This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Pancholi, Surabhi, Yigitcanlar, Tan, & Guaralda, Mirko(2017)Governance that matters: Identifying place-making challenges of Mel-bourne’s Monash Employment Cluster.Journal of Place Management and Development, 10(1), pp. 73-87.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/103038/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1108/JPMD-08-2016-0053

1

Governance that matters: identifying place making challenges of

Melbourne’s Monash Employment Cluster

Author 1 Name: Surabhi Pancholi

Department: School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment

University: Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Town/City: Brisbane

Country: Australia

Author 2 Name: Tan Yigitcanlar

Department: School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment

University: Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Town/City: Brisbane

Country: Australia

Author 3 Name: Mirko Guaralda

Department: School of Design

University: Queensland University of Technology (QUT)

Town/City: Brisbane

Country: Australia

2

Governance that matters: identifying place making challenges of

Melbourne’s Monash Employment Cluster

Purpose: The study scrutinises the prominence of place making as a strategy in the

development of knowledge and innovation spaces with a specific focus on distinguishing the

role of governance.

Design/methodology/approach: The study adopts a multidimensional conceptual framework

of place making to investigate a knowledge and innovation space case through a qualitative

analysis approach involving a range of key stakeholders.

Findings: The study finds that governance is critical in facilitating place making in

knowledge and innovation spaces, and place making practices in these locations benefit from

adopting a multidimensional approach.

Originality/value: The study expands our knowledge on the role of governance in place

making that helps achieve desired knowledge and innovation space outcomes.

1. Introduction

Contemporary cities have witnessed the proliferation of advanced mixed-use spatial

ensembles—where knowledge-based activities cluster together—better known as knowledge

and innovation spaces (KISs). Acting as a spatial nexus of knowledge-based urban

development, these knowledge and innovation milieus aim to generate and disseminate new

knowledge for sustainable growth of cities (Huggins, 2008; Evans, 2009; Evers et al., 2010).

KISs are increasingly discussed as a tool for increasing urban competitiveness in the global

knowledge economy, which brings the role of governance to the forefront in their

development and management (Van Winden et al., 2013). One of the widely acknowledged

strategies for the success of KISs is place making—that helps in attracting and retaining a

talented workforce (Van Winden et al., 2007; Yigitcanlar et al., 2007; Yigitcanlar & Dur,

2013; Carrillo et al., 2014).

KISs, as knowledge-nurturing locations, have been subjected to a gradual transformation in

their spatial, economic, social and political environments. This is mainly due to a relatively

recent shift from an isolated and gated KIS development practice to a more collaborative and

open one (Tallman et al., 2004; Pancholi et al., 2015a). Recent studies have asserted the need

to redefine the role of governance and its support mechanisms considering this shift in the

3

specific needs of knowledge and innovation communities (Henton & Held, 2013; Sabatini-

Marques et al., 2015). However, despite the trending popularity of place making amongst

planners and policymakers since the 1960s, a significant gap exists in the literature on place

making practices concerning KISs, and the role of governance in facilitating place making

(Battaglia, 2014). Moreover, while a few recent studies discussed place making in planned

KISs (Pancholi et al., 2015b; Yigitcanlar et al., 2016), a further gap lies in research on

investigation into the prominence of place making, particularly in spontaneously

agglomerated KISs.

This study sheds light on the role of governance in enabling place making in KISs by

addressing the following research questions: (i) What is the role of governance in facilitating

place making in KISs? (ii) What are the key challenges for place making in spontaneously

agglomerated KISs? In order to address these questions a thorough review of the literature is

conducted, and in the light of the conceptual findings a systematic empirical investigation of a

spontaneously agglomerated KIS is undertaken—the case of Monash Employment Cluster,

Melbourne, Australia.

2. Literature Review

In recent decades, with the upsurgance of knowledge at the centre stage of the global

economy, seminal scholarly works have proven how knowledge production is closely adhered

with location (Livingstone, 2003). This is despite speculation about the diminishing stature of

geographical location as a result of ‘death of distance’, ‘slippery space’ or ‘flat world’

theories, produced by rapid globalisation and growth of technology (Markusen & Gadwa,

2010). Henry and Pinch (2000, p. 3) pointed out a “knowledge community as a

geographically concentrated node of knowledge production”. KIS is, therefore, defined as a

spatial nexus of knowledge-based urban development aimed at originating and circulating

knowledge underpinned by their integrated culture of innovation, learning, commercialisation,

governance, networking, lifestyle and environment (Pancholi et al., 2014; Esmaeilpoorarabi et

al., 2016a).

Erstwhile, geographies and functions of KISs have transfigured from earlier introvert and

economy-oriented models of ‘industrial districts’ to the emerging extrovert and mixed-use

KISs with live-work-learn-play settings—termed variously from new media spaces, new

economy spaces, creative clusters to the most recent knowledge/innovation districts or

precincts (Yigitcanlar, 2010). The cluster effect, buzz or face-to-face interactions stemming

4

from agglomerations of firms and people in a certain location accelerate the production of

knowledge and innovation. As mentioned earlier, this rise of the era of network society,

informational age, or the new economy has redefined the needs of knowledge community

shifting KISs from a gated and isolated environment towards a collaborative and open one

(Tallman et al., 2004; Pancholi et al., 2015a).

Organisationally, the new generation of KISs has started to emerge as a result of public-

private-academia-community partnerships—i.e., quadruple helix model partnership—with a

vital role played by institutions and governance in developing such collaboration (Yigitcanlar

et al., 2008a; Lonnqvist et al., 2014). This emergence occurs in two distinctive forms—i.e.,

planned and spontaneously agglomerated KISs (Crevoisier & Jeanneret, 2009). Henton and

Held (2013), in their study on Silicon Valley, succinctly put forward the strengthened role of

institutions in developing the social networks to create the innovation habitat or ecosystem.

Jung (2013) talks about pull attraction towards ‘relational governance’ focused on state-

society relations, moving from an authoritarian role to more uncontrolled role. With these

transformations, it becomes inevitable to adopt a multidimensional approach as well as

reconfiguring the role of governance—manifested by policy and planning as tools—as

professed by a number of contemporary scholarly works (e.g., Carrillo et al., 2014; Cusinato

& Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, 2016).

In recent years, place making has become a popular strategy for sustaining creativity and

knowledge generation in KISs (Edvardsson et al., 2016). Arefi (2014, p. 4) explained the

nature of place making as “contingent, multi-layered, complex and contested”. He postulated

that places are not just physically built, but socially mobilised and politically contested. By

integrating the perspectives from sociology, cultural studies, political geography and

psychology with urban planning studies, we can conclude that place can be shaped by not

only the physical attributes, but also by context, history, regional, socioeconomic and political

processes and most importantly, the meanings and associations of people (Meusberger et al.,

2009). Studies reveal that sense of place emanates from the experiences of those using the

place rather than from deliberate efforts (Jiven & Larkham, 2003). Lefebvre (1991) postulated

place as coherence between conceived, perceived and lived spaces. Montgomery (1998)

conceptualised this into a framework featuring three key elements that define a place—form,

activity and image.

Henceforth, every location hosting a KIS needs to be seen as an outcome of planned as

well as unplanned factors. Primarily, the development of any KIS is ‘path-dependent’

5

(Meusberger et al., 2009). Furthermore, the intangible locational factors, i.e., the brand name

of existing institutions, cost-effectiveness, innovation or business support can affect the

marketability of a KIS (Yigitcanlar et al., 2008b). Recent studies shed light on the role of

spatial integration of KISs with their surrounding areas for enlightening creativity and

creating a unique identity (Baum et al., 2009; Peschl & Fundneider, 2012; Oksanen & Ståhle,

2013; Pancholi et al., 2014). Other KIS studies prove that proximity not only at geographical

level, but also social, organisational, institutional and cognition levels are inevitable for

knowledge production (Boschma, 2005; Esmaeilpoorarabi et al., 2016b). Connections and

myriad of networks integrating local into global define a KIS as much as its physical

peripheries (Castells, 2000). Place making practices in KISs, therefore, need to incorporate

physical and environmental aspects, socioeconomic, political and organisational processes, as

well as needs and perceptions of users and stakeholders.

3. Empirical Investigation

The study adopted a semi-structured interview-based qualitative analysis approach for

carrying out empirical investigations in the selected case. The interview findings were

compared and also integrated with the data collected from primary and secondary sources—

i.e., policy and plan documentation obtained from government organisations, planning and

design firms, developers, research institutes, and on-site tenant firms. Other sources such as

field observations, photographs, physical plans, and maps also contributed to the analysis as

primary data sources in three ways: (i) Prior to interviews, identification of apparent issues to

locate the questionnaires in site-specific context; (ii) During interviews, comprehension of the

discussions—such as related to spatial data, and; (iii) Post-interviews, support and

confirmation of the findings. In order to gain a holistic understanding, the perceptions of a

range of key stakeholders of the project were taken into consideration. In total 15 interviews

were conducted amongst stakeholders grouped under five major groups using a purposeful

sampling technique (Table 1). The selection of each group was done through identifying

knowledgeable individuals at key positions associated with the case. Interviews were

undertaken in the second half of 2015, each lasted about 45-60 minutes, digitally recorded,

and transcribed into text manually. An inductive approach of content analysis—informed by

phenomenographic methodology—was adopted to analyse findings.

6

Table 1. Interviewees

Group Interviewee No Position Relevance

Group 1:

Government

officials

Interviewee#1 State government executive Leading team member of Plan

Melbourne

Interviewee#2 Local council executive Involved in local economic

development plans effecting the site

Interviewee#3 Local council manager Involved in strategic plans effecting the

site

Group 2:

Planners and

designers

Interviewee#4 Senior urban designer Involved in master planning of the site

Interviewee#5 Senior urban planner Involved in master planning of the site

Interviewee#6 Chief architect Involved in master planning of the

Monash University

Group 3:

Networking

group

representatives

Interviewee#7 Director Head of a formal local networking

group

Interviewee#8 Manager Coordinator of a formal local

networking group

Interviewee#9 Chief executive officer Active participant of a local

networking group

Group 4: Firm

and institution

representatives

Interviewee#10 Manager Executive of an on-site anchor business

Interviewee#11 Director Executive of an on-site business

Interviewee#12 Chief technology officer Executive of an on-site business

Group 5:

Knowledge

workers

Interviewee#13 Director Executive of an on-site business

Interviewee#14 Manager Executive of an on-site business

Interviewee#15 Senior researcher Scientist of an on-site business

For the purpose of empirical analysis, the research adopted a multidimensional conceptual

framework for place making in KISs (Pancholi et al., 2015b). It is based on a theoretical

paradigm delving into production of space in the globalised context of KIS as a coherence

between its ‘conceived’, ‘lived’ and ‘perceived’ forms (Lefebvre, 1991; Montgomery, 1998;

Castells, 2000; Pancholi et al., 2015b). These dimensions include ‘context’, ‘feature’, ‘form’,

‘function’, and ‘image’ (Figure 1). The first and foremost dimension of this framework is the

broader ‘context’ surrounding the KIS that includes a broader set of socioeconomic, political,

and environmental conditions. In the ‘conceived space’ layer (see Lefebvre, 1991), ‘feature’

is a dimension that incorporates the factors that enhance a KIS’s marketability for attracting

firms and talented workers. The second dimension of this layer is ‘form’ that refers to the

tangible spatial and physical factors of a KIS. Due to their key roles in the conception stage,

data from Groups 1 and 2, i.e., government officials, planners and designers, majorly

contributed to assessing feature and form. The ‘lived space’ layer (see Lefebvre, 1991)

7

consists of the dimension of ‘function’ that is about socioeconomic processes and networks of

a KIS. As the key users, data from Groups 3, 4 and 5, i.e., networking groups, private firms,

institutions and knowledge workers, were considered for analysing function. The last layer

‘perceived space’ (see Lefebvre, 1991) contains the dimension of ‘image’ that is the

perceptions of users and stakeholders about a KIS. Meanings that are perceived and

associated by Groups 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 were considered for analysing the image. Under each of

these dimensions, a specific focus was placed on the analysis of the role of governance as the

key investigation theme.

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of place making (derived from Pancholi et al., 2015b)

Monash Employment Cluster (MEC), near Melbourne, was selected as the case to carry

out an empirical investigation. It is located 20 km southeast of Melbourne’s central business

district (CBD) and covers an approximately 37 km2area, around Monash University. It was

anticipated as a relevant context to distinctly reveal integration of place making and the role

of governance in it due to the existence of the following: (i) Recent declaration as a national

employment centre (NEC); (ii) A fair mix of different sectors and uses, and; (iii) A number of

8

key stakeholders holding variety of interests on the cluster’s development. As a KIS, MEC

has established itself as a major economic (and innovation) engine room for Melbourne with

the largest concentration of employment outside the CBD. Boasting the highest number of

jobs in all NECs, i.e., 58,500 jobs, MEC has the leading education, health, research, and

commercialisation facilities (Victorian Government, 2014). It has a number of stakeholders

including State Government of Victoria, three Local councils, i.e., Monash, Greater

Dandenong, and Kingston, institutions such as Monash University, Monash Medical Centre

(MMC), Australian Synchrotron, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research

Organisation (CSIRO). In addition, it has commercial partners such as Monash Business

Incubator, the Monash Enterprise Centre, and Chadstone Shopping Centre, as well as a

number of community and networking groups.

4. Findings

4.1. Context

This section focuses on capturing the broader contextual issues relating to MEC. Ranked

as one of the most liveable cities in the world for a number of years (and receiving the World

Capital Institute’s Most Admired Knowledge City Award (MAKCi) in 2016), Melbourne has

a strong standing in providing good-quality housing, education, community, health, public

safety, transport and environmental services. Socially, as much as it is known for its art,

sports and culture, it is also one of the most culturally diverse cities, with representation from

about 200 nationalities within its boundaries (Victorian Government, 2014). Economically,

with the highest population growth across Australia and its diversified economic base,

Melbourne has been able to create a strong position as global knowledge economy

(Yigitcanlar, 2009). The city is home to a number of globally high-ranked universities and

institutes that give it a reliable knowledge base. Additionally, Melbourne has a widespread

network of collaborating institutions active at the city, state and national levels, specifically

dedicated to enhancing knowledge exchange. MEC is located 20 km from Melbourne CBD

and boasts a strong connectivity due to key transport corridors crossing through it—Monash

freeway, and Clayton, Blackburn and Dandenong roads. It is the second biggest KIS

agglomeration in Australia after Macquarie Park in Sydney.

History of the area—dating back to late 1980’s as an industrial park— provides a strong

context, as the existing infrastructure and supportive conditions laid the foundation for its

9

later development as a KIS. It witnessed its first major shift from traditional heavy

manufacturing industries to lighter ones. With the onset of the digital era, the second major

shift in 1990’s and early 2000’s was towards the knowledge-based industries. The site that is

home to Monash University very quickly attracted many global names and kept on growing

spontaneously to become a cluster. In recent years, MEC—an area that grew spontaneously

with no intervention for decades—has received increased recognition as an NEC, and is now

prioritised in State government policy. Interviewee#2 highlighted, “this area is recognised by

the government as being nationally significant in terms of the billions of dollars generated in

employment.” In regard to institutional support, the establishment of a dedicated Metropolitan

Planning Authority (MPA) in 2006 focusing on planning significant sites such as MEC is a

significant step forward. MPA brings the stakeholders, i.e., councils, institutions, commercial

partners, industries, local communities, government agencies, landowners and developers,

together under a single platform. Another key organisational platform playing a proactive role

in MEC’s success as a networked site, Victorian Platform Technologies Network (VPTN), is

funded and supported by the State government.

4.2. Feature

This section focuses on capturing the key issues around the main features of MEC. The

prominent factors that contribute to developing a strong profile for MEC, as revealed by

interviews, are the presence of world-class institutions and research organisations. Established

in 1958, Monash University acts as the key anchor for MEC. A number of world-class

institutions and sub-clusters are collocated in its vicinity—such as CSIRO, Australian

Synchrotron, Melbourne Centre for Nano-fabrication, Monash Health Translation Precinct,

Monash Business Park (MBP), and Monash Technology Precinct (MTP). This has given the

area a distinguished address, making it attractive for other companies. Interviewee#2 stated,

“so having that clustering effect has also encouraged the private sector to come along as

well.” According to Interviewee#1, “the area [is a good location] particularly for office

parks and those sorts of [knowledge-intensive activities].” Interviewee#7 affirmed, “we have

the strongest medical faculty in Australia”. Another major factor that contributed to

developing identity is giving the area a collective name that acts as a ‘brand’, as such

recognising it as an NEC (Victorian Government, 2014). Prior to this, in regard with the

naming of one significant section of the cluster in 1992 as ‘MTP’, Interviewee#2 informed,

“that was a marketing tool to give [the location] an identity as a [knowledge] precinct.”

10

In comparison to the CBD, locating in MEC proves cost-effective to companies in terms of

land and rent prices as well as land block sizes. As Interviewee#1 highlighted, “you can still

get big sites in MEC. So it makes it competitively attractive given the prices that you pay [in

comparison to the inner city Melbourne business/industry spaces]”. As a CEO, Interviewee#9

supported the affordability characteristic of the KIS, “firstly you have got the space for

industry to expand and grow, but also the rent is also much lower than in the city as well.”

Local council—with the support of State, Federal government, and key on-site anchor

tenants—has developed Monash Enterprise centre and Eastern innovation business centre to

support small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and innovative businesses. They are

designed to provide a range of collaborative working environments such as hot desks, break

out zones, work stations, laboratories and private office spaces with 24/7 accessibility as well

as shared facilities. On the other hand, the need to enhance common public amenities and

public transportation emerged as a prime challenge from the recent surveys conducted by the

government. Interviewee#1 delineated, “companies want to have somewhere that they can

take a business client for lunch or their staff can go to the shops at lunch time or find a doctor

or something.” Interviewee#3 highlighted the figure of commuters who travel by private

motor vehicle to work as being around 80%, which is being made even worse by buses

currently running at an interval of 30-40 minutes. In order to address this issue, Plan

Melbourne (Victorian Government, 2014, p. 84) aims to manage public transportation issues

and acknowledges, “high-quality road and transport services are important to access

employment”. However, public transport frequencies are still yet to be improved.

4.3. Form

This section focuses on capturing the key issues around the urban form of MEC. Spatially,

at the broader scale, MEC is well integrated with its surroundings. Locational advantages and

accessibility to the freeway and the city emerged as key retaining factors for companies on the

site in a survey as shared by Interviewees#1-3. However, due to its spontaneous growth,

issues like congestion and interruptions by heavy traffic lanes have posed a challenge. On-

going spatio-temporal transformation of space can be seen in relation to institutes that are

becoming more extroverted, open and connected. Interviewee#4 shed light on the reason for

the formerly introverted nature of the KIS, “the university campus has only opened up fairly

recently. It has always been quite a closed campus. We had a very high fence all the way

around us. This used to be a norm in the past for campuses. I am glad it is changing now.”

An exploration into the draft campus master plan of Monash University revealed a shift and

11

an enhanced emphasis on its relationships with neighbours and surroundings. Interviewee#6

informed, “[the] campus master plan encourages partnerships and articulates that those

connections should be made more explicit. The importance of informal transfer of knowledge

through social interaction is finally understood.” Moreover, Interviewee#1 explicated the

relationship at sub-cluster level: "you can actually drill down and see activity hubs within that

area. These hubs have a strong sense of place within themselves.”

Historically, the site was developed following the ‘garden city’ model based on a grid lay-

out, providing big blocks of land with a mandatory requirement to have large green setbacks

and retain the tree canopy (Interviewee#4). This low-density development and greenery, due

to zoning it as a ‘special-use zone’, gave the area a competitive edge over other locations.

Interviewee#3 asserted, “this conveyed a sense of presence and quality in terms of the

environment.” However, due to the absence of public art, heritage or an innovative element,

the area lacks uniqueness of character necessary for developing a sense of place. Interviews

also revealed the lack of common green areas, public spaces and walkability as major issues

faced by knowledge workers in MEC. As a user, Interviewee#12 mentioned, “I’d love to have

more green areas to break up all these areas of buildings. This would help people to interact

during their breaks and make acquaintances with other [knowledge] workers”. In addition to

this, Interviewee#13 highlighted, “it is missing a lot of infrastructures; it is missing public

spaces, entertainment. These would also help the space (to be) used after hours and (at)

weekends”. Indeed the new generation KISs are 24/7 locations. Interviewee#14 also pointed

out discomfort due to the lack of an easy physical connectivity between sub-clusters, “what

puts me off, is those eight lanes of traffic, because I get stuck in the middle through one set of

light(s) and then I have to wait again [for the next].” Similarly, Interviewee#3 expressed,

“not an easy place to get around walking, limited public transport and large distances to

travel.”

4.4. Function

This section focuses on capturing the key issues around the main functions of MEC.

Interviewees highlighted the contribution of proximity of institutes, like-minded businesses

and people, as well as the proactive role of networking and knowledge spillover between

them. Interviewee#2 delineated, “there are certain synergies that develop between them.”

Interviewee#8 resonated, “it creates a truly unique environment for translational research.”

The most noteworthy networking initiative is VPTN—the centralised network of core

12

facilities—consisting of 140 platforms across Victoria, with 30 platforms physically based in

MEC. It bridges the interface between government, research organisations, universities,

industry, researchers and innovators. It provides open access to common service and expertise

as well as enhances collaborations and skill development by organising regular workshops

and marketing events. Interviewee#9 articulated its contribution as, “most importantly it

brings industry into that forum as well so we can really showcase all the technologies to

industry and have that engagement. What is very attractive to industries or researchers

engaged in VPTN is that they can now go to one place.” Social or informal networking

emerged as another key factor just as critical as formal networking. Referring to Monash

Technology Research Platform—a subset platform of VPTN active in Monash, Interviewee#9

put across, “what it does very well is social networking.” She formulated, “so I think in

addition to the physical structure and the spaces and so forth, you cannot underestimate the

social networks and structures, they are important for success.”

Apart from its current specialisation and diversity in terms of size, sector and nature of

firms, the factor that holds the potential to sustain MEC’s competitiveness for wider market is

knowledge spillover across disciplines, e.g., medical and technologies. Interviewee#7 pointed

out, “now the play with medical technologies and medical engineering is coming together.”

Referring to VPTN, Interviewee#9 discussed, “it is quite medical oriented but as that network

has developed; it has brought in platforms covering engineering and science in recent years

as well.” Another critical aspect that became apparent is the informal functions or public

activities. Though developing the area as a green business park worked in favour of

businesses, the negative consequence is lack of mixed-use development and hence vibrancy.

Unlike the CBD, MEC is not active 24/7 and becomes dull after office hours. This was

evident in Interviewee#15’s statement, “there were not any good cafes around, I'd have

preferred some. There are no people or anything to do after five o’clock.” In order to address

this issue; Plan Melbourne (Victorian Government, 2014) has selected some key areas, i.e.,

around Huntingdale, Clayton and Springvale as focal points to be enhanced as the activity

generator cores for the site.

4.5. Image

This section focuses on capturing the people’s perceptions of MEC. Interviews establish a

high degree of satisfaction within tenants about the support provided at government level.

Interviewee#7 believed, “the government provides implicit support.” Interviews also reveal a

13

fair degree of optimism at local government level about the plans and policies proposed by

the State government. For Plan Melbourne (Victorian Government, 2014), Interviewee#3

mentioned, “we are happy to go along with it and participate in it.” However, considering

change in land use, while state government is in favour of proposing changes to a certain

extent in land use zoning allowing a more mixed-use kind of development, at local level there

seems to be a bit of a predicament about certain kinds of activities, such as retail or more

traditional uses, that they think might drive the land value high. In this regard, Interviewee#3

underlined, “they are not things we want to see in the cluster because we think in (the) long-

term they would undermine the cluster itself and the presentation of the image that we have

for the cluster”. In terms of tenant-to-tenant coordination, the institutions are satisfied by the

connections with other institutions and the role of platforms in strengthening this.

Interviewee#9 affirms, “we are more aware of what all our colleagues are doing especially at

Monash, but as importantly (at) all the platforms in Victoria.”

In recent years, attention has been paid to making the planning process more transparent

and democratic. A round of surveys—that involved talking to the local councils, businesses,

institutes in the area and community—was undertaken by the State government. As

Interviewee#1 highlighted, “we have gone through a long process of researching what is

there at the moment, how the area works, what are the synergies between the different

businesses, between business areas and residential areas and commercial areas, public

transport facilities”. The plan is, therefore, shaped by inputs from people who are the real

users of the space. While users seemed to be appreciative of the quality of environment and

openness of site, lack of vibrancy emerged as one of the key dissatisfaction factors.

Interviewee#15 elucidated, “so I like the peace and quiet but at the same time I did not like

that there is nothing else there.” As discussed earlier, key satisfaction factors for companies

involve accessibility, cost-effectiveness and proximity to institutions, like-minded businesses,

talented workforce, clients and big blocks of land, but the lack of vibrancy and public

amenities emerges as a major cause of concern. Because of this, it becomes challenging to

lure a talented workforce. Interviewee#10 disclosed, “it was a problem in terms of recruiting

people because everyone on the staff wanted to be located close to the city. To attract them

we need to provide facilities here that (are) of equivalent to the city.”

14

5. Discussion and Conclusion

The literature review findings highlight the increasing recognition and importance of place

making in KIS. The overall empirical findings of the research suggest that place making

manifests as the interplay between tangible and intangible aspects shaping formation of KISs

as a ‘place’. The analysis, additionally, generated a number of insights helping to address the

first research question focusing on the role of governance in facilitating place making in KISs.

These insights are discussed below under each of the aforementioned place making

dimensions.

Context-wise: Melbourne’s planning and policy context provides strong support for

KISs. Organisationally, setting up a dedicated administrative body, i.e., Metropolitan

Planning Authority, to bring stakeholders exhibiting a variety of mutual interests

together under a single platform, is crucial in case of such large knowledge

clusters/KISs. Additionally, it plays a key role in coordination between other

government agencies at the State level. Interviewee#3 from a local council

highlighted, “theoretically, the benefit of that also is they are able to help ensure the

other State government departments are much more coordinated.” In relation with

MEC, interviews and review of Plan Melbourne (Victorian Government, 2014) reveal

a strong focus on infrastructure development, but a lack of direct mention and focus on

place making. Future strategic planning activities of the KIS should acknowledge and

encourage effective place making practices.

Feature-wise: As evident in MEC, the contribution of governance is required in

funding the physical and digital infrastructure for enhancing the accessibility to and

within KIS, as well as setting up innovation infrastructure, i.e., incubators for SMEs.

Federal and State level policies strongly prioritise MEC by recognising it as a cluster

of national significance and identifying it as an NEC in Plan Melbourne (Victorian

Government, 2014). However, MEC lacks an effective brand that gives it a unique

identity at the national and global level. Allocating a unique name and brand to the

area can be a critical approach to make its profile stronger. Future governance

activities of the KIS should involve better branding and marketing initiatives.

Form-wise: Though the site developed spontaneously in consistency with the market

forces, the proactive role of the Local council’s strict site planning guidelines and land

use zoning—termed as “big-stick way of government” by Interviewee#4—facilitated

the conducive conditions for its development as a prosperous KIS. In addition, the

15

City of Monash is one of only two municipalities in Melbourne—the other one being

the City of Melbourne—that has an in-house team specialising in urban design and

sustainability. Interviewee#4 believes the potential for MEC’s future development lies

in having a dedicated body, “the fact that we have an in-house urban design and

sustainability group has some influence.” It is observed that while MEC displays

strong intangible networks and connections, it lacks in place making by tangible

factors such as public amenities and people-oriented character in design, defined by

the vibrancy, connectivity and walkability between and within sub-clusters. Future

planning and design efforts of the KIS should be sensitive to connectivity and

walkability matters to form vibrant public spaces that are highly accessible and

inviting.

Function-wise: Special support of the State government in the development of VPTN

in MEC is significant. Apart from the funding support, this also helps in building up a

trustworthy image for the KIS. Interviewee#6 articulated, “it provides an implied

approval of the concept, which builds the credibility of the concept. People see, oh this

is supported by the State government so I should trust it, and I should believe that it is

going to be beneficial for me.” The successful functioning of VPTN exemplifies how

the proactive role of networking institutions redefines a space as KIS and its

contribution in the generation of knowledge. More importantly, the findings

demonstrate that strengthening of informal or social networks is as significant as the

formal networks for effective knowledge circulation in KIS. Future governance efforts

of the KIS should focus on boosting the effectiveness of both networks.

Image-wise: Socially, MEC brings forward the ideal model of governance, where

there is an equal participation from public, private, academia and community through

consultation from initial stages to final stages of planning, development, and

functioning. This develops trust amongst tenants and community. Planning, from the

very first step, is not done on the basis of simple replication of any global site, but

emanates from the unique requirements of the site, knowledge workers, companies

and community, as acknowledged in Plan Melbourne (Victorian Government, 2014);

each cluster is different. The analysis reveals some disagreement between the Local

and State governments on land use zoning. This suggests that coordination between

stakeholders is critical for place making. Future governance efforts of the KIS should

16

include bringing all stakeholders to work towards creation of a strong image of the

KIS together for it to be recognised internationally as a prosperous and distinctive one.

The analysis generated the following insights that helped in shedding light on the second

research question that focuses on the key challenges of place making in spontaneously

agglomerated KISs.

As evident in MEC in its attempts to turn into a globally renowned KIS, there are a number

of challenges that actors must face. For instance, while it is vital to maintain the character of

the area, it is also inevitable to bring common consensus within various tiers of government

on easing the land-use restrictions and allowing for more mixed-use developments. Another

major challenge is to accomplish the anticipated decentralisation from the inner city to

suburbia, where developing conditions for 24/7 activation of the KIS is necessary. Besides

activity generator cores, introducing diverse residential and commercial uses with enhanced

public amenities will not only make the area safer and more vibrant, but also untangle

mobility and congestion issues. Moreover, along with infrastructure development, it is crucial

to place a larger focus on transport mode split, permeability between the buildings,

pedestrian-friendliness and incorporating a unique character to enhance its people-

orientedness. Finally, formulation of an effective branding strategy is required to create a

unique identity at the national and global levels.

As a result, two key conclusions for place making in KISs ensue from the empirical

investigation of MEC:

Place making comprises a multidimensional encompassment of conceived, perceived

and lived layers of space: First of all, policymakers need to adopt an integrated

approach for place making that incorporates not only physical and spatial, but also

social, economic, political and psychological perspectives. Secondly, while many

emerging KISs prefer to follow the pathways of global success stories, the strategies

for place making should be majorly derived from authentic local characteristics,

experiences and perspectives, as every case and set of conflicts are unique.

In KISs, the role of governance extends from direct intervention towards indirect

inducement and the facilitation of catalytic conditions for place making: Place making

strategies need to be considered not only as deliberate designing exercises, but also as

facilitation of conditions which support the growth of knowledge and innovation at a

location. Key focus, therefore, should be placed on incorporating local perspectives in

17

development and strengthening existing tangible and intangible assets such as formal

and informal networks in KISs.

The main place making strategies in KISs for policymakers can be practically summarised

as follows:

Context-wise: (i) Prioritising knowledge-based urban development and place making,

and; (ii) Appointing dedicated authorities for development of and coordination in

KISs.

Economy-wise: (i) Branding and marketing KISs effectively and recognising them as

key projects in policies, and; (ii) Investing in physical and digital infrastructure with

collaborative spaces for SMEs and start-ups.

Space-wise: (i) Designating dedicated land use zones to promote mixed and diverse

uses, and; (ii) Setting up local bodies for designing and making KISs more people and

community oriented.

Function-wise: (i) Supporting and investing into institutions that strengthen formal

networks in diverse sectors along with informal social networking, and; (ii) Providing

amenities that enhance vibrancy of the KIS and generate a pull factor.

Society-wise: (i) Strengthening equal democratic participation of stakeholders and

community in the decision-making process, and; (ii) Ensuring coordination between

various tiers of government and stakeholders to deliver the best outcomes for the local

community.

Such multidimensional incorporation of place making trough effective governance will

help in the facilitation of: (i) A strong context by providing planning, policy and institutional

support; (ii) A uniquely featured KIS by enhancing its competitiveness and resourcefulness;

(iii) A strengthened connectivity and character in physical environment; (iv) An open and

collaborative socioeconomic environment, and; (v) A sense of identity and ownership by the

people and local community. These will contribute to the success of KISs in perpetual

knowledge generation and innovation and lead to a sustainable and knowledge-based urban

development.

References

Arefi, M. (2014). Deconstructing placemaking. New York: Routledge.

18

Battaglia, A. (2014). Creative industries and knowledge economy development. Int. J.

Knowledge-Based Development, 5(3), 238-252.

Baum, S., O’Connor, K. & Yigitcanlar, T. (2009). The implications of creative industries for

regional outcomes. Int. J. Foresight and Innovation Policy, 5(1-3), 44-64.

Boschma, R. (2005). Proximity and innovation. Regional Studies, 39(1), 61-74.

Carrillo, F., Yigitcanlar, T., Garcia, B. & Lonnqvist, A. (2014). Knowledge and the city. New

York: Routledge

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of network society. Malden: Blackwell.

Crevoisier, O. & Jeanneret, H. (2009). Territorial knowledge dynamics. European Planning

Studies, 17(8), 1223-1241.

Cusinato, A., & Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, A. (Eds.) (2016). Knowledge-creating milieus

in Europe. Berlin: Springer.

Edvardsson, I., Yigitcanlar, T. & Pancholi, S. (2016). Knowledge cities research and practice

under the microscope. Knowledge Management Research and Practice,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41275-016-0003-0.

Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T. & Guaralda, M. (2016a). Place quality and urban

competitiveness symbiosis? Int. J. Knowledge-Based Development, 7(1), 4-21.

Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M., (2016b). Towards an urban quality

framework. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 7(3), 290-312

Evans, G. (2009). Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban Studies, 46(5-6),

1003-1040.

Evers, H., Gerke, S. & Menkhoff, T. (2010). Knowledge clusters and knowledge hubs. J.

Knowledge Management, 14(5), 678-689.

Henry, N. & Pinch, S. (2000). Spatialising knowledge. Geoforum, 31(2), 191-208.

Henton, D. & Held, K. (2013). The dynamics of Silicon Valley. Social Science

Information. 52(1), 539-557.

Huggins, R. (2008). The evolution of knowledge clusters: progress and policy. Economic

Development Quarterly, 22(1), 277-289.

Jiven, G. & Larkham, P. (2003) Sense of place, authenticity and character. J. Urban Design,

8(1), 67-81.

Jung, N. (2013). Relational governance and the formation of a new economic space. Int. J.

Urban and Regional Research, 37(4), 1233-53.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Malden: Blackwell.

Livingstone, D. (2003). Putting science in its place. Chicago: University of Chicago.

19

Lonnqvist, A., Kapyla, J., Salonius, H. & Yigitcanlar, T. (2014). Knowledge that matters.

European Planning Studies, 22(10), 2011-2029.

Markusen, A. & Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative placemaking. Washington: National Endowment

for Arts.

Meusburger, P., Funke, J. & Wunder, E. (2009). Milieus of creativity. Dordrecht: Springer.

Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city. J. Urban Design, 3(1), 93-116.

Oksanen, K. & Ståhle, P. (2013). Physical environment as a source for innovation. J.

Knowledge Management, 17(6), 815-827.

Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T. & Guaralda, M. (2014). Urban knowledge and innovation spaces.

Asia Pacific J. Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 8(1), 15-38.

Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M., (2015a). Public space design of knowledge and

innovation spaces. J. Open Innovation, 1(13), 1-17,

Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T. & Guaralda, M. (2015b). Place making facilitators of knowledge

and innovation spaces. Int. J. Knowledge-Based Development, 6(3), 215-240.

Peschl, M. & Fundneider, T. (2012). Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining

innovations. J. Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 9(1), 41-61.

Sabatini-Marques, J., Yigitcanlar, T., & Da Costa, E., (2015). Australian innovation

ecosystem. Asia Pacific J. Innovation and Entrepreneurship, 9(2), 3-28.

Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry N. & Pinch, S. (2004). Knowledge clusters and competitive

advantage. Academy of Management Review, 29(2), 258-271.

Van Winden, W., Van Berg, D. & Pol, P. (2007). European cities in the knowledge economy.

Urban Studies, 44(3), 525-549.

Van Winden, W., Carvalho, L., Van Tuijl, E., Van Haaren, J. & Van Berg, D. (2013)

Creating knowledge locations in cities. London: Routledge.

Victorian Government (2014). Plan Melbourne. Melbourne: Victorian Government.

Yigitcanlar, T., Baum, S. & Horton, S. (2007). Attracting and retaining knowledge workers in

knowledge cities. J. Knowledge Management, 11(5), 6-17.

Yigitcanlar, T., O’Connor, K. & Westerman, C. (2008a). The making of knowledge cities.

Cities, 25(2), 63-72.

Yigitcanlar, T., Velibeyoglu, K., & Martinez-Fernandez, C., (2008b). Rising knowledge

cities. Journal of Knowledge Management, 12(5), 8-20.

Yigitcanlar, T. (2009). Planning for knowledge-based development. J. Knowledge

Management, 13(5), 228-242.

20

Yigitcanlar, T. (2010). Making space and place for the knowledge economy. European

Planning Studies, 18(11), 1769-1786.

Yigitcanlar, T. & Dur, F. (2013). Making space and place for knowledge communities.

Australasian J. Regional Studies, 19(1), 36-63.

Yigitcanlar, T., Guaralda, M., Taboada, M. & Pancholi, S. (2016). Place making for

knowledge generation and innovation. J. Urban Technology, 23(1), 115-146.