The Hard and Soft side of European Knowledge Regions Klankbordgroep meeting HELP UVA-VU

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

2. First work package: meta analysis • Literature review: • Rise of the creativeknowledgecity • Typologies of knowledgecities • Locationtheory • Previous research on residentialpreferences of (European) knowledgeworkers • Qualitativestudy 22 interviews with 31 experts in fourcityregions: • Strengthsandweaknesses of regions • Residentialpatterns of creativeandtechnicalworkers

3. 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 developmentpaths of European cities, based on (variation of) economicstructure, knowledgeinstitutionsandquality of life  Stars, nicheplayers, knowledgepearls, 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

4. Location theory: 3 strands • Classic location theory: capital, skilled labourforce, 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

5. People-based perspective to economic growth • 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

6. Residential preferences of European knowledge workers • 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)

7. The attractiveness of Amsterdam, Eindhoven, Copenhagen and Helsinki

8. Amsterdam: ‘I Amsterdam’ • + 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

9. Eindhoven: the Dutch ‘Brainport’ • + 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 affordableapartments in urban setting • - Lack of urban atmosphere ‘large village’

10. Copenhagen: ‘The Human Capital’ • + 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’

11. Helsinki: beyond the ‘Finnishmiracle’ • + Strong profile in IT and design, rise of gaming sector  decreasingdependency on Nokia • + Partnerships municipalities/universities  stimulating entrepreneurship to compensate job losses Nokia • + Strategic location (Russia, Baltic region) • - Stillratherhomogeneouseconomic 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

12. Where do knowledge workers live? • 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: innercity, 19th century ring, Minervahaven, Noord, Weesperzijde • Eindhoven: innercity, 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 • Analyticworkers do notneedtominglewithcolleagues in spare time

13. Conclusions • 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 determinelocationwithinregion • But soft factors are necessary as secondary conditions • On soft side, housing is most important, and problematic in all four cities

14. Policy recommendations • Be carefulwithadopting ‘Florida-paradigm’: • At regional level jobs are more important thanurban milieus  integralpolicies more likelytobesuccessful • Notallknowledgeworkersprefer 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

15. Thank you for your attention. Questions? Contact: b.w.h.sleutjes@uva.nl