The Hard and Soft side of European Knowledge Regions Klankbordgroep meeting HELP UVA-VU 2 oktober 2013 Dr. Bart Sleutjes Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)

The Hard and Soft side of European Knowledge Regions

Klankbordgroep meeting HELP UVA-VU

2 oktober 2013

Dr. Bart Sleutjes

Universiteit van Amsterdam (UvA)

Literature review: Rise of the creative knowledge city Typologies of knowledge cities Location theory Previous research on residential preferences of

(European) knowledge workers

Qualitative study 22 interviews with 31 experts in four city regions: Strengths and weaknesses of regions Residential patterns of creative and technical workers

First work package: meta analysis

The rise of the ‘knowledge city’

Since 1990s: transformation to ‘new economy’: shift from physical capital to human capital as main economic assets

‘Urban turn’ in spatial policy, stimulated by EU Lisbon Agenda (2000)

Different development paths of European cities, based on (variation of) economic structure, knowledge institutions and quality of life Stars, nicheplayers, knowledge pearls, intellectuals, metropoles in transition

Cities with strong creative sectors profit most from globalisation (Scott, 2006)

Growing importance of ‘soft’ location factors: quality of life and place

Classic location theory: capital, skilled labour force, infrastructure, institutional context

Social capital and personal networks: family, friends and professional ties determine location behaviour of people and companies

‘People-based perspective’: skills steer economic growth attracted by good people’s climate

Location theory: 3 strands

Creative Class Theory (Florida, 2002): diversity and tolerance attract workers

Human capital and (climatic) amenities are main drivers of urban growth (Glaeser et al., 2001)

Amenities are principal drivers of growth (Clark et al. 2002) Critics: US-centered, suggest uniform ‘creative class’,

underestimation of employment and personal trajectories, overestimation of soft conditions

People-based perspective to economic growth

General: location decisions in Europe steered by employment opportunities and personal relations

Soft conditions play –if at all— a secondary role, and not more for knowledge workers than for others (e.g. Martin-Brelot et al., 2010, Hansen & Niedomysl, 2009)

Differences in preferences determined by age, life phase and lifestyle (e.g. Hansen & Niedomysl, 2009; Frenkel et al., 2013; Andersen et al., 2010): age <35 and ‘bohemians’ more urban careerists and families more suburban

Observed, but disputed, differences between occupational groups: cultural industries highly urban (Markusen, 2006; Smit, 2012) ICT more mixed preferences, also suburban (Van Oort et al., 2003)

Residential preferences of European knowledge workers

The attractiveness of Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Copenhagen and Helsinki

+ accessibility: Schiphol as hub + very diverse economy attractive to large range of talents… - …but perhaps too diverse: no excellent sectors difficult to

market region and attract specific groups - complaints about ‘dulling’ of inner city due to restrictive

policies + high scores on quality of life: authentic inner city; diverse set of

amenities, large cultural offer + tolerant image; diverse, international population + increasing supply of highly urban residential milieus for higher

income groups and families (e.g. waterfront developments) -- Problematic housing market: expensive and lack of middle-price

segment, difficult to enter (especially for ‘outsiders’) exclude knowledge workers with lower incomes (creatives) in central parts

Amsterdam: ‘I Amsterdam’

+ Strong but specialized economy: large high-tech firms and ecosystems (e.g., Philips, ASML)

+ Recent growth in creative clusters (design) + Strong p.p.p.’s in Triple Helix (Brainport) - Small scale: lack of critical mass, shortage of labour

dependence on international workers + For city of 200,000 good cultural offer events + Tradition with in-migration tolerant attitude + Large supply of family dwellings in green area… - …but lack of affordable apartments in urban setting - Lack of urban atmosphere ‘large village’

Eindhoven: the Dutch ‘Brainport’

+ Strong cluster policy: Medicon Valley, lifetech + Accessibility: low level of congestion, excellent

public transport, good airport - High intraregional competition - Uniform urban policies threaten diversity - Restrictive immigration policies conflict with

needs of local business + Safe city: low (but rising) levels of crime, social equity + Good cultural offer - High costs of housing and living - Closed society, no international ‘vibe’

Copenhagen: ‘The Human Capital’

+ Strong profile in IT and design, rise of gaming sector decreasing dependency on Nokia

+ Partnerships municipalities/universities stimulating entrepreneurship to compensate job losses Nokia

+ Strategic location (Russia, Baltic region) - Still rather homogeneous economic profile + Safe city, high equality + Good cultural offer, recently flexible policies regarding events - Cold climate (but ‘Nordic oddity’ as unique strength?) - Closed society, not very international - High housing prices and costs of living

Helsinki: beyond the ‘Finnish miracle’

No clear concentration patterns of highly-educated workers per se in all 4 city regions depends on income, age and lifestyle

Exception: creative workers / cultural industries in city centre and surrounding neighbourhoods, and transformed industrial heritage sites: Amsterdam: inner city, 19th century ring, Minervahaven, Noord, Weesperzijde Eindhoven: inner city, Strijp-S, Strijp-R, NRE-site

Explanation: difference between ‘symbolic’ and ‘analytic’ knowledge bases: Creative workers need ‘buzz’ meet others to get ideas and projects Analytic workers do not need to mingle with colleagues in spare time

Where do knowledge workers live?

The knowledge worker does not exist: Differences between ‘creatives’ and ‘technicians’ Differences regarding demographic features (age, household

composition) and lifestyle Hard factors (work) and personal trajectories outweigh soft

factors in choice for region Demographic aspects, knowledge base and lifestyle

determine location within region But soft factors are necessary as secondary conditions On soft side, housing is most important, and problematic in

all four cities

Conclusions

Be careful with adopting ‘Florida-paradigm’: At regional level jobs are more important than urban milieus

integral policies more likely to be successful Not all knowledge workers prefer diverse urban milieus

Paradox: uniform urban policies might make city even less attractive and/or accessible for people with most urban preferences

Housing: more dwellings needed in middle-segment, more short-stay facilities for expats

National level: restrictive immigration policies may hamper regional labour demand

Policy recommendations

Questions?

Contact: [email protected]

Thank you for your attention.