskirts of Moscow to the Paris-Saclay research facility. Successful sites bring researchers, or people with ideas, together with entrepreneurs to turn those ideas into businesses, and access to finance. They also have good connection links to other centres.

In 2011, the government awarded the British Bioscience Research Council £44m to invest in its Babraham Research Campus, on the outskirts of Cambridge. Dr Celia Caulcott, its executive director for innovation & skills, explains that the campus is designed to attract small bioscience companies through access to world-leading researchers and facilities.

“It’s about proximity to discovery,” she explained, during the Innovate UK conference in London earlier this month. “We have invested to make sure that great research facilities are available to small companies that couldn’t possibly afford access to those things on their own.”

The flexibility of accommodation on the site appears to have given it the “stickiness” that economists crave. Will Spooner, chief science officer at Eagle Genomics, says the company has occupied seven different offices in six years on the campus as it expanded from 3 to 22 people: as the company grew, the space it occupied could grow with it, without the upheaval of moving to a completely new site.

Innovation, of course, doesn’t stop at city borders. Two “growth areas of national importance” attached to London – the Thames Gateway and the London-Stansted- Cambridge- Peterborough areas – extend far beyond the M25. Both schemes bring together policy makers across institutional boundaries, in an attempt to create joined-up thinking on issues such as transport, housing, and skills.

Public policy “should not only be one answer centric,” says Michael Joroff, a senior lecturer at the MIT Dept. of Urban Studies and Planning. Or, to put it another way: “A lot of growth will happen where growth happens.”

 

 
 
 
 

America's cities can't police their way out of this crisis

Police deployed tear gas during anti-racism demonstrations in Los Angeles over the weekend. (Mario Tama/Getty Images)

As protesters took to the streets across the United States over the weekend to express their anger at police killings of unarmed black Americans, it was hard to miss the hypocrisy coming from local authorities – including the otherwise progressive, left-leaning officials who are in power in most major American cities. 

Many US mayors and their police chiefs had issued public statements over the past week that seemed – only briefly, as it turned out – to signal a meaningful shift in the extent to which the Black Lives Matters movement is being taken seriously by those who are in a position to enact reforms. 

The sheer depravity of the most recent high-profile killing had left little room for equivocation. George Floyd, 46, died last Monday under the knee of white Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, while three additional officers helped to hold Floyd down, doing nothing to aid him as he begged for them to stop and eventually lost consciousness. The officers had been attempting to arrest Floyd on suspicion of having used a counterfeit $20 bill at a deli. All four have since been fired, and Chauvin was arrested Friday on charges of third-degree murder and second-degree manslaughter. 

“The lack of compassion, use of excessive force, or going beyond the scope of the law, doesn’t just tarnish our badge—it tears at the very fabric of race relations in this country,” Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore told the Washington Post in response to the Floyd case. Meanwhile Moore’s boss, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti, on Friday claimed that he understood why his city, which is no stranger to police brutality, was protesting. “We absolutely need as a nation, certainly as a city, to voice our outrage, it’s our patriotic duty to not only stand up for George Floyd but for everybody who has been killed unnecessarily, who’s been murdered for the structural racism that we have in our country,” Garcetti said. 

Normally, US police chiefs and mayors tend to ask citizens to withhold judgment on these types of cases until full investigations can be completed. But a 10-minute video recording of Floyd’s killing had made what happened plain. Police chiefs across the country – and even the nation’s largest police union, which is notorious for defending officer abuses – similarly condemned the actions of the Minneapolis officers, in a rare show of moral clarity that, combined with the arrest of Chauvin, offered at least a glimmer of hope that this time things might be different. 

As the events of the weekend have since shown, that glimmer was all too fleeting. 

In city after city over the past three days, US mayors and their police chiefs made a series of the same decisions – starting with the deployment of large, heavily armed riot units – that ultimately escalated violent confrontations between officers and protesters. Images widely shared on social media Saturday and Sunday nights made it clear that members of law enforcement were often initiating the worst of the violence, and appeared to treat protesters as enemy combatants, rather than citizens they were sworn to protect. 


In New York City, two police SUVs were seen plowing into a crowd of protesters, while elsewhere an officer was recorded pulling down a young protester’s coronavirus mask in order to pepper spray his face

In Louisville, the city where Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old black woman was fatally shot by police on 13 March, state police in riot gear were captured confiscating and destroying protesters’ supplies

In Minneapolis, forces opened fire with nonlethal rounds on residential streets, much to the shock of homeowners standing on their own front porches. 

Images of police pushing or shoving peaceful protesters were almost too numerous to count, including, in Salt Lake City, an elderly man with a cane

In many places, police also targeted journalists who were covering the protests, firing at clearly identifiable media crews with rubber bullets, injuring and even arresting reporters

Some protesters did commit acts of vandalism and looting, and the leaders of cities where that happened generally responded in the same ways. 

First, they blamed “outside agitators” for the worst protester behaviour, a claim that harkens all the way back to the civil rights era and for which the evidence is murky at best

Next, they enacted sudden curfews with little to no warning, which gave law enforcement an excuse to make mass arrests, in some cases violently. 

In a pair of widely criticized moves, Garcetti of Los Angeles closed the city’s Covid-19 testing centers and suspended the entire mass transit system Saturday evening, stranding essential workers on their way home from daytime shifts. Late Sunday night in Chicago, the city’s public school system halted its free meal distribution service for low-income children, citing “the evolving nature of activity across the city”.  

Governors in at least 12 US states, in coordination with city leaders, have since called in National Guard troops to “help”. 

At this point it’s clear that the leaders of America’s cities are in desperate need of a radically different playbook to respond to these protests. A heavily armed, militarised response to long-simmering anger toward the heavily armed, militarised approach to American policing is more than ironic – it’s ineffective. Granting police officers wider latitude to make arrests via curfews also seems destined to increase the chances of precisely the tragic, racially biased outcomes to which the protesters are reacting. 

There are other options. In places such as Flint, Michigan, and Camden, New Jersey – both poor cities home to large black populations – local law enforcement officials chose to put down their weapons and march alongside protesters, rather than face off against them. In the case of Camden, that the city was able to avoid violent clashes is in no small part related to the fact that it took the drastic step of disbanding its former police department altogether several years ago, replacing it with an entirely new structure. 

America’s cities are in crisis, in more ways than one. It’s not a coincidence that the country has tipped into chaos following months of emotionally draining stay-at-home orders and job losses that now top 40 million. Low-income Americans of colour have borne a disproportionate share of the pandemic’s ravages, and public health officials are already worried about the potential for protests to become Covid-19 super-spreading events.

All of this has of course been spurred on by the US president, who in addition to calling Sunday for mayors and governors to “get tough” on protesters, has made emboldening white nationalists his signature. Notably, Trump didn’t call on officials to get tough on the heavily armed white protesters who stormed the Michigan Capitol building over coronavirus stay-at-home orders just a few weeks ago. 

US mayors and their police chiefs have publicly claimed that they do understand – agree with, even – the anger currently spilling out onto their streets. But as long as they continue to respond to that anger by deploying large numbers of armed and armored law enforcement personnel who do not actually live in the cities they serve, who appear to be more outraged by property damage and verbal insults than by the killings of black Americans at the hands of their peers, and who are enmeshed in a dangerously violent and racist policing culture that perceives itself to be the real victim, it is hard to see how this crisis will improve anytime soon. 

Sommer Mathis is the editor of CityMetric.