Designing a great, economically productive research park is an exercise closely intertwined with behaviorial economics, believe it or not. By the end of this, you will understand why.
Let me identify 4 research parks that are considered to be 3rd Generation, as defined by the Association of University Research Parks (http://www.aurp.org):
- The University of Virginia Research Park*
http://www.uvafoundation.com/researchparks/northfork.html - Sandia Science & Technology Park
http://www.sstp.org/ - University of California, San Diego Science Park*
http://physicalplanning.ucsd.edu/PPW-PlansStudiesProjects/N-Studies/srp.html - Clemson University – iCar
http://www.clemson.edu/centers-institutes/cu-icar/
*Planned
Now, what do these parks have in common?
Master Planned
All of these parks were master planned to incorporate specific design features, custom facilities, and amenities. More specifically, these parks point to the movement in the industry towards ‘village’ style developments that more naturally congregate people both indoors and, increasingly, out.
Source: Duany Plater-Zyberk
These are not done on a one-off basis and are preplanned, some even with ‘flex’ components – options that are on the shelf if the need arrives. Also, these plans strive to create an environment where the architecture and features match the level of vision.
Amenities
Each of these parks have significant amenities, though at different scales. While the Clemson and Sandia parks are both cutting edge developments, the planners involved with the UVA and UCSD parks are outfitting their spaces with amenity features on a whole new level. Nonetheless, they all include as a minimum:
- Fitness center
- Public meeting space
- Conference space
- Walking trails
- “Village” Layouts
Source: CU-ICAR
Each of the parks brings something different to the table with regards to amenities, however. The Sandia Park is exceptional in that it has a childcare center onsite, a full-service credit union, and a full-time program staff (among other things). Clemson, on the other hand, has a gallery (yes, a gallery), an onsite graduate school, a rooftop garden and an autopark.
As noted, UVA and UCSD have not yet been built. However, their planned amenities seem to be remarkable. UCSD’s planned park will be heavy on environmental features like building into the indigenous landscape and intensive use of walking/biking trails. On the other side of the country, UVA apparently plans are to turn the park into something akin to a self-contained research city (a la Qatar’s Education City – http://www.qf.edu.qa/output/page301.asp), with research space blending into neighborhood-scale commerce and even residences.
Incubation and Collaboration
Each of these parks, which can all be considered “third generation” (or, as is the case with the UVA park, more like v.3.5 or fourth generation), place a heavy emphasis with cultivating their tenants. While the original model was centered primarily on filling vacant spaces, successful and latter generation parks have instead moved towards aggressive incubation to help their tenants to ‘graduate’ to larger (and higher-rent) workspaces. This has several advantages, if successful: 1) the focus on commercial viability has direct economic development implications; 2) no sense of ‘poaching’ from rival parks; 3) park loyalty and ‘community’ building; and 4) lower turnover. Incubators are generally revenue-losers for the short to medium term, but if properly leveraged can pay off handsomely for the park as well as serve as an exceptional economic development tools for the region.
In a sense, incubation is only a component of what is a larger theme of collaboration. Collaborative work spaces, meeting areas, and architectural/landscape features all work to bring people together either through formal (shared laboratories) or informal means (fitness center). As research parks become more sophisticated operations, the emphasis (per the national macrocosm) is leaning towards the including elements that are less formal. Informal mechanisms are gaining appreciation for their facilitation of idea-sharing, commercialization (“say, Frank, that gizmo could really be what ours is missing”), funding (“say, Frank, can we buy your company?”), and problem-solving. This is why the amenities issue is getting increasing attention.
Human Activity
Another defining feature is the circulation of people, the circulation of ideas. Just as prevailing economic literature (see Glaeser, Edward) and workforce development discussions (Florida, Richard) have identified density and human networks as elemental to economic growth and productivity, the research park is emerging as a miniaturized version of that same phenomenon. Like civilization’s most potent ‘research park,’ the city, planners and operators of the next-best research park are trying to emulate the most relevant features of an urban environment (human interactions, sense of place) while leaving out the less desirable or superfluous pieces (crime, prostitution, tenement housing). Although certain parks will be subject to a higher level of security than the average park, there needs to be natural mechanisms in place to facilitate the circulation of people and their attendant ideas. In other parks, this has meant things as high-minded as meeting space and regularly hosted events and a graduate school to something as mundane as a credit union or planned eateries.
