While it all sounds very nifty, I can’t help but smile when I see buckets catching rainfall from the stylishly high skylight in the main lobby, or when I hear the elevator slowly stutters to my floor. Thank god they are removing the very cute Evian bubbles from the elevator and behind the security desk as I am typing this.

I was supposed to have mopped up the rain but I got diverted to Tim
Horton’s.

The goals of the MaRS initiative are indeed laudable, however, as with everything else, it’s execution that matters. Close physical proximity of scientist, providers of capital, etc., at least on the surface, seems to be a key ingredient in “creating a culture of commercializationâ€?. Several regions in the US (in particular) can attest to the importance of this type of critical mass especially those anchored around top research universities. There is an important difference between those successful regions and the MaRS initiative, however. MaRS is attempting to artificially create the conditions (i.e., physical infrastructure and ancillary support services) that lead to increased commercialization activities specifically and innovation in general. In my view, “MaRSâ€? is at best a necessary but yet insufficient condition for stimulating commercialization success. Compare the history of other regions where innovation, entrepreneurship and commercialization are deeply rooted and one quickly notices the multiplicity, diversity of linkages, connectedness and depth of the talent and networks. One also notices the decentralized nature and dynamism of these networks. Can MaRS learn from these other regions and apply lessons appropriately? Yes, it can. But it may not be as central to the process as it believes itself.