{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019236209335219235, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002263083451202263, 'mean_word_length': 5.171029668411867, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
From Ambition to Innovation: A closer look at the physical characteristics of innovation districts

Context: The city of The Hague is located in The Netherlands, in the province of Zuid-Holland and with nearly 500,000 inhabitants it is the third largest city of the country. The increasing dynamics of globalization have also made its way to The Hague, where urban competitiveness is increasingly considered to be an important aspect for the city’s future. In an attempt to reach high levels of urban competitiveness, the municipality of The Hague has recently announced its plans for the development of an innovation district. Objective: The objective of this research is to intensively analyse a specific case (the innovation district in The Hague) and, in doing so, add to the scientific literature concerning innovation districts. By performing an empirical analysis about the demands of different groups in an innovation district and the ambitions and policies on the steering side, this research attempts to clarify what the physical needs are of specific groups of actors within the context of the innovation district in The Hague. What is more, it attempts to draw conclusions regarding the relationship between physical interventions and the development of innovation districts. Methods: This thesis is divided into five main components: an introduction, a theoretical framework, a case analysis, the conclusions and recommendations and a reflection. The methods that have been used in this research are a literature review, interviews and a questionnaire. The quantitative data of the questionnaire has been statistically analysed by calculating the median and the inter-quartile range of each variable. What is more, frequency tables have been developed to create a more detailed image of the results of each variable. Pearson’s r and Pearson’s chi-square method have finally been used to discover significant differences and correlations. Results: The results of the case study indicate several aspects that have high levels of importance to specific groups within the district, while others show lower levels of importance. The results of the levels of satisfaction of the different aspects within the district also show varying results for different sub-areas. The analysis of the 22@ district in Barcelona has also revealed a number of physical interventions related to the development of the district. Conclusion: This research has resulted in a number of conclusions relating to the development of innovation districts. First, municipal leadership appears to be key in the early stages of a top-down initiated innovation district. Then, it has become apparent that the needs of the users of innovation districts go beyond sheer accessibility. Walkability, bike-ability and the presence of hospitality services are nearly equally important. However, user groups also have specific needs that other groups do not have. Therefore, when the vision is to create a mixed environment, it is important to consider these needs, otherwise innovation districts run the risk of having dispersed user groups. Another conclusion is that physical proximity does not guarantee learning (there is a need for common ground) and that physical conditions alone are not sufficient for innovation to take place. Finally, the cases studied in this research have shown that the brand ‘innovation district’ is being used by cities as a model to strive for, rather than a label that corresponds with the physical and economic situation at hand.