Cambridge Employment Land Study Innovation Districts Case Studies

23.12.19 Innovation District Case Studies Document control and issue sheet

Document history

Version Date Description 01 19/8/2019 First Full Draft 02 23/12/19 Final Draft v2

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 2 Contents

1 Introduction 04 2 Public Realm 6 Summary 21 1.1 Innovation districts as a Management Models 06 new Regeneration Model 2.1 Background 7 Recommendations 22 2.2 Case study: Kings Cross - The private, highly defined model 2.3 Case study: Arabianranta - The public evolving mode

3 Residential Uses 9 3.1 Making the case for residential uses 3.2 Case study: Eddington - Diverse housing 4.3 Case study: Research Triangle Park - Residential as an add-on 4.4 Case study: University Park at MIT - Mixed-use by principle

4 How to Spread the Benefits of Innovation Districts to the Wider Community 13 4.1 Background 4.2 Case study: Managed outreach - The Invention Rooms at White City 4.3 Case study: Over-the-Rhine Cincinnati - Social issues first

5 Phasing 16 5.1 The different models 5.2 Jobs-led case study: Cambridge Biomedical Campus 5.3 Public realm-led case study: StrijpS Eindhoven 5.4 People-led case study: Eddington 5.5 Mixed use case study: MIT Kendall Square Initiative

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 3 1 Introduction 1.1 Innovation districts as a new regeneration model

Purpose of Report that includes commercial, – Regeneration of existing This report was prepared retail science parks with new as advice to accompany – And residential uses that infrastructure and residential the Greater Cambridge provide sufficient networking uses to cater for new Employment Land and assets. industries and tenant Economic Development expectations, for example the Evidence Base and preparation – A knowledge economy new Park Centre at Research of the North East Cambridge cluster that provides sufficient Triangle Park economic assets Area Action Plan. The report – Fully new developments on focuses on four aspects of The innovation district model green field at the edge of Innovation districts with key combines the idea of a existing cities (like Cambridge ‘positions’ illustrated through highly integrated mixed-use North West) or new cities (like contrasting global case studies. neighbourhood with the Skolkovo in Moscow) The report concludes with idea of a specific economic specific recommendations for cluster, which thrives best Cultural differences are the Greater Cambridge Shared under such spatial conditions. also important. While in Planning Service. As an urban model the European countries the public innovation district promotes administration and institutional What is a Innovation anchor tenants play a bigger District? attractive neighbourhoods where facilities are easily role, private developers and An innovation district is large companies are the central essentially a post-automobile, accessible and carbon-based transport is minimised. As an actors in the Anglo-American walkable “live-work”, mixed-use hemisphere. neighbourhood which creates economic model it maximises the opportunity for collaboration opportunities for collaborations. Case Studies between different actors. Innovation District To the extent that the planning Typologies of innovation districts is In his influential report “The essentially the planning of Rise of Innovation districts: A As urban and economic conditions vary across the urban regeneration, albeit with New Geography of Innovation a specific economic theme, its in America”, Julie Wagner and globe there is no clear cut model how to create an various forms of materialisation Bruce Katz define an innovation are as diverse as the urban district as: innovation district. Generally we can distinguish four different conditions it intervenes in. High “geographic areas where typologies that each entail a level principles can be drawn leading-edge anchor institutions different methodology as to from case studies. and companies cluster and formulating growth: connect with start-ups, business incubators, and – ‘Naturally occurring’ The following pages provide accelerators. Compact, transit- innovation districts that merge detail on international (Europe accessible, and technically- and evolve primarily through and US) developments that set wired, innovation districts foster the actions of a network of out approaches across four open collaboration, grow talent, actors from the bottom up. themes: and offer mixed-used housing, The ‘silicon roundabout’ - Public realm management office, and retail.” around Old Street in London is a good example. - Integration of residential uses According to Wagner and Katz - Local socio-economic impact an innovation district is – Innovation districts as catalysts for the urban - Phasing – A distinct geographic entity regeneration of derelict within a highly integrated urban areas that need new urban environment that economic impulses, for provides sufficient physical example 22@Barcelona or assets Kings Cross. – A mixed use neighbourhood

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 4 Skolkovo Innovation Center

District D3 Key Projects (~490k m2): • Offices & R&D Centers District Z1 • University Key Projects (~335k m2): • Apartments • Kindergarten, primary school, • Hotels high school • Retail • Fitness center • Offices • Cultural and Art center • City Hall • Apartments • City parking

District D4 Key Projects (~470k m2): • Offices & R&D Centers • Apartments • Kindergarten, primary school • City parking • Logistics center • Fitness center

District D2 Key Projects (~580k m2): • Technopark • Offices & R&D Centers • Apartments • Kindergarten, primary school • City parking

District D1 Key Projects (~470k m2): • Offices & R&D Centers • Apartments • Kindergarten, primary school • City parking • Sberbank Data processing center • Hospital • Electric power substations

Top left Top right Park/North Carolina/ Silicon Roundabout The Media-TIC in USA, an enhancement London, a ‘naturally the 22@ Barcelona of the existing science occurring’ innovation catalyst in a wider park district urban regeneration project Bottom left Moscow Skolkovo Bottom right Techno Park, a new Mixed use “Park urban development on Centre” development a green field site at Research Triangle

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 5 2 Public Realm Management Models 2.1 Background

Public Realm who are allowed to draw up and managed through multiple Public realm is an essential their own rules for “acceptable complex arrangements, many infrastructure of innovation behaviour” on their sites and of which are not clearly public or districts. As an area shared alter them at will. These rules do clearly private, whilst restrictions between employees, residents not have to be published; and in on use apply to all spaces, and visitors, public realm reality this rarely happens. regardless of ownership.” facilitates the overlapping The other side of the debate Public realm is a genuine place of social and professional claims that in terms of financial of collaboration. networks. means and organisational How this social life is organised flexibility private owners are Pubic Realm in Innovation and regulated is key to how much better than public Districts public realm performs as a agencies suited to develop and The discussion of the merits ‘networking asset’. Therefore, maintain high quality public of publicly or privately owned not just the provision of public spaces that meet specific user and managed space is not realm, but how it is designed, needs. intrinsic to the innovation programmed and managed are The upkeep of the public realm districts but is, as for all urban critical success factors. is in the very interest of the regeneration models, very owner as this keeps the value of relevant. How the public realm Public v Private their asset. in innovation districts functions The last 20 years have seen a Being landlord and pubic realm as a network asset both in fierce debate about the growing agent at the same time allows its design and flexibility is of privatisation of the public realm private organisations to better key interest. Public realm is in the UK. Authors like Anna understand the needs of users thought to be a key space of Minton sharply criticise that and address issues much ‘collisions’ and interactions. in some new developments, quicker and more creatively. Place making is therefore for example Kings Cross, the central to the success of an public realm, contrary to a true The experience of everyday innovation district. Kings Cross public space, is actually owned users is largely indistinguishable for example clearly prioritises and managed by the private within a publicly or privately the quality of its public realm land owner. The key concern owned public space. design alongside that of its against these so called POPS The debate in contrast is buildings, a substantial upfront (privately owned public spaces) mainly motivated by underlying investment whose benefits is the extent to which a private ideologies. It pitches neo-liberal have been well documented. landowner can control activities positions against left leaning Harwell in Oxfordshire, as an like political demonstration, statism. Matthew Carmona example of an existing science photography or rough sleeping. tries to bridge the two sides by park, struggles with a legacy Within private developments, noting that although there has of disinvestment in its public so Minton and others claim, been an increasing privatisation spaces. public realm becomes a of the public realm the effects commodity that supports for real life have been limited. He predominantly private economic sees the public realm as a field interests of the landowner but of many actors who ideally work not the general public, thus together: they are “undemocratic and “Ultimately, the rights and exclusive: too commercial, responsibilities associated with corporate, securitized, sanitized spaces and what this implies and exclusionary in feel, and about their ‘publicness’ are therefore, not public at all.” And far more important than who indeed, under existing laws, owns and manages them. How, public access to POPS remains not who, is key. In fact, the at the discretion of landowners spaces of the city are owned

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 6 2 Public Realm Management Models 2.2 Case study: Kings Cross - The private, highly defined model

Left Recreational space for Description residents in Lewis Kings Cross contains a good Cubitt Park example of a successful privately owned public space Middle Granary Square with high design quality has become a and intense programming. London wide Maintenance levels are high. attraction Developer Argent saw the Bottom public realm as a crucial St Pancras success factor for the overall Square is development. It attracts the designed as an interaction space right tenant ecosystem and for employees drove real estate value. For this of the adjacent reason, the public realm was knowledge sector finished before the buildings, companies creating a massive upfront investment for Argent. The public spaces are designed as pedestrian friendly interaction arena for knowledge industries (like Google) and anchor institutions like Central Saint Martins. Public events and attractions like the water fountains on Granary Square attract a high number of visitors from all over London. Argent was not willing to create the public realm without keeping control over the activities taking place. It refused any written planning agreement about this with local planning authority Camden Council. It is therefore a highly controlled place with undisclosed rules. This control makes it easy for Argent to quickly adjust design and programming to according to the changing need of the knowledge economy ecosystem of Kings Cross. Spectrum of response Content programming: Passive Active ( I> Key Figures – 7.5m visitors (2015/16) and squares. £1.2m Management: – 53 ha – 10.5 ha public realm investment into public space (Source: Permissive Restrictive – 1,900 homes – 163 events (2015/16) Regeneris) – 25,000 jobs ( I ) – 10 new public parks

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 7 2 Public Realm Management Models 2.2 Case study: Arabianranta - The public evolving model

Description The Arabianranta area in the north-eastern outskirts of Helsinki is a success story of urban regeneration with a publicly owned public realm that has evolved around a growing art program. This innovation district combines living, working, studying and leisure guided by a holistic theme – ‘design, art and creativity’. Arabianranta is known as a best practice Top communal cases study combining the Aerial showing courtyards. knowledge industries with urban the open Bottom regeneration projects. courtyard layout Future Left intervention Central ingredients of the Tapio Wirkkalan to improve projects are a strong residential Park designed by the interaction character (with a range of Robert Wilson between experimental tenancies), a Below left companies Public art by Ann in form of a pioneering virtual community, Sundholm new courtyard workplaces around the creative Below right sequence by industries, the university as an Housing Gehl architects. anchor tenant and a publicly blocks around accessible and managed communal public realm which is was designed as an experimental space where art and social interaction goes hand in hand. The park is conceived as an evolving stage for the community. The City of Helsinki requires all developers in the Arabianranta area to use 1-2% of the building investments of individual sites for works of art. Participating artists include such prominent figures like Robert Wilson or Elina Aalto. Another pioneering public realm intervention is the early, experimental adaptation of a virtual community based on wireless technologies. Spectrum of response Content programming: Passive Active Key Figures – 400+ companies – 85 ha (mainly design and IT) (-----11-') Behaviour regulation: – 12,000 inhabitants – 3 museums and two higher education – 8,000 jobs Permissive Restrictive institutions – 6,000 students ( I )

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 8 3 Residential Uses 3.1 Making the case for residential integration

Ordinary Life is Essential for necessary to attract the right accommodation. It is widely Innovation tenants and hence to create discussed that cities like London One of the key differences the right atmosphere of an unwittingly deprive themselves between the classic business/ innovation district. of their innovation potential science park model and How Mixed is Mixed-use on due to the undersupply of an innovation district is that the Ground? housing. A similar “housing first” the latter should include at Beyond the overarching mechanism happens in natural least some residential uses. decision to mix residential and occurring innovation districts together with a whole range commercial properties it is where often cheap and readily of associated facilities such as important to define how housing available accommodation schools, nurseries, and shops. integrates with workplace attracts the right demographic An innovation district typologies: what is the real to live and work in the same is essentially a post- nature of the mix of an urban place. automobile, walkable area? Residential uses can be Retrofit residential uses “live-work”, mixed-use organised as: Often ageing science parks, like neighbourhood which – Separate neighbourhoods Harwell or Triangle Research creates the opportunity – Separate clusters Park, see the need to add for collaboration between new housing developments. different actors. The trust on – On a building by building, This is not only to cater to which a successful innovation streetscape level the needs of employees who district relies is created within would like to live closer to informal networks through – Within a building Kings Cross, for example, is work but also to “urbanise” the “weak ties”, that are formed existing development, which is in places like clubs, around a “mixed-use” innovation dis- trict, but follows a strict zoning often perceived as too sterile. schools, nurseries or along Here residential uses aim to shared walking routes to approach. Most commercial de- velopments are located south of add “buzz” to an otherwise work. Social trust is essential monofunctional environment. for professional collaboration the Regent Canal whereas most i.e. “strong ties”. Residential of the housing is towards the Mixed-use from the outset accommodation and associated north with Central Saint Martins A balanced mix between uses are essential networking and the Coal Drop Yards sep- residential and commercial assets of an innovation district. arating the two areas, creating uses seems to be a successful a de-facto split between neigh- Working and living in the same approach to maximise bourhoods spatially land func- synergies. A pioneer in this neighbourhood is important tionally. to create a local identity and a field is the MIT in Cambridge, local community of like-minded The working assumption of Massachusetts, which people that share interests and innovation district theory successfully combined large values. The much-sought-after is, however, that an intense residential and office blocks innovative community is more integration of uses improves in its University Park. Apart likely to evolve from sharing network asset values. from providing much needed banal everyday activities. The A rare example of an innovation residential accommodation this new cannot develop without the districts that radically mixes project successfully provides an ordinary. uses at a building level is the income stream to the university. London’s Imperial College is There is much discussion in WeLive complex at the Brooklyn Navy Yard, New York. copying this approach for its the research to what extent the White City Campus extension. combination of housing, creative Residential development workplaces and amenities Strategies There is some reason to expect manifests itself in increased Residential uses dominates that any successful university collaboration and ultimately campus development will have Eddington, North-West to embrace a highly integrated economic gain. There is no Cambridge is an area that hard-wired evidence for this (but mixed-use approach from the exemplifies a focus on outset. also nothing that contradicts it). the residential uses and a However, it is commonly agreed clear need for affordable that a certain urban “buzz” is

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 9 3 Residential Uses 3.2 Case study: Eddington, Cambridge - Diverse housing

Description Left Cambridge Eddington is not Market sale officially labelled or planned as houses an innovation district. However Middle left considering the planning Housing for of a future 100,000 sqm of postgraduates commercial research facilities it Middle right has all the potential to become Town houses for one, especially considering the university staff young and dynamic academic workforce it will accommodate. Bottom University It is first and foremost an urban keyworker extension by the University of accommodation Cambridge to provide housing for three particular academic groups: postgraduate students, university key workers and post-doctorates. These groups power Cambridge’s innovation machine, but struggle to find affordable housing. The area provides a wide range of housing typologies tailor- made for the needs of these academic groups as well as market sale housing. Eddington is distinctive in its high integration of different housing typologies into a new walkable neighbourhood with a wide range of communal uses and (future) research facilities.

Spectrum of response Key Figures 2,000 postgraduates/ Cambridge Primary Balance of uses: – 150 ha postdocs School, Storey’s Field Centre, health centre – 1,500 homes for – 100,000 sqm Less Resi More Resi and care village University and of academic ( I > College staff and research & – Retail Integration of uses: development space – 1,500 private houses – Hotel Less More for sale – Community facilities including – Accommodation for ( I ) the University of

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 10 3 Residential Uses 3.3 Case study: Research Triangle Park - Residential as an add-on

Description The Research Triangle Park is one of the oldest and most successful science parks in the USA. It was created in 1959 by state and local governments, nearby universities and local businesses. Over time the park has started to become unattractive for younger companies and a Left Park Centre Bottom millennial work force which Plan of RTP Excerpts prefers a more urban lifestyle. with the Top from the Park Centre Typical office masterplan The “Park Center” was planned development development vision to address this declining in red within the document appeal. The new mixed use park area development including housing, Below retail and commercial uses Masterplan forms a “mini-city” within for the new the wider landscape of the RTP which is still otherwise dominated by commercial office developments. However the original Park Center plans which included a new railway, experimental co-living and startup building typologies, seem to have PHASE 1 ceded to a more conventional development that sits insularly within the vast area of the car dependent science park. Its “urban character” is reduced to a few pockets within the new campus that on a whole is not too different to the existing developments. The new Park Centre is more an add-on to the existing park than the transformative project promised back in 2014. This does not mean RTP has become less successful in terms of providing a good environment for technology companies, but it shows how difficult it can be to update Spectrum of response a monofunctional innovation Balance of uses: district retrospectively. Less Resi More Resi Key Figures – New Park Center centre ) – RTF size: 2.833 ha Size: 41 ha – Large retail park ( I Integration of uses: – 300 companies with – 771 residential units Less More 65,000 workers and – 2 Hotels + convention contractors < I ) Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 11 3 Residential Uses 3.4 Case study: University Park at MIT, Cambridge - Mixed-use by principle

Description Left University Park at MIT is a Masterplan showing residential units (orange), successful science campus commercial units (pale blue) that is founded on a residential and parking (blue) mixed use concept. MIT retains ownership and management Middle left of residential rented Commercial buildings at the accommodation and benefits central park from it as an additional source Middle right of revenue. Reused warehouses with University Park at MIT is an residential units urban renewal project on the Bottom area of the former Simplex The large wire spool in the company. It comprises office University Park Common is and laboratory buildings that are a reminder of the property’s former use as home to home to several biotechnology the Simplex Wire & Cable companies, residential Company developments, retail, and parks and open space. The campus has become an organic part of the surrounding city. The concept has been transferred to the new Kendall Square development in Cambridge, Massachusetts and influenced, for example, the new White City campus development by the Imperial College in London.

Spectrum of response Balance of uses: Less Resi More Resi Key Figures – 140,000 sqm lab/ – 2,600 parking spaces – 11.3 ha office space ( I ) – Large urban park Integration of uses: – Total gross – Hotel and conference system development area centre Less More 241,550 sqm – 7,000 sqm ( ) – 674 residential units restaurants, retail and I childcare

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 12 4 How to spread the Benefits of Innovation Districts to the Wider Community 4.1 Background

The divide dilemma need intentional agency to be Just another gentrification Julie Wagner, one of the key successful. process? thinkers behind the concept Kings Cross is a good example The innovation district model of innovation districts, admits of this. It is located between could seem to be just a super- that innovation districts are some of the most deprived charged gentrification process often plagued by the “divide areas of England. The contrast in the name of innovation. dilemma”, or the propensity between the surrounding Richard Florida who used to become insular. Due to council estates and the Kings to be one of the most vocal their specialist nature and Cross area could not be more propagandists of the urban demographic structure be more pronounced. Argent knowledge economy has most innovation districts tend to makes big strides to connect recently concluded that without become insular developments with the local communities. It active mitigation, the growth of in terms of social and engaged over 50 schools and the “creative class” inevitably economic benefit but also 3,800 pupils in on-site-activities, results in social segmentation in terms of placemaking. supported community groups and segregation. Gentrification Innovation districts often require and hosted public sports is the white elephant in the investments on a government events. However, this a highly room of the innovation district. level and are, therefore, more of managed top down process Sometimes innovation districts regional than local importance. with a clear agency; it is not a can also become victims of their Local spill-over? “natural” trickle down effect. own success. The much famed As the name suggests This is evident in many of the “Silicon Roundabout” or “Tech- innovation districts benefit most high profile innovation City” in London, where a whole from a strong international districts around the world. ecosystem of IT companies “brain gain”. Although it is an In urban locations, innovation mushroomed, suffers from assumption that geographic districts tend to create a increasing rent levels as tenants proximity leads to an increase in disconnect between highly in the adjacent City of London knowledge creation, there is no specialised jobs for an start expanding into this newly direct causal evidence for this. academic workforce and attractive territory. There are however a multitude low paid service jobs for less of studies that emphasise qualified residents. It is difficult the importance of regional to bridge this gap in the short and international networks. term. Most innovation districts Innovation districts are usually provide outreach activities that nodes in an international web complement the local education of the knowledge economy offer. However these measures with quite a mobile workforce. have long term effects and Automatic local economic don’t necessary create a and social spill-over effects more socially balanced urban of innovation districts are environment in the short to therefore limited and often medium term.

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 13 4 How to spread the Benefits of Innovation Districts to the Wider Community 4.1 Case study: The Invention Rooms, White City Campus Imperial College - Managed outreach

s l o L P a th n or e N Description Latimer Road Left The Molecul ar Sc iences Wood Lane St ud ios Kingsbridge Road Research Hub et tre l S Map of the White al sw aver The Invention Rooms are C St Helens Gardens

Eyn Finstock Road ham ens City campus of the t ee Road tr Wa y S Kelfield Gard nro le ll G in unique shared maker spaces gford

Aven et Balliol Road e ue Imperial College tr Pl o t s A & G ot S asc Wood Lane N Latimer

Highlever Road

on the Imperial College White // These are not yet Road t // State-of-the-art tree Road ld S with the Invention e e // Open since 2012, under construction u Can infi D Sh equipment is now Wood Lane Studios is and we’d like to hear A40 being installed inside home to around 600Du Cane Road your feedback on our Oxford Gardens this building ready for City campus. The Invention postgraduate students. updated plans. Rooms outside of Imperial’s Department P ionee r Way of Chemistry to move in.

Westway the core campus Bent Rooms accommodate high tech worth Ro Residentia l build ing ad ad Terrick Stre rth Ro Bentwo A40

ar reet Mauri The I -HUB

e y t a area ce St W \ ld Westway S ie t rf S a a ilche workshops, design studios and b D ster Ro le ad W a y l A40 Bennelong C WHITE CITY CAMPUS Road Bramley interactive spaces for innovation SOUTH SITE for consultation Middle

D // The building will open o ra n d White City Place Road o in 2019, when it will Australia C lo and collaboration between the s e

ia Roadprovide 192 homes, // This building opened The hackspace Austral including 59 affordable in 2016 and provides

apartments for Imperial Wood Lane lab and offce space

D

e

key workers. p for research-focused Ark Swift o t College, the local community R for the students Primary Academy ....o companies.

A a d d u stral ~~ oad a R i ic a fr A B F h Ro ut a re o r S d sto a R Commonwealth Avenue d o n R a is located in the d oa and commercial partners. d Mi chael U ren B iomed ica l W C hi White City a

Indi n te C Eng inee ri ng Resea rch Hub d Waada em Station i a ty Close White City Living

f Way o same building as n

t – new homes ein y

Roa from St James

S d t

A n n The building contains a s R o the reach out maker a a Road ad d Australi Ro A219 ca fri A h lia Road ut Austra So The Inventi on Rooms N i .l -~ ---········A3220 c F h r community maker space (the o e space and shares l s a t o S s n il R ver R o o y .. I/ a a a _:_ ~ W anada ..... d d C Road Wood Lane // Once complete in 2019, the same amenities “Reach Out Makerspace”) and Hammersmith Station it will bring together Park d engineers, scientists Africa Roa Television Centre South Westfield Batman Close and doctors to help QPR’s Loftus London

Road Stadium extension site solve some of the WoodLane l Way most complex medical

Loftus Road Road Loftus ie Ar lose the Imperial College Advanced nt C Hu Ariel Way challenges of our time – from helping the body to B

l // This new facility with o

e Bottom

S A

m

Tu ta heal itself, to designing b n

f d

o workshops, design l ni a

a k

n e s s

l

t R

e e

e prosthetics for people

F S

R o r R

i

R t

oad oad a n studios and an interaction i

t i

o A d d f h

R l

Hackspace for college a n e

v o

d d who haven injured or lost i P

a l s l l

d zone is now open for the e a R c G e o their limbs.a a Reach Out r d local community! Ellerslie Road d e n s

A

r i members. Both maker spaces e Makerspace share the same facilities (a venue and a cafe). The Reach Out Makerspace is dedicated to hands-on activities aimed at engaging school children creatively in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. Additionally it has community rooms with a variety of science and technology activities for local residents of all age groups. It is run by a team of full time mentors and supported by students who organise the maker challenge programme and the collaboration with local schools

Key Figures part in the Maker the Proto-Maker – 800+ people from Challenge Challenge Spectrum of response the local community – 65 participants across – 150 students from 10 Actors: attended the opening 6 sessions took part London schools and Bottom up Top-Down – 5 cohorts of 84 in Maker Challenge 100+ mentors took participants (43 of Move Up Programme part in the Schools ( I > which were from local – 60 participants Challenge target schools) took participated in

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 14 4 How to spread the Benefits of Innovation Districts to the Wider Community 4.2 Case study: Over-the-Rhine/Cincinnati - Social issues first

Description Over-the-Rhine Cincinnati’s Over-the-Rhine neighbourhood provides an exemplary case of a city that has managed to revitalize a once deprived community while CBD simultaneously addressing (Fortune issues of social and economic 500 Cluster) inequity. The redevelopment plans ensure that existing lower income residents were positioned to rise along with the physical neighbourhood. Although not marketed as an innovation district, new Top businesses and technology Aerial view of Cincinnati accelerator, the Brandery, Middle were supported by real estate Creating local identity investments facilitated by the through close consultation non-profit Cincinnati Centre with local communities City Development Corporation Bottom (3CDC) and financed by Rhinegeist, one of the new a consortium of the city’s breweries in Cincinnati Fortune 500 companies which form a dense cluster in the neighbouring central business district. Parallel to the nascent start-up community, a maker’s district has begun to develop in an historic site of brewing along the river. The district now includes four operating breweries and an incubator for food entrepreneurs operating out of renovated buildings. First Batch, a manufacturing accelerator, works out of the old Moerlein Ice House. The district was facilitated by a special “urban mix” zoning that allows light manufacturing and residential uses to exist side by side. Over-the-Rhine is an example of a bottom up regeneration Key Figures rehabilitated Spectrum of response process that created the – 129 ha – 178 new Actors: right conditions for an – $1.3 billion affordable Bottom up Top-Down innovation district to flourish investments housing units ) with the involvement of local since 2004 by – 162 historic < I stakeholders. However, this 3CDC buildings worked only with substantial restored, philanthropic capital – 320 homeless shelter beds including 2 investments and governmental parks support. – 1,534 housing units

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 15 5 Phasing 5.1 The different models

Setting the priorities trated on providing workspaces Hackney Wick in East London. There is no one size fits all mod- for SMEs to create an econom- The people-first approach el for the development of an ically sustainable ecosystem. makes much sense as, after innovation district. The complex- Only now, after almost 20 years all, a successful knowledge ity of urban regeneration defies of employment creation, the economy is based on human universal recipes. The Brook- BNY start adding elements of resources. However, as with ings Institute recommends placemaking, residential and the workplace led strategy, starting with a thorough audit retail to the development. the new neighbourhood might to identify issues in leadership, Placemaking-led find it difficult to integrate new placemaking, innovation po- In this approach, the public workspaces, let alone light tential, assets and imbalances realm and interim uses are industry. This can be a conflict of the social structure. A suita- prioritised alongside the from the outset or develop over ble strategy can proceed from development of the buildings. time if the residential element these observations. This strategy is guided by the starts dominating. This is the It makes sense to distinguish idea that a well curated and case with Arabianranta, Helsinki four different models along de- developed local character is where public events conflict velopment priorities. needed to attract the right with the calm character and Workplace-led tenants along with a young, expectations of a residential This is the traditional, most dynamic demographic. area. followed model and is exem- The public realm of Kings Mixed-Use plified in the adapted science Cross, for example, was In this approach, the innovation park. It focuses on the creation meticulously planned and district is conceptualised as of the right mix of employment choreographed before buildings a mixed-use neighbourhood through anchor institutions were designed and before the from the outset. All uses grow and commercial workplaces. key tenants decided to move to incrementally. As obvious as Small enterprises, place-mak- the area. this approach might seem, ing, amenities and housing are A looser, bottom-up strategy it is not always easy to less prioritised and cater to the guided the development of implement. Different uses tend needs resulting from earlier de- StrijpS in Eindhoven, where to have conflicting needs. The velopment stages. Although this much of its later development management organisation seems to be a suitable, prag- was preceded by large events, of a science park finds it matic approach, it comes with concerts, temporary artists’ difficult to deal with residential challenges. It can be difficult to studios. This helped to create developments or a property retrofit workplace-led develop- a successful place before any developer is specialised in ments with residential or retail further steps followed. residential uses only and sees uses, and can lead to a narrow any kind of workspace as demographic range of the resi- The placemaking-led model can a liability to the operational dents and local workforce. This be very successful in terms of security and asset value of the model is also based on a com- “rooting” an innovation district core investment. muting workforce, often with but relies on intelligent long term strategies along with potentially The University Park at MIT omnipresent car parks, like in and the Kendall Square traditional science parks. With- high upfront investments and often a long-term attitude. development in Cambridge, out comprehensive develop- Massachusetts as well as ment, it is difficult to convert the Residential-led the new Imperial College area into a pedestrian-friendly In this approach, the focus is campus in White City follow neighbourhood. Also this model on building a healthy residential a more integrated approach is often driven by large organ- neighbourhood. A good of residential blocks next isations (such as AstraZeneca example for the is Eddington to commercial blocks. It in Cambridge for example) who Cambridge or Arabianranta needs to be noted that benefit from an ecosystem of where residential liveability are these developments are small startups but also tend to central to the development also successful because the dominate and control it. A good concept ownership and management example where this dominance Another variant of this strategy stayed within the one was successfully avoided is the is to improve an existing organisation so that conflicts Brooklyn Navy Yards in New neighbourhood with low can be mitigated as early as York, which followed a work- rents and good demographic possible. place-led approach but concen- potential, like for example

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 16 5 Phasing 5.2 Workplace-led case study: Cambridge Biomedical Campus

Description The Cambridge Biomedical Campus is the largest centre Top of medical research and health Campus masterplan science in Europe. It is home to a number of organisations Below including Cambridge University AstraZeneca’s global HQ Hospitals NHS Foundation and R&D centre Trust, Royal Papworth Hospital Middle NHS Foundation Trust, Abcam, Royal Papworth Hospital the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the university’s Bottom MRC Laboratory of medical school and the Medical Molecular Biology Research Council. One of the biggest development under construction is AstraZeneca’s global HQ and R&D centre which together with the Royal Papworth Hospital dominates the centre of the campus. The Cambridge Biomedical Campus is clearly planned ,a as4',,.. around large institutions and companies. There will be no residential accommodation in the near future and the limited amenities are primarily intended for employees. Professionally the campus is a thriving community of innovative scientists and health workers. It is a substantial and unique concentration of research capability. From an urban perspective however it contributes to commuting traffic and suffers from a sterile urban atmosphere typical of science parks. Although there are new residential developments closeby (including Cambridge Abode) the campus and its surrounds do not yet constitute a walkable mixed use neighbourhood. Key Figures – 85 ha (including Addenbrooke’s Hospital) – 288,000 sqm office and research facilities (including Addenbrooke’s Hospital) – Expected workforce up to 30,000

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 17 5 Phasing 5.3 Placemaking-led case study: StrijpS, Eindhoven

Description In the 1990s Philips gradually left Eindhoven, a city that had been dominated and shaped by this technology giant. However the city managed the transition to a more diverse innovative tech and design ecosystem with a concerted public/private sector effort. The reuse of the vacant Philips buildings at StrijpS, one of the largest Philips factories in Europe, played a crucial role in this success story. A public/ private partnership transformed StrijpS into a creative metropolitan environment Top that appealed to international Aerial of StripjS knowledge workers. Cultural events, such as the Dutch Middle The Dutch Design Week Design Week or large open attracts up to 395,000 air festivals, together with visitors the provision of affordable workspace were used as Bottom catalysts to redefine the place Phase 1 will develop a commercial and residential and attract the right tenants. block in parallel It was a deliberate decision of Eindhoven’s public administration to first develop a dynamic public event space that provided the character and “buzz” which attracted the right people. The right place should create the right economy. What started in 2002 as a field of experimentation and urban entertainment is by now growing into a large, internationally respected innovation district complemented by a wide range of new residential and commercial developments. Key Figures – 26.7 ha – 90,000 sqm office space – 30,000 sqm of commercial, cultural and leisure facilities – 2,500-3,000 dwellings – Venue for large international festivals like the Dutch Design Week

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 18 5 Phasing 5.4 Residential-led case study: Eddington, Cambridge

Description – Accommodation for 2,000 Top Middle right postgraduates/postdocs Aerial showing Eddington Cambridge Eddington is the masterplan market square not officially marketed as an – 100,000 sqm of academic and innovation district. It is an urban research & development space Middle left Bottom right extension by the University of Research Eddington Cambridge to provide housing – Community facilities including the community at Nursery and University of Cambridge Primary the Eddington Storey’s Field for postgraduate students, Postdoc Centre Centre postdoctorates and university School, Storey’s Field Centre, health centre and care village key workers. These groups Bottom left power Cambridge’s innovation – Retail Eddington Postdoc Centre machine, but struggle to – Hotel find affordable housing. The number of postdoctorates has grown by 160% since 2000. Postdoctorates are at the beginning of their academic career, innovative, internationally well connected, but also looking for a stable home, often for their young families too. The Postdoc Centre in Eddington (“a college without walls”) offers a unique opportunity for accommodation and networking. In the next phase Eddington will provide a total of 100,000 sqm of commercial research facilities offering further networking and collaboration opportunities. Together with the existing young academic demographics, Eddington has the potential to develop into an innovation district par excellence, which will also support the wider Cambridge innovation cluster. To support this academic community Eddington is designed as a sustainable, walkable neighbourhood with sufficient facilities, such as the acclaimed Eddington Nursery and Storey’s Field Centre, a hotel and a care centre.

Key Figures – 150 ha – 1,500 homes for University and College staff – 1,500 private houses for sale

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 19 5 Phasing 5.5 Mixed-use led: Kendall Square, MIT Cambridge

Description Kendall Square is a former industrial area north of the MIT in Cambridge MA, which has been developing into a high- tech hub since 2000. The MIT Kendall Square Initiative aims to intensify this area with a large mixed use development to extend its commercial research facilities and provide new housing likewise. The dense cluster of commercial and residential buildings is being developed in tandem and rooted in the urban fabric with the provision of new public realm and retail. The Kendall Square Initiative signifies an important strategic shift of the MIT from iconic academic buildings like the MIT lab and the Ray and Maria Stata Center to a more nuanced, urban mixed-use approach. Urban design and placemaking has replaced iconic landmark design. This case study shows how the innovation district paradigm might become a model for future university extensions.

Key Figures (Phase 1) Top – 100,000 sqm GIA (all phases Existing area around together 180,000 sqm) Kendall Square – 425 residential units Middle Proposed developments – 58,000 sqm commercial space – 1,800 sqm retail space Left Phase 1 will develop a – 9590 sqm start-up space in re- commercial and residential purposed office accommodation block in parallel – 633 covered bicycle spaces – 809 parking spaces

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 20 6 Summary

Public Realm transport and a more exclusively can only lead to – A vibrant, accessible and vibrant public realm difficulties integrating the inclusive public realm is – Successful integration two uses later essential to facilitate social of housing into existing – However mixed-use and professional interaction science parks (rather than developments can – Uses that have public planning districts from create management and benefit and/or interface scratch) requires mission- commercial challenges (eg. shops, cafes, open focussed agency to especially when these are workspace, educational overcome commercial and brought together at the institutions) will help create a operational pressures in the building or plot scale vibrant public realm short and long term – Prioritisation of public realm – Active programming of can be useful in attracting public realm is required to Urban integration the right tenants and guarantee a diverse offer to residents but can require a broad audience – Social and economic large upfront investments in benefit to existing local the form of money or time – However, a public realm communities does not without commercial occur naturally through – Meanwhile/early stage programme or top-down the mere co-location placemaking efforts can management can be more of adjacent high value transform the perception perceived as ‘owned’ by the economic uses of sites in advance of local community investment in innovation – Without a specific and deliberate outreach strategy, Residential socio-economic divides will – Housing is an essential often be exacerbated ingredient of innovation districts to provide informal – Local spillover can be networking assets that achieved through a clear support professional ties and lasting agency in the form of outreach – Innovation benefits from programmes, and support the proximity of residential of community and school- and employment spaces based activities through the creation of holistic communities – For an innovation district to and replicating the become an agent of lasting characteristics of evolved local change it needs to be mixed use urban areas developed from bottom- up and address first the – Targeted housing quality of local jobs and can attract specific housing before high profile demographics to enhance business and commercial the innovation workpool that uses can be added, for might otherwise be priced example through a cultural out of the area, eg postdoc placemaking strategy researchers – It is uncommon to find more Phasing housing integrated more – There is no formula as how than at a block scale to sequence an innovation – However, the co-location of district employment and residential – An early focus on either uses supports sustainable workplace or residential

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 21 7 Recommendations

Vision Public realm Residential (use) – Undertake an upfront audit – Plan a network of vibrant, – The appropriate housing of leadership, placemaking, accessible and inclusive offer should be designed innovation potential, assets public spaces to attract the right and imbalances of social – Maintain a critical amount of demographic base of an structure public realm activity through innovation district – Establish a clear vision an appropriate level of – Housing needs to be articulating in what specific active programming spatially mixed with ways an innovation district – Flexibly plan and manage other uses at no less is more than a mixed use the public realm so that than at a block level. neighbourhood it can grow with the Segregated residential “sub- – Establish a partnership community neighbourhoods” should be avoided to oversee the deliver of – Balance management the innovation district, between council/corporate – An appropriate amount particularly with respect to organisations and local of housing should be achieving common goals stakeholders subsidised to attract the right demographic base – Establish the extent of the – Especially in the case of local authority’s role in to support an innovation privately-managed public ecology counterbalancing purely space, set out a code market forces determining the limits of – Housing should be located appropriate behaviour and within walkable distances appropriate management to workspace and other amenities throughout the district

Spectrum of response Spectrum of response Content programming: Balance of uses: Passive Active Less resi More resi

Management: Integration of uses: Permissive Restrictive Less More

Above These scale bars are intended as a simple diagnostic tool to assist in the establishment of a vision. They recognise that the strategic response will lie within a spectrum against each of the themes identified

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 22 Urban integration Phasing – Establish a partnership across – Plan for proportional delivery multiple local and city-wide of housing and workspace in stakeholders to plan, deliver every phase and manage a programme of – Forward deliver infrastructure social outreach including public transport, – Engage local school and highways, landscape and community groups in public realm the formation of a wider – Utilise the potential of innovation spillover strategy the entire site from the – Require companies and outset through meanwhile institutions to contribute to programming this strategy – Establish a priority list for community contributions and company sponsorship – Plan space for social outreach programmes to have a permanent physical presence

Spectrum of response Actors: Bottom up Top down

Hawkins\Brown © | 23.12.19 | HB19039 | Cambridge Employment Land Study: Innovation District Case Studies 23 Contact

AJ100 Practice of the Year 2016 Winner

London\ 159 St John Street EC1V 4QJ +44 (0)20 7336 8030 [email protected]

Manchester\ 3C Tariff Street M1 2FF +44 (0)161 641 5522 [email protected] hawkinsbrown.com