People regularly ask whether innovation districts can be deliberately created or whether they emerge beyond policy control. This Insight argues that districts arise through a small number of recurring pathways rather than a single replicable model. Drawing on international experience, it shows why policy outcomes depend less on ambition than on correctly diagnosing which pathway is plausible in a given context. Replicating the Silicon Valley or China approaches is fraught.

Innovation precinct strategies routinely promise "chance encounters" and "spontaneous collaboration" as if bringing talented people together in well-designed spaces automatically produces productive connections. The evidence is weak. Many precincts deliver proximity without interaction. Tenants occupy adjacent floors for years without substantive engagement. Shared amenities become places where people check phones rather than start conversations. My latest Innovation Insight

Australia’s innovation economy is shaped by a structural management deficit that separates discovery from execution. This Insight explains why founders who generate breakthroughs often lack the management skills required to build a resilient business, and why capability-building programs misdiagnose the challenge. The divide is visible in startups, SMEs, and university spin-outs, where the transition from research or prototyping into scale demands architectural management ski

New research examining 80+ international innovation districts reveals what drives success. From MIT's Kendall Square to Singapore's One North, thriving ecosystems integrate placemaking, economics, business development and governance. Success comes from institutional capabilities and relationships, not impressive buildings. Australian policymakers can learn from global best practices whilst avoiding common pitfalls like property-led development models

John H Howard, 5 November 2024* The passage of the US CHIPS and Science Act  in 2022 marked a pivotal moment in the nation’s pursuit of...