The "innovation economy" needs more cultural pasture

I recently read a comment someone in New Zealand wrote about the government's plan to develop infrastructure as a means to an end (economic activity).  He said that "we must never forget that cities exist for its people not for its infrastructure."  I took that to mean that oftentimes urban planning gets caught up in the physical as a means to an end, not fully seeing that the end will be achieved by non-physical, non-building initiatives and programs.  So, for example, notice the correlation between so-called "successful" urban innovation clusters and the proximity to diverse neighborhoods,  or proximity to well-established gay populations. That isn't to say that innovators & entrepreneurs are more likely to be gay than lawyers or laypeople, say.  Rather, as Professor Lance McCready postulated in his first book, if a community can tolerate discrimination or oppression against one group, any group, that community is built on a foundation of intolerance & stifling creativity.  As such, any urban planning for innovation in that community will be as sturdy and long-lasting as a poorly built house of cards. 

One need look no further than Greater Boston where this is illustrated on geographic lines, taking root in historical row between the cities of Cambridge and Boston, separated by the Charles River.  It is fair to say that Cambridge 'out-innovates' its neighbor across the river - home to world's greatest density of tech & biotech companies per square mile, Greater Boston's best restaurants and cultural amenities, location of the Massachusetts' first gay marriage...the list goes on.  For the most part, Cambridge has historically been a reliable source of political, social, and cultural mischief...and the city has reveled even cherished this nature, earning it the moniker "the People's Republic of Cambridge."  While messy, its form of governance and non-linear social strata actually reinforce the sense that the city is a place where freedom to innovate is cherished.  Boston is the antithesis - politics, socioeconomics, civic participation, and government are all strictly regulated either actively or through the reinforcement of social mores.  The result? Statistics an ongoing trend of Boston losing its young professional population for areas perceived to be "friendlier."  This exodus has a direct affect on the city's economic future, particularly as it seeks to rely more and more heavily on innovation & entrepreneurship as economic drivers. 

The silver lining... As the innovation economy in Cambridge continues to gain steam and innovators/entrepreneurs seek space on Boston's shores, I predict you will see Boston's old ways get challenged...and the establishment will react.  What remains to be seen is whether Boston's genetics will overwrite the innovation economy or vice versa.  I see evidence both ways - striving to make more money than the next bloke can create a fertile environment for both conditions.

A 14th century Chinese poet once wrote, "If you want to control your horse, give him a wider pasture."  Similarly, I think that if you want to grow and harness the innovation economy, you have to give it more "pasture", which in this case is social and cultural, not necessarily just economic and physical.