12 research outputs found
Campuses, Cities and Innovation: 39 international cases accommodating tech-based research
No full textThe relationship between (technology) campuses and cities was a central theme in Flavia Curvelo Magdaniel’s doctoral research, which was defended and published in September 2016. During her PhD study she collected data of thirty-nine technology campuses, which has been considered worth a spin-off publication. This publication contains descriptions of 39 international cases that accommodate tech-based research activities. These case descriptions (in part B) are introduced with background information about concepts and methods (in part A) and reflected upon in conclusions and recommendations (in part C). This book is part of a book series that combines insights from theory with references from practice, to contribute to smarter campus management.Real Estate Managemen
Campuses, Cities and Innovation: 39 international cases accommodating tech-based research
Get PDFThe locations of technology campuses determine where innovation takes place. In a knowledge-based economy, the future of cities increasingly depends on the presence of universities, their industry partners, talent and (start-up) businesses. The relationship between (technology) campuses and cities was a central theme in Flavia Curvelo Magdaniel’s doctoral research, which was defended and published in September 2016. During her PhD study, she collected data of thirty-nine technology campuses, which we — as her promotor and co-promotor — considered worth a spin-off publication.
This publication “Campuses, cities and innovation” contains descriptions of 39 international cases that accommodate tech-based research activities. These case descriptions (in part B) are introduced with background information about concepts and methods (in part A) and reflected upon in conclusions and recommendations (in part C).
Based on our experience - after more than twenty years of campus research at TU Delft — we identified a demand for case study references to support decision making at both universities and municipalities. TU Delft’s campus research team aims at generating management information on all campus levels: from the changing academic workplace and new concepts for university buildings to the sustainable campus and the knowledge city. This book is part of a book series that combines insights from theory with references from practice, to contribute to smarter campus management.
With a large number of facts, figures and maps this book “Campuses, cities and innovation” is relevant for board members and (campus) management staff at universities as well as policymakers at municipalities and regional authorities. Additionally, decision-makers of industry partners, (start-up) businesses and (other) members of the campus community could be interested in comparing their campuses with worldwide examples.
“Innovation is what happens when preparation meets opportunity” was one of the propositions that Flavia Curvelo Magdaniel defended in September 2016. With this book, we wanted to take the opportunity to support the preparation process and hope to stimulate innovation
From Ambition to Innovation: A closer look at the physical characteristics of innovation districts
No full textContext: The city of The Hague is located in The Netherlands, in the province of Zuid-Holland and with nearly 500,000 inhabitants it is the third largest city of the country. The increasing dynamics of globalization have also made its way to The Hague, where urban competitiveness is increasingly considered to be an important aspect for the city’s future. In an attempt to reach high levels of urban competitiveness, the municipality of The Hague has recently announced its plans for the development of an innovation district. Objective: The objective of this research is to intensively analyse a specific case (the innovation district in The Hague) and, in doing so, add to the scientific literature concerning innovation districts. By performing an empirical analysis about the demands of different groups in an innovation district and the ambitions and policies on the steering side, this research attempts to clarify what the physical needs are of specific groups of actors within the context of the innovation district in The Hague. What is more, it attempts to draw conclusions regarding the relationship between physical interventions and the development of innovation districts. Methods: This thesis is divided into five main components: an introduction, a theoretical framework, a case analysis, the conclusions and recommendations and a reflection. The methods that have been used in this research are a literature review, interviews and a questionnaire. The quantitative data of the questionnaire has been statistically analysed by calculating the median and the inter-quartile range of each variable. What is more, frequency tables have been developed to create a more detailed image of the results of each variable. Pearson’s r and Pearson’s chi-square method have finally been used to discover significant differences and correlations. Results: The results of the case study indicate several aspects that have high levels of importance to specific groups within the district, while others show lower levels of importance. The results of the levels of satisfaction of the different aspects within the district also show varying results for different sub-areas. The analysis of the 22@ district in Barcelona has also revealed a number of physical interventions related to the development of the district. Conclusion: This research has resulted in a number of conclusions relating to the development of innovation districts. First, municipal leadership appears to be key in the early stages of a top-down initiated innovation district. Then, it has become apparent that the needs of the users of innovation districts go beyond sheer accessibility. Walkability, bike-ability and the presence of hospitality services are nearly equally important. However, user groups also have specific needs that other groups do not have. Therefore, when the vision is to create a mixed environment, it is important to consider these needs, otherwise innovation districts run the risk of having dispersed user groups. Another conclusion is that physical proximity does not guarantee learning (there is a need for common ground) and that physical conditions alone are not sufficient for innovation to take place. Finally, the cases studied in this research have shown that the brand ‘innovation district’ is being used by cities as a model to strive for, rather than a label that corresponds with the physical and economic situation at hand. <br/
La experiencia del espacio académico flexible: BK-City, Universidad Técnica de Delft, laboratorio espacial de la facultad de arquitectura
No full textReal Estate and HousingArchitectur
Attraction and retention of users in Urban Innovation Districts: An advice for the Merwe-Vierhavens based on the lessons learned at Strijp-S
No full textTechnology campuses and cities: A study on the relation between innovation and the built environment at the urban area level
Get PDFThis thesis examines the development of technology campuses as built environments and their role in stimulating innovation. Technology campuses entail a variety of built environments developed to accommodate technology-driven research activities of multiple organisations. The science park is the most common type of technology campus. Other types include the campuses of universities of technology and corporate R&D parks.
In industrialised countries, the demand for developing technology campuses to stimulate innovation has been growing in line with the attention given to knowledge in global, national and regional policies. There are over 700 technology campuses worldwide occupying hundred thousands of hectares in- and around cities. This type of built environments have emerged and developed during critical periods of technological advancements throughout the 20th century, to support technology-based development in industrialised countries. With the adoption of the knowledge- based economy, governments in many countries have encouraged research as an essential activity in their science, technology and innovation policies. The infrastructure that supports research is also gaining momentum. The number of registered science parks is steadily increasing since the late 1990s. The number of programmes supporting research infrastructure is growing in the European policy agenda. Municipalities are formally engaged with other public and private parties in the development of urban areas targeted to stimulate innovation. Governments, universities and R&D companies are investing billions of euros in developing the infrastructure that will not only support their core processes, but will help them to remain competitive by attracting and retaining the best talent. Part of these investments are targeted to develop new buildings or entire areas that often result in campuses as we know them: a concentration of buildings accommodating organisations, people, and their activities in a (green) field.
The assumption that the concentration of research activities in one location stimulates innovation is promoting the development of technology campuses in many places. However, the capacity of these built environments to support the different processes associated with innovation is not well understood – i.e. Technology campuses are urban areas in the inner city and peripheral locations that have the capacity to support the processes of knowledge creation and diffusion, as well as of attracting and retaining knowledge workers. The existent knowledge about the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the area level is limited. This knowledge gap may lead to inefficient use of the resources employed to develop technology campuses including capital, land, and time. Also, this lack of understanding can have the opposite effect, because technology campuses could easily become problematic areas dealing with vacancy, poor spatial quality, and connectivity issues frustrating the societal goal of attracting and retaining talent in the knowledge economy. A potential way to address these problems is outlining the ways in which the built environment stimulates innovation in technology campuses.
In this context, this research addresses as main question ‘How does the built environment stimulate innovation in technology campuses?’ This research is grounded in the field of corporate real estate management and its theoretical assumption that the built environment is a resource managed to support the goals of organisations. Research in this field has focused on the practice of real estate management from the end user’s view. Campus development is a comprehensive form of this practice, because it deals with activities that vary from developing real estate strategies, developing building projects, up to maintaining and managing the portfolio of an organisation. The relationship between innovation and the built environment has been addressed before in theories of corporate real estate management in a broad sense. Empirically, this has been explored on the supply side at the level of the workplace rather than at the urban scale. Although the contemporary discussion of innovation in complementary research fields focus on the urban level. Onthe demand side, the involvement of public and private parties in the development of these areas moves forward the organisational scope in corporate real estate management beyond the end-users in large scale built environments.
This research provides an understanding of the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the area level. This research developed knowledge clarifying such relationship in the form of a conceptual model and recommendations for practitioners involved in the practice of campus development. This knowledge developed mainly throughout an inductive approach in two core studies. The first study is an exploratory research that uncovers and positions the link between innovation and the built environment by using inputs from theory (literature review) and empirical evidence (qualitative survey of 39 technology campuses). In this stage, the link between innovation and the built environment is provided in a form of a conceptual framework containing the proposition that the built environment is a catalyst for innovation. The second study is an explanatory research that clarifies the relationship between innovation and the built environment based on empirical evidence in the practice of campus development (theory building from case studies). In this stage, the theoretical constructs of the conceptual framework are applied and revised through the in- depth study of two cases in particular contexts (i.e. High Tech Campus Eindhoven in the Netherlands and the Massachusetts Institute of technology campus in the United States). As a result, the preliminary knowledge from the exploratory research was developed into a conceptual model bearing a hypothesis and five propositions closely linked to empirical evidence. The answer to the main research question is that the built environment is a catalyst for innovation in technology campuses demonstrated by location decisions and interventions facilitating five interdependent conditions required for innovation. The following propositions explain how the built environment facilitates each of the five conditions for innovation:
• Location decisions and area development facilitate the long-term concentration of innovative organisations in cities and regions.
• Interventions enabling the transformation of the built environment at area and building levels facilitate the climate for adaptation along changing technological trajectories over time.
• Large-scale real estate interventions facilitate the synergy among university, industry and governments.
• Location decisions and interventions supporting image and accessibility define the innovation area by emphasising its distinct identity, scale and connectivity features.
• Real estate interventions enabling access to amenities increase the diversity of people & chances for social interaction regardless the distinct geographical settings in which the concentration of innovative activities takes place.
This research acknowledges that the location decisions of some technology-driven organisations have coincidentally determined the concentration of innovative research activities in particular places. Over the years, the accommodation of the research activities of these organisations has co-evolved with particular socio-economic processes in their hosting cities creating unique conditions for innovation. The concentration of innovative organisations can be considered as a primal condition enabling the co-existence of the other four conditions for innovation. Similarly, this research acknowledges the following interventions facilitating conditions for innovation at the area level and depending on the particular location characteristics in which each campus has developed:
• Transforming areas through urban renewal and redevelopment,
• Building, adapting and re-using flexible facilities,
• Implementing the shared use of facilities accommodating different functions and users,
• Developing physical infrastructure enabling access to amenities and connection between functions
• Developing representative facilities and area concepts that support image.
The empirical evidence supporting the propositions in the model is structured and converted into information available to decision makers involved in the development of technology campuses in the form of tools. The so-called ‘campus decision maker toolbox’ provides instruments that can guide planners, designers and managers during different stages of campus development. The tool for planners comprises campus models to frame the campus vision during the initiation of the campus based on location characteristics. The tool for designers consists of alternatives to enhance the campus brief during the preparation of the campus. And the tool for managers contains an information map to steer the campus strategy during the use of the campus.
This knowledge contributes to the existing understanding of the relationship between innovation and the built environment in theory and practice. In theory, this research adds to existing theoretical concepts connecting the fields of corporate real estate management, urban studies in the knowledge- based economy and economic geography. The conceptual model proposed a new combination of existing theoretical concepts addressing a new way to look at the relationship between innovation and the built environment. In practice, this understanding is expected to encourage the efficient and effective use of the many resources required to develop technology campuses. Particularly, by providing information that can help decision makers to steer such resources towards strategic decisions and interventions that -under certain conditions- facilitate innovation. The knowledge developed in this research clarifies a relationship between innovation and the built environment at urban area level, in which the built environment facilitates conditions for innovation
La experiencia del espacio académico flexible: BK-City, Universidad Técnica de Delft, laboratorio espacial de una facultad de arquitectura
No full textIs the design of "flexible academic place" a comprehensive solution that aims
to answer the needs of the users, or, does it have the opposite effect and demand
that its users adapt in order for it to function efficiently? The previous
question is framed from the point of view of flexibility as a design tool, which
allows the dynamic nature of the contemporary learning process to be explored
for adaptable spatial models. It is assumed however, that the concept of flexibility
in academic place differs during the design phase and its consequent
usage. Using this as the essential premise of the paper, BK City, a building
that was redesigned for the Faculty of Architecture at Delft University of Technology,
is detailed as a case study. The reason for doing so is to evaluate the
building as a model two years after its completion, the purpose of which was
to create a spatial laboratory. The results from a survey grounded on personal
experiences, suggests that the users and designers were satisfied in different
ways. This satisfaction -derived not only from the final construction- was itself
influenced by the very different requirements that undoubtedly needed to be
taken into consideration during the different design phases.¿Es el diseño del "espacio académico flexible" una solución integral orientada
a satisfacer las demandas de los usuarios o, por el contrario, es un modelo
que sugiere procesos de adaptación para su uso eficiente? La anterior
pregunta se enmarca dentro del concepto de flexibilidad como herramienta
de diseño que permite explorar y proponer modelos espaciales adaptables
a las condiciones dinámicas del proceso de aprendizaje contemporáneo. No
obstante, se asume que el concepto de flexibilidad en el espacio académico
difiere durante las fases de diseño y durante su uso. Bajo esta premisa,
se analiza el caso conocido como BK-City, un edificio remodelado para la
Facultad de Arquitectura de la Universidad Técnica de Delft, con el fin de
evaluar un modelo propuesto como laboratorio espacial después de más de
dos años de implementación. Los resultados de una encuesta basada en experiencias
personales sugiere que la satisfacción de los usuarios y diseñadores
es percibida de manera diferente y está influenciada por la diversidad
de intereses que indudablemente necesitan ser alineadas durante diferentes
etapas de diseño que no culminan con la construcción de un edificio
The experience of the flexible academic place: the case of BK-City in Delft University of Technology as a spatial laboratory of a faculty of architecture
Get PDF¿Es el diseño del "espacio académico flexible" una solución integral orientada a satisfacer las demandas de los usuarios o, por el contrario, es un modelo que sugiere procesos de adaptación para su uso eficiente? La anterior pregunta se enmarca dentro del concepto de flexibilidad como herramienta de diseño que permite explorar y proponer modelos espaciales adaptables a las condiciones dinámicas del proceso de aprendizaje contemporáneo. No obstante, se asume que el concepto de flexibilidad en el espacio académico difiere durante las fases de diseño y durante su uso. Bajo esta premisa, se analiza el caso conocido como BK-City, un edificio remodelado para la Facultad de Arquitectura de la Universidad Técnica de Delft, con el fin de evaluar un modelo propuesto como laboratorio espacial después de más de dos años de implementación. Los resultados de una encuesta basada en experiencias personales sugiere que la satisfacción de los usuarios y diseñadores es percibida de manera diferente y está influenciada por la diversidad de intereses que indudablemente necesitan ser alineadas durante diferentes etapas de diseño que no culminan con la construcción de un edificio.Is the design of "flexible academic place" a comprehensive solution that aims to answer the needs of the users, or, does it have the opposite effect and demand that its users adapt in order for it to function efficiently? The previous question is framed from the point of view of flexibility as a design tool, which allows the dynamic nature of the contemporary learning process to be explored for adaptable spatial models. It is assumed however, that the concept of flexibility in academic place differs during the design phase and its consequent usage. Using this as the essential premise of the paper, BK City, a building that was redesigned for the Faculty of Architecture at Delft University of Technology, is detailed as a case study. The reason for doing so is to evaluate the building as a model two years after its completion, the purpose of which was to create a spatial laboratory. The results from a survey grounded on personal experiences, suggests that the users and designers were satisfied in different ways. This satisfaction -derived not only from the final construction- was itself influenced by the very different requirements that undoubtedly needed to be taken into consideration during the different design phases
Campus development as catalyst for innovation
No full textPurposeThis paper aims to model the relationship between innovation and real estate, providing campus managers with a tool that illustrates how campus development stimulates innovation and that guides them to add value to their organisations.Design/methodology/approachThe authors review previous research and build theory from the study of two cases. They shape a hypothesis by linking various theoretical concepts and by verifying it with empirical data to finally model how campus development stimulates innovation.FindingsFindings suggest that campus development facilitates five conditions required to stimulate innovation through decisions and interventions over long-term periods. These findings acknowledge that location is key to explain campus development as a catalyst for innovation. In addition, this paper identifies potential issues in decision-making processes that can inhibit the facilitating role of real estate in innovation.Practical implicationsA framework clarifying the path to stimulate innovation through real estate will allow campus managers to steer their real estate strategies in line with this specific organisational goal and to better communicate how their decisions add value to their organisations.Social implicationsFindings advocate a more effective and efficient resource allocation for campus development in and around cities.Originality/valueUntil now, studies on stimulating innovation through real estate have focussed on workplace level. A core theoretical contribution of this paper is enlarging the application scope of CREM theories to the urban level involving multiple organisations.</jats:sec
Technology campuses and cities: A study on the relation between innovation and the built environment at the urban area level
Get PDFThis thesis examines the development of technology campuses as built environments and their role in stimulating innovation. Technology campuses entail a variety of built environments developed to accommodate technology-driven research activities of multiple organisations. The science park is the most common type of technology campus. Other types include the campuses of universities of technology and corporate R&D parks.In industrialised countries, the demand for developing technology campuses to stimulate innovation has been growing in line with the attention given to knowledge in global, national and regional policies. There are over 700 technology campuses worldwide occupying hundred thousands of hectares in- and around cities. This type of built environments have emerged and developed during critical periods of technological advancements throughout the 20th century, to support technology-based development in industrialised countries. With the adoption of the knowledge- based economy, governments in many countries have encouraged research as an essential activity in their science, technology and innovation policies. The infrastructure that supports research is also gaining momentum. The number of registered science parks is steadily increasing since the late 1990s. The number of programmes supporting research infrastructure is growing in the European policy agenda. Municipalities are formally engaged with other public and private parties in the development of urban areas targeted to stimulate innovation. Governments, universities and R&D companies are investing billions of euros in developing the infrastructure that will not only support their core processes, but will help them to remain competitive by attracting and retaining the best talent. Part of these investments are targeted to develop new buildings or entire areas that often result in campuses as we know them: a concentration of buildings accommodating organisations, people, and their activities in a (green) field.The assumption that the concentration of research activities in one location stimulates innovation is promoting the development of technology campuses in many places. However, the capacity of these built environments to support the different processes associated with innovation is not well understood — i.e. Technology campuses are urban areas in the inner city and peripheral locations that have the capacity to support the processes of knowledge creation and diffusion, as well as of attracting and retaining knowledge workers. The existent knowledge about the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the area level is limited. This knowledge gap may lead to inefficient use of the resources employed to develop technology campuses including capital, land, and time. Also, this lack of understanding can have the opposite effect, because technology campuses could easily become problematic areas dealing with vacancy, poor spatial quality, and connectivity issues frustrating the societal goal of attracting and retaining talent in the knowledge economy. A potential way to address these problems is outlining the ways in which the built environment stimulates innovation in technology campuses.In this context, this research addresses as main question ‘How does the built environment stimulate innovation in technology campuses?’ This research is grounded in the field of corporate real estate management and its theoretical assumption that the built environment is a resource managed to support the goals of organisations. Research in this field has focused on the practice of real estate management from the end user’s view. Campus development is a comprehensive form of this practice, because it deals with activities that vary from developing real estate strategies, developing building projects, up to maintaining and managing the portfolio of an organisation. The relationship between innovation and the built environment has been addressed before in theories of corporate real estate management in a broad sense. Empirically, this has been explored on the supply side at the level of the workplace rather than at the urban scale. Although the contemporary discussion of innovation in complementary research fields focus on the urban level. Onthe demand side, the involvement of public and private parties in the development of these areas moves forward the organisational scope in corporate real estate management beyond the end-users in large scale built environments.This research provides an understanding of the relationship between the built environment and innovation at the area level. This research developed knowledge clarifying such relationship in the form of a conceptual model and recommendations for practitioners involved in the practice of campus development. This knowledge developed mainly throughout an inductive approach in two core studies. The first study is an exploratory research that uncovers and positions the link between innovation and the built environment by using inputs from theory (literature review) and empirical evidence (qualitative survey of 39 technology campuses). In this stage, the link between innovation and the built environment is provided in a form of a conceptual framework containing the proposition that the built environment is a catalyst for innovation. The second study is an explanatory research that clarifies the relationship between innovation and the built environment based on empirical evidence in the practice of campus development (theory building from case studies). In this stage, the theoretical constructs of the conceptual framework are applied and revised through the in- depth study of two cases in particular contexts (i.e. High Tech Campus Eindhoven in the Netherlands and the Massachusetts Institute of technology campus in the United States). As a result, the preliminary knowledge from the exploratory research was developed into a conceptual model bearing a hypothesis and five propositions closely linked to empirical evidence.The answer to the main research question is that the built environment is a catalyst for innovation in technology campuses demonstrated by location decisions and interventions facilitating five interdependent conditions required for innovation. The following propositions explain how the built environment facilitates each of the five conditions for innovation:
Location decisions and area development facilitate the long-term concentration of innovative organisations in cities and regions.
Interventions enabling the transformation of the built environment at area and building levels facilitate the climate for adaptation along changing technological trajectories over time.
Large-scale real estate interventions facilitate the synergy among university, industry and governments.
Location decisions and interventions supporting image and accessibility define the innovation area by emphasising its distinct identity, scale and connectivity features.
Real estate interventions enabling access to amenities increase the diversity of people & chances for social interaction regardless the distinct geographical settings in which the concentration of innovative activities takes place.
This research acknowledges that the location decisions of some technology-driven organisations have coincidentally determined the concentration of innovative research activities in particular places. Over the years, the accommodation of the research activities of these organisations has co- evolved with particular socio-economic processes in their hosting cities creating unique conditions for innovation. The concentration of innovative organisations can be considered as a primal condition enabling the co-existence of the other four conditions for innovation. Similarly, this research acknowledges the following interventions facilitating conditions for innovation at the area level and depending on the particular location characteristics in which each campus has developed:
Transforming areas through urban renewal and redevelopment,
Building, adapting and re-using flexible facilities,
Implementing the shared use of facilities accommodating different functions and users,
Developing physical infrastructure enabling access to amenities and connection between functions
Developing representative facilities and area concepts that support image.
The empirical evidence supporting the propositions in the model is structured and converted into information available to decision makers involved in the development of technology campuses in the form of tools. The so-called ‘campus decision maker toolbox’ provides instruments that can guide planners, designers and managers during different stages of campus development. The tool for planners comprises campus models to frame the campus vision during the initiation of the campus based on location characteristics. The tool for designers consists of alternatives to enhance the campus brief during the preparation of the campus. And the tool for managers contains an information map to steer the campus strategy during the use of the campus.This knowledge contributes to the existing understanding of the relationship between innovation and the built environment in theory and practice. In theory, this research adds to existing theoretical concepts connecting the fields of corporate real estate management, urban studies in the knowledge- based economy and economic geography. The conceptual model proposed a new combination of existing theoretical concepts addressing a new way to look at the relationship between innovation and the built environment. In practice, this understanding is expected to encourage the efficient and effective use of the many resources required to develop technology campuses. Particularly, by providing information that can help decision makers to steer such resources towards strategic decisions and interventions that -under certain conditions- facilitate innovation. The knowledge developed in this research clarifies a relationship between innovation and the built environment at urban area level, in which the built environment facilitates conditions for innovation
