Submitted by Arnault Morisson (arnaultmorisson@gmail.com) on 2015-01-27T13:34:28Z No. of bitstreams: 1 MPGI Thesis - Arnault Morisson.pdf: 10934667 bytes, checksum: ed1569b90a82066004b8dcbce760ec4a (MD5) / Approved for entry into archive by Luana Rodrigues (luana.rodrigues@fgv.br) on 2015-01-27T13:37:27Z (GMT) No. of bitstreams: 1 MPGI Thesis - Arnault Morisson.pdf: 10934667 bytes, checksum: ed1569b90a82066004b8dcbce760ec4a (MD5) / Made available in DSpace on 2015-01-27T13:38:06Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 MPGI Thesis - Arnault Morisson.pdf: 10934667 bytes, checksum: ed1569b90a82066004b8dcbce760ec4a (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-12-22 / In 2000, the city of Barcelona launched 22@ Barcelona, dubbed the innovation district. The city sees the project as a means to accelerate Barcelona’s transition toward the knowledge economy. Other cities around the world have since followed the example of Barcelona, building or planning to build their own innovation districts. Boston began to establish its innovation district in 2010. Cities’ ultimate goal for these initiatives is to become more innovative and thus more competitive. Innovative districts are different from technology parks in that they aim to respond to a new economic paradigm in which economic production flows back to cities. The 22@ Barcelona model involves theoretical designs regarding five layers of innovation: economics, urban planning, productive, innovative, and creative. The comparative approach between 22@ Barcelona and Boston’s Innovation District intends to highlight the similarities and differences between those two innovation districts as well as providing a framework to define innovation districts.

Master of Landscape Architecture / Department of Landscape Architecture/Regional and Community Planning / Jason Brody / Some cities target innovation to bolster their economy, because it drives economic growth. An emerging trend is to use urban regeneration to accomplish this desire. However, lack of understanding about land development effects on innovation is a major concern. Such uncertainty makes it difficult to create visions, plans, and designs for these environments. A major dilemma presents itself. In what way do urban designers develop innovation economies and what confidence can they have in those roles considering the lack of evidence about urban sites within larger innovation systems? In response to the dilemma, this research documents projects facilitating innovation in local economies. A catalog was the tool for exploring characteristics of these places and their connections to economic systems. The catalog acts as a decision framework by displaying these relationships through a goal, objective, and tactic hierarchy. This format illustrates how site-level decisions impact specific parts of the economy. By using the catalog, planners and designers may guide innovation through urban development. To accomplish this, developments must draw talented people with creative ideas and organizations willing to invest in those ideas. When synergies form between these groups, new goods and services become available. To build this innovative milieu, planners and designers EXPLORE regional and site-based opportunities to determine the tactics they utilize. Next, they DEVELOP plans for the places desired by and required for people who INNOVATE. These findings collectively instill confidence in the roles of planners and designers in their quest to cultivate innovative environments.