Paul Benneworth, KITE, Newcastle University

1. Science City UpdateWhere are they now and how is it working out?Presentation to “Univer-cities: capturing economic and regenerative impacts”, Sheffield, 27th September 2007. Paul Benneworth, KITE, Newcastle University

2. Introduction • The Science City problem: knowledge capital accumulation in ‘ordinary’ regions • Strategically embedding mobile knowledge assets in new urban spaces • Financial models for Science Cities: who are the animateurs in these new contexts? • How are the six English Science Cities progressing? • Where are the levers for developing new urban science spaces?

3. Background: the rise of the knowledge economy • Economic growth driven by productivity growth: • Rising independence from traditional capital (land, labour, machinery…) • Increasing importance of TFP  Knowledge • 50% of growth 1945-85; now more important • Knowledge capital unevenly spread • Rise of world cities, regional capitals • Stagnation of ‘ordinary’ cities

4. Policy solution: regional science policy • New policy paradigm  investing in success • No inter-regional compulsion or restrictions • Most regions have some science base • Even weakest regions in Europe have HE • Science base is strongly urbanised • Investing in science solves urban problems … • Universities as global pipelines/ local buzz… • Creating and anchoring international communities (cf Yeung, 2006)

5. UNIVERSITY ANCHORING KNOWLEDGE INTENSIVE BUSINESS ‘Global’ ‘Region’ Local knowledge economy Skilled staff & students R&D expenditure University World-class research infrastructure Universities as global pipelines… Spillover benefits After Benneworth & Hospers, 2007

6. NEW KNOWLEDGE BASED GROWTH TRAJECTORY ‘Global’ ‘Region’ Local knowledge economy Skilled staff & students R&D expenditure SCIENCE CITY SupportiveCity fabric University World-class research infrastructure …magnified by ‘Science Cities’ Spillover benefits After Benneworth & Hospers, 2007

7. Science Cities, Universities and Strategic Projects • How to realise this Science City dynamic…? • Attracting external resources • Anchor those new resources strategically • Increase the spill-over benefits regionally • Changing the nature of the urban system • Big projects vital for system change • Universities as source of untapped knowledge BUT • Universities have limited financial resources • How to understand universities as developers?

8. UNIVERSITY DEVELOPER Universities as strategic project developers in Science Cities IND’P VARIABLES MOTIVATION POLICY OVERSIGHT PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT LEADERSHIP DEP’D VARIABLES DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM REAL ESTATE TYPE FINANCING MECHANISMS COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS After Austrian & Norton, 2005

9. Where are the Science Cities now? • Birmingham: developing a vision for exploitation based on existing successes • Bristol: raising the profile of HE’s regional contribution in the home of (IK) Brunel • Manchester: hitching the Knowledge Capital project to the Science Cities bandwagon? • Nottingham: making the universities more visible and the region more attractive • Newcastle: changing outside investors’ perceptions of this old industrial region, trend through tradition • York: Bioscience City York & Heslington offered a good opportunity to label as ‘Science City’

10. Motivation for developments • Increasing investment in university research base • Lack of profitability in basic research • Accessing other funding streams • Rejuvenating ageing campuses after decades of underinvestment • Improving attractiveness of university to staff (faculty) and students

11. Policy frameworks • National government: laissez faire • No new additional funds for science cities • No shaping strategic investments (ETI) • Regional partners: the RDA agenda • Creation of regional science/ industry/ technology (leadership) councils • Local partners: detailed spatial planning • Under-bounded urban municipalities … • Spreading the wider benefits

12. Physical environment • Urban universities adjacent to poorer areas • Suffering from 1960s concrete planning – artificial boundaries to natural flows • Run-down of physical estate • rise of two tier university within one institution? • Preserving the ‘urban campus’ ideal • Mix of land markets from buoyant to flat – very different circumstances between cities

13. University/ city leadership • Most variable of the four factors • University attitude to regional engagement • raising visibility to win investment vs engaging regionally to fund reinvention • City and relationship with universities • Giving them space to innovate vs balancing their needs with other growth industries • University/ community relationships • Engaging and configuring elite stakeholders vs ‘ticking a box’ for planning

14. A spectrum of models for university urban development • Long-term leasing from the private sector of a commercial development • Borrowing the funds commercially on the money markets • Securing capital grants (e.g. SRIF, RDA) • Finding a “White Knight” lead investor • Funding from windfalls, endowments & internal funds

15. Context factors vs funding models

16. Science cities’ background factors

17. Likely funding approaches

18. Strategic science investments: the future of all Science Cities? • Large physical infrastructure investments • Good support for core research activities • Add to research base, profile, reputation of university in the city • Commercialisation space for White Knights • Generation of cash for development with unearned increment release

19. Institute for Ageing & Health NB: this diagram is purely illustrative

20. Newcastle Science City

21. STRATEGIC SCIENCE PROJECTS (ENGLISH) SCIENCE CITY ‘UNIVERSITY IN THE CITY’ Universities as strategic project developers in Science Cities IND’P VARIABLES MOTIVATION POLICY OVERSIGHT PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT LEADERSHIP DEP’D VARIABLES DECISION-MAKING SYSTEM REAL ESTATE TYPE FINANCING MECHANISMS COMMUNITY RELATIONSHIPS After Austrian & Norton, 2005