New Workplaces―Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories: A Worldwide Investigation (Research for Development) 3030634426, 9783030634421

Citation preview

Research for Development

Ilaria Mariotti Stefano Di Vita Mina Akhavan   Editors

New Workplaces— Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories A Worldwide Investigation

Research for Development Series Editors Emilio Bartezzaghi, Milan, Italy Giampio Bracchi, Milan, Italy Adalberto Del Bo, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy Ferran Sagarra Trias, Department of Urbanism and Regional Planning, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain Francesco Stellacci, Supramolecular NanoMaterials and Interfaces Laboratory (SuNMiL), Institute of Materials, Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL), Lausanne, Vaud, Switzerland Enrico Zio, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy; Ecole Centrale Paris, Paris, France

The series Research for Development serves as a vehicle for the presentation and dissemination of complex research and multidisciplinary projects. The published work is dedicated to fostering a high degree of innovation and to the sophisticated demonstration of new techniques or methods. The aim of the Research for Development series is to promote well-balanced sustainable growth. This might take the form of measurable social and economic outcomes, in addition to environmental benefits, or improved efficiency in the use of resources; it might also involve an original mix of intervention schemes. Research for Development focuses on the following topics and disciplines: Urban regeneration and infrastructure, Info-mobility, transport, and logistics, Environment and the land, Cultural heritage and landscape, Energy, Innovation in processes and technologies, Applications of chemistry, materials, and nanotechnologies, Material science and biotechnology solutions, Physics results and related applications and aerospace, Ongoing training and continuing education. Fondazione Politecnico di Milano collaborates as a special co-partner in this series by suggesting themes and evaluating proposals for new volumes. Research for Development addresses researchers, advanced graduate students, and policy and decision-makers around the world in government, industry, and civil society. THE SERIES IS INDEXED IN SCOPUS

More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/13084

Ilaria Mariotti · Stefano Di Vita · Mina Akhavan Editors

New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories A Worldwide Investigation

Editors Ilaria Mariotti Department of Architecture and Urban Studies Politecnico di Milano Milan, Italy

Stefano Di Vita Department of Architecture and Urban Studies Politecnico di Milano Milan, Italy

Mina Akhavan Department of Architecture and Urban Studies Politecnico di Milano Milan, Italy

ISSN 2198-7300 ISSN 2198-7319 (electronic) Research for Development ISBN 978-3-030-63442-1 ISBN 978-3-030-63443-8 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Foreword

The research on new shared workplaces has progressed since its beginnings. About a decade ago, the first research studies focused on defining these new workplaces, to determine what was new about them compared to traditional offices and classic ways of spatially organizing work. This initial trend helped to define the characteristics of those new spaces, by creating typologies and classifications derived from the different denominations (coworking spaces, makerspaces, hackerspaces, fab labs, living labs, etc.) and the collaborative activities. Another research trend consisted in the study of the internal dynamics within the spaces, by considering important aspects like the effects of social interaction, colocation and shared trust in the development of innovation, collective learning, or the emergence of a sense of community. Many of these works considered the level of analysis of the space and its community of members. This book, edited by Ilaria Mariotti, Stefano Di Vita, and Mina Akhavan, represents an important advancement in our understanding of shared workplaces for several reasons. The study of shared workplaces has attracted the interest of researchers from multiple disciplines—organization studies, sociology, innovation and creativity, economic geography, among others—but, unfortunately, these efforts have often been isolated in their own discipline and disconnected from one another. To fully understand a new phenomenon like the global emergence of shared workplaces, it is necessary to take a multifocal and cross-level perspective. This book has the value of bringing together a collection of works that constitute a plural and complementary view on shared workplaces, across a range of different academic disciplines. The chapters included in this book also help to understand the relationship between these spaces and their environment better, by analyzing their mutual impact at different levels. On the one hand, this spatial perspective allows to go beyond the context of the physical space by enlarging its analysis to its geographical and socioeconomical context. This also allows to extract valuable insights and implications for urban and regional policymaking. On the other hand, considering different geographical contexts allows one to enrich the research with an international perspective. This is an excellent compilation of studies about spaces and their realities in different v

vi

Foreword

countries, showing the variety of social, work, and innovation dynamics that take place in shared workplaces in different settings. This book constitutes a new step in the study of the geographies of new ways of working. It summarizes the current knowledge about shared workplaces and, at the same time, opens new paths for research, updating the research agenda in times of change. The future evolution of workplaces will for sure be influenced by the COVID19 crisis. In the current context of uncertainty, this book certainly throws some light on how shared workplaces will adapt to the changes the crisis has introduced. At the same time, it provides clues about how new shared workplaces will continue to change how and where we work. Ignasi Capdevila Paris School of Business Paris, France

Acknowledgements

The idea to write this edited book originated during the FARB research project “New working spaces. Promises of innovations, effects on the economic and urban context,” funded by the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies—Politecnico di Milano (IT). The editors thank Ila Maltese for her help and support in editing text and references and the members of the Cost Action CA18214 “The geography of new working spaces and the impact on the periphery” with whom the issues presented in this book have been discussed. The book has been written in memory of Corinna Morandi.

vii

Contents

Introducing the Worldwide Phenomenon of Flexible Workplaces . . . . . . . Mina Akhavan, Stefano Di Vita, and Ilaria Mariotti

1

Phenomena Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Literature on Coworking Spaces and Maker Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mina Akhavan Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fabio Manfredini and Stefano Saloriani

13 33

Actors Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors. An Italian Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ilaria Mariotti and Carolina Pacchi

53

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marianna d’Ovidio

65

Places Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” of Greater Seattle’s Coworking Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yonn Dierwechter

83

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic Regeneration in Detroit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Mark Wilson and Eva Kassens-Noor The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France: The Case of the Loire Valley Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Divya Leducq and Christophe Demazière ix

x

Contents

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities: Evolving Geographies of Workspace Innovation in London and Rome . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 Stefania Fiorentino and Nicola Livingstone The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects on the Urban Context: Are Pole Areas Gaining? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169 Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Akhavan, and Dante Di Matteo The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative Makerspaces in Italy . . . . . 195 Cecilia Manzo New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories. Productive, Educational and Urban Dimensions of Emilian Makerspaces . . . . . . . . . . 209 Cristiana Mattioli Where Are the Knowledge Workers? The Case of Silicon Valley North in Ontario, Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 Filipa Pajevi´c and Richard Shearmur Agenda The Metamorphosis of Production. Which Issues for Policy and Planning? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253 Simonetta Armondi and Stefano Di Vita The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces: Patterns and Future Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277 Irene Manzini Ceinar and Ilaria Mariotti A Research Agenda for the Future of Workplaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299 Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Akhavan, and Stefano Di Vita

About the Editors

Ilaria Mariotti is an Associate Professor of Urban and Regional Economics in the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano. She holds an M.Sc. in Regional Science and two Ph.D.s in Spatial Sciences and Transportation Economics. Her research interests include new working spaces, firm location, industrial districts, and clusters. She is chair of the COST Action CA18214 ‘The geography of New Working Spaces and the impact on the periphery’ (2019–2023), which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework programme of the European Union. She has been the coordinator of a number of research projects and has published widely. Stefano Di Vita is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, with teaching and research responsibilities. He holds an M.Sc. in Architecture and a Ph.D. in Urban, Regional, and Environmental Planning. From 2005 to 2010, he was a project collaborator with SITA srl, Brescia, with responsibilities for urban and regional planning and design. He is the author or editor of seven books, including the Springer book “From Smart City to Smart Region: Digital services for an internet of places” (2016), as well as many book chapters and journal articles. Mina Akhavan is an Adjunct Professor and Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano. She holds a Master’s degree in Urban Planning and Policy Design and a Ph.D. in Spatial Planning and Urban Development. She has previously collaborated in various research groups (LaBELT, FARB, etc.), and her research interests include the sharing economy and new workspaces, urban policy mobilities and transnational studies, and mobility studies. She is a member of the management committee (MC for Italy) and Group Leader of the Cost Action CA18214 “The Geography of New Working Spaces and the Impact on the Periphery” (2019–2023), which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework programme of the European Union.

xi

Introducing the Worldwide Phenomenon of Flexible Workplaces Mina Akhavan, Stefano Di Vita, and Ilaria Mariotti

Abstract This introduction chapter briefly discusses the main focus of the book on the phenomenon of new workplaces (also known as “third places,” “flexible spaces,” and “collaborative spaces”), with a focus on coworking spaces and maker spaces, which is defined as permanent or temporary spaces for working. At the same time, they enable collaboration, mutual learning, knowledge sharing, as well as social and spatial relationships among users. It then highlights the importance of the book in sharing the findings of several international and multidisciplinary research projects concerning coworking spaces and maker spaces as paradigmatic of a shift in the new geography of working and making. Furthermore, this chapter outlines the structure of this edited book in four main parts: (i) Phenomena; (ii) Actors; (iii) Places; and (iv) Agenda. It then underlines that this book is designed for an international audience; it is useful not only for the academic world (in Urban Planning, Urban and Regional Economics, Geography, Sociology, Anthropology, Architectural and Urban Design) but also for policymakers, civil and entrepreneurial associations, and business operators.

In the third wave of virtual works, characterized by a renewed importance of community and shared spaces (Johns and Gratton 2013), new workplaces—and more specifically, coworking spaces (hereinafter CSs) and maker spaces (hereinafter MSs)— show the recent advances in ICTs, which have fostered not only the transmission of information but also the interactions among users. The Internet has significantly changed people’s lives, ways of working and workspaces, even though it has not yet changed the urban space so much (Guallart 2012). Besides, ICT has favoured high M. Akhavan (B) · S. Di Vita · I. Mariotti Dipartimento di Architettura e Studi Urbani, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] S. Di Vita e-mail: [email protected] I. Mariotti e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_1

1

2

M. Akhavan et al.

flexibility, multifunctionality and hybridization of several new spaces for work such as CSs, public libraries, cafes, restaurants, hotel and airport lounges (Brown 2017; Bilandzic and Foth 2013) but also MSs—including Fab Lab—open workshops/open creative labs, Living Labs, etc., which facilitate the ‘making of things’ (Merkel, 2018). However, these emerging workplaces (also known as “third places”, “flexible spaces” and “collaborative spaces”) present different socio-spatial and functional characteristics. On the one hand, public libraries, cafes, restaurants, hotel and airport lounges were not originally conceived to host work functions but are increasingly used as informal places for work. On the other hand, CSs and MSs are specifically designed as working locations for self-employed and freelance workers, who rent these new workplaces, and recently, more established companies, including affiliates of multinational companies. Here, it is also worth underlining the importance of the ‘sense of community’ created inside these workplaces and also within the neighbourhood (Garrett et al. 2017; Mariotti et al. 2017; Akhavan and Mariotti 2018; Spinuzzi et al. 2019). In the era of increasing virtual collaboration, localized collaborative spaces (Capdevila and Moilanen 2013; Capdevila 2017) still require attention. New workplaces include real physical permanent or temporary micro-clusters (Capdevila 2015), which enable collaboration, mutual learning (Butcher 2018) and knowledge sharing (Moriset 2014). These knowledge-related interactions are organized in a work-friendly environment. Hence, the overall rationale behind new workplaces is to generate social interactions, support knowledge creation and, consequently, increase business opportunities (Capdevila 2015; Gandini 2015; Parrino 2015; Bouncken and Reuschl 2018). In this book, the phenomenon of new workplaces is defined as permanent or temporary spaces for working, which enable collaboration, mutual learning, knowledge sharing, as well as social and spatial relationships among users. These knowledgeoriented interactions are organized in a work-friendly environment; moreover, it may facilitate working alongside colleagues (Spinuzzi 2012; Fuzi 2015; Gandini 2015; Gerdenitsch et al. 2016; Merkel 2015; Parrino 2015; Ivaldi et al. 2018), in flexible settings (Merkel 2015; Fuzi 2015; Orel and Kubátová 2019), and collaborations between individuals can be promoted through both physical and organizational features of CSs and MSs. A specific design (usually an open plan—Kojo and Nenonen 2017) and comfortable spaces are considered the main factors to optimize knowledge interactions among users (Orel and Almeida 2019) and encourage collaboration, creativity, idea sharing, networking and socializing (Fuzi 2015; Akhavan et al. 2019). The ambience that is tailored to space enhances the possibility of collaboration between two or more users of new workplaces (Orel and Almeida 2019). This means that the access to office infrastructures such as computers, WiFi, office machines are not sine qua non condition of defining such spaces (Mariotti et al. 2017). Moreover, organizational features of the new spaces for work, which facilitate collaboration include temporary characters of work (renting a desk on a monthly, weekly, daily or even hourly basis; see Merkel 2015; Mariotti et al. 2017); CSs and MSs are membership-based offices

Introducing the Worldwide Phenomenon of Flexible Workplaces

3

(Howell and Bingham 2019; Orel and Kubátová 2019). However, membership in a social or professional community is not a distinctive feature of all new spaces for work (Micek 2020). The number of CSs and MSs have grown worldwide since the late 2000s, in parallel to the bust of the property bubble in Western countries, in 2007–2008, and the spread of the global crisis. Such alternative spaces for work have, therefore, become examples of innovation in production, and flexibility in work and workspaces. However, although CSs and MSs represent new working and lifestyle models, they are still niche phenomena in terms of their contribution to the economy but also their effects on productive ecosystems and urban environment. Whilst the growth of CSs and MSs can be also considered as a consequence of the 2008 financial and economic crisis (Moriset 2014), the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic and the new economic downturn that is following, are difficult to predict. They are mining the pillars of sharing economy as well as the further development of digital working and making. Therefore, further research is necessary. CSs and MSs are indeed different from traditional office spaces, as they aim to exploit multiple potentials offered by digital technologies in order to enable collaboration, mutual learning, knowledge sharing and/or social and cultural relationships among users. Technological innovation has fostered, simultaneously, the dispersion and (re-)concentration of both economic activities and the urban environment: digital technologies have enabled, at the same time, the death of distance—due to online connections to conduct business and social functions in any place and at any time—and the new agglomeration of human activities and spaces—such as knowledge-intensive firms, operational headquarters of multinational companies and other advanced services—in a pattern of ‘concentrated de-concentration’ (Fernández Maldonado 2012). CSs and MSs are therefore practical examples that demonstrate the potential of knowledge transfer, informal exchange, interaction and collaboration and (some levels of) urban regeneration. On the one hand, CSs, which foster multifaceted forms of proximity (Mariotti and Akhavan 2020) (geographical, social, organizational, institutional, cognitive—Boschma 2005) and non-hierarchical relationships between coworkers (Spinuzzi 2012), may generate socialization and, consequently, business opportunities through the exchange of tacit knowledge (Parrino 2015). CSs target professionals who aim to increase their business through the establishment of temporary partnerships and collaborations, and the nurturing of social relations (Spinuzzi 2012). Therefore, scholars consider such spaces as ‘relational milieus’ (see Gandini 2015) by applying the open-source approach to working (Lange 2011), and providing the physical and relational intermediation to networking activities required by (self-employed and freelance) knowledge, creative and digital workers (Capdevila 2013). On the other hand, MSs and Fab Labs transform digital data into physical objects through their digital fabrication machines and training, by applying the open-source principles to fabricate material things (Gershenfeld 2012). They favour the development of specialized peer productions outside big firms (Doussard et al. 2018), and the empowerment of users within the cultural framework of the maker movement (Cavalcanti 2013), by opening to the public and exploiting the

4

M. Akhavan et al.

potentialities provided by ICTs at various stages: the creative process, the project financing, the product design, the prototype and small series’ construction and the sales (Manzo and Ramella 2015). Both the CSs and MSs have socio-economic and spatial regeneration potentials within their surrounding contexts, which the edited book aims to investigate and verify. Whilst these regeneration potentials are often implicit, we consider both CSs and MSs as representative places of contemporary urban society and spaces. The chapters explore and discuss the location of these workplaces, usually situated in urban cores, where there is a concentration of urban amenities. However, the location in rural and peripheral areas of a limited number of CSs and MSs confirms and updates the long-term debate around the interpretation of the overall forms, trends and development trajectories of contemporary cities (Balducci et al. 2017) and, accordingly, demands for the advancement of analyses and agendas, both in the current pandemic and the post-pandemic era. Within the above set context, the edited book New workplaces: Location patterns, urban effects and development trajectories. A worldwide investigation aims to share the findings of several international and multidisciplinary research projects concerning CSs and MSs as paradigmatic of a shift in the new geography of working and making. Whilst globalization, digital innovations and the rising knowledge economy and society, have contributed in reducing the borders between different kinds of production of goods and services, the rich collection of contributions presented in this book tackles the different aspects of such flexible and collaborative workplaces centred around their typologies, location patterns and spatial effects, urban and regional policy and planning and new research methodologies. The edited book is therefore structured in four main parts. The First Part, “Phenomena”, which contains two chapters, will set a theoretical and methodological foundation crucial to the focus of the volume. Furthermore, this part aims to depict dimensions and trends CSs’ and MSs’ growth and the support of new research methodologies. In Chap. “Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Literature on Coworking Spaces and Makerspaces”, Mina Akhavan (DAStU-Politecnico di Milano) depicts the growing importance and worldwide diffusion of new workplaces through an up-to-date literature review on emerging workplaces. Focusing on several aspects of CSs and MSs (spatial characteristics, socio-economics patterns, effects on the urban context in cities of different sizes—small versus medium and large— and types—hub versus periphery), the review concludes by building a theoretical foundation, whilst highlighting the gap in the literature and proposing future research lines. In Chap. “Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis”, Fabio Manfredini and Stefano Saloriani (DAStU-Politecnico di Milano) present an analytical experimentation aimed at evaluating if and how the social and digital connections can be put in relationship with physical spaces. Specifically, social media data (Twitter), related to CSs and MSs, have been analysed and mapped in order to understand their link with spatial issues like the location or the spatial distribution of the followers connected to the accounts of selected physical spaces.

Introducing the Worldwide Phenomenon of Flexible Workplaces

5

The Second Part of the book “Actors” encompasses Chaps. (“Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors: An Italian Perspective” and “(Social) Innovations in Makerspaces: The Re-embeddedness of Physical Production” and aims to analyse these multifaceted communities of coworkers and makers by exploring (i) the effects on labour market and urban transformations in the case of CSs; (ii) the social innovation process in the (co)-production of open innovation and the valorization of traditional craftsmen know-how in the case of makers and makerspaces. In Chap. “Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors: An Italian Perspective”, Ilaria Mariotti and Carolina Pacchi (DAStU-Politecnico di Milano) critically discuss the role of CSs in the career of freelancers and creative professionals, in terms of the possibility to build ties with their coworkers, to form and strengthen communities of practice but also to meet people with diverse skills and competences. In Chap. “(Social) Innovations in Makerspaces: The Re-embeddedness of Physical Production”, Marianna D’Ovidio (Università degli Studi di Milano Bicocca) focuses on MSs and digital fabrication (FabLab) by tracing a brief history about the meaning of innovation: from Schumpeter’s idea of innovation as driver for the improvement of society to Florida’s vision of innovation as tool for the development of the market and the individual economic success. The Third Part of the book, “Places”, analyses the spatial side of CSs and MSs from different geographical location worldwide: Chaps. “(Social) Innovations in Makerspaces: The Re-embeddedness of Physical Production” and “Situating the New Sharing Economy: ‘Regional Geographies’ of Greater Seattle’s Coworking Facilities” are about the cases in the USA, Chap. “After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic Regeneration in Detroit” focuses on France, Chap. “The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France: The Case of the Loire Valley Region” regards the contexts of the UK and Italy, Chaps. “Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities: Evolving Geographies of Workspace Innovation in London and Rome”, “The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects on the Italian Urban Context: Are Pole Areas Gaining?”, “The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative Makerspaces in Italy” concern Italy and Chap. “New Workplaces in ‘In-Between’ Territories: Productive, Educational and Urban Dimensions of Emilian Experiences” explores the workplaces in Canada. Each chapter has a specific focus on exploring varied typologies, locations and effects on the urban environment. In Chap. “Situating the New Sharing Economy: ‘Regional Geographies’ of Greater Seattle’s Coworking Facilities”, Yonn Dierwechter (University of Washington) analyses the growth and spread of CSs in the Greater Seattle high-tech cityregion in the USA, and explores similarities and differences in their forms, local functional synergies/mutual relations with surrounding neighbourhoods and places, land use patterns/mutual relations with spatial planning regimes and implications for local and city-regional development policies. In Chap. “After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic Regeneration in Detroit”, Mark Wilson and Eva Kassens-Noor (Michigan State University) investigate the role of digital technologies and economy in driving the post-Fordist transition

6

M. Akhavan et al.

of Detroit city-region and focus on the role of advanced manufacturing technology in supporting the ongoing contradictory process of urban renaissance. Specific attention is dedicated to new geographies of makerspaces in the frame of the local urban agenda. Moving from the American context to the European one, in Chap. “The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France: The Case of the Loire Valley Region”, Divya Leducq and Christophe Demazière (University of Tours) question the role of CSs in the socio-economic context, the evolution of urban fabrics and public policies. The focus is on the Loire Valley Region in France, and the authors describe the results of the qualitative survey with managers and coworkers. Moving from polycentric medium-sized region to large cities, in Chap. “Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities: Evolving Geographies of Workspace Innovation in London and Rome”, Stefania Fiorentino and Nicola Livingstone (University College London) explore the characteristics of different types of CSs from the interconnected perspectives of real estate trends and local market dynamics in Rome (Italy, in South Europe and inside the European Union), and London (the UK, in North Europe and outside the European Union). Shifting from cities and regions to an entire country, in Chap. “The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects on the Italian Urban Context: Are Pole Areas Gaining?”, Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Akhavan and Dante Di Matteo (DAStU-Politecnico di Milano) explore, by means of descriptive statistics and counterfactual analysis, the ‘indirect’ effects of the diffusion of CSs on the Italian urban context—differentiating between pole and non-pole areas—in terms of community building, improvement of surrounding public spaces and urban regeneration. Once again, in the case of Italy, in Chap. “The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative Makerspaces in Italy”, Cecilia Manzo (Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore) focuses on MSs and specifically FabLabs. She describes how they have emerged in Italy and how they have been spreading in recent years discussing how the loci of digital fabrication are changing. Remaining in the Italian context, in Chap. “New Workplaces in ‘In-Between’ Territories: Productive, Educational and Urban Dimensions of Emilian Experiences”, Cristiana Mattioli (DAStU-Politecnico di Milano) analyses the case study of the Emilia Romagna region’s central area in Italy to understand the relationships between MSs and the dynamics of local ecosystems (e.g. industrial, education/research and welfare), as well as the transformation of physical spaces. Different from previous chapters, in Chap. “Where Are the Knowledge Workers? The Case of the Silicon Valley North in Ontario, Canada”, Filipa Pajevi´c and Richard Shearmur (McGill University, Montréal) contribute to the discourse on changing workplaces in the knowledge economy by going beyond CSs and MSs. The chapter focuses on the rise of mobile and multi-locational knowledge work, which affect not only the use of different spaces for work but also how spaces—and work—are defined. The Fourth Part of the book, “Agenda”, deals with urban and regional policy and planning tools, mechanisms and implications before the Covid-19 pandemic, and it describes the effects during the lockdown period on CSs by showing the results of

Introducing the Worldwide Phenomenon of Flexible Workplaces

7

an international survey addressed to coworking managers worldwide. It is discussed whether and how the “nature” of these working spaces has been undermined and which measures have been undertaken by the CSs’ managers to face the pandemic. In Chap. “The Metamorphosis of Production Between Urban Core and Region: Which Demands for Policy and Planning?”, Simonetta Armondi and Stefano Di Vita (DAStU-Politecnico di Milano) propose a reflection about strategies and solutions of urban and regional policy and planning in the Milan urban region in order to support the development and hybridization of digital production of goods (MSs) and services (CSs) as an occasion of urban and regional regeneration and rebalancing. In Chap. “The Effects of Covid19 on Coworking Spaces: Patterns and Future Trends”, Irene Manzini (University College London) and Ilaria Mariotti (DAStUPolitecnico di Milano) focus on the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on the economic sectors and specifically on new workplaces. Besides, future trends for the coworking business model as well as its location dynamics are put forward together with policy implications. The final concluding chapter “Conclusion and further research”, by the book editors (Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Akhavan and Stefano Di Vita, DAStU-Politecnico di Milano), highlights the critical aspects of CSs and MSs illustrated in the different chapters of the book. It also proposes future lines of research and the necessity for further empirical studies to understand the impacts of the current pandemic on new workplaces. The rationale of the edited book is to bring together original contributions from several disciplines (urban and regional economics, geography, planning, economic sociology, etc.) regarding different forms of digital innovations in the production of goods and services, in order to provide one of the first international publications able to relate the worldwide growing phenomena of coworking, open-source making and their respective workplaces, from both theoretical and empirical points of view. The edited book will provide the opportunity for readers to gain knowledge that will help them to confront the complexities of the nexus between workplaces and urban and regional change, qualifying the new geography granted by digital innovation and new small-scale manufacturing, exploring the institutions that organize and channel it, and investigating the actors (private and public), who still change and cope with its consequences. Furthermore, this book is designed for an international audience; it is useful not only for the academic world (in Urban Planning, Urban and Regional Economics, Geography, Sociology, Anthropology, Architectural and Urban Design) but also for policymakers, civil and entrepreneurial associations and business operators. The editors are academic experts in the topic of new working spaces, at the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU)-Politecnico di Milano, where a multidisciplinary set of research projects in the field have been undertaken for years: from local and international research activity promoted by the research hub New urban Economies, Workplaces and Spaces (NEWS) to the COST Action CA18214 “The Geography of New Working Spaces and the Impact on the Periphery” coordinated by Ilaria Mariotti.

8

M. Akhavan et al.

References Akhavan M, Mariotti I, Astolfi L, Canevari A (2019) Coworking spaces and new social relations: a focus on the social streets in Italy. Urban Sci 3(2). https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010002 Akhavan M, Mariotti I (2018) The Effects of coworking spaces on local communities in the Italian context. Territorio 87(2018):85–92. https://doi.org/10.3280/TR2018-087014 Balducci A, Fedeli V, Curci F (eds) (2017) Post-metropolitan territories. Looking for a new urbanity. Routledge, London, New York Bilandzic M, Foth M (2013) Libraries as coworking spaces: understanding user motivations and perceived barriers to social learning. Lib Hi Tech 31(2):254–273, https://doi.org/10.1108/073788 31311329040 Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):41–45. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Bouncken RB, Reuschl AJ (2018) Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Rev Manage Sci 21(1):317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0215-y Brown J (2017) Curating the “Third Place”? Coworking and the mediation of creativity. Geoforum 82:112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.006 Butcher T (2018) Learning everyday entrepreneurial practices through coworking. Manage Learn 49(3):327–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1350507618757088 Capdevila I (2013) Knowledge dynamics in localized communities: coworking spaces as microclusters. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2414121 Capdevila I (2015) Co-working spaces and the localised dynamics of innovation in Barcelona. Int J Innovation Manage 19(03):1540004. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1363919615400046 Capdevila I (2017) A typology of localized spaces of collaborative innovation. In: van Ham M, Reuschke D, Kleinhans R, Syrett S, Mason C (eds) Entrepreneurial neighbourhoods–towards an understanding of the economies of neighbourhoods and communities. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, pp 80–97 Capdevila I, Moilanen J (2013) Typologies of localized spaces of collaboration. In: Smeds R, Irrmann O (eds) Co-Create 2013. The boundary-crossing conference on Co-design in innovation. Conference proceedings. Aalto University Publication Series. Science and Technology. 15:15–26 Cavalcanti G (2013) Is it a Hackerspace, Makerspace, TechShop, or Fab-Lab?. Makezine. https:// makezine.com/2013/05/22/the-differencebetween-hackerspaces-makerspaces-techshops-andfablabs/. Accessed 22 April 2020 Doussard M, Schrock G, Wolf-Powers L, Eisenburger M, Marotta S (2018) Manufacturing without the firm: challenges for the maker movement in three US cities. Environ Plan Econ Space 50(3):651–670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17749709 Fernández-Maldonado AM (2012) ICT and Spatial Planning in European Cities: Reviewing the New Charter of Athens. Built Environ 38(4):469–483 Fuzi A (2015) Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: the case of South Wales. Reg Stud Reg Sci 2(1):462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053 Gandini A (2015) The reputation economy: understanding knowledge work in digital society. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Garrett LE, Spreitzer GM, Bacevice PA (2017) Co-constructing a sense of community at work: the emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organ Stud 38(6):821–842. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0170840616685354 Gershenfeld N (2012) How to make almost anything. Foreign Aff 91(6):43–57 Gerdenitsch C, Scheel TE, Andorfer J, Kornunka Ch (2016) Coworking spaces: a sources of social support for independent professional. Front Psychol 7:581. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016. 00581 Guallart V (2012) The self-sufficient city. Actar, New York Howell T, Bingham C (2019) Coworking Spaces: Working Alone, Together (March), 1–38

Introducing the Worldwide Phenomenon of Flexible Workplaces

9

Ivaldi S, Pais I, Scaratti G (2018) Coworking(s) in the plural: coworking spaces and new ways of managing. In: Taylor S, Luckman S (eds) The new normal of working lives. Springer International Publishing, pp 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66038-7_11 Johns T, Gratton L (2013) The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Bus Rev 91:66–73 Kojo I, Nenonen S (2017) Evolution of co-working places: drivers and possibilities. Intell Buildings Int 9(3):164–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/17508975.2014.987640 Lange B (2011) Re-scaling governance in Berlin’s creative economy. Cult Unbound J Curr Cult Res 3:187–208. https://doi.org/10.3384/cu.2000.1525.113187 Manzo C, Ramella M (2015) Fab labs in Italy: collective goods in the sharing economy. Stato E Mercato 3:379–418 Mariotti I, Akhavan M (2020) Exploring proximities in coworking spaces: evidence from Italy. Eur Spatial Res Policy 27(1). https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.02 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in Milan: ICTs, proximity, and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Merkel J (2015) Coworking in the city. Ephemera 15(2):121–139 Merkel J (2018) Freelance isn’t free. Co-working as a critical urban practice to cope with informality in creative labour markets. Urban Stud 56(3):526–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/004209801878 2374 Micek G (2020) Studies of proximity in co-working spaces: basic conceptual challenges. Eur Spatial Res Policy 27(1): 9–35. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.01 Moriset B (2014) Building new places of the creative economy. The rise of coworking spaces. Paper presented at the 2nd geography of innovation international conference, Utrecht, January 2014 Orel M, Kubátová J (2019) Coworking as a model for conscious business. J Glob Responsib. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JGR-11-2018-0068 Orel M, Almeida MA (2019) The ambience of collaboration in coworking environments. J Corp Real Estate 21(4):273–289. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCRE-12-2018-0050h Parrino L (2015) Coworking: assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowl Manage Res. Pract 13(3):261–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47 Spinuzzi C, Bodroži´c Z, Scaratti G, Ivaldi S (2019) “Coworking Is About Community”: but what is “Community” in Coworking? J Bus Techn Commun 33(2):112–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 1050651918816357 Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone, together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J Bus Techn Commun 26(4):399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070

Phenomena

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary Review of the Literature on Coworking Spaces and Maker Spaces Mina Akhavan

Abstract Given the growing importance and worldwide diffusion of new workplaces, this chapter presents an interdisciplinary overview on the core topic of this book through an up-to-date literature review of the phenomenon of emerging workplaces, more specifically coworking spaces and makers spaces. In other words, the aim is to provide a comprehensive review of research on coworking spaces and maker spaces as ‘third places’ for work, which are becoming alternative solutions within the context of the digital revolution and the rise of sharing economy. Here, such workplaces are considered at crossroads with different disciplines of business/management, economics, geography, sociology, planning, and other sciences. The review, therefore, covers studies conducted by scholars in varied fields, which are published in journals or presented in conferences, as well as unpublished thesis and working papers within the period 2001–2019. These studies have focused on several aspects of coworking spaces and maker spaces, which can be grouped in the following categories: (i) spatial characteristics (typologies and location factors); (ii) coworkers and socio-economics patterns (proximity features; social interaction and community making; economic performance; well-being); (iii) effects on the urban context in cities of different sizes. Considering the still very young topic of emerging workplaces, this review concludes by building a theoretical foundation, while highlighting the gap in the literature and proposing future research lines.

1 Introduction: The Rise of Coworking in the Age of the Creative Economy Forces of globalization, technological advancement and the rising knowledge economy have brought about a certain degree of integration of working and personal/living spaces, thereby restructuring the organization of work. Themes that M. Akhavan (B) Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_2

13

14

M. Akhavan

characterise such transformation—e.g. electronic work, self-management, the individualization of risks, and the inversion of gender at work and home—have already been discussed since the beginning of the 21st century (see the special issue: Brave New Workplace: Organizational Behaviour in the Electronic Age, Vol. 23, No. 4, Jun., 2002, Journal of Organizational Behavior). Although the topic of new workplaces is quite young, in recent years, more and more scholars are showing interest in studying and understanding the dynamics of these spaces from various perspectives. Within the general topic, this study focuses on the two prominent typologies of coworking spaces (hereinafter CSs) and makerspaces (hereinafter MSs). Though their economic significance yet remains uncertain, the importance of emerging new workplaces, as an alternative to traditional rigid office hours and home-offices, in the era of digital economy and gig economy—with a growth in entrepreneurship, freelancing and teleworking—is seen in their dramatic global spread, from the official opening of the first CS in 2006 in the US. This statement is proved by the numbers reported by Deskmag1 in their 2019 Global Coworking Survey: the coworking movement has roughly doubled in size each year since the mid-2000s and by the end of 2019, almost 2.2 million people are expected to have worked in over 22,000 CSs worldwide. Emerging new workplaces, also known as collaborative spaces and flexible working models, attract users from varied backgrounds and professions: the so-called “coworking-users” or “coworkers” can vary from freelancers, self-employed individuals and entrepreneurs to dependant contractors, consultants and small and micro enterprises (Garrett et al. 2017). Based on their study on CSs in small and medium size cities in France and Germany, Krauss et al. (2018) categorized coworkers as: (i) freelancers; (ii) microbusinesses; (iii) employees or self-employed workers. New workplaces may attract diverse professional profiles and competencies, ranging from the creative industry—such as architects, designers, journalists, etc.—to engineering and digital sectors—namely IT, software developers, consultants, etc. (Akhavan and Mariotti 2018; Gandini 2015; Spinuzzi 2012). Coworkers can, therefore, learn from each other through sharing spaces and interaction. Despite the heterogeneity among coworkers regarding their organisational status (Parrino 2015), one common aspect certainly unites all coworkers: they all seek a workplace to “work-alone-together” (Spinuzzi 2012). The review of the literature in this chapter is based on the Scopus database on peer reviewed journal articles and some important conference proceedings, for the years between 2001 and 2020. Scopus claims to be the «largest abstract and citation database of peer-reviewed literature: scientific journals, books and conference proceedings».2 A preliminary scan was then applied to eliminate the unrelated articles. By reviewing more than 200 papers discussing CSs and MSs, this chapter critically investigates the trends and changing tides of research on such shared workplaces. Considering the growing fame and importance of these emerging shared workplace, and also taking into account the core aim of this book, this chapter makes 1 See:

www.deskmag.com.

2 https://www.scopus.com/.

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary …

15

an attempt to provide a multidisciplinary literature study over the historical origins, development trajectories, and current features of CSs, MSs and Fab Labs, while exploring their global spatial spreading in both the developing and developed world. The remainder of the chapter is therefore structured as follows: Sect. 2 provides an overview of the typology of space, in order to position different forms of flexible workplaces within the wider sphere of third places for work; Sect. 3 explores the phenomenon of CSs, using the perspectives from varied disciplines; and studies on MSs are accordingly reviewed in Sect. 4. The concluding section highlights once again the rapid-growing trend of the research on this topic, while highlighting the gap in the current abundant literature; future research lines for more interdisciplinary studies bring the chapter to an end.

2 Typology of Space and Proliferation of Flexible Third Workplaces Here it is worthwhile to provide a “typology of space” that will help us better understand the term new workplaces in the electronic age that is proliferating in varied forms in our societies. Back in the early 1980s, Oldenburg and Brissett (1982) introduced the concept of third place in addition to the traditional dichotomy of first place (home) and second place (work), as social arenas where people gather for active participation and may therefore provide «a larger measure of their sense of wholeness and distinctiveness» (p. 267). The third place, being community centres, meeting venues, cafes, bars, malls, libraries, and parks (Bilandzic and Foth 2013; Oldenburg 1989) is therefore a public space as well as an informal social meeting place that becomes an anchor for the community and that may facilitate and foster broader, and more creative interaction, creating the sense of place (Akhavan and Mariotti 2018). In this regard, Martins (2015: 142) also adds that «The coffee shop, the pub or the park are more than spaces for pursuing creative lifestyles; they are part of a complex network of spaces that are used, and essential, for digital production». Recently, Morisson (2019) has applied this classification to study the emerging social environment in Paris, and then discusses the rise of a new typology of space in the knowledge economy: the “fourth place” appears from the overlanding of first place, second place, third place, as well as the coworking, comingling, and coliving spaces. This trend underlines the significance of social interaction, collaboration, networks, knowledge transfer and the spatial dimension of innovations in modern society. Brown (2017) also underlines the rise of coworking and CSs as the new form of “third space” and analyses the motivation for coworking and benefits (or dos-benefits) of co-location, which according to her is basically associated with peer-interaction and support rather than formal collaboration. With respect to the aspects of coopetition and entrepreneurship in the entrepreneurial environments, Bouncken et al. (2018) have made an attempt to classify coworking spaces and through their empirical study in Germany, they identified

16

M. Akhavan

Services Offices

Startup Accelerators CoWorking Spaces

Business Incubators

Learning

(Individual) Work

four distinct archetypes: (i) the corporate, (ii) the open corporate, (iii) the consultancy, and (iv) the independent CS. They discuss that openness, in different forms, effects the form and level of coopetitive tensions. In Italy, and more specifically in the case of Rome, three main CS typologies have been recognised with respect to their local embeddedness—in terms of their role in the process of local economic renovation and urban regeneration: (i) social incubator, promotes social innovation with the aim to confront issues of social inclusion and unemployment; (ii) start-up incubator, more concerned about the city development, considering the corporateoriented organizations (iii) real estate incubator, located mainly in central areas, not intervening much in the city’s socio-economic issues, yet more interested in the real estate market with relations to the new entrepreneurial ecosystem (Fiorentino 2019). Consequently some scholars situate sets of emerging new working spaces—CSs and MSs—within the wider collection of ‘third spaces for work, learning and play’, which may facilitate formal productive activities within informal social interactions, often accompanied with direct/indirect learning programmes and the use of new technologies (Waters-Lynch et al. 2016). Figure 1 demonstrates this idea through a chronological outline of different types of these working spaces. Moreover, the three main spaces to be reviewed in this report are highlighted and situated within the wider collection of third spaces for work, learning and discovery/play. Some scholars have defined localized open spaces of collective innovation, namely coworking spaces (CS), Fab Labs, maker/hackerspaces, Living Labs and corporate labs, as spaces that offer open access to resources (e.g. machinery and prototyping tools) (Capdevila 2017, 2019), which then share the following settings: (i) characterised by openness and collaboration; (ii) triggered by knowledge and skill sharing

Impact Hub

Discover-Play

Hacker Space

1959

1978

1995

Fab Lab

Maker Space

2001

2005 2006

New Learning Spaces

2012

Fig. 1 Different types of third spaces for work, learning and discovery/play throughout time. Source Adapted from the Waters-Lynch et al. (2016, p. 4)

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary … Table 1 Typology of collaborative spaces based on governance and approaches towards innovation

17 Innovation approach: exploration

Innovation approach: exploitation

Top-down approach

Fab Labs

Living Labs; Labs enterprise

Bottom-up approach

Hackerspace

Coworking spaces

Source Capdevila (2017: 83)

while using common tools and platforms; (iii) self-organized environments; (iv) invention and technology places a key role. Based on his study on a number of collaborative spaces in Barcelona and Paris, Capdevila (2017) discusses the typologies of such spaces based on two elements: (i) the governance structure, i.e. hierarchical character of organizations, which is either top-down (related to large firms) or bottom-up strategies (community movements or grassroots initiatives), with respect to the actors level of integration within the system; (ii) approaches towards innovation, in terms of exploration (certainty, productivity and efficiency) and exploitation (creativity, uncertainty, experimentation and acceptance of failure). Demonstrated in Table 1, four types of spaces are therefore identified. As noted previously, such collaborative workplaces attract various profiles of users. Some scholars have categorised coworkers based on what they may earn from CSs: (i) Utilizers, are those who seek office space and crucial infrastructures offered by CSs; (ii) Learners, are more interested in the knowledge exchange environment of the CS, and attend courses, events, etc.; (iii) Socializers, seek recognition and acknowledgment in CSs (Morisson 2019). Research studies on the global south also confirm the above-mentioned profile of the users (mainly based on the western world). On this matter, a study on CSs in Manila, Philippines shows that coworkers are mainly among «digital entrepreneurs of start-up companies; highly skilled knowledge workers for instance freelance lawyers, consultants, and architects; and foreign digital nomads who often form a community among themselves, which are occupations and work cultures that contrast starkly with the roles that online Filipino freelancers often assume» (Tintiangko and Soriano 2020: 78). Considering the type of users attracted to these collaborative spaces, Capdevila (2017) discusses the following two typologies of space: (i) spaces that are appealing for entrepreneurs and freelancers that simply seek a “third place” for work in a shared and relaxed environment not far from their home: location plays a key role; social interaction leads mainly to personal ties rather than professional networks and encourages community-making at the neighbourhood level; (ii) spaces with certain specializations—on specific professional sectors, women entrepreneurs, etc.—in order to attract local actors that are highly interested in cognitive proximity (knowledge sharing, learning, etc.); location and proximity to home become less important; neighbourhood is nevertheless encouraged to engage in activities provided by the space.

18 Table 2 Typologies of CS in Finland

M. Akhavan Level of access to users

Business model Non-profit making

Profit making

Public

Public office

Third places

Semi-public

Collaboration hubs

Co-working hotels

Private

Incubators

Shared studios

Source Adapted from Kojo and Nenonen (2016: 39)

A study on CSs in the capital area of Finland makes an attempt to provide a classification based on two axes of a business model (in terms of profit or non-profit making strategies) and the level of user access to the places (i.e. public, semi-public or private) (Kojo and Nenonen 2016); as seen in Table 2, six typologies can be identified: (i) public/non-profit spaces (public offices, free of charge); (ii) semi-public/non-profit (free of charge for specific targets; e.g., students or researchers); (iii) private/nonprofit (incubators with a strong focus on the development of new business ideas); (iv) public/profit (coworking established in a public space, like a cafeteria, that is available for the purchase price of the cafeteria goods); (v) semi-public/profit (coworking inside private spaces like hotels that require a preregistration and the payment is established according to use); (vi) private/profit (where the minimum lease period is often from a month upward). With respect to the profile of the manager, their role and motivation in opening and managing the workplace, a study on Italy introduces four typologies of CS: (i) infrastructure CSs, relatively small spaces owned and managed by small to medium-sized enterprises—part of their office space is allocated to coworking; (ii) relational CSs, similar to the infrastructure CS, where the entrepreneur acts a “community manager”, promoting knowledge exchange and facilitating social relations; (iii) network CSs, are mainly large spaces with a more complex organizational structure—a group of managers with specific roles (essentially the events/project manager, community manager, and marketing manager, etc.); (iv) welfare CSs, with a managing structure similar to the network CS, are often small to medium-size spaces and associated with non-profit organizations or social enterprises (Ivaldi et al. 2018). Findings of the study by Capdevila (2017), on the cases of Barcelona and Paris, show that CSs are primarily owned and managed by small private local start-ups; open innovation intermediaries mainly belong to private international companies; Living Labs have mostly a public or public-private structure, as they are heavily dependent on public funding; Fab Labs are mainly part of public institutions (i.e. universities). As in the case of Milan (Italy), explored by Mariotti et al. (2017), the Municipality has played a key role in promoting and investing in the development of shared-innovative workplaces (CSs and MSs) by means of assigning publicly owned abandoned space to private investors and also providing subsidies. The local government has also invested in incubators such as PoliHub, Alimenta, SpeedMiUp, FabriQ, Base, MHUMA, and Smart City Lab.

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary …

19

Di Marino et al. (2018) have investigated the new forms of multi-local working in the Helsinki region and discuss the development of both private and public organizations’ strategies. The Helsinki Vision 2050 has guaranteed the provision of spaces for new creative thinking and new technologies: «We need more spaces in which people meet, enjoy themselves and engage in recreational activities, and in which there are incentives to work and be an entrepreneur» (City of Helsinki 2013: 6). Furthermore, in Australia the State Government promotes policies to encourage both public and private flexible work organizations (Houghton et al. 2018), and Australian regional governments also play an active role in supporting the creation of coworking spaces so as to foster regional economic development (Ross and Ressia 2015). Here, coworking spaces specialized in the ICT sectors—for instance ICT incubators—are associated with entrepreneurship and “born global firms” (Ross and Blumenstein 2013).

3 The Notion of Coworking Spaces: The Rise of Coworking Studies in Varied Disciplines This chapter’s journey in scanning and examining the literature on CSs starts with the article “Working Alone Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity” published in 2012 by Clay Spinuzzi, Professor of Rhetoric and Writing; and by far it has been the most influential publication on this topic, being cited more than 500 times. This 34-page publication in the Journal of Business and Technical Communications is the outcome of his pioneering 2-year study on CSs in Austin, through conducting interviews and reviewing online profile pages (such as Linkedin). He provides an extensive understanding of what is coworking? Who coworks? And why do people cowork? Seeing coworking as emergent collaborative activity, Spinuzzi (2012: 424) states that beyond the provided space, «coworkers sought certain benefits from other coworkers- such as interaction, feedback, trust, learning, partnerships, encouragement, and referrals». He is among the first scholars to give a definition for CSs as «open-plan office environments in which they work alongside other unaffiliated professionals for a fee (…)» (Spinuzzi 2012: 399). For this study, the systematic search was made in Scopus databases, with three keywords “coworking”, “coworking + space” and “co-working + space”, on December 2019: after merging and cleaning the results, a total number of 137 articles were identified to have done direct research on coworking spaces. Figure 2 shows the number of publications in the 7-year period since 2012, by year and country of publication. From this very simple graph, the stark growth of studies in the recent years is apparent. Moreover, the geographic distribution of the origin of publications is quite interesting: though the first CS was born in the US, European scholars have shown far more interest in this topic (Italy records the highest number, followed by Germany, France and UK).

20

M. Akhavan

Fig. 2 The number of publications on coworking spaces based on the Scopus database—by year and country of publication (end of December 2019). Source Author

In this comprehensive review of the rapid-growing academic literature on CSs, the management and business sectors have primarily shown more interest in the topic. Also depicted in the previous section, Ignasi Capdevila, from business and management studies, is an important figure in this topic. His pioneering research, from a collective innovation perspective, on dynamic innovation regarding coworkers, makers and fablabers in localized spaces shed light on studies on new workplaces (Capdevila 2013, 2014). The findings of his qualitative study on the emerging communities in CSs in Barcelona shows how different dynamics of innovation including community insiders and local actors (firms, citizens and governmental bodies) are interconnected through the articulation of places, spaces, projects and events. Moreover, contributing to the literature on inter-organizational collaboration and dynamics of innovation, three types of collaboration practices are identified in the studied area: (i) cost-related: agents are to reduce their costs; (ii) resource-based collaboration: agents integrate external resources and knowledge; (iii) relational collaboration: actors engage in intense collaborative practices. In the management research, Bouncken and Reuschl (2018, 330–331) provide a definition of CSs as spatial, technological, and social structures offered to facilitate independent self-employment, freelancing, entrepreneurship, and micro-business without losing access to professional networks, as well as communication and learning opportunities. Accordingly, they introduce a model to a conceptual model based on key factors on performance affected by trust, community, learning, self-efficacy. Scholars in the fields of economic geography and regional studies are also among the active producers of publications on CSs. Anita Fuzi has conducted extensive studies on coworking spaces: based on a company called IndyCube, that provides CSs throughout Wales in the UK, Fuzi et al. (2014) analysed the spaces in terms of office layout and design, community, collaboration and use of virtual platforms, in order to gain deeper understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of coworking spaces. As a result, it is proposed that such companies need to consider the issues of workspace design in relation to creativity and innovation. Besides, it is necessary to tackle the core values of coworking: openness, communication, collaboration, accessibility and sustainability. In conclusion, for them, «co-working is a

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary …

21

club-type environment that can be a flexible workspace where individuals or teams can choose which setting they want to work in for a given task at any given time» (ibid: 7). Once again in the case of South Wales, Fuzi (2015) applies an empirical study to explore whether CSs can trigger entrepreneurship in regions with scant entrepreneurial settings through creating hard infrastructures. Semi structured interviews and 46 completed questionnaires, on two different kind of CSs, were used to understand the members’ motivations for joining, their gained benefits, the areas that could be developed further, and the tools used by operators to enhance their activities. The findings of this study underline that the simple co-location itself may not necessarily lead to networking, interaction and collaboration. Yet, community facilitators may play an important role in enabling more synergies to stimulate encounters and collaborations inside the trust-based community-oriented environments. Recent studies from economic geographers emphasise the rise of remote working because of the growing knowledge economy, arguing that a sense of community within CSs is a crucial element that may facilitate cooperation as well as collaboration and knowledge sharing among coworkers (Clifton et al. 2019). Other scholars, in business studies, have also discussed the sense of community, as a solution offered by CSs to overcome the issue of social isolation as a consequence of the growing number of independent workers (Garrett et al. 2017). Therefore, individuals can satisfy their needs for social interactions, yet still maintain their desired autonomy and independence at work. The important topic of community making has been the subject of some interdisciplinary studies: in the case of Italy, Akhavan and Mariotti (2018) also confirm that CSs are characterised by the sense of community, not only inside the workplace but also when it is inserted into the neighbourhood to create local communities. Furthermore, more empirical studies affirm that community is important to the managers of CSs, as well as collaboration, knowledge and idea sharing, while emphasising different types of community supporting varied kinds of activities. To this regard, Spinuzzi et al. (2019) has applied a specific typology of communities to empirical investigation of coworking spaces based on three criteria: structure and division of labour, nature of coworker–manager relationships, and nature of coworker–coworker relationships. Joint studies of economic geographers and urban planners on this subject are worth underlining here: Mariotti et al. (2017) conducted an empirical study about Milan, investigating the location patterns and effects of CSs on the urban context. Their research on 68 CSs located in Milan reveals that the location pattern of CSs resembles the service industries in urban areas, the so-called “creative clusters”. This study has shed light on some of this phenomenon’s urban effects, such as the participation of coworkers in local initiatives, the contribution to urban revitalization trends, and the micro-scale physical transformations. Akhavan et al. (2019) discuss the results of a more extensive data collection on Italy, by means of analysing an original database of all CSs in Italy (location, different characteristics, etc.) and also an online questionnaire sent out to coworkers. The findings show that three quarters of the coworkers declared to have perceived a positive impact of their CS on the local urban context, in terms of the agreements with local services, organizing charity events, participating in a Social Street, etc.

22

M. Akhavan

Among different disciplines, sociology and social studies have also shown immense interest in this relatively new topic. A first literature review on the rise of CSs was published by Gandini (2015), with the purpose to provide a different perspective regarding the two opposing perspectives of CSs being a positive phenomenon or simply a growing “bubble”. For Merkel (2015), coworking is a social practice that is characterised by similar social (community), cultural (sharing) and economic (saving) features of the sharing economy. In another publication, he also discusses the emergence of CSs as a bottom-up organizational practice to mitigate the “informality”, informal and precarious labour conditions of the freelance and independent workers (Merkel 2018). Others also confirm the importance of CSs as modern social workplaces, that become sources of social support for independent professionals, as well as offering flexible business infrastructures (Gerdenitsch et al. 2016). The interesting publication by Parrino (2015) gives a path to a new line of research on CS studies in terms of “proximity features”; more specifically, he examined the role of proximity—stems from the economic geography literature, see Boschma (2005)—in facilitating interaction and transmission of knowledge among coworkers, in CSs in Milan and Barcelona. According to his empirical findings, organizational and social proximity are essential in promoting collaboration among coworkers; frequent social interaction and significant internal bonds help to expand the network of collaboration. Economic geographers have largely studied and highlighted the positive impact of agglomeration and geographical proximity in collaboration and knowledge networks in firms (see for example Balland 2012; Balland et al. 2015; Torre and Rallet 2005). Indeed, geographic proximity is guaranteed among coworkers in CSs, which may generate socialization and knowledge exchange; yet, what is the role of other dimensions of proximity: cognitive, institutional, organizational and social? (Boschma 2005). Apart from the aforementioned study by Parrino (2015), others have also applied this concept: in the study by Akhavan and Mariotti (2018), the results of the online questionnaire to coworkers (236 responded) show that the majority have experienced social and organizational proximity, while about half of them have acknowledged institutional and cognitive proximity. Chapter “The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects on the Urban Context: are pole areas gaining?” of this book provides more insight into the role of proximity measures in CSs in terms of the effects on the urban context (core vs. periphery). As depicted in this chapter, although some scholars have made attempts to explore the role of CSs in the urban economic development of a mid-sized city (Jamal 2018), the literature on the effects of CSs on urban and socio-economic transformation is relatively scarce (see Yu et al. 2019). In Southern Europe, which has recently suffered an economic crisis, two economists Avdikos and Kalogeresis (2017) present an in-depth study on the socioeconomic profile and working conditions of Greek freelance designers that use CSs. Based on the data collected through on-line questionnaires and interviews, freelance designers in third places become more embedded in business networks, compared to those working in isolation. Moreover, the workers show a relatively higher level of job satisfaction in CSs, which is particularly thanks to the possibility of sharing (projects and business). In fact, many studies have previously confirmed the positive effect of social interaction at work on the individual’s well-being (see Danna and

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary …

23

Griffin 1999). On this matter, a recent study by Akhavan and Mariotti (2020) explains some factors affecting the level of well-being of coworkers at CSs: social proximity and sense of community (trust, and new friendships), and organizational proximity directly affect their well-being; gender, educational level, age and revenues growth do not show any impact. Moreover, from a psychosocial and health-related perspective, an empirical study in Germany confirms the preference of digital workers to use CSs over home offices, in terms of social aspects, self-organization and perceived productivity as well as overall satisfaction; nevertheless in such shared workplaces, features such as noise, interruptions, reduced privacy and yet also ergonomics must be taken into account to ensure a healthy work environment (Robelski et al. 2019: 22). Various contributions by Bruno Moriset (2014, 2017), geographer and planner, have considered such spaces which are predominantly emerged from a global process and two intertwined phenomena of “creative economy” (Florida 2002) and the “digital economy” (Malecki and Moriset 2008). Although he questions the economic significance of CSs, the rise of new workplaces is becoming anchored to the creative industries in major business cities worldwide; the growth of CSs nevertheless reflects a trending activity and the future potentials remain unknown according to this scholar. Some studies are centred on the phenomenon of coworking in small and medium-size cities (Krauss et al. 2018), answering questions such as “can coworking spaces locate or be created everywhere?” The question about location determinants of CSs has been addressed by Mariotti et al. (2021) in a study on Italy, which underlines that CS is an urban phenomenon; CSs are mainly located in large metropolitan cities (Milan and Rome record the highest numbers). This trend is also related to the location of innovative small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and creative industries in these cities. Though born in US, “coworking” is also becoming popular in the developed Eastern World. A study by Uda and Abe (2016) presents the results of a questionnaire survey conducted among 152 CSs operating in Japan (out of a total number of 365 active spaces—as of July 2014) from a viewpoint of space managers considering six perspectives: facility, management organization, business strategy, activity, space users, and performance. For a more comprehensive understanding of the operation of CSs, the scholars call for a more in-depth analysis (e.g. correlation and regression analyses). CSs are growing in the Asian world, which can be related to the cultural background (e.g. collectivism, high-context communication) and spatial context (mega-cities, digitalization, sharing economy). Taking into account a business model design perspective, Bouncken et al. (2016) discuss the importance of CSs in Asia, that will increasingly function as creativity and innovation hubs for independent and corporate entrepreneurs; yet there is a need to understand how to develop new strategies on practicing such spaces. A very recent publication explores CSs in the Global South: Tintiangko and Soriano (2020) argue that although CSs in the Global South tend to favour not all the digital workers, in the case of Philippines they show a sense of “aspirational belonging” to these workplaces; coworkers may appreciate their “belongingness” in the global network of the digital economy.

24

M. Akhavan

4 The Phenomena of MakerSpaces and Fab Labs In media and academic literature, the “Maker Movement” is mainly associated with, or sometimes a subcategory of, the Hacker movement (Moilanen 2012; Maxigas 2012). For Anderson (2012), fabrication spaces (fab-spaces) including MSs, Hackerspaces and Fab Labs are in fact cultural hotbeds for the Maker Movement. Though sharing similarities—in DIY-do it yourself manner towards learning and innovation—with a close look at the definition and current characterises of each kind, one can easily distinguish these two concepts. Hackerspaces.org3 defines Hackerspaces as «…community-operated physical places, where people share their interest in tinkering with technology, meet and work on their projects, and learn from each other». The first Hackerspace was established in Europe (Germany) in 1995 (known as c-base), as a non-profit association for the purpose of increasing computer-based knowledge and skills (software, hardware and data networks), while sharing a physical space (Cavalcanti 2013). The term “makerspace” was not used until 2005, when the MAKE magazine was published (http://makezine.com/) and edited by Dale Dougherty (2012), which then became popular in 2011 with the establishment of makerspace.com: the aim was to create publicly accessible places for children to design and create. Within the wider discussion of the emerging shared workplaces in general and MSs in particular, another popular category is the Fab Lab (fabrication laboratory), which is generally known as a small-scale workshop offering (personal) digital fabrication (Menichinelli 2011; Troxler 2011). Defined by the Fab Charter4 : «Fab labs are a global network of local labs, enabling invention by providing access to tools for digital fabrication». The Fab Lab initiative is rooted in the educational research directed by Neil Gershenfeld5 at MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), which officially began its activity in 2001 in collaboration with Grassroots Invention Group6 (Waters-Lynch et al. 2016). In the context of the Learning Independence Network (LIN) in Costa Rica, the Costa Rica Institute of Technology (TEC) was the first established international FAB LAB. «Give ordinary people the right tools, and they will design and build the most extraordinary things» is the main idea behind Fab Labs.7 Accordingly, as a technical prototyping platform for innovation and invention, providing stimulus for local entrepreneurship, creatives and professionals, a Fab Lab is generally equipped with tools for every aspect of the technology development process—design, fabrication, testing and debugging, monitoring and analysis, and documentation—with the aim to make «almost anything» (Gershenfeld 2005). As declared by the main founders of this programme, Fab Labs may potentially have deep impact at two levels: (i) Personal Fabrication: to design and fabricate a tool 3 https://hackerspaces.org/. 4 http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/. 5 Neil

Gershenfeld, is a professor of media arts and sciences and the founder and director of MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms (CBA), who teaches «How To Make (Almost) Anything». 6 http://www.fabfoundation.org/index.php/what-is-a-fab-lab/index.html. 7 http://www.fablabdc.org/history/.

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary …

25

Fig. 3 Geographical distribution of Fab Labs in five continents (year 2017). Source Own elaboration based on the data from https://www.fablabs.io/labs

or object required by the Fab Lab user; (ii) Grassroots Community Development: the labs provide the opportunity for communities to develop at their own pace and cultural capacities (Mikhak et al. 2002). This type of labs has spread worldwide from inner-city Boston to the European countries (namely France and Italy) and the developing world (such as Brazil and India), with projects undertaking applications in areas including healthcare, agriculture, housing and communications. Following the charter of MIT and Fab Lab Foundation, all labs are open to the public for little or no cost, with limited commercial activities for prototyping new products. Moreover, education remains an important and integral element of each project, targeting children and the wider community; broadly benefitting organisations, educational institutions and non-profit concerns (CBA-MIT 2012). Since Fab Labs share common characteristics, tools and processes, they are creating a global network of learners, technologists, researchers, makers and innovators. As a laboratory of knowledge sharing, a total number of 1136 Fab Labs in 105 countries were registered worldwide (as of November 2017)8 : Fig. 3 shows the distribution and number of Fab Labs in five continents. Though they originally appeared in the American context, currently more than half of the labs are situated in Europe. Referring to the outcomes of the broad study by Menichinelli (2016), the development of Fab Lab phenomena can be categorized in two main phases: (i) the incubation of the first laboratories in the period 1998–2008, and (ii) the consolidation of the networks and their early practices (mainly in the form of the Fab Academy) in the subsequent years of 2009–2013. Although Fab Labs did not arrive in Italy until 2011, they have rapidly become famous and the increasing numbers of such spaces, since 2014, has positioned Italy as the second country worldwide which hosts Fab Labs. Following this trend in Italy, Menichinelli (2016) underlines the importance of maintaining this active role, as developing such MSs or Fab Labs may bring about positive social and economic impacts. In recent years, the Maker Movement is gaining a growing interest in the literature, especially for innovation and entrepreneurship research; Browder et al. (2019) 8 https://www.fablabs.io/labs.

26

M. Akhavan

provides a conceptual framework on this phenomenon, discussing its potential for corporate entrepreneurs and its main features as: (i) the social dimension related to individuals and the group of user-producers known as makers; (ii) the technological dimension that consists hardware and software tools used by makers; (iii) the knowledge dimension, which concerns the creation and sharing of knowledge in a shared space; it is depicted as the central character of makerspaces. Makerspaces are also considered as integral elements to innovation ecosystems for the current era (Clark 2014; Fox 2014). Nevertheless, the concept of fab-space in general—MSs and Fab labs in particular—is relatively new in the literature, and therefore more theoretical and empirical study is needed to comprehend the role of such spaces in innovation and manufacturing systems (Mortara and Parisot 2016). From the urban planning and policy design perspectives, some scholars discuss the Maker Movement as a tool to increase entrepreneurship, promote industries, create jobs, train the workforce, etc. (Hirshberg et al. 2016). In contrast to public MSs as open innovation ecosystems (see Böhmer et al. 2015), some international companies (namely Ford Motor Company, Renault, Stanley Black & Decker, etc.) are increasingly embracing the potential of makerspaces and have opened their own. A recent publication by Rieken et al. (2019) makes a comprehensive review of literature on such companies referred to as “corporate makerspaces”, where the employees and other invited components (for example suppliers, customers, etc.) will have the chance to work and collaborate on innovative ideas and projects, and are therefore advantageous for the company’s innovation processes. Some studies have in particular provided details on this matter (see Liotard 2017; Jensen et al. 2016; Lô and Diochon 2018). The vital aspect of education and learning in MSs has been explored in several publications (see for example, Hynes and Hynes 2018; Martin 2015), and some attempts have been made to study the role of MSs on fostering innovation and entrepreneurship (Halbinger 2018; Mortara and Parisot 2018). Similar to the previous discussion on CSs, also here in the case of MSs, the term “community” becomes a decisive keyword. In fact, the Maker Movement underlines the importance of community and inclusiveness that maker enterprises may benefit from such shared environments of flexibility and openness (Browder et al. 2019). This community is defined as «a group of people who share common goals and interests—communicating through mediums online and in person» Kuznetsov and Paulos (2010, p. 297), and it is centred around the makers network. An empirical study on MSs in Australian public libraries shows how such content- creation environments can provide opportunities for community engagement, involvement and participation (Slatter and Howard 2013), Martin (2015) uses “community infrastructure” as one of the elements of the Maker Movement, which comprises digital sharing platforms (online resources, social networks) and in-person spaces and events. Some studies have explicitly discussed the physical workplace as one of the basic elements to form a community (Nkoudou 2017; Tanenbaum et al. 2013); but now considering the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic, which has forced many workplaces to partially or totally close down—and then re-open under certain strict rules—the question is, how can makers sustain this valuable community?

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary …

27

5 Conclusions and Future Lines of Research on the Flexible Workplace Model Given the growing importance and worldwide diffusion of emerging workplaces, this chapter provided an interdisciplinary overview on the core topic of this book through an up-to-date literature review on two major phenomena of CSs and MSs. Although they share some characteristics, these two workplaces differ in nature, function and the profile of users. This distinction is also evident in the literature: apart from few publications that consider all different typologies of workplace together (see Capdevila 2014), other studies have a clear focus either on CSs or MSs. In any case, it would be interesting to further explore the interface, if any, between these two workplaces. Once again, it should be emphasised that a geographic bias exists between publications in the global north and south, and there is a stark gap in the literature concerning the cases of CSs and MSs: we know little about the dynamics and typologies of these spaces in the developing and less-developed world. “Community” and “collaboration” are among the keywords constantly repeated as central values in several publications of both CSs and MSs; most of the important studies on this matter were introduced and discussed in this chapter. However, there is still the need to better understand the impact of varied emerging typologies of communities among coworkers (in CSs) and makers (in MSs) within the space and also the local urban environment (namely the neighbourhood where the workplace is located); also in terms of the durability and performance of these communities. From a methodological point of view, apart from some limited comparative studies (Parrino 2015), most publications on CS are based on singular contexts. More comparative studies in different regions, countries and cities are therefore essential as it would help to comprehend the spatial and cultural factors in creating different typologies of CSs offered to varied profiles of coworkers. This is also the case of MSs, as well as the fact that here there is still room for further conceptual and empirical research studies. As depicted in a study by (Avdikos and Merkel 2019), so far, public policies for CSs are scarce, and usually limited to general funding schemes supporting business development models. It seems that policy makers have not yet fully acknowledged the full potential of share workplaces. This is also related to the gap between the academic world, professional networks (manager of CSs and MSs, coworkers and makers) and policy makers. Future joint and interdisciplinary projects and studies can bridge this gap and provide findings that lead to the design of more tailored policies and actions in favour of the development of these spaces, especially in the case of peripheral and less developed areas. The literature survey and review conducted for this chapter was in fact completed by the beginning of year 2020; nevertheless, the conclusion was written during the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, which has immediately affected the nature of working in a physical space alongside others, and forced many people to work remotely from their home-offices. Digital platforms became the solo means of communication and community making. It is hence worth mentioning the importance of dedicating a

28

M. Akhavan

future line of research to understanding the aftermath of the government-led lockdown and, in some countries, the re-opening of workplaces with strict health-related inquiries; the formation of “digital community” in the pandemic and post-pandemic era. On the other hand, it is crucial to study the role of new workplaces—specifically CSs—as a flexible workplace model for those who were sent to work from home to finally choose their working environment and hours and probably saving long-time commuting. On this matter, Mariotti and Di Matteo (2020: 8) discuss the importance of CSs in peripheral areas, since they were less affected by this global health emergency: «these places might be the first to remove “social distancing” restrictions and resume normal life at the end of the emergency, thus being considered “safer places”».

References Akhavan M, Mariotti I (2020) New workplaces and well-being. An empirical investigation of coworkers in Italy. Unpublished manuscript (submitted for publication) Akhavan M, Mariotti I, Astolfi L, Canevari A (2019) Coworking spaces and new social relations: a focus on the social streets in Italy. Urban Sci 3(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010002 Akhavan M, Mariotti I (2018) The effects of coworking spaces on local communities in the Italian context. Territorio 87(8):85–92. https://doi.org/10.3280/TR2018-087014 Anderson C (2012) Makers: the new industrial revolution. Random House, New York, NY Avdikos V, Kalogeresis A (2017) Socio-economic profile and working conditions of freelancers in co-working spaces and work collectives: evidence from the design sector in Greece. Area 49(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12279 Avdikos V, Merkel J (2019) Supporting open, shared and collaborative workspaces and hubs: recent transformations and policy implications. Urban Res Pract 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17535069.2019.1674501 Balland PA (2012) Proximity and the evolution of collaboration networks: evidence from research and development projects within the global navigation satellite system (GNSS) industry. Reg Stud 46(6):741–756. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2010.529121 Balland P-A, Boschma R, Frenken K (2015) Proximity and innovation: from statics to dynamics. Reg Stud 49(6):907–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.883598 Bilandzic M, Foth M (2013) Libraries as coworking spaces: understanding user motivations and perceived barriers to social learning. Libr Hi Tech 31(2):254–273. https://doi.org/10.1108/073 78831311329040 Böhmer A, Beckmann A, Lindemann U (2015) Open innovation ecosystem-makerspaces within an agile innovation process. Paper presented at ISPIM innovation symposium, Brisbane, 6–9 Dec 2015 Boschma RA (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):61–74. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Bouncken RB, Laudien SM, Fredrich V, Görmar L (2018) Coopetition in coworking-spaces: value creation and appropriation tensions in an entrepreneurial space. Rev Manag Sci 12(2):385–410. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-017-0267-7 Bouncken RB, Reuschl AJ (2018) Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. Rev Manag Sci 12(1):317–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11846-016-0215-y Bouncken RB, Clauss T, Reuschl A (2016) Coworking-spaces in Asia: a business model design perspective. Paper presented at SMS special conference Hong Kong 2016, Hong Kong, China

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary …

29

Browder RE, Aldrich HE, Bradley SW (2019) The emergence of the maker movement: implications for entrepreneurship research. J Bus Ventur 34(3):459–476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusvent. 2019.01.005 Brown J (2017) Curating the “Third Place”? Coworking and the mediation of creativity. Geoforum 82:112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.006 Capdevila I (2013) Knowledge dynamics in localized communities: coworking spaces as microclusters. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2414121 Capdevila I (2014) Coworkers, makers, and fabbers global, local and internal dynamics of innovation in localized communities in Barcelona. PhD Thesis, HEC Montréal École affiliée à l‘Université de Montréal Capdevila I (2017) A typology of localized spaces of collaborative innovation. In: van Ham M, Reuschke D, Kleinhans R, Syrett S, Mason C (eds) Entrepreneurial neighbourhoods—towards an understanding of the economies of neighbourhoods and communities, pp 80–97. https://doi. org/10.4337/9781785367243.00013 Capdevila I (2019) Joining a collaborative space: is it really a better place to work? J Bus Strategy 40(2):14–21. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-09-2017-0140 Cavalcanti G (2013) Is it a hackerspace, makerspace, techShop, or fablab?”, Make (blog), May 22, 2013. http://makezine.com/2013/05/22/the-dierence-betweenhackerspaces-makerspaces-tec hshops-and-fablabs/ CBA-MIT (2012) The Fab Charter. http://fab.cba.mit.edu/about/charter/ Accessed Jan 2020 City of Helsinki (2013) Vision 2050, urban plan—the New Helsinki City plan. http://www.hel.fi/ hel2/ksv/julkaisut/yos_2013-23_en.pdf Clark J (2014) Manufacturing by design: the rise of regional intermediaries and the re-emergence of collective action. Camb J Reg Econ Soc 7(3):433–448. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu017 Clifton N, Füzi A, Loudon G (2019) Coworking in the digital economy: context, motivations, and outcomes. Futures. 102439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102439 Danna K, Griffin RW (1999) Health and well-being in the workplace: a review and synthesis of the literature. J Manag 25(3):357–384. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639902500305 Di Marino M, Lilius J, Lapintie K (2018) New forms of multi-local working: identifying multilocality in planning as well as public and private organizations’ strategies in the Helsinki region. Eur Plan Stud 26(10):2015–2035. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1504896 Dougherty D (2012) The maker movement. Innovations 7(3):11–14. https://doi.org/10.1162/ INOV_a_00135 Fiorentino S (2019) Different typologies of ‘co-working spaces’ and the contemporary dynamics of local economic development in Rome. Eur Plan Stud 27(9):1768–1790. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09654313.2019.1620697 Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York, NY Fox S (2014) Third wave do-it-yourself (DIY): potential for prosumption, innovation, and entrepreneurship by local populations in regions without industrial manufacturing infrastructure. Technol Soc 39:18–30. www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160791X14000396. Accessed Jan 2020 Fuzi A (2015) Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: the case of South Wales. Reg Stud Reg Sci 2(1):462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053 Fuzi A, Clifton N, Loudon G (2014) New in-house organizational spaces that support creativity and innovation: the co-working space. In: R & D management conference, Stuttgart, 3–6 June 2014 Gandini A (2015) The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review. Ephemera: Theory Polit Organ 15(1):193–205 Garrett LE, Spreitzer GM, Bacevice PA (2017) Co-constructing a sense of community at work: the emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organ Stud 38(6):821–842. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0170840616685354

30

M. Akhavan

Gerdenitsch C, Scheel TE, Andorfer J, Korunka C (2016) Coworking spaces: a source of social support for independent professionals. Front Psychol 7:1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016. 00581 Gershenfeld N (2005) Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop—from personal computers to personal fabrication. Basic Books, New York, NY Halbinger MA (2018) The role of makerspaces in supporting consumer innovation and diffusion: an empirical analysis. Res Policy 47(10):2028–2036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.008 Hirshberg P, Dougherty D, Kadanoff M (2016) Maker city: a practical guide for reinventing American cities. Maker Media, San Francisco Houghton KR, Foth M, Hearn G (2018) Working from the other office: trialling co-working spaces for public servants. Aust J Public Adm 77(4):757–778. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12317 Hynes MM, Hynes WJ (2018) If you build it, will they come? Student preferences for Makerspace environments in higher education. Int J Technol Des Educ 28(3):867–883. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s10798-017-9412-5 Ivaldi S, Pais I, Scaratti G (2018) Coworking(s) in the plural: coworking spaces and new ways of managing. In: Taylor S, Luckman S (eds) The new normal of working lives. Springer International Publishing, pp 219–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66038-7_11 Jamal AC (2018) Coworking spaces in mid-sized cities: a partner in downtown economic development. Environ Plan A: Econ Space 50(4):773–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X1876 0857 Jensen MB, Semb CCS, Vindal S, Steinert M (2016) State of the art of makerspaces—success criteria when designing makerspaces for Norwegian industrial companies. Procedia CIRP 54:65–70 Kojo I, Nenonen S (2016) Typologies for co-working spaces in Finland—what and how? Facilities 34(5/6):302–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230910978511 Krauss G, Le Nadant A-L, Marinos C (2018) Coworking spaces in small and medium-sized cities: the role of proximities for collaboration dynamics. HAL. https://econpapers.repec.org/RePEc: hal:journl:halshs-01721976 Kuznetsov S, Paulos E (2010) Rise of the expert amateur: DIY projects, communities, and cultures. In: 6th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries, Reykjavik, pp 295–304. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868950 Liotard I (2017) FabLab: a new space for commons-based peer production. In: 29th society for the advancement of socio-economics conference, Lyon, 29 June–1 July 2017 Lô A, Diochon PF (2018) Unsilencing power dynamics within third spaces. The case of Renault’s Fab Lab. Scand J Manag 30(2):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.11.003 Malecki EJ, Moriset B (2008) The digital economy: business organization, production processes, and regional developments. Routledge. https://books.google.it/books?id=MNuXSvs_MkEC Martin L (2015) The promise of the maker movement for education. J Pre-Coll Eng Educ Res (J-PEER) 5(1). https://doi.org/10.7771/2157-9288.1099 Martins J (2015) The extended workplace in a creative cluster: exploring space(s) of digital work in silicon roundabout. J Urban Des 20(1):125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2014.972349 Menichinelli M (2016) Fab Lab e maker Laboratori, progettisti, comunità e imprese in Italia. Quodlibet, Macerata Menichinelli M (2011) Business models for Fab Labs http://www.openp2pdesign.org/2011/fabbing/ business-models-for-fab-labs/ Merkel J (2015) Coworking in the city. Ephemera: Theory Polit Organ 15:121–139 Merkel J (2018) ‘Freelance isn’t free’. Co-working as a critical urban practice to cope with informality in creative labour markets. Urban Stud 56(3):526–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/004209 8018782374 Mariotti I, Akhavan M, Rossi F (2021) The preferred location of coworking spaces in Italy: an empirical investigation in urban and peripheral areas. European Planning Studies. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1895080

Third Places for Work: A Multidisciplinary …

31

Mariotti I, Di Matteo D (2020) Coworking spaces and pandemic Covid-19: will peripheral areas matter? RSAI Newsletter, new series 19. https://www.regionalscience.org/images/PDF/Newsle tter%202020%20May.pdf, May 2020 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Maxigas P (2012) Hacklabs and hackerspaces: tracing two genealogies. J Peer Prod (2). ISSN 2213-5316 Mikhak B, Lyon C, Gorton T, Gershenfeld N, Mcennis C, Taylor J (2002) Fab lab : an alternate model of ict for development. In: Development by design (DYD02), pp 1–7 Moilanen J (2012) Emerging hackerspaces–peer-production generation. In: Open source systems: long-term sustainability. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp 94–111 Moriset B (2014) Building new places of the creative economy. The rise of coworking spaces. In: 2nd geography of innovation international conference 2014, Utrecht University, Utrecht, pp 24–24, 23–25 Jan 2014 Moriset B (2017) Inventer les nouveaux lieux de la ville créative: Les espaces de coworking. Territoire En Mouvement 34:24–24. https://doi.org/10.4000/tem.3868 Morisson A (2019) A typology of places in the knowledge economy: towards the fourth place. SSRN Electron J 444–451. https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3056754 Mortara L, Parisot N (2018) How do fab-spaces enable entrepreneurship? Case studies of ‘makers’— entrepreneurs. Int J Manuf Technol Manag 32(1):16–42. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJMTM.2018. 089465 Mortara L, Parisot NG (2016) Through entrepreneurs’ eyes: the Fab-spaces constellation. Int J Prod Res 54(23):7158–7180. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2016.1198505 Nkoudou THM (2017) Benefits and the hidden face of the maker movement: thoughts on its appropriation in African context. Liinc em Revista 13(1):72–88. https://doi.org/10.18617/liinc.v13i1. 3774 Oldenburg R, Brissett D (1982) The third place. Qual Sociol 5(4):265–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/ BF00986754 Oldenburg R (1989) The great good place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Da Capo Press. https://books.google.it/books?id= o4ZFCgAAQBAJ Parrino L (2015) Coworking: assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowl Manag Res Pract 13(3):261–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47 Rieken F, Boehm T, Heinzen M, Meboldt M (2019) Corporate makerspaces as innovation driver in companies: a literature review-based framework. J Manuf Technol Manag 31(1):91–123. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2019-0098 Robelski S, Keller H, Harth V, Mache S (2019) Coworking spaces: the better home office? A psychosocial and health-related perspective on an emerging work environment. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16(13):2379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132379 Ross PK, Blumenstein M (2013) Cloud computing: the nexus of strategy and technology. J Bus Strategy 34(4):39–47. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBS-10-2012-0061 Ross P, Ressia S (2015) Neither office nor home: coworking as an emerging workplace choice. Employ Relat Rec 15(1): 42–57. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/informit.237909907 440429 Slatter D, Howard Z (2013) A place to make, hack, and learn: makerspaces in Australian public libraries. Aust Libr J 62(4):272–284. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049670.2013.853335 Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone, together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Published in J Bus Tech Commun 26(4):399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070 Spinuzzi C, Bodroži´c Z, Scaratti G, Ivaldi S (2019) “Coworking is about community”: but what is “community” in coworking? J Bus Tech Commun 33(2):112–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/105 0651918816357

32

M. Akhavan

Tanenbaum JG, Williams AM, Desjardins A, Tanenbaum K (2013) Democratizing technology: pleasure, utility and expressiveness in DIY and maker practice. In: SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Paris, pp 2603–2612, 27 April–2 May 2013 Tintiangko J, Soriano CR (2020) Coworking spaces in the global south: local articulations and imaginaries. J Urban Technol 27(1):67–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2019.1696144 Torre A, Rallet A (2005) Proximity and localization. Reg Stud 39:47–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0034340052000320842 Troxler P (2011) Libraries of the Peer Production Era. In: Abel van B, Evers L, Klaassen R, Troxler P (eds) Open design now: why design cannot remain exclusive, Bis Publishers, ISBN 978-90-6369-259-9 Uda, T., & Abe, T. (2016). A Descriptive Statistics on Coworking Spaces in Japan. Social Science Research Network, 297, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2749515 Waters-Lynch JM, Potts J, Butcher T, Dodson J, Hurley J (2016) Coworking: a transdisciplinary overview. Available at SSRN 2712217:1–58. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2712217 Yu R, Burke M, Raad N (2019) Exploring impact of future flexible working model evolution on urban environment, economy and planning. J Urban Manag S2226585618302140. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jum.2019.05.002

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis Fabio Manfredini and Stefano Saloriani

Abstract Over the last twenty years, the structure of the job market has changed due to new technologies and innovations. In this context, new working spaces are emerging such as Coworking spaces, Makerspace and FabLab. This chapter presents an analytical experimentation aimed at evaluating if and how the social and digital connections can be put in relationship with physical spaces. More precisely, social media data related to new working spaces have been analyzed and mapped in order to understand their link with spatial issues like the location of these spaces or the spatial distribution of the followers connected to the accounts of selected physical spaces. This approach tries to highlight how different geographical and relational proximities interact with each other by using the topic of coworking spaces as an observation point. In the current world, dominated by online connectivity and social media reality, online milieu cannot be missed. Using an original methodology based on Twitter derived data, the research will analyze the online debate of new working spaces (Coworking Spaces, Maker Spaces, FabLab), the networks of their related accounts, the user communities and their features compared to the reality. By performing a social network analysis with Gephi using DMI-TCAT software and geo-localizing the followers of 11 case studies, the research will demonstrate the importance of the virtual world created by the online social platforms and the proximity of the web communities with the actual location of the new working spaces.

F. Manfredini · S. Saloriani (B) Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), Mapping and Urban Data Lab, Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] F. Manfredini e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_3

33

34

F. Manfredini and S. Saloriani

1 Introduction In the last years, the structure of the job market has changed because of technological innovation, such as ICT, that have promoted the advent of knowledgebased economies, the sharing economy and the birth of the Industry 4.0 (Bianchi 2018). These new trends and technologies enable a dematerialized information access provided by wireless, mobile telecommunications and cloud computing. Within this framework, there has been a decoupling between workers and fixed job locations (Bizzarri 2010); the “geographical distance” is reduced and anyone can work anytime and everywhere, including places designed to host different functions like libraries, cafes, restaurants, hotel and airport lounges (Mariotti et al. 2017). Considering all these improvements, some workers from specific fields would still need direct relations: the self-employed and freelancers require social and professional interaction to reduce risks of isolation (particularly high for home working) and to increase meeting opportunities (Johns and Gratton 2013; Moriset 2014). In this context, the late 2000s have witnessed a wide diffusion of innovative workplaces (Luo and Chan 2020), so this chapter is focused on coworking spaces, maker spaces (hereinafter CSs and MSs, respectively) and FabLabs. These are places of collaboration and sharing based on open source and do-it-yourself ethic. Their aim is often oriented not only to provide a workstation, but also to foster new relations between workers, informal exchange of information, knowledge transfer to generate innovation and new business opportunities (for the clients and for the space’s owner). As said, those trade-offs are easier if the subjects are close to each other (geographical proximity), but it is important to have other forms of proximity. According to the literature, the highly innovative firms need face-to-face contact (McCann 2008) combined with relational, institutional, organizational and cognitive proximity (Boschma 2005) in order to transfer knowledge and innovation capacity (Mariotti and Akhavan 2020). It was already mentioned that the role of the new communication systems, such as the internet, is shaping our society (Valentine and Skelton 2008), therefore, it is important to study the “online reality” especially in this era dominated by social networks. A recent research (Bailay et al. 2018) based on the use of Facebook data on friendship connections, for example, shows that the intensity of friendship links is strongly declining with geographical distance. Starting from this point and using the geo-localization of more than 500 CSs, MSs and FabLab researched within the Farb Research project at DAStU-Politecnico di Milano,1 the aim of this chapter is to add a scientific contribution and offer an in-depth observation of the phenomenon. Here, the focus is on what we call “web proximity”, which has not been tackled by researchers who have instead studied other forms of proximity (see Parrino 2015; Mariotti and Akhavan 2020). Through 1 The FARB research project 2016 titled: “New working spaces. Promises of innovations, effects on

the economic and urban context”; research team: Ilaria Mariotti (coordinator), Simonetta Armondi, Stefano Di Vita, Fabio Manfredini, Corinna Morandi, Andrea Rolando, Mina Akhavan and Stefano Saloriani.

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis

35

an original methodology based on Twitter, data derived from the online debate of the new working spaces (CSs, MSs and FabLab) and the users’ communities will be analyzed together with the networks of their related accounts; and their features will be compared to the reality. The research questions that will guide the analysis are the following: (i) how are the web relations of the working spaces composed, and which are their nodes, links and communities? (ii) which are the main characteristics of the online account of new working spaces? (iii) are the “web proximity” and the “web account connections” overlapping with the real location of the new working spaces? The introduction is followed by a background section discussing the characteristics of the new working spaces, the theory about relations and proximity and the novel role played by social media dataset in adding useful information to the conventional data sources. The methodology consist of an analysis of the online debate about the new working spaces in which the different communities and topics emerging in the virtual context will be shown. This part of the work mainly explains the process of the Social Network Analysis applied to the most influential Twitter users and on the most trending topics related to the new working spaces. The second step will focus on 11 specific case studies and their online community: the research will analyze those accounts in order to better understand how their networks are composed. The last part of this section is focused on understanding the relationships between the digital connections, represented by social media and the physical world, defined by the localization of the Italian coworking spaces. The followers of each account have been geo-localized and it was tested whether their declared location is inside the influence area (a proximity buffer) of the new working spaces. The final section is dedicated to the presentation and discussion of the results, as well as to future research.

2 Background: The New Working Spaces, Proximity and Social Media Data The subject of the research is the new working spaces, in particular, coworking spaces, maker spaces and Fablabs. Coworking spaces are innovative workplaces where independent (and frequently precarious) knowledge-based, creative and digital workers— mainly freelancers or self-employed professionals—share their workspaces. They rent a desk (for months, days, or even just hours) in return for different kinds of services: both traditional (i.e. administrative offices, meeting rooms, or spaces of aggregation) and digital (i.e. wi-fi connections, or printers) (Mariotti et al. 2017). MSs are small laboratories open to the public where it is possible to build objects in an environment of knowledge and source sharing (Morandi and Di Vita 2015). If the MSs allow digital, traditional and manual productions, the FabLabs—a typology of MSs—are mostly focused on the digital one. As mentioned before, even if the

36

F. Manfredini and S. Saloriani

new working spaces are based on technology, innovation and dematerialization, the physical interactions still play an important role as defined by many studies. For example, the geographical proximity was recognized as an important factor in the firms’ spatial concentration (Becattini 1975; Bagnasco 1977) and, similarly, the relational proximity (Aydalot 1986; Camagni 1991). The last one is focused on the interaction capacity between local subjects to enhance a collective and social process of learning. Then, the institutional proximity (Lundvall e Johnson 1994) is defined as a set of norms and rules to facilitate the cooperation between subjects, and at the same time, a form of learning processes facilitation (Capello 2015; Mariotti and Akhavan 2020). The fourth one is the organizational proximity defined as «the ability of an organization to make its members interact» (Torre and Rallet 2005, p. 49). Finally, there is the cognitive proximity between the economic agents defined as a common base of knowledge that guarantees the comprehension among subjects with complementary knowledge. This last typology of proximity is important for innovation and future ideas development (Boschma 2005; Capello 2015). As noted beforehand, there are few scientific researches that have studied how is it possible to study, compare and better understand the web relationships of the communities and the actual location of the new working spaces. The choice to use social media data depends on their extensive use as an integrative source in the field of urban research (Calissano et al. 2018). Furthermore, the social media datasets are helpful in reconstructing the relationships between stakeholders, such as institutions and associations, which are typically not included in the traditional data sources. Beyond the big potentialities, these sources have limits (Giglietto et al. 2012) mostly due to the difficulty to obtain reproducible methodologies to apply them in future researches. Indeed, social network-derived data are freely produced by the users but then it is the company who owns and provides the services that decide whether or not to open its databases (for example through the API), or which information to share, depending on their marketing and strategic choices. The terms may change over time as happened, for example, with Instagram or Twitter, which restricted their data access policy during the last few years. Further, social network spread between users follows unpredictable dynamics that may generate enormous changes in a short time making the analysis of its use over time extremely difficult. Social media themselves produce user communities diversified from the standard population due to their specific penetration in different age groups, countries, socio-economic status of their users, etc. Moreover, all have their own specific purposes and characteristics that must be taken into consideration in the design of research based on the use of social media. Another important issue is related to the existing data provided by the different companies for research purposes, which depends on their specific data policies.

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis

37

3 Methodology: How to Measure and Analyze the Web Relations of the New Working Spaces? In order to understand how the web relations are composed, we have used Twitter as a source because—although the overall decreasing trend of users (statista.com 2018)—it is the most used social network by young professionals and for the API policy of the corporation. Twitter is a social networking and microblogging service, enabling registered users to read and post short messages called tweets. For this reason, Twitter provides a convenient source of data on users’ opinions, interactions and reported behaviours (McCormick et al. 2017) with the use of hashtags. Identified by the # symbol, hashtag is a type of metadata tag introduced by Twitter (and now used by all the social media) as a way to collect and group all the user-defined topics. To understand an immaterial element like a relation, this work studied the online debate, how the users interact with each other and which are the main topics related to these new working spaces. In order to do this, we collected all the tweets composed using the keywords: “coworking”, “makerspace”, “fablab” for the entire month of November 2017. The acquisition was made with the Digital Methods Initiative Twitter Capture and Analysis Toolset (DMI-TCAT) (Borra and Rieder 2014), a software that allows one to retrieve and collect tweets from Twitter and to analyze them in various ways. DMITCAT exports all the tweets in a text format (*.csv) allowing their categorization, analysis and visualization based on day/date, subject, topic, etc. We then collected 46,933 tweets with the keyword “coworking”, 24,094 with “makerspace” and 7,094 with “fablab”; the three different numbers of tweets highlight the relative presence of the three keywords in conversations among users and this is a first result of listening to the twitter’s community. The following phase consisted of the use of all the collected data to perform a social network analysis with the software Gephi (Williamson et al. 2016), which is an open-source software for graph and network analysis (Bastian et al. 2009). Social network analysis can be used to measure and map the relationships between individuals, organizations and information and/or knowledge entities. The socialdirected graph (Fig. 1) shows the influencers and the relations between users who have posted a tweet (digiting “coworking”, “makerspace”, “fablab”). The influencers are people who have built a reputation for their knowledge and expertise on a specific topic. Based on a table with the connections among users, Gephi software creates a visualization with all the users in which the lines connect each account and represent both the interactions and the relations among them. The linking lines’ thickness depends on the frequency of mentions, while each account’s number of tweets determines the dimension of the nodes. A bigger node could represent an influencer account. Twitter mentions are direct citations of a Twitter account and can be considered as a proxy of the relevance of a Twitter contribution. Within those frames, it is possible to find the communities and the different groups that are active on the topic related to CSs, MSs

38

F. Manfredini and S. Saloriani

Fig. 1 Social-directed graph of users who have used the word coworking (a) makerspace (b) and fablab (c). Source Authors

and FabLabs. The social-directed graph is hence a kind of graph that represents social relations between individuals on the web. It is defined by the connection involved between the users and it is a useful visualization of the relationships in terms of their strength and intensity. In this particular case, the different topics of “coworking”, “makerspace”, “fablab” have been visualized as a social-directed graph in order to evaluate some characteristics of the network of users. A first consideration concerns the different users who are directly related to the topic. If we consider the “coworking” social-directed graph, we can recognize the “@europecoworking” account among the most active users. This was the official account of the Coworking Conference 2017 held in Dublin, in November 2017, exactly in the period of data acquisition for the research. On this occasion, hundreds

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis

39

of attendees from all around the world met and discussed the rise of coworking and its impact on entrepreneurship and innovation. The conference account in that period emerged as a pivotal element of the coworkers’ community made up of users who are well connected to each other. The “@europecoworking” aggregation of accounts appears then visually as a strong and relevant group of Twitter users very active in the month of November 2017. The visualization of the connections tweets, therefore, constitutes a useful tool for understanding the relationships between the subjects who write about a specific topic, without considering the contents of the tweets. Twitter, therefore, appears as a source very sensitive to the temporal dimension and can also be considered as a useful tool for providing a “snapshot” of the actual feelings of the users concerning a specific topic. Within the same “coworking” socialdirected graph, other accounts highlight further interesting phenomena. For example, the “@eoi” account belongs to a Spanish school, Escuela de Organizaciòn Industrial, specialized in teaching new ways of doing business in three different locations (Madrid, Sevilla and Elche). The local scale of this account and of its community of users is clearly visible on the social-directed graph. Indeed, on the lower eastern side of the map, a small cluster of very connected users among each other is visible but the same cluster is isolated from the main aggregations. We can assume that, in this specific case, the Twitter network connection corresponds to a direct knowledge among the users (young professionals, students enrolled in the courses, teachers, etc.) and the school. Further analysis on the Twitter accounts connected with the school might provide empirical evidence for this hypothesis. A third account that deserves consideration is “@lastbabyboomers”, a professional, expert in social business, who is well connected with many other accounts related to companies, institutions and individuals. The shape of his personal network based on the use of the keyword “coworking” is that of an influencer at the centre of several connections belonging to other different networks as is evident from the visible connections. Starting from these simple examples, it is evident that the social-directed graph stores a lot of information and can be considered as a useful tool for analyzing and mapping the connections among users and for extracting valuable information on the typology of the networks involved. At the same time, each user can be further categorized according to its characteristics. Indeed, as shown in the three cases, a single account can be related to a coworking space, to an individual coworker or a professional, to a social media or a communication company, to a public or private institution or to a generic person interested in the topic. The classification of the users according to these categories can provide additional information on the type of network and on its core activity (business, education, technology, news, etc.). To better understand the online context of the debate around the new working spaces, the analysis of the other terms present in each tweet is useful (Fig. 2). The idea is that the coexistence of different Twitter hashtags can be visualized as a network and is related to the meaning attributed to them by the users (Weng et al. 2015). This function produces another visualization, named co-hashtag graph in which different words are connected. The co-hashtag graph provides the related argument cited by the

40

F. Manfredini and S. Saloriani

Fig. 2 Co-hashtag graph of the terms that appear in the tweets in addition to coworking (a) makerspace (b) and fablab (c). Source Authors

users when they post something about a specific word, i.e. Coworking, Makerspace or Fablab. In this representation, each node represents a word (or an hashtag); words closest to the central one are more frequent in all the analyzed tweets and the thickness of the line that connects the words is related to the co-occurrence of the words in the same tweet. This co-hashtag graph is useful for analyzing which words are connected to the “coworking”, “makerspace” or “fablab” hashtags and for highlighting visually the relationships between different topics. A selection of the 10 most frequent words occurring with the hashtag coworking, makerspace and fablab is depicted in the hashtag frequency table (Table 1). The top 10 hashtags related to the keyword “coworking” show a direct connection with

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis

41

Fig. 3 Number of nationalities within coworking spaces and makerspace accounts. Source Authors

Table 1 Ranking of the top 10 most frequent words in the Coworking, Makerspace and Fablab hashtag graph Coworking Hashtag

Makerspace Hashtag

Fablab Hashtag

n

word

n

word

n

23,237

Coworking

11,261

Makerspace

3275

FabLab/Fablabs

1850

startup/startups

1372

makered

217

Makers/maker

872

EDX

1017

STEM

193

3dprinting

833

coworkingEU

710

STEAM

193

MakerSpace

807

entrepreneur

578

Makerspaces

91

DepoFabLab

640

business

564

edtech

90

Barro

508

emprendimiento 372

makingGREATmakerspaces 88

museomix

469

Office

342

worldsofmaking

71

innovation

442

cultura

268

makers

70

STEM

437

crowdsourcing

263

edchat

67

Grenoble

word

Source Authors

the issues of business and entrepreneurship, while the top 10 hashtags related to makerspace and fablab are more related to education and technology issues. This very simple analysis based on social media content shows us the differences among these two new working spaces, at least from Twitter conversations: (i) coworking, linked to business and with the space for the office; (ii) makerspace or fablab, mostly associated with technology, innovation and education. This interesting result derives from the digital conversation among Twitter users. Another interpretation may concern the cities that are most frequently mentioned together

42

F. Manfredini and S. Saloriani

with a specific hashtag in order to analyze the general interest on a topic within the different cities. For example, for the coworking hashtag, the most cited cities are London, Chicago, Paris, Rio de Janeiro and Dublin. In the table above are listed the topics related to the keywords we have chosen and could be further disaggregated according to the temporal dimension for the analysis of the topics in the Twitter conversation during a specific event or a single period of time. After the analysis of the online debate about new working spaces, the research focuses its attention on the follower typologies, characteristics and localizations of 11 case studies. Using twitteR—R plugins which allows access to Twitter API— we acquired information about 11 accounts selected in November 11, 2017, that correspond to organizations that manage specific coworking and maker spaces. The selected accounts for the coworking category are the following: CoworkingLogin | ImpactHubMilano | inCOWORK_ing | PianoC_Mi | Tal-entGardenit | Wylabincubator. For the MakerSpace category we selected (Table 3): wemake | Fablabtorino | Opendotlab | Thefablab | spazioYATTA. The analysis of the followers of the 11 accounts allows to compare their dimension and characteristics in relation to variables as the total followers’ number (reach), the analysis of the language used by each account follower (Tables 2 and 3) and the followers geographic distribution starting from the information available due to the users’ registry (location). The follower’s analysis enables one to understand the “internationalization” level of the users and potentially link it to the dimension of the collaboration network they could generate. Tables 2 and 3 show that the sample selected to represent the MSs has a more international network than the CSs. The former has an average of 55% of foreign accounts, while the latter 48%. It is also clear that there is no direct link between the accounts with the highest number of followers and their distribution worldwide. This is demonstrated by ImpactHub Milano and by TalentGarden which despite their extensive network have a low diffusion of followers outside Italy. On the other hand, there are international cases such as Wylab Incubator with an account that shows the highest international network. By concluding this part of the analysis, it is possible to affirm that the cases are very heterogeneous because they are both very local realities (Opendotlab for example) and medium ones such as Plan C and finally FabLab Turin as an example of a wide and international network. We can also note, looking at the number of tweets per month, that some accounts are probably closed or have their business reduced to a minimum. Besides measuring the total percentage of foreign followers, it was possible to detect their nationality for each of the 11 cases. The operation was to count how many different nationalities were present for each account every time a follower reported a different one. In this case, it is possible to establish, not the size of the network, but its capillarity. It can be noted that some situations such as Impact Hub and FabLab Torino confirm both the breadth of the network of contacts and the presence of followers in a huge number of states (97 and 91, respectively), while the cases of Plan C and OpenDot,

688

WYLABINCUBATOR

Source Authors

3845

167

IN_COWORK_ ING

21,299

11,345

IMPACTHUB_MILANO

TALENTGARDEN_IT*

1679

COWORKING_LOGIN

PIANOC_MI

N. of followers

Twitter account

222

16,851

1832

96

5937

870

IT

Table 2 Number of followers for selected coworking accounts

77

3950

44

4

323

87

US

38

/

24

1

201

33

GB

16

157

17

2

106

22

ES

4

64

10

/

70

17

DE

331

277

1918

64

4708

650

OTHER

68%

21%

52%

43%

48%

48%

% FOREIGN

42

163

7

66

8

11

N_TWEET MONTH

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis 43

552

THEFABLAB

Source Authors

913

609

2229

WEMAKE

SPAZIO_YATTA

5052

FABLAB_TORINO

OPENDOTLAB

N. of followers

Twitter account

300

331

366

837

1917

IT

9

23

53

127

180

US

Table 3 Number of followers for selected maker space accounts

12

12

33

66

134

GB

8

7

17

48

145

ES

2

5

11

26

75

DE

221

231

433

1125

2601

OTHER

46%

46%

60%

62%

62%

% FOREIGN

0

9

11

124

6

N_TWEET MONTH

44 F. Manfredini and S. Saloriani

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis

45

which despite having an important network of followers of non-Italian nationality, do not have a wide variety of states. This means that they are widely followed abroad but in a limited number of countries. These different measures could show the specificities of the different new working spaces. In the second phase, the research focuses on the location of the followers of the selected accounts. If during the Twitter registration phase, the users have filled out the location field, it is possible to find out the coordinates (lat, long) of the city and map them. This phase requires a long dataset cleaning due to non-standardized data and because the users can freely fill out the field as they prefer. As an example, in Fig. 4, the followers of the FabLab Torino are geo-located as single points on the map, and it is clear that the followers are distributed more in the northern parts of Italy than in the south. It seems that their presence is higher in Milan than in Turin; this fact is peculiar because the headquarter of the fablab is in Turin. Moreover, the strong community of fablab and entrepreneur located in Milan influences the followers. In general terms, it is possible to notice that the followers are located in the most important cities such as Bologna or Florence in which the

Fig. 4 Spatial location of the FabLab Torino followers. Source Authors

46

F. Manfredini and S. Saloriani

Fig. 5 Followers’ location of selected accounts (in black) over the spatial distribution of coworking and maker space (in orange). Source Authors

concentration of activities and vibrant communities, could be a breeding ground for the spread of initiatives and followers. Furthermore, we used the geo-localization of more than 500 CSs, MSs and FabLab collected by the Farb Research of Politecnico di Milano to build an area of influence around each of them and simulate the geographical proximity. We then overlapped the localization of each follower of the selected accounts with the cluster of 500 new working spaces in order to understand if the online community is located near the physical location of the spaces. Figure 5 shows a relevant overlap between the location of the physical spaces and the location of the followers at a national scale highlighting the potential proximity among Twitter users and the urban spaces. This result, which needs to be further verified, could be used to argue that the network between online users has a connection with the actual use of physical space at least for the coworking communities.

4 Discussion and Conclusions This chapter tried to fill a gap in the scientific literature in the field of urban studies on the relation between digital and physical spaces and how they affect each other through the analysis of new working spaces (CSs, MSs and Fablab). We developed

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis

47

an original methodology based on Twitter data that has resulted in the extraction and analysis of 77.000 tweets related to this topic. The tweets have been investigated by means of social network analysis to highlight the relationships among users interested in the subject and their potential proximity with the physical places. This opened the discussion about the use of data extracted from social media as an alternative way to the traditional sources (census, official data, etc.). One interesting characteristic is the constant and live production of fresh information with the possibility for the users to be as free as possible. At the same time, this is a negative aspect because the data cannot be checked (big problem for the geo-location of the followers). Furthermore, the restrictions raised by the owners of the data (in our case, Twitter) remind us that the results based on the social media dataset need to be deeply evaluated. Nevertheless, the use of Twitter allows us to better understand the typology of business and their approach to the international community. This could be a useful signal of the robustness, the innovation capacity and the organization of a firm, since productive management is often a sign of healthy situation. The collection of the tweets allows us to understand the different characteristics of the new working spaces and the flows of interactions during the month of November. Data shows a non-regular stream of activities of Twitter users that decreases during the weekend maintaining peaks probably due to events or meetings. The most important result for communities and topic analysis is that those who tweet about coworking associate this term with entrepreneurship, startup and workspace. The topics for MS are the “do it yourself (DIY)”, technologies and learning. This last one is diffused in the tweets more FabLab-oriented together with science, culture and museums as trending topics. These results came from the analysis of the co-hashtag graphs that show terms appearing together with CSs, MSs and FabLab (Fig. 2). The social-directed graphs (Fig. 1) highlight the nodal users involved in the online debate of the new working spaces. This explains why we categorized as influencers a Spanish School of Industrial Organization (EOI) with 401 tweets, a makerspaceoriented magazine named Edutopia with 292 tweets or Fablabsevilla, a FabLab of the Sevilla School of Architecture, with 86 tweets. Indeed, being at the center of a linked group of accounts shows the node’s importance and its fundamental role as an influencer of the community. Furthermore, social media analysis significantly helped to better understand the 11 case studies. Interestingly, some of them have a broad and international network of relations with respect to others, which are part of a more local community (e.g., Spazio Yatta, the Fablab). The number of tweets of each account explains the structure of each firm and their capacity to work online. Finally, the overlap between the real location of the new working spaces and the location of their followers suggests that the networks of users and the physical spaces could be deeply integrated. By knowing the composition of the online community and the arguments that are discussed the most, a better management of the social media communication could be possible. This should be quite important for the firm to reach a higher number of influencers and not to miss some trending topics. On the other hand, this type of analysis is helpful for the scientific community to have a general view of the debate and find new clues for the future evolution of specific phenomena.

48

F. Manfredini and S. Saloriani

Finally, the importance of the overlapping between real space and the online world opens the discussion for future researches. It is crucial to deeply analyze this aspect in a more quantitative and structured way to test and check the two—virtual and real—“worlds” matching. Moreover, a better semantic analysis on the contents of the online debate may be important together with a deepening in the analysis of the accounts of the 11 case studies to understand their typologies and characteristics. Considering these results, it is clear that this innovative methodology is promising but still requires further analysis and testing to be used as an alternative solution to the more traditional analysis of the relations within networks.

References Aydalot P (ed) (1986) Milieux innovateurs en Europe. GREMI, Paris Bagnasco A (1977) Tre Italie. Il Mulino, La problematica territoriale dello sviluppo ita-liano, Bologna Bailey M, Cao R, Kuchler T, Stroebel J, Wong A (2018) Social connectedness: measurement, determinants, and effects. J Eco Perspec 32(3):259–280, https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.32.3.259 Bastian M, Heymann S, Jacomy M (2009) Gephi: an open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media Becattini G (ed) (1975) Lo sviluppo economico della Toscana con particolare riferimento all’industrializzazione leggera. Guaraldi, Firenze Bianchi P (2018) 4.0 La nuova rivoluzione industriale. Il Mulino, Bologna Bizzarri C (2010) The emerging phenomenon of Coworking. A redefinition of job market in the networking society. In: Muller K, Roth S, Zak M (eds.) Social dimension of innovation (pp. 195– 206). Linde Nakladatelstvi, Prague Borra E, Rieder B (2014) Programmed method: developing a toolset for capturing and analyzing tweets. Aslib J Inform Manag 66(3):262–278, https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-09-2013-0094 Boschma R (2005) Role of proximity in interaction and performance: conceptual and empirical challenges. Region Stud 39(1):41–45, https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320878 Calissano A, Vantini S, Arnaboldi M (2018) An elephant in the room: twitter sampling methodology, MOX-Report No. 16/2018 Camagni R (ed) (1991) Innovation networks: spatial perspectives. Belhaven-Pinter, Londra Capello R (2015) Economia regionale, Il Mulino, Bologna Gandini A (2015) The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review. Ephemera, Theory Politics Organ 15(I):193–205 Giglietto F, Rossi L, Bennato D (2012) The open laboratory: limits and possibilities of using Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube as a research data source. J Technol Human Ser 30(3–4):145– 159, https://doi.org/10.1080/15228835.2012.743797 Johns T, Gratton L (2013) The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Bus Rev 9(I), https://hbr.org/ 2013/01/the-third-wave-of-virtual-work Lundvall BA, Johnson B (1994) The learning economy. J Ind Stud 1(2):23–42, https://doi.org/10. 1080/13662719400000002 Luo Y, Chan RCK. Production of coworking spaces: Evidence from Shenzhen. Geoforum, 110: 97–105, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.01.008 Mariotti I, Akhavan M (2020) Exploring proximities in coworking spaces: the evidence from Italy. European spatial research and policy. 27(1): 37–52, https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.02 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556

Exploring New Workplaces with Social Network Analysis

49

McCann P (2008) Globalization and economic geography: the world is curved, not flat. Cambridge J Regions, Econ Soc 1:351–370, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsn002 McCormick TH, Lee H, Cesare N, Shojaie A, Spiro ES (2017) Using Twitter for demographic and social science research: tools for data collection and processing. Soc Method Res 46(3):390– 421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124115605339 Morandi C, Di Vita S (2015) ICT, nuove modalità di produzione e processi di rigenerazione urbana. I fab-lab a Milano, Imprese e Città Moriset B (2014) Building new places of the creative economy. The rise of coworking spaces, 2nd Geography of Innovation International Conference (Utrecht, 23–25 January) Morstatter F, Pfeffer J, Liu H, CarleyIs KM (2013) Is the sample good enough? Comparing Data from Twitter’s Streaming API with Twitter’s Fire-hose, ICWSM Torre A, Rallet A (2005) Proximity and localization. Region Stud 39(1):47–59. https://doi.org/10. 1080/0034340052000320842 Valentine G, Skelton T (2008) Changing spaces: the role of the internet in shaping Deaf geographies. Soc Cult Geograp 9(5):469–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649360802175691 Weng L, Menczer F (2015) Topicality and impact in social media: diverse messages, focused messengers. PloS One 10(2). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0118410

Actors

Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors. An Italian Perspective Ilaria Mariotti and Carolina Pacchi

Abstract Over the past fifteen years, the rise and diffusion of coworking spaces worldwide has accompanied the labour market, as well as urban transformations. In the evolution, organization and work environment of coworking spaces, we are able to see, therefore, the connection between the two realms; the evolution and changes in contemporary jobs on the one hand, and urban transformation, with the related urban regeneration effects (gentrification, etc.) on the other. Impinging on the results of a survey done in Italy, the chapter aims at critically discussing the main lines of connection between the two questions, and to read the rise and diffusion of coworking spaces in this critical perspective. We will answer questions that concern the role of coworking spaces in the career of freelancers and creative professionals, in terms of the possibility of building ties with coworkers, to form and strengthen communities of practice, but also of meeting people with diverse skills and competences, and the perceived effects of this on their work.

1 Coworking Spaces After the great discontinuities linked to de-industrialisation processes in the 1980s and the shift to a service economy, and also in relation to the emergence of the knowledge economy in recent years, contemporary labour patterns and job market dynamics in Western countries have been evolving towards a job market polarization between high-skill and low-skill jobs, with a shrinkage in the middle (Sassen 2014). These trends, coupled with the diffusion of ICTs, have also contributed to redesigning the geography of jobs at the international level and in specific contexts (Moretti 2012; Storper et al. 2015). Such significant changes in the labour market structure are connected in particular to the diffusion of jobs that differ from forms of I. Mariotti (B) · C. Pacchi Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] C. Pacchi e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_4

53

54

I. Mariotti and C. Pacchi

full-time regular employment (Allegri and Ciccarelli 2013; Cappelli and Keller 2013; Leicht 2015; Sundararajan 2016; Bellini and Maestripieri 2018). These phenomena, combined in complex ways in the major urban and metropolitan centres, result in an increased diffusion of highly skilled freelancers, characterized by tertiary level education and different forms of expertise, predominantly in the creative domains (arts, architecture, design, digital media, communication, etc.). Such workers are, to a certain extent, forced to be always innovative, while at the same time the characteristics of the environment in which they work make them a precarious and fragile segment of the job market (Allegri and Ciccarelli 2013; Moriset 2014). In this context, the emergence of coworking spaces (hereinafter, CSs) as places of knowledge concentration, production and exchange can be seen as strongly based on relational and collaborative dimensions (Pacchi 2018). CSs have been spreading worldwide in the last fifteen years, due to different concomitant trends in contemporary production patterns, connected, as we mentioned, to the emergence of the knowledge economy. CSs are innovative workplaces that host independent (and frequently precarious) knowledge-based, creative, and digital workers, mainly freelancers or self-employed professionals who share their workspaces. They have been interpreted as «shared workplaces utilized by different sorts of knowledge professionals, mostly freelancers, working in various degrees of specialization in the vast domain of the knowledge industry» (Gandini 2015, p. 194). This model has certainly been enabled by the diffusion of ICTs, which have made it possible to experiment with different forms of smart working or virtual work (Johns and Gratton 2013), by freeing people from the need of being located in a specific place, but with obvious problems and downturns (Isin and Ruppert 2015). In this perspective, CSs can be seen as working environments in which people, who are not linked by any hierarchical or organizational structure, decide to work side by side in order to overcome isolation and to take advantage of proximity (Boschma 2005). This, in turn, may enhance forms of community building and opportunities for cooperation, but more specifically, it also may make it possible to strengthen new working connections and create knowledge spill-overs (Spinuzzi 2012; Capdevila 2014). In the end, CSs can be seen as interesting experiments in the creation of enabling environments for the diffusion and exchange of tacit knowledge (Polanyi 1966), and this is in fact one of the aspects investigated by literature. In this perspective, the proximity factor acquires specific importance from this point of view: «just by belonging to a local community, an insider will have access to the shared knowledge among members of similar but distant communities» (Capdevila 2015, p. 2). Literature has linked the spread of these new spaces of work across the world to many different trends: the emergence of a metropolitan creative class and the ways, methods, and related tools of knowledge transmission and exchange; the reorganization of forms of labour in the knowledge economy and the difficulties of their representation; and the spread of the, potentially alternative, paradigm of the sharing economy, which proposes to partially reformulate the dynamics and tensions between cooperation and competition. The emergence of a new so-called metropolitan creative

Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors …

55

class has been the subject of extensive literature (Florida 2002, 2004), which has highlighted the potential linked to the spread of professional activities based on knowledge and creativity for cities. There have been recent critical reviews of this perspective in the light of the dilemmas, the growing forms of spatial and social polarization, and the difficulty of an excessively simplified interpretation of the relationships between the so-called creative class, urban economies and the dynamics of urban spaces (Scott 2014). In fact, new professions lead to the creation of widespread and fragmented networks, but at the same time, also to processes of strong spatial agglomeration, clearly visible in the main urban regions. As far as new urban economies are concerned, there has been a renewed attention to their social and relational dimension: one interesting, albeit controversial example being the emergence and diffusion of the sharing economy. The sharing economy paradigm, which is experiencing a strong diffusion both at the media level and in local decision-makers’ strategies, proposes itself as a radical alternative to the dominant economic paradigm, but at the same time it is enacted in a series of projects, initiatives, practices and companies which are, de facto largely included in it. There are several recurring elements that define this semantic field, also depending on whether the emphasis is placed on the production side (peer-to-peer production) (P2P Foundation 2012) or on the consumption side: the progressive transition from ownership to access, the sharing of goods and services, otherwise largely underutilized, the rediscovery of the importance of social networks, which seem to be both the end and the medium of this profound renewal, depending on the context. The emergence and spread of forms of coworking and workspace sharing is often related to this paradigm shift, although it is perhaps worthwhile to examine the potential problems of this relationship by more closely investigating the tension and dynamics between collaboration and competition, which is articulated in a much more complex way than what emerges in the current debate, both within the individual CS and between different spaces.

2 Contemporary Workers and Coworkers After this short introduction about the trends and drivers connected to the diffusion of CSs, we will try and characterize the types of workers using CSs, and how they can be defined on the basis of their intrinsic characteristics, such as their expertise and employment status, but also in relation to their choice to settle in CSs, and the impact that this choice, and the related proximity opportunities may have on their careers. We will then introduce and discuss some evidence emerging from a survey of coworkers (CWs) across Italy. As a matter of fact, CSs do attract users from varied backgrounds and professions: the so-called coworking-users or coworkers can vary from freelancers, self-employed individuals and entrepreneurs to consultants, and small and micro enterprises (Garrett et al. 2017; Akhavan 2020). A recent study by Krauss et al. (2018) on coworking spaces in small and mediumsized cities in France and Germany has categorized coworkers as: (i) freelancers;

56

I. Mariotti and C. Pacchi

(ii) microbusinesses; (iii) employees or self-employed workers. Besides, CSs can host both microbusinesses, based in the coworking spaces, and employees or selfemployed workers, whose activity is done on behalf of a company based outside the coworking spaces themselves. In the latter case, coworking can be considered a mode of telecommuting that allows companies to relocate part of their activity to places distant from their headquarters, in order to deal with strategic and management needs or to meet the needs of their employees. This strategy has been mainly adopted by multinational firms in the USA, and, more recently, also in Europe. New workplaces may attract diverse professional profiles and competences, ranging from the creative industry—such as architects, designers, journalists, etc.— to engineering and digital sectors—namely IT, software developers, consultants, etc. (Akhavan and Mariotti 2018; Gandini 2015; Spinuzzi 2012). Therefore, coworkers can learn from each other through sharing spaces and interaction, and according to Spinuzzi (2012), they all seek a workplace to “work alone together” (Spinuzzi 2012). Bilandzic and Foth (2013) classified coworkers as follows: • Utilizers, who use CSs to satisfy their need of technological infrastructure • Learners, who use CSs to gain and exchange knowledge, attend events, etc. • Socializers, who seek recognition and acknowledgment in CSs. Tintiangko and Soriano (2020, p.78) in their study on CSs in Manila, Philippines, state that coworkers are mainly «digital entrepreneurs of start-up companies; highly skilled knowledge workers such as freelance lawyers, consultants, and architects; and foreign digital nomads who often form a community among themselves, which are occupations and work cultures that contrast starkly with the roles that online Filipino freelancers often assume». Early stage entrepreneurs, freelancers, the self-employed and independent knowledge workers need social and professional interaction in order to overcome the risk of isolation and loneliness—typical of working from home—and also to increase meeting and networking opportunities (Johns and Gratton 2013; Moriset 2014; Mariotti et al. 2017). Besides, Kwiatkowski and Buczynski (2011) have defined coworking on the basis of five main values: collaboration (the willingness to cooperate with others to create shared value), community (intangible benefits, shared purpose), sustainability (do good to do well and offset the environmental footprint of the space), openness (free sharing of ideas, information and people), and accessibility (financially and physically accessible, diversity).

3 The Results of a Coworker Survey in Italy This section presents the results of a survey (on-line questionnaire) addressed to the coworkers of Italian CSs. The on-line questionnaire was carried out in 2018 and was addressed to the CWs working in the 549 CSs in Italy (Akhavan and Mariotti 2018). The respondents are 326 and work in 138 CSs (about 25% of the total), located in 83 cities, homogenously distributed in the four macro areas (north-west, north-east,

Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors …

57

centre, south and islands). There is a concentration in the Italian Metropolitan areas (34%), with Milan registering 60 CWs. The questionnaire aimed to explore: (i) socio-demographics (gender, years, age, education, etc.); (ii) employment status, skills and sector; (iii) income and revenue increase or decrease; (iv) the motivations for selecting the CS; (v) the advantages/disadvantages; (vi) facilities provided and the most used; (vii) proximity measures: social, institutional, organizational, cognitive; (viii) satisfaction of working in the CS and wellbeing; (ix) urban effects of the CS as perceived by the interviewee; (x) willingness to work in a CS in the next three years. The respondents are female (44%) and male (56%); 52% are aged 36–50, followed by CWs aged between 25 and 35 (38%), over 51 (9%), and those aged 19–24 (1%). As far as the educational level is concerned, the majority (about 78%) is highly educated: about 41% hold a master’s degree, 18.4% a bachelor’s degree, and 18.7% achieved a specializing master or Ph.D. degree. The remaining: high school (20.9%), secondary school (0.9%) and primary school (0.3%). About 37% had spent at least 6 months abroad, for the purpose of education or work. The CWs tend to live close to the CS, indeed about 45% live within 3 km, 32% 3–10 km away from the CS, and the rest live 10–20 km (12%) and more than 20 km (11%) far from the coworking space (Fig. 1). The proximity between the workers and the working places is confirmed in several geographical areas, which are located in core or peripheral areas. As already discussed in the literature, most CWs are specialised in the creative industry (65%), followed by management consultancy, training, and other sectors. Besides, the analysis of the employment status shows that the majority of CWs are freelancers (59%), with employees are the second most numerous (30%) and then other categories (11%—apprentices, interns, students). The firms the CWs work for are small and very small: 64% have up to 5 employees, 17% have 6–10 employees, 14% have 11–25 and about 5% more than 50 workers. Besides, about 11.7% are start-up firms. Similarly, the income is, on average, lowmedium, specifically 32% earn less than 15,000 euro gross per year, followed by 41% between 15,000 and 30,000, 17% between 30,000 and 50,000 and the remaining 10%, more than 50,000 (Table 2). The higher incomes refer to managers and entrepreneurs, and there is a homogeneity among the sectors. Finally, the firms CWs belong to are rather young: 77% were founded after 2010. Fig. 1 How far the respondents live from the coworking space. Source Authors’ elaboration

58

I. Mariotti and C. Pacchi

The CSs offer training opportunities to CWs: about 49% are or have attended training courses organized in the space, while only 12.3% of the CSs did not offer courses to their coworkers. Therefore, the spaces favour the professionalization of coworkers also through an investment in education and skills. As concerns the motivations supporting the decision to work in a CS, the top reason was cost reduction (Fig. 2): indeed, during the economic downturn, CSs represent a valid and cheaper alternative to traditional offices. Other pull factors concern the opportunities to: (i) work in a lively and creative environment, that well fits the CWs who were mainly specialised in the creative industry; (ii) increase knowledge sharing; (iii) access shared services and instruments (i.e. IT, secretary, common rooms, meeting rooms, etc.); (iv) access a flexible labour organisation; (v) develop new entrepreneurial projects; (vi) apply for joint bids and ease of presenting joint bids; (vii) ease of getting contracts; and (viii) increased earnings (Mariotti and Akhavan 2020). Coworkers are indeed interested in overcoming the isolation connected to their professional activities, and in creating opportunities for interaction and synergy with others (Manzo and Ramella 2015). The principal motivations for choosing a CS are cost reduction and the lively and creative environment, characterized by the sharing of services, spaces and knowledge, which could increase new business opportunities. The comparison between expectations and actual perceptions about the advantages that respondents expected to exploit at the CS allows us to understand whether their perceptions surpassed their expectations or the other way around (Table 1). Specifically, respondents’ expectations were surpassed as far as the supply of spaces, facilities and services are concerned; besides, it appears that they also developed more friendships with other CWs than they were expecting. Therefore, it results that the working environment, which ranked in the first positions even in the motivation analysis, is very important, and it might have been responsible for the ease of establish friendships. A lively and creative workplace

Fig. 2 Why do workers chose a coworking space? Source authors’ elaboration on Mariotti and Akhavan (2020)

Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors … Table 1 The main expected and perceived advantages

59 Expected

Perceived

New professional relationships

196

167

New friends

123

164

Access to new info channels

143

136

Access to new training opportunities

99

97

Access to facilities and instruments

111

138

Access to new spaces

147

197

97

127

Access to services

Source Authors’ elaboration on Mariotti and Akhavan (2020)

Table 2 The proximity measures as declared by coworkers (percentage) Proximity typologies

Yes

No

Do not know

Total

Social proximity 1

77.6

19.9

2.5

Social proximity 2

73.7

19.6

6.7

100.0

Institutional proximity 1

54.9

23.9

21.2

100.0

Institutional proximity 2

73.6

14.1

12.3

100.0

Cognitive proximity 1

61.4

19.6

19.0

100.0

Cognitive proximity 2

55.8

27.3

16.9

100.0

Organisational proximity

86.0

11.3

2.7

100.0

100.0

Source Mariotti and Akhavan (2020)

might enhance the sense of community (a proxy of social proximity) that plays a key role in the CSs (Mariotti and Pacchi 2021). The physical dimension plays an important role here, and the organization of space is conducive to better interaction patterns: many CWs stressed the importance of the layout of CSs, which fosters meeting opportunities. About 38% of the CWs (always or very often) discussed issues related to their work during lunch time, mainly in the kitchen or other devoted spaces in the workplace (Mariotti and Akhavan 2020). All these patterns are very much related to the sense of community coworkers exploit in the space, which is founded in social proximity (trust, new friendships, and collaboration) and institutional proximity (sharing the same lifestyle, political ideas, etc.). Few questions about the proximity typologies a là Boschma (2005) were addressed (Table 2) and described in detail by Mariotti and Akhavan (2020). Social proximity, which concerns the elements of social capital (e.g. trust) that enhance socially embedded relations between agents (i.e. CWs), at the micro-level (Boschma 2005), is exploited by the majority (74%) of the respondents, who have experienced a relationship based on trust (social proximity 2) with most of the CWs. Besides, about 78% had established friendships with them (social proximity 1), and specifically 52% with more than one third of the coworkers. Institutional proximity, which is proxied by the affinity among the CWs regarding their political attitudes and lifestyle that

60

I. Mariotti and C. Pacchi

facilitates the development of a “sense of community” is exploited by about 55% of the CWs sharing similar political attitudes (institutional proximity 1), and by 73% similar lifestyles (institutional proximity 2). Cognitive proximity, concerning the share of the same level of knowledge and experience, which stimulates collaboration and fosters new business opportunities, is achieved by about 61% (cognitive proximity 1), while about 56% have similar levels of experience (cognitive proximity 2). Finally, 86% made use of the service and facilities offered by the CS (organisational proximity), including training courses, designed to encourage synergies among CWs. Overall, all the effects of the workplace on coworkers we have analysed might have positive impacts on their economic performance and well-being: indeed, 39% of the CWs and 29% of the firms experienced revenue increases since they had started working in the CS (Mariotti and Di Matteo 2020). Besides, about 73% declared to have developed new products and services, which means innovations, and of those, 52% did it jointly with other CWs. The growth in revenue and wellbeing are positively related to CWs’ satisfaction with working in the current CS (97%), and their willingness to work in the same CS in the next three years (57%).

4 Conclusions This chapter has explored the role of coworking spaces in the career of freelancers and creative professionals, in terms of possibility of building ties with coworkers, forming and strengthening communities of practice (Wenger 1998; Gorman and Sandefur 2011), but also meeting people with diverse skills and competences, and the perceived effects of this on their work. First, we have tried to understand who CWs are, and then why they chose to work in a CS and how they evaluate it. CWs belong to a large array of professionals, some of whom belonging to recognized professions (with Charters, certification, accreditation tests, etc.). Others have a very diverse array of employment statuses and career paths (Mariotti and Pacchi 2020). These workers, nevertheless, share a similar level of expertise, predominantly in knowledge-intensive fields, in creative industries as well as in ICT and the digital sector. About 60% hold a Master or Ph.D. Degree, while in Italy in general, less than 20% of citizens in the 25–64 years age bracket hold a tertiary degree. Moreover, 65% of professionals in CWs work in the creative industries, and around 60% are freelancers, which again confirms that they can be seen as solo professionals, which are rarely embedded in large organizations, or even in smaller units. The CS and its community environment enhance knowledge sharing via physical and social proximity, and the related knowledge spill-overs, which play a significant role in both the choice to settle in a CS, and in the reasons for remaining in one. The analysis of CWs’ incomes shows that most users earn uncertain and low incomes, and CSs do not appear to work as springboards in securing them a more stable career and recognized social status. The COVID-19 pandemic has had a negative impact on the CS and CW sustainability because, during the lockdown, physical distancing needed to be guaranteed

Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors …

61

and people were confined to their homes to minimize the risks of contagion and transmission of the virus. A large majority of service workers, including CWs, had to work remotely and this has altered the foundation of the CS: the “sense of community” amongst CWs, which may enable them to benefit from knowledge transfer, informal exchange, cooperation, and forms of horizontal interaction with others, as well as business opportunities (Spinuzzi 2012). As recent surveys have underlined, most of the CWs did not go back to work in the CS (coworker.com, see also chapter ‘The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces: Patterns and Future Trends’) because of economic problems, but also because they had to take care of their children learning on-line from home. The sustainability of the CS model has been hit by the pandemic as well as the CWs, who must reorganize their working time and place. Nevertheless, the majority of CSs have tried to feed the community via webinars, online meetings, etc., and are planning to invest more into these. Finally, as described in chapter ‘The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces: Patterns and Future Trends’ by Manzini-Ceinar and Mariotti, the studies aiming to understand the impact of COVID-19 on CSs and CWs tend to depict a positive scenario in the middle-long run, since a significant majority of those that worked from a CS before lockdown said they plan on returning to the space once isolation ends. In addition, people that weren’t previously exposed to coworking spaces before the pandemic will look into trying coworking for the first time. Defining authorship: The present chapter refers to the papers by Mariotti and Pacchi (1) and Mariotti and Akhavan (2020). Although the chapter is the result of a joint work of the two authors, the sections may be attributed as follows: section 3 to Ilaria Mariotti, section 1 to Carolina Pacchi, sections 2 and 4 to the two authors.

References Akhavan M, Mariotti I (2018) The effects of coworking spaces on local communities in the Italian context. Territorio, 87(8): 85–92. https://doi.org/10.3280/TR2018-087014 Akhavan M (2020) 4.2. Typologies of Coworkers. In: Micek G et al (eds) Definition and typologies of the phenomenon of the new working spaces Deliverable D 1.1. Internal working paper. COST Action CA18214: The geography of new working spaces and impact on the periphery (2019– 2023), pp 27–29 Allegri G, Ciccarelli R (2013) Il quinto stato. Perché il lavoro indipendente è il nostro futuro. Precari, autonomi, free-lance per una nuova società, Ponte alle Grazie, Milano Bellini A, Maestripieri L (2018) Professions within, between and beyond. Varieties of professionalism in a globalising world. Cambio 8(16):5–14. https://doi.org/10.13128/cambio-24947 Bilandzic M, Foth M (2013) Libraries as coworking spaces: understanding user motivations and perceived barriers to social learning. Library Hi Tech 31(2):254–273 Boschma R (2005) Editorial: role of proximity in interaction and performance: conceptual and empirical challenges. Reg Stud 39(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Capdevila I. (2015) Co-working spaces and the localised dynamics of innovation in Barcelona. International Journal of Innovation Management, 19 (3), 1540004:1–25. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S1363919615400046

62

I. Mariotti and C. Pacchi

Cappelli P, Keller JR (2013) Classifying work in the new economy. Acad Manag Rev 38(4):575–596. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0302 Garrett LE, Spreitzer GM, Bacevice PA (2017) Co-constructuring a sense of community at work: the emergence of community in co-working spaces. Academy of Management Proceedings 1:14004. https://doi.org/10.5465/ambpp.2014.139 Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class. Basic Books, New York, NY Florida R (2004) Cities and the creative class. Routledge, London Gandini A (2015) The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review, Ephemera. Theory Polit Organ 15(1):193–205 Gorman EH, Sandefur RL (2011) Golden age, quiescence, and revival: how the sociology of professions became the study of knowledge-based work. Work Occup 38(3):275–302. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0730888411417565 Isin E, Ruppert E (2015) Being digital citizens. Rowman & Littlefield International, London Johns T, Gratton L (2013) The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Bus Rev 9(I). https://hbr.org/ 2013/01/the-third-wave-of-virtual-work Krauss G, Le Nadant A.-L, Marinos C (2018) Coworking spaces in small and medium-sized cities: the role of proximities for collaboration dynamics. HAL. Available at: https://econpapers.repec. org/RePEc:hal:journl:halshs-01721976 Leicht KT (2015) Market fundamentalism, cultural fragmentation, post-modern skepticism, and the future of professional work. J Prof Organ 0, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpo/jov006 Manzo C, Ramella F (2015) Fab labs in Italy: collective goods in the sharing economy. Stato e Mercato 35(3):379–418 Mariotti I, Di Matteo D (2020) Coworking in emergenza Covid-19: quali effetti per le aree periferiche? EyesReg 10(2). http://www.eyesreg.it/2020/coworking-in-emergenza-covid19-quali-effetti-per-le-aree-periferiche/ Mariotti I, Pacchi C (2021) Shared spaces or shelters for precarious workers? The role of coworking spaces in Italian cities, Profession and Professionalism (forthcoming) Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Mariotti I, Akhavan M (2020) Exploring proximities in coworking spaces: evidence from Italy. Eur Spatial Res Policy 27(1):37–52. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.02 Moriset B (2014) Building new places of creative economy: the rise of co-working spaces. Presented on the conference 2nd Geography and Innovation International conference. Available at: https:// halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00914075/document Moretti E (2012) The new geography of jobs. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, Boston Pacchi C (2018) Sharing economy: makerspaces, co-working spaces, hybrid workplaces, and new social practices. In: Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds) Milan: productions, spatial patterns and urban change. Routledge, London, pp 73–83 P2P Foundation (2012) Synthetic overview of the collaborative economy. Report Polanyi M (1966) The tacit dimension. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL Sassen S (2014) Expulsions. Brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Scott AJ (2014) Beyond the creative city: cognitive–cultural capitalism and the new urbanism. Reg Stud 48(4):565–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.891010 Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone together coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J Bus Tech Commun 26(4):399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070 Storper M, Kemeny T, Makarem N, Osman T (2015) The rise and fall of urban economies. Stanford University Press, Lessons from San Francisco and Los Angeles, Redwood City Sundararajan A (2016) The sharing economy. The end of employment and the rise of crowd-based capitalism. MIT Press, Boston

Coworkers and Coworking Spaces as Urban Transformation Actors …

63

Tintiangko J,Soriano CR (2020) Coworking spaces in the global south: local articulations and imaginaries. J Urban Technol 27(1):67–85 https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2019.1696144 Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production? Marianna d’Ovidio

Abstract This chapter discusses innovation and its meanings, focusing on makerspaces: labs and collective spaces where a broad range of objects are made thanks to fast prototyping technologies. Such spaces are often imbued by a narrative centred on the sharing of information, open-knowledge and mutual help. They are conceived not only as production places, but also as spaces where interaction takes place, where people exchange ideas and, also, where social cohesion is built. The chapter focuses on the narrative of these places, claiming that they represent the loci where innovation is given a new meaning: its scope is aimed towards the community need and wellbeing instead of towards the market. Without celebrating such places, in the chapter the community’s engagement in fab labs is addressed by looking at several elements of their embeddedness. With this aim, the chapter traces a brief history of the meaning of innovation and the discourses around it. The obvious starting point is J. Schumpeter’s idea of innovation and creative destruction, where economy is moving forward by means of innovation, which finds its final goal in the improvement of society. Then, I will illustrate how, in R. Florida’s vision, creativity (and therefore innovation) is an imperative for individual economic success: it is a failure without creativity . Innovation is therefore the means to (individually) winning competition and it is exclusively directed to the market. Finally, I will discuss the emergence of the social innovation paradigm, where innovation is presented as being at the service of, and rising from, society. In this new perspective, innovation might be re-embedded in society to serve communitarian scopes.

1 Introduction Innovation has taken on a very different meaning over the past 100 years, but it has always represented a moving society. At the beginning of the 20th century, in Schumpeter’s analysis, innovation represented everything that was new, different M. d’Ovidio (B) Università di Milano-Bicocca, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_5

65

66

M. d’Ovidio

from the past, but first and foremost better than before. It was both a goal and a tool that allowed the entrepreneur to be economically successful and to contribute to the development of society (Schumpeter 1942). As modern society moved on, innovation gradually changed its meaning, and, to some extent, detached itself from society and gradually became totally incorporated into the market, offering new opportunities but also creating new challenges. Following a sort of historical path, the chapter discusses that, since the late 1990s, innovation has been gradually supplanted by the concepts of creativity (which covers a semantic area closer to individual rather than collective elements) and the creative economy (McRobbie 2016). Creativity and the creative economy are championed as the main drivers of the (urban) economy where everybody is encouraged to be creative. Creativity becomes therefore a must to compete, and this applies to workers, managers, entrepreneurs, but also places like cities, regions or nations. We acknowledge the return of innovation in the last decade, often accompanied by the word social: social innovation seems to be the new buzzword, and has taken on a meaning covering a vast array of positive values that not only have to do with the solving problems, but range from democracy to empowerment, economic growth to wellbeing (Moulaert et al. 2013). Having the trajectory of innovation and its meanings as a backbone, the chapter explores digital fabrication as the arena of contemporary innovation, and it discusses that innovation is given a new meaning and new focus. In fact, in digital fabrication workshops and labs (makerspaces in the course of the chapter), innovation is addressed as not necessarily directed to the market, but to the wellbeing of society and particularly to the community to which the maker refers constantly, and of which the maker is a part (Vicari et al. 2016). The chapter focuses on makerspaces, defined as «a collection of commercially available machines and parts linked by software and processes» (Gershenfeld 2008, p. 18), including laser cutters, computer numerical control (CNC) milling machines and desktop 3D printers. Usually, these places are organised so that users can pay a fee to utilize the equipment and technologies for their own purposes. Very often these places also offer workshops, conferences and seminars in order to help their users learn about the technologies and be constantly engaged with the culture of digital fabrication. Moreover, most of these places focus on the learning process and knowledge sharing in using the technology. In fact, on the website of the Fab Lab Foundation, which is the organisation managing the global Fab Lab network,1 such places are defined as […] «a place to play, to create, to mentor and to invent: a place for learning and innovation. Fab Labs provide access to the environment, the skills, the materials and the advanced technology to allow anyone anywhere to make (almost) anything».2 More generally, the philosophy behind the increment in these spaces devoted to digital fabrication focuses on the «DIY (Do It Yourself) culture with the sharing 1 There

is a widely spread network of fab labs at the global level; in order to be part of that, digital fabrication spaces must satisfy a set of requirements. Although not all the places offering the use of digital fabrication are part of the Fab Lab network, most of them are. 2 https://www.fablabs.io/ (accessed 23 May 2020).

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production?

67

principles and ideology and mixing digital elements with material ones. The makers’ culture is centred on open technology that is accessible to anyone; it is focused on the development of community values and on the production of responses to people’s needs, and aimed in the end at improving society as a whole» (Vicari et al. 2016, p.5). Research on making community shows, however, that in their labs, sharing and the sharing philosophy assume very different forms and grades (Johns and Hall 2020), bringing scholars to question the extent to which sharing, open and social innovation represents a branding strategies rather than a reference to actual practices. In a recent study on a UK-based fab lab, John and Hall identified prevailing norms of competition and individualism within the makers’ practises, instead of sharing and community (Johns and Hall 2020). Acknowledging making as a cultural and economic process (Carr and Gibson 2016), I focus on a particular element of the making practice, namely the ideology and practice of the making of objects, which is understood as very close to crafts: indeed, manufacturing in makerspaces is small, light, on-purpose and tailored, although based on technology. This chapter is organised as follows: the next section discusses the different meanings of the term “innovation”; Sect. 3 explores the narrative of makerspaces as hubs of social innovation; Sect. 4 deals with the relationship between digital fabrication, craft and social embeddedness. Final section reviews the conclusions and addresses the role of makerspaces in local development and the challenges that must be faced.

2 Innovation and Society Many scholars and analysts have dealt with the figure of the entrepreneur, since the beginning of economic, historic and social theory. Among the many analyses, Schumpeter (1912, 1942) offers a portrait able to show the relation between innovation and society at the beginning of modern capitalism. Schumpeter was an economist, trained at the Austrian school, and he was influenced by the historical school of economics, Marxist theories, and the sociological approach (Ramella 2013). Although his main interest was to build a pure economic theory of development, he took into consideration many social and non-economics elements (Trigilia 2002). In his juvenile main work “Theory of the economic development” (Schumpeter 1912) he put entrepreneurial activity at the core of economic development. According to him, «individual acts of entrepreneurship set off wavelike macro changes in the economy that disrupt the circular flow of the steady state» (Becker et al. 2011, p. 16). Innovation is seen as the real nature of capitalism, the process able to make their economies grow and to develop nations. Schumpeter called it a process of creative destruction3 : 3 The

Nietzschean influence was very strong in Schumpeter’s economics and its character the entrepreneur, the instigator of change, with his “will to power” and creative destruction (Reinert and Reinert 2006).

68

M. d’Ovidio

«The fundamental impulse that sets and keeps the capitalist engine in motion comes from the new consumers’ goods, the new methods of production or transportation, the new markets, … [This process] incessantly revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction is the essential fact about capitalism» (Schumpeter 1942, p. 83).’ Creative destruction is a push, a pressure that has to be satisfied through the entrepreneurial activity. In Schumpeter’s view, neither the desire of economic accumulation, nor the satisfaction of needs could explain the entrepreneurial action. Instead, he found two other, very personal, wishes: on the one hand, the desire of having a social position characterised by power and reputation, on the other, the pleasure of creating themselves. Heertje (2006), moreover, claims that Schumpeter’s interpretation of economic growth and development must be also read in terms of welfare economics. Indeed, in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, Schumpeter (1942) argued that economic growth (that is closely connected to innovation) will possibly and hopefully lead to the end of poverty in 50 years. He went on by asserting that «[…] even if we had the means of measuring the change in the technological efficiency of industrial products, this measure would [still] fail to convey an adequate idea of what it means for the dignity or intensity of pleasantness of human life… And this after all is for us the relevant consideration, the true output of capitalist production, the reasons why we are interested in the index of production and the pounds and gallons that enter into it and would hardly be worthwhile in themselves» (Schumpeter 1942, pp. 66–67 quoted in Heertje 2006, p. 109). The figure resulting from the above presentation is that of an entrepreneur with a hybrid character, interested in creating new things and doing it for the pleasure of creating, while, at the same time, conscious that his/her success will contribute to society’s well-being as a whole. Although at the very beginning in Schumpeter’s writings the main agent of creative destruction is the entrepreneur him/herself, later on the firm and even society as a unit is the actor of innovation: «Every social environment has its own ways of filling the entrepreneurial function» (1949, p. 260). Innovation is not an end in itself but is totally at disposal of society. It is only in the 1980s that a real new wave of entrepreneurial attitude emerged, when they bet on diffusion of communication and information technologies (Berta 2004). The new protagonists of the technological scene, embodied by the public figures of Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, built their success on technological innovation. This had its peak at the beginning of the new Millennium, when not only new technologies, but the entire sphere of creativity, culture and, more in general, the intellectual faculties are glorified as the means through which economic success has to be sought after. One of the most influential scholars who shaped massively both ideas and rhetoric around innovation in the new Millennium is Richard Florida. With his theory of the creative class, Florida can be seen, to some extent, as the great copywriter of contemporary capitalism. In his many best-sellers, he tells about a variegated class of talented people who are able to put their ideas into business, and create an economy, jobs and, eventually, wealth for their cities (Florida 2002, 2005, 2008).

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production?

69

According to his perspective, the contemporary, post-Fordist economy is moved by a new class of entrepreneurs, that, literally, can create jobs and revamp the local economy. This class, called the creative class, is a variegated group of highly educated professionals that, as self-employees or entrepreneurs, do not look for jobs, but create their own businesses and eventually offer jobs when they scale up their activities. Examples of professionals of the creative class are architects opening their studios, fashion designers establishing their own label, art dealers and start uppers in general (Florida 2014). The scenario here is completely opposite to that of Schumpeter’s entrepreneur, because societies, now identified especially as urban societies, are facing a deep crisis and need to be sustained. If, in Schumpeter’s times, the economy was booming and the entrepreneur innovated in order to become greater and reach new successful strategies, the Floridian economy is based on a very harsh competition at zero-sum game, where innovation is necessary to succeed. It takes constantly newer innovation that is greater than the innovation of competitors, and if success does not happen, then the entrepreneur succumbs. At the same time, cities are competing to attract the best talents, and, as Florida clearly states, «Those that have the talent win, those that do not lose» (Florida 2005, p. 50). The entrepreneur, represented by the member of the creative class, is totally alone in their race to demonstrate their talent, and the entrepreneurial push is the only possible way to overcome the crisis. Florida’s creative professional has no choices, he/she must respond to the creative imperative, and if not he/she will fail. The creative push is very well summarised in the title itself of McRobbie’s book Be Creative! (2016), where she denounces the many social costs of such an ideology. In this scenario, the individual becomes the engine of the new dynamisms of the whole society, and, as Magatti points out, even the relation between social institutions and the individual is unbalanced towards the latter. The whole technological deployment develops in order to favour the expansion of the space of the individual action (Magatti 2009). Indeed, «starting from the Sixties, capitalism’s core business is to create new opportunities for economic growth, through an increasingly tied combination between the exploitation of resources and the mobilization of the emotional sphere of individuals» (Magatti 2009, p. 126). The neoliberal ideology and the narrative of the creative class have been gaining as much success as disappointment and, paradoxically, the latter has not deteriorated the first one (d’Ovidio and Rodríguez Morató 2017). There has been «[a] profound dissatisfaction with recent directions and outcome of innovation in technology, markets, policy and governance systems, and particularly a sense that benefits of such innovations have not been distributed as generally or as equitably as they should» (Moulaert et al. 2013, p. 1). A very variegated plethora of practices are emerging, and they are labelled as social innovation: they are usually bottom-up practises, aimed at solving social problems and, at the same time, empowering actors, creating social capital, and strengthening local relations. On the “Open book on social innovation”, which has become one of the most relevant carriers of the social innovation rhetoric, although authors seem reluctant towards definitions of social innovation, they claim: «Our interest is in innovations

70

M. d’Ovidio

that are social both in their ends and in their means. Specifically, we define social innovations as new ideas (products, services and models) that simultaneously meet social needs and create new social relationships or collaborations. In other words, they are innovations that are both good for society and enhance society’s capacity to act» (Murray et al. 2010, p. 3). Socially innovative solutions are addressed by the common narrative as the best solution for many problems that society is facing. Similarly, but with a focus on democracy and empowerment, Moulaert and colleagues define social innovation practices as actions «aimed at the (a) satisfaction of social needs that are not adequately met by market and macro-level welfare policies (content dimension), (b) through the transformation of social relations (process dimension), (c) which involves empowerment and socio-political mobilisation (political dimension linking the process and content dimension» (Moulaert et al. 2017, p. 18). The emergence of such bottom-up practises has been also interpreted, within a Polanyan perspective, as the result of a the second part of the double movement: Vicari and Mingione (2017, p. 16) remind us that «The theoretical contribution of Karl Polanyi is centred on the idea that the commodification processes that are the engine of the development of modern industrial societies determine a double movement: on the one hand, modernity, new jobs and consumption opportunities make people free from often oppressive traditional ties but also make them alone; on the other hand, the destruction of the community and its subordination to the market trigger a counter-movement in the search of social protection, in the reconstruction of social ties compatible with the market conditions».4 As is known, Polanyi (1944) developed this concept to interpret the protection mechanism that emerged around the 1930s and which gave rise to the so-called welfare capitalism. Today, the same concept has been applied to explore the emergence of social innovation practices. In particular, the reference to a double movement is to that of a contextual dynamic of destruction (dis-embeddedness) and new construction (re-embeddedness) of social bonds. Looking at the historical overview of the term social innovation, a variety of meanings, orientations and uses emerge (Moulaert et al. 2017). As it happened for the notion of talent and creativity, social innovation, within the context of contemporary capitalism, is also a vague and abused term, often used for branding economicoriented practices: over time, the concept has been increasingly interpreted mainly in economic and market-oriented terms, also within the European policies framework. This vision favours a meaning of social innovation focusing as a way to address social problems «privileging firms as the (key) carriers of social innovation. […] The last feature prioritises the social business over the social movement as a vehicle for SI, thereby unfortunately neglecting the great transformative potential of the latter» (ibid, p. 19). The figure emerging in this context is the social innovator: a resourceful and optimistic hero, with past experiences in creative sectors and in voluntary working, with a strong wish of changing the world. The rhetoric of change, transformation and 4 Translation

from Italian by the author.

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production?

71

revolution is very important in the construction of this figure. (Barbera and Parisi 2019) He/she wants to ameliorate the world, and, in order to do it, he/she transforms this in his/her main professional activity. His/her action is therefore placed within the market, but not driven with a for-profit approach, rather by an ethical push towards the improvement of society.5 Within this framework, innovation is seen as the needed tool for the amelioration and transformation of society, no matter the field of action: social work, high-tech products, new policies, new relations can all be considered part of this world. The structure of the social relations, within which the social innovator moves, is very rich in different types of relations, with a massive presence of communitariantype connections. Community, here, means the setting (mostly territorialised) where innovation is both addressed to and happens. The innovator’s action is directed towards community and legitimated by it. Indeed, legitimation and reputation are two very important elements explaining innovators’ actions (Gandini 2016; Pais 2012): Schumpeter’s entrepreneur is driven by the intent to gain a reputation with his/her innovation (Becker et al. 2011; Heertje 2006; Schumpeter 1942), Florida’s creative professional needs to create to be recognised as such by the market (and therefore succeed), the social innovator needs the community to legitimates his socially innovative strategies (Moulaert et al. 2010).

3 The Discourse Around Makerspaces As Social Innovation Hubs The chapter’s reasoning is built addressing discourses and practices that take place where digital manufacturing is carried out. There, people are involved in making objects with digital fabrication methods and equipment (either as laboratory managers or laboratory users)6 (d’Ovidio and Rabbiosi 2017). These places are workshops where digital manufacturing machines are either used by members who pay a fee to access the workshop or employed in teaching activities.7 A particular discourse is promoted in these places, which resonates very much with the social innovation rhetoric that praises sharing, mutual help, links with local communities and building open knowledge (Chiappini and Anselmi 2017). Work is presented as strongly orientated towards wellbeing and as having social aims; the 5 See,

for instance, the description of social innovators from these influencing webpages: Rena project (https://www.progetto-rena.it/comunita/soci-individuali/–last visit 23/04/2018); Urbact (https://urbact.eu/who-social-innovator–last visit 23/04/2018); https://www.glistatigenerali.com/ innovazione/vi-racconto-chi-sono-e-cosa-fanno-gli-innovatori-sociali/–last visit 23/04/2018); https://www.forbes.com/sites/rahimkanani/2014/02/17/5-brilliant-social-innovators-youve-neverheard-of-until-now/#6feb66ae45d3–last visit 23/04/2018). 6 https://www.fabfoundation.org/index.php/what-is-a-fab-lab/index.html (accessed 2018, April, the 16th); https://makersinquiry.org (accessed 2018, April, the 16th). 7 Digital fabrication is widely spread into manufacturing. Here, we are focusing on fab labs and makerspaces.

72

M. d’Ovidio

sharing of information, knowledge and mutual help are given a central place and are particularly emphasised. (Re)Building a meaning for innovation, the making becomes the connection as claimed in a very successful book (Gauntlett 2011), and spaces for making are interpreted as hubs where interaction takes place, where people exchange ideas and, also, where social cohesion is built. The idealisation of the makerspace goes hand in hand with the idea of celebrating manual production and the variegated world of crafts, understood first and foremost as a way of life (Carr and Gibson 2016). Indeed, in recent years, craftsmanship has experienced a substantial rediscovery both as an economic and commercial industry (Micelli 2011) and as a new way of life centred on sociality, communication and the gratification connected to handmade creation (Gauntlett 2011). Craftsmanship represents the economy of signs in space that characterizes the post-modern era: an extremely fluid, global economy yet maintaining a special relation with the place where products are created (Lash and Urry 1993). Craftsmanship is understood and presented as a local, human, and sustainable alternative to large-scale manufacturing production (Mazzucotelli Salice et al. 2012; Fox Miller 2017). There are many reasons leading us to observe the artisans’ work with renewed interest: the need for cooperation, the importance of innovation through open knowledge, and the need to do things with your own hands and brain. All these activities take place inside the artisan workshop (Sennett 2008). The renewed appeal of the artisan workshop also derives from the imagination of a place where, despite hierarchical working relationships, work is centred both on human relationships and on the perfect integration between life and work (Banks 2010). Gauntlet (2011) goes even further in building a celebratory narrative of the world that revolves around the making, arguing that the very same process of building something with one’s own hands allows the builder to connect with other people. From this perspective, we would be facing a real transition from a society dominated by a professional elite of producers, to a society in which more and more people are involved in the productive process. This occurs both because of the renewed attention to craftsmanship but also because of the growing diffusion of digital manufacturing (3D printers, laser-cutters and others), widening practices of sharing spaces and knowledge, creating and sharing through new communication technologies, and so on. Within this dynamic, the artisan workshop is the main place of making and consequently of social connection. Jakob and Thomas point out that «[t]he more technology, mass-production and mass-consumption takes people away from tangible experiences, the more crafts and craft communities are galvanized due to their physical and psychological comforts» (2017, p. 501). Interestingly, the technology around digital fabrication has always been presented as bearing human and positive values, as an ethically good technology, with emphasis on the possibilities open by this technology in the biotech sector (organs and prosthetic limbs have been printed and successfully implanted on people), in enhancing social cohesion and opening new possibilities for a better future for all. The discourse around digital manufacturing, and the possibilities it opens, revolves also around a vision of the new urban economy based on small-scale and locally-based

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production?

73

manufacturing, organised in small clean plants, aiming at the local needs, with all positive consequences in terms of occupation and environmental sustainability (the famous Obama speech in 2013 about 3D printing addressed such issues). Moreover, this technology is cheap, small, easily replicable and, especially in the first wave of its distribution, open source.8 Indeed, in the rhetoric and discourse on making, the concept of technological innovation takes on a (partially) new meaning, overlapping the semantic area of social innovation. It is characterized by a positive, progressive meaning related to empowerment of people and democracy. Making means, in recurrent rhetoric, the practice of reconnection with the local reality, of engagement with the community, opening the process of building knowledge often in contraposition with the dominant logic of concentration of economic, cultural, and political power. Stretching forward the above mentioned Polanyan understanding of social innovation, one can interpret such semantic process as a sign of a double movement in relation to technological innovation and, in general, the process of producing objects. In what we might call the first part of the movement, the industrial revolution and the mechanisation of production offered new opportunities for work and consumption, leading to what we understood as modernisation and the contemporary industrial society. However, it subordinates manufacturing, innovation, and technology to the market sphere, to progressive commodification and exploitation of technology and to a loss of control by people of productive processes, therefore to a dis-embedding of most of the productive processes. The growing interest towards local production, the emergence of crafts and craft production, and the positive values associated with digital manufacturing technology represent, in this view, a way that society uses to take back control over production, technology and innovation. This is what has been understood as a countermovement of reconstruction of social bonds, and of re-insertion (re-embeddedness) of innovation in the community.9 Values of social cohesion, justice and equity, are compatible with that fringe of the market, now expanding, which shares the same ethical principles (Arvidsson and Peitersen 2013): a varied multitude of practices increasingly emerges and they, while being inserted into the market, are self-narrating as not for-profit, acting with and for the community, and driven by an ethical impulse (Arcidiacono 2017). Within the makerspaces, the emergence of a production of shared and open knowledge takes place primarily in large urban centres (Di Vita 2017; d’Ovidio and Rabbiosi 2017), which are able to concentrate actors, skills, competences and sharing practices: hackers, coworkers, makers, subjects involved in social and innovative social projects are all crucial actors in this arena, as they are carriers not only 8 2004 was the year of initiating the RepRap Project, which consists of a self-replicating 3D printer.

Yes, it is possible to 3D print a 3D printer. This open-source project led to the spreading of the FDM 3D desktop 3D printers, and of the popularity of the technology in the makers community. (https:// www.sculpteo.com/en/3d-learning-hub/basics-of-3d-printing/the-history-of-3d-printing/). 9 An analogous prospective has been applied, successfully, to all the practices that go under the name of sharing economy (Pais and Provasi 2015).

74

M. d’Ovidio

of unprecedented practices, but also of instances and innovative ethics devoted to social change. In the following pages, the chapter discusses to what extent the process of production is re-embedded in makerspaces and to what extent craft and digital fabrication are connected.

4 Crafts and Making: Makerspaces as Digital Craft Workshops Makerspaces are addressed as places where production can be reconnected to the local community, and, ideologically, can be seen closer to craft workshops rather than to industrial production sites. In order to understand to what extent this happens in the practice of makerspaces, not only in the discourse around them, we can refer to the debate that looks at the relations between machines and human labour. If one looks at the Fab Lab global network map,10 it emerges that fab labs are spreading almost everywhere (Manzo and Ramella 2015; Armondi and Bruzzese 2017; Armondi and Di Vita 2017), not only in global, creative, and advanced sites, but also, and more importantly for the reasoning of this chapter, they have become concentrated in areas with a strong industrial character such as, for instance, industrial districts. This is explained by the strong links that can be created between makerspaces and the local working environment; this relation means also that in makerspaces local competences, skills and know-how are expressed, used, valorised and channelled into global fluxes. Following this line of thought, Manzo and Ramella (2015) demonstrate that in the case of Italian industrial districts, makerspaces are indeed able to connect local resources with global networks: their configuration is that of a local environment, where people concentrate and interact face-to-face. However, these places are also global hubs, connecting local users, to a wider international community made by labs and teams sharing ideas, values, practices and attitude. Moreover, digital manufacturing is said to have the potential to valorise local knowledge in terms of skills and competences, especially, but not exclusively, in those contexts where the economy is still based on manufacturing (particularly a craft-based economy). Not only do makers expose local traditions to global fluxes, but they also can valorise such manual skills, transferring part of the knowledge to other, new, and competitive contexts. Increasingly, the use of the term digital artisan seems to mean exactly the convergence of these two worlds (Micelli 2016). The debate about labour and skills is far from being new, and its origins reflect upon the relation between human and machine labour. In its modern version, the debate draws on Gorz’s and Braverman’s thoughts (Braverman 1974; Gorz 1988). The debate has been focusing on the question of whether machines could be able to perform every kind of activity, and whether this could mean the substitution of the 10 https://www.fabfoundation.org/index.php/fab-labs/index.html.

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production?

75

human skilled worker by the machine, bringing about the end of work (in both positive and negative terms). The technological progress made within artificial intelligence and automation technology applied to manufacturing gave the debate new fuel. The debate is very wide and rich, and it offers positions celebrating automation and the consequent end of work as a liberation. Other views argue about the responsibility of actions made by machines, while other visions warn of a dark future where thousands of jobs are lost, and societies are dominated by machines (and by the mega private companies or conglomerates who own them). Notably, Frey and Osborne (2017) estimated that almost half of the actual jobs would disappear in the United States in the next years because of automation. More nuanced opinions suggest the need of a collaboration between humans and machines. A (little) portion of this huge debate focuses on digital fabrication technology (which represents a minor segment, and surely not the newest one, of the technological progress in manufacturing) and it reflects upon the idea that machines can even substitute the work performed by crafts people, something that before was hardly imaginable. Indeed, one of the very peculiar elements of the craft industry is that it embodies local history and tradition, while also being able to grasp the most advanced innovations. Today, artisans are on the frontier of the digitisation of manufacturing: using, experimenting and upgrading the digital manufacturing industry (d’Ovidio and Rabbiosi 2017; Luckman 2015). Other approaches, on the contrary, claim that, within a crafted digital manufacturing sector, machines can be used to valorise human labour to improve (in quantitative and qualitative terms) human contributions to society. In terms of reembedding technology into society, it is worth noting that in makerspaces, borders between digital designing and physical production of goods are increasingly blurred and machines interact with human skills in making physical objects. The debate about how makers can intersect the community know-how with new technologies assumes a twofold line of thought (Hielscher and Smith 2014): firstly, scholars research whether manual skill is actually needed within digital fabrication, and, if not, whether the introduction of digital fabrication to a community leads to the vanishing of local manual skill (therefore increasing the process of dis-embedding). Secondly, analyses are used to understand the extent to which human competencies are needed: digital fabrication could, on the one side, reduce the need of traditional manual competences (deskilling of the local labour force), but on the other it could require new competences (reskilling the local community). On the first line, the first edge of the debate is dominated by the vision brought about by Rifkin: he claims that digital fabrication allows the complete and definitive substitution of the every manual competence and craft skill, while still keeping the characteristic of authenticity and customisation of the old craft production (Rifkin 1995). At the opposite side, Sennett claims the crucial position that the craftsman occupies, also in the post-fordist economy, where their competence is not only impossible to replace, but also provides extremely important added value (Sennett 2008). Within the specific realm of digital fabrication, Ree’s works are particularly interesting, as they test the necessity (or, on the contrary, the redundancy) of artisan competencies in makerspaces (Ree 2011). He and his colleagues performed a series

76

M. d’Ovidio

of empirical research projects on skill and competence in makerspaces during workshops, laboratories, and learning sessions (Ratto and Ree 2012; Ree 2011). Ree (2011) realises that, remarkably in the educational sessions, there is a particular attention in the teaching and learning of manual competences, interpreting it as a signal that these elements are still very important. This depends largely on the persistency of improvisation and experimentation (that are typical of a craftsperson’s work) both in the designing of the object and, in particular, the post-production phase. For example, in order to design a project for a 3D printed object, we have to be extremely aware of the whole productive process in order to be able to choose dimensions, shape, and the material to be used (all competences that often are learned by touching and literally “analysing” the object by feeling it). Once printed, the object usually needs to be refined manually. Ree and colleagues conclude that, even in order to 3D-print an object, one needs a significant amount of “skilful human authorship”, since, “3D printers don’t make things; people do” (Ree 2011, p. 60). Also, other researches stress the importance of the combination between manual and human intervention when making an object. For instance, in Luckman’s research on craftspeople in Australia, she collected a large number of experiences of craftspeople working with digital manufacturing and this led her to conclude that creating an object, manual competences, typical of craftsperson, are essential in every stage: from the design to the actual making (even if using a laser cutter or a 3D printer) and from the choice of material to the finishing touches (Luckman 2015). Sennett’s reasoned that a whole set of competences is needed: creativity, sensibility, a particular world vision and so on (2008). All these aptitudes that emerge from the local community have now become crucial also in the contemporary economy of signs and spaces (Lash and Urry 1994). The second line of the debate deals with the content of the skills required for the work. One position claims that digital manufacturing encourages the once-passive consumer to become active in the productive process and, with that aim, to learn new competences. Following this line of thought, we can say that digital manufacturing supports a reskilling of society, transforming consumers into active makers (with new competences). This is the position taken by Gauntlett, who, in his book Making is Connecting (2011) acclaims the practice of creating things. The opposite position is taken by those who see digital fabrication as a deskilling process, in particular within the artisanal worlds that are still necessary, but tend to be increasingly poor and without specific knowledge. This is caused by the same process celebrated by Gauntlett (2011): since everyone can be a producer (a maker), the needed competences must be simpler and simpler. Wood and his colleague (Wood et al. 2009; Wood and Rust 2003) developed a series of empirical analyses in order to test such hypotheses and found out that manual competences are certainly necessary, but motivation and commitment must also be learnt, because sometimes they are complex and deep training is required. Therefore, they found out that the process involves more reskilling than deskilling, and, in particular, the manual skills of craftsmen tend to be renewed and transferred to new generation in a new environment, thus making digital manufacturing a tool used to keep such knowledge alive.

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production?

77

5 Conclusions: The Many Challenges of Makerspaces In 1944, Polanyi wrote The Great Transformation where he assumed that a system based on competition and individualisation is incompatible with any sort of social relations and leads eventually to the disruption of society itself (Polanyi 1944). He also identified embeddedness of some elements of the market in society as the antidote for these apparently paradoxical dynamics. In this chapter, we traced a trend that, to some extents, is similar to the one identified by Polanyi. Innovation was, at the beginning of modern capitalism, led by the individual action of the entrepreneur who created for his pleasure, his reputation and, more importantly, for the wellbeing of society. Then, in be-creative-capitalism, innovation is totally individualised and directed to the personal success of the creative professional and a tool needed for competition. Finally, thanks to the social innovator, innovation is re-embedded in society through local communities. We also saw that in makerspaces not only innovation takes on a different meaning, but also the process itself of making things seems to be reincorporated into society: in makerspaces, the technology used to make things is understood as closer to craft than to industrial process. The ideology around the making practice is very strong and imbued by all the main elements of contemporary social innovation: a mixture of community, entrepreneurship, positive value and societal change, very typical of the current trend of capitalism. The economies that develop in makerspaces tend to be very entrepreneurial, although infused by rhetoric, which is so strong that makers believe in it, independently by their practices. Almost all the empirical researchers into digital fabrication identified economic sustainability as the main challenge for makerspaces. According to Johns and Hall (2020), economic sustainability has to be sought after in a (business) model that is able to respond both to entrepreneurial and sharing values; both to the making and to the sharing. On a different line of thinking, Carr and Gibson (2016) claim that economic sustainability must be sought away from capitalism and profit making. This has important consequences for the role of makerspaces on local development and their contribution to society. Even in cases, or particularly, where the rhetoric of social innovation matches up with the practices, fragile economic sustainability and the difficult of scaling up make makerspaces’ practical contributions to society very scarce, limited and uncertain. Makerspaces seems to be isolated cases in the urban economy, maybe more important for their contribution to the culture around making rather than for the actual economic practices. Nonetheless, makers, in our view, bear the challenge to keep being social innovators, being loyal to their referenced community and to their values. Makerspaces contribute to the spreading of a kind of discourse and this can be as important as their actual role in local development. Therefore, institutions and local urban governments are facing probably the hardest challenges of sustaining makerspaces and their practices: they should be able to empower communities and social innovators in order to make innovation available, sharable and transformative. They should believe in the communities, but, at the same time, they should watch and monitor the communities themselves and make them as

78

M. d’Ovidio

open as possible, and as horizontal and inclusive as possible. Of course, in order to do that, local governments should also be able to accept innovation themselves.

References Aghion P, Howitt P (1990) A model of growth through creative destruction. National Bureau of Economic Research Arcidiacono D (2017) Economia collaborativa e startup: forme alternative di scambio economico o mito della disintermediazione? Quaderni Di Sociologia 73:29–47. https://doi.org/10.4000/qds. 1656 Armondi S, Bruzzese A (2017) Contemporary production and urban change: the case of Milan. J Urban Technol 24(3):27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311567 Armondi S, Di Vita S (2017) Contemporary production, innovative workplaces, and urban space: projects and policies. J Urban Technol 24(3):1–3. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.134 8873 Arvidsson A, Peitersen N (2013) The ethical economy: rebuilding value after the crisis. Columbia University Press, New York Banks M (2010) Craft labour and creative industries. Int J Cult Policy 16(3):305–321. https://doi. org/10.1080/10286630903055885 Barbera F, Parisi T (2019) Innovatori sociali. La sindrome di Prometeo nell’Italia che cambia. Il Mulino, Bologna Becker MC, Swedberg R, Knudsen T (eds) (2011) The entrepreneur: classic texts by Joseph A. Schumpeter. Stanford Business Books, Redwood City Berta G (2004) L’imprenditore: un enigma tra economia e storia. Marsilio, Venezia Braverman H (1974) Labor and monopoly capital: The degradation of work in the twentieth century. Monthly Review Carr C, Gibson C (2016) Geographies of making: rethinking materials and skills for volatile futures. Prog Hum Geogr 40(3):297–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132515578775 Chiappini L, Anselmi G (2017) L’imprenditorialità diffusa del movimento maker: Tra fiducia e reputazione. In: d’Ovidio M, Rabbiosi C (eds.) Maker e città. La rivoluzione si fa con la stampante 3d? Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milano Di Vita S (2017) I laboratori maker di Milano. Quali politiche pubbliche? In: d’Ovidio M, Rabbiosi C (eds.) Maker e città. La rivoluzione si fa con la stampante 3d? Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milano d’Ovidio M, Rabbiosi C (eds) (2017) Maker e città. La rivoluzione si fa con la stampante 3d? Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milano d’Ovidio M, Rodríguez Morató A (2017) Introduction to SI: against the creative city. Activism in the creative city: when cultural workers fight against creative city policy. City Cult Soc 8:3–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.01.001 Florida RL (2002) The rise of the creative class: and how it’s transforming work, leisure, community and everyday life. Basic Books, New York Florida RL (2005) Cities and the creative class. Routledge, London Florida RL (2008) Who’s your city?: how the creative economy is making where to live the most important decision of your life. Basic Books, New York, NY Florida RL (2014) Startup city: the urban shift in venture capital and high technology. Martin Prosperity Institute Fox Miller C (2017) The contemporary geographies of craft-based manufacturing. Geogr Compass 11(4):e12311. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12311

(Social) Innovation in Makerspaces: Re-embeddedness of Physical Production?

79

Frey CB, Osborne MA (2017) The future of employment: how susceptible are jobs to computerisation? Technol Forecast Soc Chang 114:254–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016. 08.019 Gandini A (2016) Reputation economy: understanding knowledge work in digital society. Palgrave Macmillan, London Gauntlett D (2011) Making is connecting: the social meaning of creativity, from DIY and knitting to YouTube and Web 2.0. Polity Press Gershenfeld N (2008) Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop—from personal computers to personal fabrication. Basic Books, New York, NY Gorz A (1988) Metamorphoses du travail: Quete du sens : critique de la raison economique. Galilée, Paris Heertje A (2006) Schumpeter on the economics of innovation and the development of capitalism. Elgar, Cheltenham Hielscher S, Smith AG (2014) Community-based digital fabrication workshops: a review of the research literature. (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2742121). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2742121 Jakob D, Thomas NJ (2017) Firing up craft capital: the renaissance of craft and craft policy in the United Kingdom. Int J Cult Policy 23(4):495–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/10286632.2015.106 8765 Johns J, Hall SM (2020) ‘I have so little time […] I got shit I need to do’: critical perspectives on making and sharing in Manchester’s FabLab. Environ Plan A. https://doi.org/10.1177/030851 8X19897918 Lash S, Urry J (1993) Economies of signs and space. In: Theory, Culture & Society. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks Lash S, Urry J (1994) Economies of signs and space. Sage, Thousand Oaks Luckman S (2015) Craft and the creative economy. Palgrave Macmillan Magatti M (2009) Libertà immaginaria. Le illusioni del capitalismo tecno-nichilista. Feltrinelli, Milano Manzo C, Ramella F (2015) Fab labs in Italy: collective goods in the sharing economy. Stato E Mercato 3:379–418. https://doi.org/10.1425/81605 Mazzucotelli Salice S, Medicina I, Cologni F, dei Mestieri d’Arte., & Scuola Cova. (2012) Maestri del fare: Indagine socio-economica sulla domanda di mestieri d’arte a Milano. Marsilio, Venezia McRobbie A (2016) Be creative: making a living in the new culture industries. Polity Press, Cambridge Micelli S (2011) Futuro artigiano: L’innovazione nelle mani degli italiani. Marsilio, Venezia Micelli S (2016) Fare è innovare: Il nuovo lavoro artigiano. Il Mulino, Bologna Moulaert F, MacCallum D, Mehmood A, Hamdouch A (eds) (2013) The international handbook on social innovation: Collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham Moulaert F, Martinelli F, Swyngedouw E, Gonzalez S (eds) (2010) Can neighbourhoods save the city? community development and social innovation. Routledge, London Moulaert F, Mehmood A, MacCallum D, Leubolt B (eds) (2017) Social innovation as a trigger for transformations: the role of research. European Union, Directorate-General for Research and Innovation. https://doi.org/10.2777/68949 Murray R, Caulier-Grice J, Mulgan G (2010) The open book of social innovation. Young Foundation/NESTA, London Pais I (2012) La rete che lavora: Mestieri e professioni nell’era digitale. EGEA, Milano Pais I, Provasi G (2015) Sharing economy: a step towards the re-embeddedness of the economy? Stato e Mercato XXXV(105):347–377. https://doi.org/10.1425/81604 Polanyi K (1944) The great transformation. The political and economic origins of our time, 2nd edn 2001. Beacon Press, Boston Ramella F (2013) Sociologia dell’innovazione economica. Il Mulino, Bologna

80

M. d’Ovidio

Ratto M, Ree R (2012) Materializing information: 3D printing and social change. First Monday 17(7). https://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3968 Ree R (2011) 3D printing: convergences, frictions, fluidity. Master Thesis, Toronto, University of Toronto. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/handle/1807/31404 Reinert H, Reinert ES (2006) Creative destruction in economics: Nietzsche, Sombart, Schumpeter. In: Backhaus J, Drechsler W (eds), Friedrich Nietzsche (pp. 1844–1900): Economy and Society (pp. 55–85). Springer, Berlin Rifkin J (1995) The end of work: the decline of the global labor force and the dawn of the post-market era. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York Schumpeter J (1912) Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklung, Berlin, Duncker & Humblot, Trad.it 1971 Teoria dello sviluppo economico. Sansoni, Firenze Schumpeter J (1942) Capitalism, socialism and democracy, New York, Harper, trad. It 1977 Capitalismo Socialismo e Democrazia. Etas Kompass, Milano Sennett R (2008) The craftsman. Yale University Press, London Trigilia C (2002) Sociologia economica: Stato, mercato e società nel capitalismo moderno. Il mulino, Bologna Vicari Haddock S, Mingione E (2017) Innovazione sociale e città. Sociologia Urbana e Rurale Vicari S, Colleoni E, d’Ovidio M (2016) Makers. The making of the human city. Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli, Milano Wood N, Rust C (2003) Designing for tacit learning: an investigation of design strategies for multimedia supported learning in the crafts. In: Proceedings of 5th European Academy of Design Conference, Barcelona. https://shura.shu.ac.uk/958/ Wood N, Rust C, Horne G (2009) A Tacit understanding: the designer’s role in capturing and passing on the skilled knowledge of master craftsmen. Int J Des 3(3). https://www.ijdesign.org/ojs/index. php/IJDesign/article/view/559/275

Places

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” of Greater Seattle’s Coworking Facilities Yonn Dierwechter

Abstract Developing the wider themes set out for this book, the discussion here provides an empirical investigation of coworking facilities across the entire Seattle city-region, using the regional geographies concept to situate the spatialities and functionalities of specific facilities in specific places shaped by extant policies and development goals. After a brief overview of Seattle’s emerging knowledgesharing economy, the chapter explores the recent rise of coworking spaces by type of human settlement, analysing similarities and differences in their forms, land use patterns, and local functional synergies (e.g. adaptive reuses, adjacency/isolation, auto-dependency, mass transit access, and mixed use). It is the first study of this kind on Seattle, and one of the few studies anywhere that explores explicitly the metropolitan geographies of coworking facilities (Mariotti et al. J Urban Technol 24:47–66, 2017).

1 Introduction Anchored by the high-tech city of Seattle and increasingly the Amazon corporation— the nearly one trillion-dollar e-commerce giant—the Greater Seattle city-region spreads across a consolidated statistical area of 4.13 million people, 75 municipalities, four counties, two port authorities, and numerous Native American (tribal) nations. The wider city-region, like most city-regions, thus includes a diverse range of human settlement types—from metropolitan cities (like Seattle) to large and smaller suburban communities (like Redmond) as well as numerous “unincorporated/exurban” zones, and more rural or “quasi-rural” communities (Fig. 1). Taken together, these diverse yet still functionally interconnected places—big cities, Edge Cities, residential suburbs, small towns, rural zones—constitute what planners and public officials call the “regional geographies” of the central Puget Sound Y. Dierwechter (B) University of Washington, School of Urban Studies, Tacoma, Washington, DC, USA e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_6

83

84

Y. Dierwechter

Fig. 1 Greater Seattle’s “regional geographies” of growth. Source Author’s elaboration

metropolitan area within the Washington state (Puget Sound Regional Council 2019, p. 19). Indeed, this core theoretical concept is how local and regional officials both normatively imagine and pragmatically organize spatial planning, transport, environmental, and economic development policies.

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

85

In terms of key research questions, the chapter considers where and in what ways coworking spaces have emerged in situ across the Seattle city-region. What variegated urban forms do they take? How do they help to shape surrounding neighbourhoods and places—and how do these neighbourhoods and places in turn shape these new facilities, if they do? Finally, what are the potential implications of these emerging economic development and workplace patterns for local and city-regional development policies? The main focus of this discussion, then, is on how these new developments are situated by spatial planning regimes in ways that directly influence diverse forms of neighbourhood change.

2 From “Knowledge” To “Sharing” To “Coworking”: Seattle’s New Economies Coworking spaces are part of a new knowledge economy of sharing. References to the “knowledge economy” per se are not new, particularly when linked to technology transitions. Japanese policy makers, for example, explored the growing reality of their own knowledge economy in the early 1970s, linking it to the diffusion of computer systems, novel software protocols, and the subsequent rise of what they actually called at that time the “new information society” (Gotlieb 1974, p. 3). Since the 1980s and early 1990s, however, work on knowledge economies has utterly exploded (Godin 2006). The rise of “knowledge” in value chains—facts, information, and skills acquired through experience, training, and education, i.e. intellectual capital—reflects steady shifts from Fordist (mass production) to post-Fordist (flexible-specialized niche) economies, although knowledge is always involved in economic activity. Within Western Europe and North America, Bob Jessop and others see “Atlantic Fordism” as restructured by changing knowledge (Jessop 2004). This has involved the growing importance of cognitive-symbolic-creative values in the actual service economy—with the attendant growth of service industries more generally (notably, professional and business services). But the shift has also involved new uses for information technologies and creative knowledge or intellectual capital as inputs into ongoing processes of material fabrication, i.e. manufacturing. Knowledge-economy workers are not simply creating and selling non-material services to one another; they are (sometimes) creating and selling things, meaning that the spatialities and functionalities of the knowledge economy are far more diverse than might be supposed (Carayannis et al. 2008). They involve people that work and innovate with their hands as well as their minds (Scott 2014; Grodach et al. 2017). These ideas are important when situating the “sharing economy” across Greater Seattle, a dynamic global city-region in the Pacific Northwest of the United States whose overall space-economy has been shaped by one of the world’s most important large high-tech manufacturing firms: Boeing.

86

Y. Dierwechter

Although less dependent on Boeing than it once was, Boeing has decisively influenced Seattle’s overall “hub-and-spoke” industrial structure, defined by Gray et al. (1996), p. 653 as a high-growth economic region wherein, major export-oriented industries are dominated by one or a limited number of large, vertically integrated firms or non-profit institutions that form its “hub” or nucleus. Non-profit hubs might include a university, a medical centre or a port authority with a major role in structuring economic activity through spin-offs or management of a particular activity such as trade or research. The hub [thus] generates the second tier of companies that constitute, metaphorically, the spokes radiating from it. Shaped by a ‘boom and bust’ rhythm of development, Seattle nonetheless has typically retained “displaced engineers […] committed to the region” (p. 653). Upon its “Boeing Base”, Seattle has successfully built up new economic competences and value chains in the latter twentieth century in desktop software, gaming, life sciences, cloud computing, interactive media, cyber security, and, of course, Internet commerce (Prosperity Partnership 2012). The economic region as a whole has taken evolutionary advantage of extant pools of high-tech labour, as well as a perceived high quality of life and a major research university with substantial federal grant activity. Dipping to under 500,000 people in 1980—just another shrinking city—Seattle approached 750,000 in 2020, adding a new company, Amazon, along the way. Before Amazon, Heikke Mayer (2013) shows in her work on “spin-off firms” across the wider Seattle city-region that Microsoft, another key “hub”, facilitated an “entrepreneurial ecology” characterized by “knowledge spillovers” and “regional branching” and new “spokes” in the economy which ultimately helped the metropolitan area to grow again and also to diversity (p. 1711). Key industrial clusters oriented towards national and global export markets—i.e. the base economy in export-base theories of development—now include aerospace, business services, clean technology, ICT, life sciences and global health services, military and defence contracting, maritime production, and transport and logistics, as well as cultural tourism—each of which has comparatively high locational quotients (LQs) (Puget Sound Regional Council 2017). “Creative” occupations that cross-pollinate these export-oriented industrial sectors are therefore prominent. For example, by 2010 Seattle’s local-to-national LQ for “technical writers” was 2.43; it was 1.82 for “Commercial and Industrial Designers” (WEstaff 2010)1 . The fastest-growing occupations in the city-region over the past several years have been software developers (LQ = 5.60) and computer programmers (LQ = 3.70), who collectively earn on average about US$60/hour (Puget Sound Regional Council 2017). 1 In

this case, local-to-national location quotients (LQ) provide the ratio of the Seattle region’s concentration of occupational employment to the national average concentration. A location quotient greater than 1.0 indicates the occupation has a higher share of employment than the national average. See https://www.bls.gov/regions/west/news-release/2016/occupationalemploymentandwa ges_seattle_20160707.htm

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

87

For the last 10 years, the technological development of the Seattle city-region also has been characterized by the sharing turn in the American economy. Originating in the high-tech start-up world of San Francisco in 2005, albeit with “hackerspace” antecedents in European cities like Berlin, coworking spaces are an important part of a wider set of structural changes in both labour practices and workplaces that are usually associated with the sharing economy, which is sometimes defined more generally as novel forms of “collaborative consumption” (Hamari et al. 2016) and/or “redistributive markets” (Bruno and Faggini 2017). According to Botsman and Rogers (2010), sharing economies include at least three key types of distinct activities: product-services (like Uber and Lyft), redistribution markets (like bike or clothing swaps), and, finally and most importantly for this chapter, collaborative lifestyles of creative work (deliberately engendered by the nature of coworking spaces). That said, the functional and material “boundaries” of coworking spaces—even their core purposes—remain hotly debated as cities head into the 2020s. Yet as Spinuzzi (2012) noted thereafter, “people do seem to agree that some sort of service called coworking exists” (p. 400). Waters-Linch et al. (2016) suggest that coworking spaces are similar to, but also functionally distinctive from, makerspaces/fab labs/fab spaces, which focus more on “play and discovery” rather than “learning and collaboration” per se (see also, Pacchi 2018). Yet combinations also occur. The merger of coworking spaces and incubators (Uda 2013) have recently prompted some researchers to suggest we might deploy more synoptic terms like “open creative labs” (Schmidt and Brinks 2017) which subsume collaborative, community-based, alternative forms of work into a wider post-Fordist development pattern that is more than a just collection of what Oldenberg (1989) first called “third spaces” beyond home (first space) and work (second place). Taken together, as Capdevila (2013) notes, these involve localized spaces of collaborative innovation, where knowledge communities work. At a minimum, coworking spaces allow often atomized, individual, freelance workers (with valuable ideas) to share office services and pool common infrastructure needs, reducing their costs. Far more ambitiously conceived, however, coworking spaces are not just “spaces for rent” or even “working alone, together” (Spinuzzi 2012); they are specific kinds of places that intentionally promote reflexive, peer-to-peer values like openness, community, sustainability, and/or curated forms of collaboration, particularly in similar industries (Gandini 2016). From this more romantic perspective, coworking spaces are, in theory, increasingly central to the performance of “learning regions” (James 2011), “smart cities” (Foth et al. 2016), and/or what Brown (2017), p. 112, calls the hypothesized “spaces of opportune encounter, open knowledge sharing and spontaneous collaboration.” As such, some researchers see the rise of coworking spaces as an important part of how the larger sharing economy—and especially peer-to-peer platforms and marketplaces that are facilitated by new digital infrastructures of communication (e.g. ebay, Craigslist, Uber, AirBnB, and Zipcar)—might “advance sustainability”, while other observers see these same (under-regulated) spaces as “neoliberalism on steroids”

88

Y. Dierwechter

because “they commercialize aspects of life previously beyond the reach of the market” (Martin 2016), pp. 149–150. Definitional debates like these reflect a series of theoretical, normative, and disciplinary differences to the coworking phenomenon as a whole. Two researchers—an economist and a sociologist, for example—can look at the thing but see two different realities, suggesting narrative frames constitute as much as explain reality. However, in my judgement, interpretive differences also reflect actually-existing empirical diversity on the ground—in different cities, at different times, with different political-economies shaped by distinctive labour geographies and institutional pathdependencies of urban (re)development. Put another way, coworking spaces vary in very important ways within and across metropolitan space-economies, “differing radically in ambience, amenities, location, and clientele” (Spinuzzi 2012, p. 400). Some coworking spaces in some locations might be fairly characterized as spaces of “openness, community, and sustainability”, while many other spaces—in the same region—might fall short of these types of ideal outcomes. Context matters. Design matters. Situation matters. Yet, as the editors observe in their introduction, surprisingly little research has explored coworking spaces outside of core zones in “global cities” like San Francisco, Milan, Berlin, New York, or Barcelona, a point also recently underscored by Jamal (2018). In consequence, Hindriks (2017) argues for more research on coworking in “non-core areas,” including second-tier cities and peripheral areas of metropolitan regions. I now take this last point up here, exploring and situating a range of coworking spaces across Greater Seattle, where 103 cases are mapped and analysed. The empirical focus is not only metropolitan cities (Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Everett, and Bremerton), but also large and smaller suburban communities, unincorporated/exurban zones, and more rural or “quasi-rural” communities.

3 “Situating” Greater Seattle’s Coworking Facilities Through Regional Geographies There are multiple ways to situate—to map—the new geographies of coworking facilities in the Seattle city-region. In this section, I deploy a locally-curated spatial planning concept—“regional geographies”—to organize the empirical discussion that follows. While the wider Seattle city-region—or the Puget Sound Region as it is usually called—is more meaningful as an economic and ecological territory than a political and legal jurisdiction (Klingle 2007), urban planners and local elected officials have worked hard, for many decades now, to consolidate and operationalize a regional planning vision capable of productively managing the contradictions, tensions, and opportunities unevenly occasioned by post-Fordist regimes of accumulation (Dierwechter 2008, 2013).

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

89

The contemporary Seattle city-region of over four million people is the geohistorical conurbation of the original the 19th century cities of Seattle (c. 750,000) and Tacoma (c. 220,000). Once (and still) economic and cultural rivals, much like Milan and Turin or San Francisco and Oakland, respectively, these two incorporated municipalities are nonetheless part of a wider economic web that includes other major employment hubs, i.e. Redmond (the campus home of Microsoft) and Bellevue and Renton, both Edge Cities. Bellevue, for instance, is today the second largest employment hub in the entire state of Washington, considerably outpacing the older and ostensibly more urban Tacoma. Problems of low-density sprawl, environmental pollution, economic segregation, and traffic congestion—i.e. problems of urban growth management (Dierwechter 2008)—led to the institutional strengthening of regional spatial planning policies in the 1990s, championed mostly by the reconstituted Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), a federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organisation (MPO)2 . At a time when the city of Seattle was pioneering urban sustainability (City of Seattle 1994), the metropolitan region as a whole steadily adopted various “theories of practice” (Gunder et al. 2017) associated with, inter alia, smart growth, compact cities, New Urbanism, growth boundaries, and transit-oriented development (Drewel 2011). The locally curated portmanteau for all these theories of planning has been the integrating model of “regional geographies”. In brief, this model allocates specific numeric shares of growth (i.e. people and jobs, known euphemistically as “activity units”) in order to support an overall development pattern that minimizes environmental damage and maximizes compactness. “Geographies” are thus defined by the idea that “different types of cities and unincorporated areas will [and should] play distinct roles in the region’s future based on regional centres, access to high-capacity transit, and future planning” (Puget Sound Regional Council 2019, p. 26). Figure 2 illustrates PSRC’s theoretical job allocations to 2050, by type of regional geography. As an attempt to curtail low-density sprawl, job growth is—in principle— almost entirely shut down for rural and unincorporated areas. Instead, the region’s five “metropolitan cities” (Seattle, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, and Bremerton) are slated to take 44% of the region’s total job share, while an additional 35% of job growth is allocated to sixteen “core” cities (Auburn, Bothell, Burien, Federal Way, Issaquah, Kent, Kirkland, Lakewood, Lynnwood, Puyallup, Redmond, Renton, SeaTac, Silverdale, Tukwila, and University Place). The remainder of future job growth will mostly go to thirty-two “high-capacity transit communities”, including many (like Fife, near Tacoma) which are still largely “suburban” in form and function (Puget Sound Regional Council 2019). 2 According to the US Federal Transit Agency, “a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is the

policy board of an organization created and designated to carry out the metropolitan transportation planning process. MPOs are required to represent localities in all urbanized areas (UZAs) with populations over 50,000, as determined by the U.S. Census.” See: https://www.transit.dot.gov/reg ulations-and-guidance/transportation-planning/metropolitan-planning-organization-mpo

90

Y. Dierwechter

Fig. 2 Allocated job growth to 2050, by “regional geography”. Source PSRC 2019

Like any long-range planning exercise, these “geographies” depend (in part) on rigorous and accurate analyses of demographic, economic, housing, land use, transport, and ecological trends (Jepson and Weitz 2015). Yet the PSRC has no scientific database on the local patterning of coworking spaces, nor any planning policy sense of how still niche but potentially important or impactful new forms of the sharing economy such as coworking may be in the coming years (Thibedeau 2019). The exact location of specific coworking facilities—their embedded “situation”—matters not simply for regional growth scenarios but, at the local and site levels, also for the quality of neighbourhood (re)development and socio-spatial performance. As note Mariotti et al. (2017) in their study of coworking facilities in Milan, we still know little in most places about whether coworking facilities produce “spaces that are insulated and cut off from the social and spatial contexts in which they are located” or whether, as the hype around them suggests, they are “becoming spaces that could spark urban regeneration and community rebuilding” (p. 52). Taking a metropolitan perspective means that, in theory, both outcomes are possible in the same city-region. “Real” coworking facilities may benefit most from the uneven nature of urbanization and localization economies (Seattle’s urban core, for example, as well as job-rich, transitfriendly edge cities like Bellevue, Renton, and Redmond, the home of Microsoft). In contrast, hybrid or pseudo coworking spaces—pretenders, perhaps—may simply offer the basic architectonics of coworking (desks, Wi-Fi, coffee machines, and printers) but not the “relational milieu” or communitarian characteristics (ibid.).

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

91

As might be expected, the promises of coworking transformation promoted by vested business interests in Seattle, for example, focus overwhelmingly on the private benefits of prospective clients rather than the public benefits to wider communities. “More and more Seattleites are working outside of the traditional office, whether they’re starting their own company or telecommuting, and those people don’t all want to work from their living room” (Lloyd and Keeley 2019). One group puts it, albeit with interesting clues for the wider socio-economic (if not local-spatial) changes of interest here: Enter the area’s fast-growing collection of coworking spaces. Seattle is full of “imagination incubators” and “creative labs” and “inspirational studios”, and it seems like every time one closes, ten more open. So if you’re looking for a place to not only plop down your laptop but also forge new working relationships and friendships while doing it…. It’s not just for digital media folks; there are plenty of spaces for creatives, engineers, lawyers, designers, developers, or whatever else you might be doing (ibid.).

4 A Provisional City-Regional “Mapping” of Coworking Spaces Across Greater Seattle Although the “hub-and-spoke” structure of Seattle’s regional economy is both durable and empirically legible, particularly regarding industrial lands (Puget Sound Regional Council 2015), the metropolitan geography of coworking space is dynamic, protean, and ultimately subject to the debates and challenges just discussed. A Boeing factory is a Boeing factory; coworking, though, is more elusive. With these caveats in mind, Fig. 3 provides a city-regional mapping of coworking spaces across Greater Seattle as of October–November 2019

92

Y. Dierwechter

Fig. 3 Coworking spaces across the Seattle city-region: December 2019. Source Author’s elaboration

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” … Table 1 List of coworking spaces across Seattle in 2019

Source Author’s elaboration

93

94

Y. Dierwechter

based on data listed in Table 13 that were gleaned and compared from three main sources: Google Maps; Curbed.com; and Wiki.coworking.org. Taken as a whole, the coworking space-economy is more metropolitan cityfocused in its locational patterns than is the wider space-economy. While not all coworking spaces are nestled comfortably in the urban-cosmopolitan milieu of Seattle, a point I develop in a moment, coworking spaces are, in fact, “overcontributing” to the region’s synoptic vision that seeks ongoing revitalization of the main metropolitan cities (Seattle, Tacoma, Bellevue, Everett, and Bremerton). At the same time, coworking spaces (at present) are substantially “under-performing” in the region’s plans for growth in “core cities” and especially “high-capacity transit communities”. This is illustrated in Fig. 4, which contrasts the anticipated distribution of overall job growth by regional geography with the “actually-existing” geography of coworking spaces by regional geography. This strong (if not absolute) concentration of coworking facilities in the region’s main “metropolitan cities”—and especially Seattle—reflects the extremely powerful forces associated with both urbanization and locational economies, as discussed enterprises” across the USA and Canada. WeWork has 15 sites in King County. See: https:// www.wework.com/. 3

1.

2.

3.

4. 5.

6.

7.

8. 9.

These crowdsourced wiki data are based on the following: “If you are a coworker, space owner, coworking space directory or coworking enthusiast, this site belongs to you. You can request editing privileges with a sentence or two about why you’re interested in coworking. If you’re just visiting or here to learn more, there is a lot of information available for coworking. If you’re just visiting or here to learn more, there is a lot of information available for space owners, catalysts, and coworkers.” See: https://wiki.coworking.org/w/page/16583831/Fro ntPage#welcometothecoworkingwiki. Curbed is an American real estate and urban design “blog network” founded in 2006. Areaspecific editions include the following cities: Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, New Orleans, New York City, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C. Google gleans listings from both on-line and off-line sources, using an algorithm that combines listings automatically based on address, phone number, or geocode; Google recruits volunteers to ground truth data as Google Maps can be manipulated by businesses. See: https:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Maps. Out-of-business, permenantly closed, or now defunct. A global real estate corporation, CBRE entered the coworking market in 2018 to provide flexible office space and coworking memberships under management agreements with landlords.” See: https://allwork.space/2018/11/cbre-launches-new-coworking-brand-hana/. Primarily makerspace but with coworking elements, exemplifying the growing empirical difficulty of defining “real” co-worker spaces from hybrid forms in buildings as the sharing economy evolves from a bottom-up to more established (and sometimes corporatized) economic sector. Not clear it should be included here, PS Business Parks is a publicly traded real estate investment trust that acquires, develops, owns and operates commercial properties, primarily multi-tenant industrial, flex and office space. See: https://www.psbusinessparks.com/. This large US office supply retailer has unveiled a new coworking service in 2018 called “Staples Studio.” Not all Staples stores this service. According to its webpage, VestLink, based in the wealthy suburb of Kirkland near Redmond and Bellevue, “is a global investment platform connecting innovators with the international market.” Created by Seattle-based executives and entrepreneurs, VestLink seeks to attract

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

95

Fig. 4 Spatial distribution of coworking versus allocated job growth, by regional geography. Source Author’s elaboration

earlier in the chapter. This is further illustrated below in Fig. 5a–d, which collectively show the major spatial clustering of both the “information” and the “professional, scientific, and technical” sectors, respectively, across Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma. In other words, these and other similarly clustered economic sectors (e.g. arts and entertainment) provide an already-existing “ecosystem” in place for actively nurturing coworking growth, including major proximity to relevant markets, easier labour supply, dense communication webs, and ancillary financial and commercial services (Mayhew 2009). In addition to such urbanization economies, localization economies derive from simply being located close to other firms in the same industry. As Jane Jacobs (1969) and many others have shown, larger cities like Seattle have clear comparative advantages over other places in both these types of urban economic effects because the diversity of locally available traded (and non-traded) inputs tend to increase innovation and lower costs. In this sense, also in the “polycentric” Seattle city-region, space-economies are shaping the overall geography of coworking in roughly similar ways (albeit with a few important caveats discussed later on)4 .

“innovative startups and founders in high-tech industries” and also to “connect them with investors, partners and business opportunities.” See: https://www.vestlink.io/. 10. Founded in 2010 in Soho, New York, the well-known company WeWork manages over four million square metres of “shared workspaces for technology startups” and “services for other 4 The maps in Figure 5 are built from the work area profile tool and online mapping functions provided by the US Census Bureau. The data are organized by common NAICS sectors (North American Industrial Classification System) For maps: https://onthemap.ces.census.gov/; for NAICS see: https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/.

96

Y. Dierwechter

Fig. 5 Spatial clustering of key economic sectors in Seattle, Bellevue, and Tacoma (2017). Source Author’s elaboration based on data extracted from Onthemap.census.ces.gov

5 Situating Urban Effects: Select Cases of Coworking Urban Effects/Forms Across the City-Region But what are the “urban effects” of coworking spaces, or what Mariotti et al (2017), p. 57, see as “the ability they may or may not have to positively affect the actual contexts in which they are located in terms of community-building (not just within the workspaces), improvement of surrounding public space, and ultimately urban revitalization”. Drawing on the classical design principles of Camillo Sitte and others, Emily Talen (2003) proposes measurement criteria for the in situ evaluation of “smart growth”—i.e. regional growth directed towards urban areas like metropolitan and core cities—that seem helpful in the Seattle context. Directing quantitative growth

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

97

to cities is one thing; translating that growth into liveable forms of quality local development is quite another. For Talen, quantitative growth becomes quality development, or normatively desirable “urbanism,” if and when it (1) enhances enclosure, which emphasizes the “volumetrics” of a place around, for example, plazas, boulevards, parks, and squares; (2) reduces rather than create (or perpetuate) lost space, e.g. parking lots and vacant land; (3) supports spatial suitability, wherein coworking facilities locate in places that add to local functional complementarity; (4) strengthens proximity by reinforcing easy access to heterogeneous land uses, especially by transit, biking or walking; and (5) contributes to spatial mix, or the clustering of different but compatible uses within neighbourhoods. Unfortunately, a comprehensive analysis of all (103) coworking spaces listed in Table 1 and mapped in Fig. 3—using these and other urban effects criteria— is beyond the present discussion (though it needs to be done for Seattle and other city-regions). Instead, the empirical focus that follows is on select or particularly interesting facilities, located in different (but still representative) spatial contexts, that, I argue, illustrate one or more of Talen’s measurement/assessment criteria. In addition, in the following Paragraph5 , I also include a comparative example of “bottom-up, community-based” coworking space versus “top-down, corporateowned” coworking space that broadens Talen’s design and planning criteria to include Mariotti et al.’s concern with “community-building”, a difficult condition to study (Marcelo and Carlos 2017). Figures 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10a, b collectively capture some of the originally hypothesized variety of coworking spaces across the Seattle city-region, moving selectively from the “metropolitan cities” of Seattle (Fig. 6a, b), Tacoma, (Fig. 7a, b), and Bremerton (Fig. 8a, b), respectively, to suburban “core city” (Fig. 9a, b) and indeed exurban examples (Fig. 10a, b). According to the PSRC, metropolitan cities are the region’s largest cities in each county that contain designated regional growth centres, which in turn serve as a key framework for the region’s adopted long-range multimodal transportation system. As indicated earlier, the regional growth strategy for Greater Seattle aims to funnel 65% of the region’s population growth and 75% of the region’s employment growth into “regional growth centres” (Fig. 1) and, even more specifically, near high-capacity transit infrastructure. “Collective Chemistry” (Seattle), “Alma Mater” (Tacoma), and “Spark” (Bremerton) are all examples of recently established coworking spaces that have indeed emerged within these targetted growth centres. All three cases are also examples of different kinds of adaptive reuse, giving older buildings “new jobs” in the emerging sharing economy. Using Talen’s overall assessment framework, all three spaces contribute improvements to the “urbanisms” of Seattle, Tacoma, and Bremerton, respectively, albeit in ways that merit closer empirical attention. “Collective Chemistry,” for instance, abuts a small park and square on a boulevard and thus reproduces an extant sense of enclosure in Seattle through an irregular but coherent “volumetrics” of place. An 5 See

Paragraph “Emerging relationships with urban (re)development and regional planning regimes”

98

Y. Dierwechter

Fig. 6 a Collective chemistry: coworking form in core Seattle. Source Author’s elaboration. b Chemistry cooperative: photo from street. Source Google Maps (2020)

imaginatively reconverted union hall in a denuded section of the industrial core of Tacoma that still lacks sufficient development and energy, “Alma Mater” nonetheless has reduced rather than created (or perpetuated) local lost space, especially with respect to abandoned land. “Sparks” supports spatial suitability through functional complementarity within the heart of Bremerton: it “fits into” an inherited urban form and economic milieu. Like “Collective Chemistry,” “Sparks” also contributes to the local spatial mix, offering a different kind of economic function that is still compatible with adjacent land uses, including a classic movie theatre, cafes, restaurants, a performance arts theatre, local and federal government offices, law firms, small retail, art galleries, an independent book store, etc. Finally, all three coworking spaces are (equally if not more) accessible by transit, biking, or walking than by private car, which enhances their proximity both to nearby and other parts of the city. Expanding the scalar frame of coworking facilities from metropolitan core cites, however, complicates any positive assessment of the “work” they do. Unlike “Collective Chemistry,” “Alma Mater,” and “Sparks,” the suburban coworking facility in Kent, “CB Richards Ellis”, arguably perpetuates the worst qualities of high modernist

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

99

Fig. 7 a Alma Mater: coworking form in core Tacoma. Source Author’s elaboration. b Alma Mater from street. Source Author’s photo

city-building and place (non)-making in the United States. As illustrated in Fig. 9a, b, CB Richards Ellis is located in a highly segregated office complex, “sealed off” functionally from other uses by major arterials. It is shaped by the deadening lost space of a large concrete sea of overly generous parking that is rarely if ever full (but was mandated by the municipality’s antiquated “minimum parking” standards and bylaws). CB Richards Ellis does not address the ongoing need nearly everywhere in the United States for enhanced enclosure around shared public commons; the facility adds little to the local spatial mix. “CB Richards Ellis” completely fails Talen’s assessment test. It might well succeed in other ways not considered here; but as a metropolitan form of place-making, it is in my judgement a coworking disaster. Equally conventional and rather disappointing as a form of place-making (and regional growth strategy) is the Eastmain coworking facility located on the exurban

100

Y. Dierwechter

Fig. 8 a Sparks Common: coworking form in core Bremerton. Source Author’s elaboration. b Sparks common from street. Source Author’s photo

fringe of the small “core city” of Puyallup (Fig. 10a, b). Closer to a warehouse development that aligns with “strip development” and “Euclidian” approaches to zoning that for decades have deliberately segregated otherwise compatible commercial activities from most other types of urban land uses, Eastmain is, at minimum, a missed opportunity. Entirely car-dependent and located outside either of Puyallup’s two designated regional growth centres, the facility actually depends upon the “lost space” of parking; it accentuates poor local spatial mix and is generally ill-suited to an area that is otherwise in a transition towards more rural functions and forms. Eastmain coworking is intriguing only because it is located in a small, peripheral municipality within the

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

101

Fig. 9 a CB Richards Ellis: coworking form in suburban Kent. Source Author’s elaboration. b CB Richards Ellis from parking lot. Source Google Maps (2020)

city-region rather than Seattle (or Tacoma) proper; but whether it actually meets the criteria of coworking as a community-building space is dubious.

6 Emerging Relationships And Contradictions With Urban (Re)development and Regional Planning Regimes As other chapters in this book make clear in different contexts, coworking across Seattle is now an important part of a wider sharing economy that is itself a product of how various forms of knowledge have been reshaping the space-economies of major metropolitan regions since the 1970s.

102

Y. Dierwechter

Fig. 10 a Eastmain Coworking: coworking form in exurban Puyallup. Source Author’s elaboration. b Eastmain coworking from parking lot. Source Author’s photo

Even though it is located in a polycentric city-region, the city of Seattle, in general, and its core area, in particular, dominate the wider metropolitan map of coworking spaces discussed above. Again, Seattle’s empirical dominance is easily explained, or at least partially explained, by invoking theories of locational and urbanization economies. Thus, Fig. 11 juxtaposes the intense clustering of the information economy in the core of Seattle with the most active “hive” of coworking spaces in the entire Pacific Northwest. Interestingly, though, even within Seattle, coworking facilities are starting to spread out and away from the dense urban core. Some of these locations are certainly logical. Several coworking facilities are located near University of Washington (UW), for example, while others are near smaller, but important sub-clusters of knowledge economy firms, as in the Ballard–Fremont area of the city. That said, many other coworking spaces do not necessarily comport with theories of locational and urbanization economies. In these cases, coworking spaces are emerging for reasons that include (but also transcend) economic rationalities.

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

103

Fig. 11 Seattle’s urban core: information economy and coworking spaces compared. (Source Author’s elaboration on data extracted from Onthemap.ces.census.org)

One example is “The Inc.,” located in the predominately low-density residential area of West Seattle in partnership with St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church. While Talen’s criteria might also be applied to this facility, here I emphasize its origins in “bottom-up,” community-based, concerns around the work–life balance of professional mothers, with a broader organizational mission to achieve “gender equity in entrepreneurship, in the workplace and at home.” According to its website, “The Inc.” is a 501(c)3 non-profit space simplifying work and childcare needs for parents. It’s a one-stop shop for working parents interested in coworking, flexible, drop-in childcare for children 1–5 years old, career support, and building community! The Inc. has created a community of flex-working parents trying to make work and family fit their schedule, budget, and lifestyle. The Inc. gives parents the opportunity and space to learn, work, grow, and contribute to their community with their young children learning and playing nearby (see https://www. theinccoworking.org/). Several other coworking spaces across Seattle have also focused on gender concerns, most notably “The Riveter” facilities located in the CBD core, Capitol Hill, and Freemont neighbourhoods. Each of these facilities considers itself “a modern union of mothers, sisters, daughters, and allies, fighting together for equity of opportunity for all working women” (see https://theriveter.co/). Placing gender rather than economic sector or creative class identity at the analytical centre of coworking spaces and functions raises a set of different questions about how the production

104

Y. Dierwechter

of new urban landscapes in cities like Seattle relates to community development, community-building, and urban regeneration. Still, other coworking spaces outside the urban core of Seattle focus on facilitating neighbourhood and global activism as well as abetting social movements. Located in Seattle’s Rainier Valley, “The Hillman City Collaboratory”, for example, is advertised as an incubator for social change that explicitly caters to nonprofit organizations, start-up movements, and otherwise atomized individuals with a social change mission. Here, then, coworking is helpful because it “provides an inspirational, inclusive, affordable space where many groups and individuals can build community and work for social change” (see: https://hillmancitycollaboratory.org/). In consequence, “innovation” is less economic than political, and “development” is more about social justice than business growth. But again, a metropolitan-scale framing of coworking space complicates explanations which over-emphasize either economic clustering in core areas or progressive community-building benefits. Many coworking spaces across the city-region, especially outside of Seattle and other metropolitan cities like Tacoma, are franchised offices of national and international corporations like WeWork, headquartered in New York City, or Regus, a provider of coworking services that is headquartered in Brussels. In fact, in the Seattle city-region, many of these coworking spaces favour Edge City locations or suburban commercial parks, where the emphasis is more narrowly on traditional cost savings and efficiencies. Unsurprisingly, these locations are typically attracted to the architectonics of car-centred office complexes (cf., Fig. 9b); they appear less likely to contribute to socially embedded place-making or community-building dynamics, whether understood as a physical or non-physical quality of urban change. They also appear less likely to contribute sufficiently to the city-region’s overall socio-spatial development vision. This vision, once again, seeks a hierarchical and complementary arrangement of regional geographies that emerge, at least in part, through the strategic concentration of new economic and residential development into regional growth centres. In regional planning theory, these new centres in turn help to strengthen public transit alternatives to carbon-intensive mobility patterns (and thus climate action). Figure 12 shows that outside of Seattle, coworking spaces do not necessarily emerge within policy-favoured regional growth centres, which are supported by, for example, commuter and light rail services. In fairness, many of the coworking spaces just discussed in Seattle are also located outside of regional growth centres (Fig. 11); however, their emphasis on social benefits arguably enriches community development visions within their respective neighbourhoods. Moreover, over the past several years, the municipality of Seattle has been one of the fastest-growing large cities in the United States (Balk 2014). As the city steadily gains in overall density, coworking spaces are arguably helping Seattle’s more traditional (i.e. residential) neighbourhoods transition away from homogenous, single-use zones of social reproduction to become more “complete communities,” a perennial policy aspiration in cities all around the world, and certainly an important feature of Seattle’s urban planning vision since at least the

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

Fig. 12 Coworking in regional growth centres? Source Author’s elaboration

105

106

Y. Dierwechter

early 1990s (City of Seattle 1994). In these urban planning visions, “new commercial uses”—including various kinds of coworking spaces—should closely flank transit-based corridors that offer a greater range of economic and social services and functions (Seattle Planning Commission 2013, pp. 20–21).

7 Conclusions Situating the new sharing economy in Seattle—as in other world cities and cityregions—means mapping and contextualizing the recent rise of coworking spaces across a metropolitan landscape. It means relating new economic and social spaces to extant planning regimes and associated visions of appropriate and/or desirable patterns of development. Geographies of coworking, however, remain in their infancy. In fact, scholarly debates about even how to define and interpret the meaning of “coworking” continue unabated, even as more research is needed on their internal dynamics as hypothesized agents of collaboration and innovation (a claim that is more often hopefully asserted than convincingly substantiated). For some, situating coworking spaces in the wider sharing economy offers a new “pathway to sustainability” (op cit.); for others, the sharing economy as a whole is little more than “neoliberalism on steroids” (op cit.), commodifying arenas of social life heretofore largely protected from the “corrosion” of market rationalities in “the new capitalism” (Sennett 1998). Within this context, a few scholars have yet to explore what Mariotti et al. (2017) see as the “locational patterns and urban effects” of the coworking spaceeconomy in key cities. No one has systematically studied these patterns and effects across the Seattle area, for example, a place that seems critical to consider given its economic structure and current role in the American urban system. In particular, the economic and spatial impacts of Microsoft and Amazon have augmented, extended, and reshaped the hub-and-spoke industrial structure bequeathed historically to the city-region by the high-tech manufacturing giant, Boeing. All three mega-firms— Microsoft, Amazon, and Boeing—have acted as decisive “hubs,” generating their own variegated ecosystems of start-ups and spin-offs, while also reinforcing Seattle’s powerful urbanization and locational economies in numerous export-oriented sectors, including software and gaming, logistics, life sciences, cloud computing, interactive media, cyber security, and so on. These economic factors are “sticky,” and help to explain why coworking spaces are strongly (but not exclusively) associated in space with the downtown of Seattle (Fig. 11). “Seattle”, though, is really a polycentric, multi-nodal, regional-scale economy of four, integrated counties with 75 municipalities that accordingly features several major centres of business activity, notably Bellevue (an Edge City) and Tacoma, an industrial port located just south of Seattle. Though politically distinctive, these communities share labour and housing markets, transit infrastructures, and various ecological commons, particularly Puget Sound, which is part of the Salish Sea in the

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

107

Pacific Northwest. Put another way, Seattle is what Allen Scott (2001) has dubbed a “global city-region.” Accordingly, this chapter has offered the first empirical effort to make at least the initial sense of coworking space across this wider territorial context (Fig. 3). The focus has not been only on Seattle, but also on the global city-region. As RodríguezPose (2008) observes, the rise of city-regional complexes like Seattle has ushered in significant transitions from traditionally siloed sectoral to more integrated territorial approaches around spatial and economic development; innovative adjustments in overall development strategies; greater policy diversity between places; and more complex governance structures. The Puget Sound Regional Council’s concerted efforts to manage the Seattle “global city-region” around the planning idea(l) of regional geographies is one example of these types of changes. Central to this concept is how new rounds of economic and residential growth—including, presumably, new kinds of knowledge economy services—can be strategically managed to ameliorate what are today a host of development concerns, from housing affordability to climate change, while at the same time securing economic competitiveness and social cohesion. Overall, coworking across the city-region reinforces core-area economic advantages, a finding consistent with other researchers; at the same time, the metropolitan geographies of coworking are becoming more complex and nuanced across the wider space-economy, spreading away from core areas. This is not a flood. It is nothing like the rapid car-based decentralization of housing and retail facilities—nor like patterns of “job sprawl” associated for many decades with other kinds of North American economic activities (Chu et al. 2001). Still, coworking facilities are popping up in locations not always anticipated by what we think we know about their features and services. While some coworking spaces help to support (and re-energize) the region’s overall spatial and economic development policies, other coworking spaces clearly do not. The same pattern is clear when focused on more qualitative concerns with locally situated urban forms, land use patterns, and functional synergies. Using a broad set of assessment criteria suggested by Emily Talen (2003), this chapter thus further reflected upon whether (and where) coworking facilities are “insulated spaces” or “sparks” for neighbourhood regeneration (Mariotti et al. 2017). Most core area spaces, which often (though not always) favour older buildings and adaptive reuse investments (e.g. Figs. 6, 7, 8a, b), appear to be “sparks” (the aptly named “Sparks” in Bremerton, for instance, has helped to arrest the decline of high street retail); yet most coworking spaces that locate outside of core areas appear generally less impressive in this respect (e.g. Figs. 9, 10a, b). That is a hypothesis worth investigating with more detailed empirical fieldwork (and qualitative footwork) than I presented in this provisional discussion. In the end, Table 1 lists 103 coworking facilities across the Seattle city-region— some “real,” some more “pretenders”. Each facility is (re)producing its own social and economic spatialities and urban effects, not only internally but externally, as coworking becomes an increasingly relevant feature of twenty-first century urban (re)development patterns. As Pacchi (2018), p. 80 notes, “[e]ven if still a niche

108

Y. Dierwechter

phenomenon”, coworking (and other sharing economy) spaces raise both political and urban questions. In consequence, just how similar or different Seattle might be from the coworking experiences of other cities in other contexts is an exciting new frontier for deliberately comparative urban and regional scholarships.

References Balk G (2014) Census: seattle is the fastest-growing big city in the U.S. Seattle Times. https://blogs. seattletimes.com/fyi-guy/2014/05/22/census-seattle-is-the-fastest-growing-big-city-in-the-u-s/ Botsman R, Rogers R (2010) What’s mine is yours: the rise of collaborative consumption, 1st edn. Harper Business, New York Brown J (2017) Curating the “Third Place”? Coworking and the mediation of creativity. Geoforum 82:112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.006 Bruno B, Faggini M (2017) Sharing economy: for an economic taxonomy. Int J Econ Finance 9:174–178. https://doi.org/10.5539/ijef.v9n6p174 Capdevila I (2013) Typologies of localized spaces of collaborative innovation.https://doi.org/10. 2139/ssrn.2414402 Carayannis E, Kaloudis A, Mariussen A, Carayannis E, Kaloudis A, Mariussen A (2008) Diversity in the knowledge economy and society: heterogeneity, innovation and entrepreneurship. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK Chu C, Glaeser E, Kahn M (2001) Job sprawl: employment location in U.S. Metropolitan Areas Brookings Institution Reports. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC City of Seattle (1994) Comprehensive plan: towards a sustainable Seattle. Seattle, WA Dierwechter Y (2008) Urban growth management and its discontents: promises, practices and geopolitics in US city-regions. Palgrave, New York Dierwechter Y (2013) Smart growth and state territoriality. Urban Stud 50(11):2275–2292. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0042098013478230 Drewel B (2011) Integrated planning for a sustainable future in Puget Sound. In: Montgomery C (ed) Regional planning for a sustainable America. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ Foth M, Forlano L, Bilandzic M (2016) Mapping New Work practices in the smart city. In: Friese H, Rebane G, Nolden M, Schreiter M (eds) Handbuch Soziale Praktiken und Digitale Alltagswelten. Springer, Wiesbaden, pp 1–13 Gandini A (2016) The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review. Ephemera 15(1):193–205 Godin B (2006) The knowledge-based economy: conceptual framework or buzzword? J Technol Transf 31(1):17–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10961-005-5010-x Gotlieb CC (1974) National policies for information processing (with Special Attention to the Canadian Experience). Paper presented at the Conference of EDUCON, Toronto. https://eric.ed. gov/?id=ED096999 Gray M, Golob E, Markusen A (1996) Big firms, long arms, wide shoulders: the ‘Hub-and-Spoke’ industrial district in the seattle region. Reg Stud 30(7):651–666. https://doi.org/10.1080/003434 09612331349948 Grodach C, Gibson C, O’Connor J (2017) Manufacturing and cultural production: towards a progressive policy agenda for the cultural economy. City Cult Soc 10:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ccs.2017.04.003 Gunder M, Mandanipour A, Watson B (2017) The routledge handbook of planning theory. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK Hamari J, Sjöklint M, Ukkonen A (2016) The sharing economy: why people participate in collaborative consumption. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 67(9):2047–2059. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi. 23552

Situating the New Sharing Economy: “Regional Geographies” …

109

Hindriks I (2017) More than an urban hype? Coworking in non-core areas. Masters, University of Nijmegan, School of Management, Department of Geography, Planning and Environment Jacobs J (1969) The economy of cities. Random House, New York, NY Jamal AC (2018) Coworking spaces in mid-sized cities: a partner in downtown economic development. Environ Plan Econ Space 50(4):773–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X1876 0857 James S (2011) Learning regions. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, UK Jepson E, Weitz J (2015) Fundamentals of plan making: methods and techniques. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon, UK Jessop B (2004) Cultural political economy, the knowledge-based economy and the state. In: Slater D, Barry A (eds) The technological economy. Routledge, London, pp 142–164 Klingle M (2007) Emerald city: an environmental history of Seattle. Yale University Press, New Haven Lloyd S, Keeley S (2019) Mapping Seattle’s many coworking spaces: find a place that works for you. https://seattle.curbed.com/maps/seattle-office-coworking-business-map Marcelo FC, Carlos OQ (2017) Collaborative capability in coworking spaces: convenience sharing or community building? Technol Innov Manage Rev 7(12):32–42. https://doi.org/10.22215/tim review/1126 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Co-working spaces in milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Martin CJ (2016) The sharing economy: a pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecol Econ 121:149–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027 Mayer H (2013) Entrepreneurship in a Hub-and-spoke industrial district: firm survey evidence from seattle’s technology industry. Reg Stud 47(10):1715–1733. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404. 2013.806792 Mayhew S (2009) Urbanization economies. In: Mayhew S (ed) A dictionary of geography. Oxford University Press, Oxford Oldenburg R (1989) The great good place: cafés, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. Paragon House, New York Pacchi C (2018) Sharing economy: makerspaces, co-working spaces, hybrid workplaces, and new social practices. In: Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds) Milan: productions, spatial patterns and urban change. Routledge, London Prosperity Partnership (2012) Regional economic strategy for the central puget sound region economy Puget Sound Regional Council (2015) Industrial lands analysis for the Central Puget Sound region Puget Sound Regional Council (2017) Economic analysis of the Puget Sound Region Puget Sound Regional Council (2019) Vision 2050: a plan for the Central Puget Sound Region Seattle Rodríguez-Pose A (2008) The rise of the “City-region” concept and its development policy implications. Eur Plan Stud 16(8):1025–1046. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310802315567 Schmidt S, Brinks V (2017) Open creative labs: spatial settings at the intersection of communities and organizations. Creat Innov Manage 26(3):291–299. https://doi.org/10.1111/caim.12220 Scott A (2014) Beyond the creative city: cognitive-cultural capitalism and the new urbanism. Reg Stud 48(4):565–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.891010 Scott A (ed) (2001) Global city-regions: trends, theory, policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford Seattle Planning Commision (2013) Seattle transit communities a citywide strategy to integrate neighborhoods with transit Seattle Sennett R (1998) The corrosion of character: the personal consequences of work in the new capitalism, 1st edn. Norton, New York Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J Bus Techn Commun 26(4):399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070 Talen E (2003) Measuring urbanism: issues in smart growth research. J Urban Des 8(3):195–215. https://doi.org/10.1080/1357480032000155141

110

Y. Dierwechter

Thibedeau J (2019) Planner, puget sound regional council /Interviewer: Y. Dierwechter Uda T (2013) What is Coworking? a theoretical study on the concept of coworking.https://doi.org/ 10.2139/ssrn.2937194 Waters-Lynch JM, Potts J, Butcher T, Dodson J, Hurley J (2016) Coworking: a transdisciplinary overview. SSRN Electron J. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2712217 WEstaff (2010) Creative vitality index: seattle and king county summary report. https://www.sea ttle.gov/documents/Departments/Arts/Downloads/Reports/CVISeattleSummary.pdf

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic Regeneration in Detroit Mark Wilson and Eva Kassens-Noor

Abstract Rustbelt cities of the United States have a 60-year history of adjusting to economic change, especially the shift from manufacturing to advanced production and services. The transition has not been easy due to heavy population loss, declining tax revenue, and competing locations in the suburbs. These cities are exemplified by Detroit, a major city that lost more than half of its population, that is now slowly rebuilding. Detroit’s government attracts new business and residents through initiatives around science and technology (makerspaces, sustainable development) and commercial real estate (offices, entertainment, sports venues). To understand the contribution of these projects, the chapter provides context for the deindustrialization process and discusses the social and political forces that shape redevelopment.

1 Introduction The Midwest region of the United States was defined by its robust manufacturing base through the middle of the twentieth century, especially its concentration on heavy industry and automobile production. Rapid suburbanization in the 1950s and 1960s eventually stripped Midwest cities of a significant portion of their population that led to a shrinking tax base and increased deterioration of city centers. The fate of many American rustbelt cities can be attributed to fragmented municipalities, public policies that favored private over public transportation, suburban bias in housing incentives, and institutionalized racism. Emblematic of the phenomenon, Detroit was one of the largest cities in the United States in 1950 yet has lost two-thirds of its population over the past 70 years. Today, the city presents many contrasts, with some neighborhoods devoid of housing and returned to agriculture, while others show revitalization around advanced services M. Wilson (B) · E. Kassens-Noor School of Planning, Design and Construction, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI, USA e-mail: [email protected] E. Kassens-Noor e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_7

111

112

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

and the next generation of autonomous vehicles. Analysis of the recent history of Detroit exemplifies the many scenarios possible for rustbelt urban futures. This chapter will first address the experience of rustbelt cities in the United States and continue with a case study of Detroit. The experiences of these cities illustrate several of the many paths a rustbelt city can follow with emphasis on the development of innovative responses to industrial decline. In particular, the focus will be on regeneration through makerspaces, sustainable action, and commercial redevelopment.

2 An Introduction to Rustbelt Cities Rustbelts are common regions across industrial countries, and in addition to the United States are also found in Western Europe (UK Midlands, Ruhr), Asia (Northeast China, Kansai and Hokkaido Japan), and Latin America, where cities that built their fortunes on manufacturing now find a need for new sources of growth (Cooke 1995; Hospers 2004; Bai et al. 2010; Hu and Yang 2018; MacKinnon and High 2020). These cities and regions share many similar characteristics such as early industrialization, slow to innovate firms, globalization of production and supply chains, a shift to services by consumers, and competition with newer areas offering lower production costs (High 2003; Kollmeyer 2009). Rustbelt cities and regions tend to depend on single industries such as steel, automobiles, rubber, textiles, and consumer products. When the global economy of these industries changes, the urban hosts of the retrospective industries are significantly affected. The deindustrialization process unleashed many forces including industrial inertia, firm decision-making, and public policy that when combined, devastated communities by removing livelihoods (Bluestone and Harrison 1982; High 2003). Deindustrialization and rustbelt expansion are not historic artifacts but an ongoing process that captures what Schumpeter (1942) recognized as the creative destruction of capitalism; this process accelerated neoliberalism and led to rapid urban change producing entrepreneurial cities (Harvey 2007; Batty 2007; Jessop 2019). Structural change has long been an element of economic development that is recognized for its reshaping of economic activity that benefits some places but for others comes with a human cost of displaced workers and depressed regions. In fact, Rodrik (2016) sees the processes continuing in newer industrial areas as the longevity of industrial processes is shortening, a process termed premature deindustrialization. Employment change is increasingly augmented by automation or outsourced so that cities and regions face a shorter period of the growth attributed to an industry. The rustbelt of the United States is generally recognized as the industrial heartland of the Midwest and Great Lakes regions (Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri). These states are characterized by loss of central city population, manufacturing jobs, and related economic activity (Neumann 2016). The Midwest region also claims a declining share of national manufacturing employment as the industry decentralizes to lower cost locations, especially in the south and

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

113

offshore. However, while the American rustbelt may be popularly seen as located in the Midwest, the processes occur also in many other areas that have aging industrial plants. There are many major metropolitan areas affected by deindustrialization in the United States rustbelt including Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, and St Louis, although the forces are common for many American cities. While all these cities suffered from deindustrialization, a number have regained their economic standing, especially Chicago and Pittsburgh, while others have faced greater challenges and have struggled to regain their urban economic base, such as Detroit. Industrial change often is accelerated by periods of economic recession and disinvestment, that was evident in the 1970s and 1980s and again with the 2008 financial collapse in the United States. Industrial employment is also subject to automation and outsourcing: while manufacturing is a large and important economic sector, its direct contribution to employment has been declining (Cooke 1996; Kollmeyer 2009). Compounding the challenges of some rustbelt cities is an absence of replacement industries and firms that could utilize the skills and industrial infrastructure available. Often, in the American rustbelt, the major impacts of deindustrialization affect the central city, while the suburbs maintain stronger economic growth. In addition, the human cost of disruption and displacement needs to be considered even when a city sustains its level of economic activity. Of greater concern is the impact on cities that rely on a narrower economic base and struggle to find replacement employers such as Youngstown, Akron, Gary, Flint, Saginaw, and Erie. The experiences of cities like these led to a narrative of distress and despair that Shiller (2017) sees as the human manifestation of decline that limits growth by creating a negative culture of economic change and associated narratives. One social dimension noted by Roundy (2019) is that the narratives associated with deindustrialization feature urban wastelands and hollowing out, yet a new, entrepreneurial narrative needs to replace dated perceptions of postindustrial cities. Consequently, some of the United States rustbelt regions have overcome industrial loss through the growth of past economic strengths or new industries, e.g., Pittsburgh was able to partially replace steel with high-tech, education, banking, and healthcare (Van Agtmael and Bakker 2016). Other cities have adopted an environmentally oriented strategy of green growth that repurposes vacant urban spaces (Schilling and Logan 2008).

3 Car Culture and Institutionalized Sprawl The experience of the American rustbelt needs to be seen in the context of mobility, available land, and a policy environment that promoted sprawl. Thus, the spatial organization of cities frequently caused selective economic decline disproportionately

114

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

affecting central cities, while suburbs experienced minimal impacts. The stereotypical American rustbelt city with deteriorated buildings, vacant lands, and high rates of poverty contrasts the relative affluence of their suburbs. Starting in the late 1940s, strong economic growth, combined with a population surge and public policy that privileged suburbs over cities, created rapid decentralization and urban sprawl. One characteristic of American metropolitan areas is that they comprise many municipalities, each with its own services funded by property and local taxes. Tiebout (1956) hypothesized a sorting outcome of residents choosing a residential location based on a tax-supported bundle of local public goods. For metropolitan areas, this means that many jurisdictions can provide housing while still providing access to downtown commercial centers. An added incentive is that living near a city avoids the higher taxes of urban life due to the significant presence of tax-exempt property (schools, universities, hospitals, arts/cultural institutions) while providing access to their services. Over decades of suburbanization, the result is sorting of social and economic groups into homogeneous municipalities, a trend that Bill Bishop (2009) calls The Big Sort. The institutionalization of sprawl had the ultimate effect of isolating inner cities from their more affluent surrounding suburbs (Beauregard 2006). Several policy forces produced the blueprint for many American metropolitan areas today. First, government funding of infrastructure, especially roads and freeways, made suburbs accessible and diminished the efficiency of public transportation. Second, subsidization of mortgages favored new suburban housing over renovations, low-income, or inner-city housing. As part of this process, racism was built into mortgage criteria by redlining low income and minority areas to be ineligible for any subsidies (Woods 2012). Third, a national urban renewal program, initially aimed at slum clearance, resulted in demolished inner-city housing that was replaced with commercial and high-income housing. Consequently, many low-income and minority residents were displaced because they had no access to affordable housing. Even with the end of urban renewal as a policy, Hackworth (2016) notes that the market has continued to demolish structures in American inner-cities, often without a replacement strategy. The social drivers of suburbanization led to reinforcing land use and transportation policy. Davison (2013) identifies four factors that promoted suburban culture. Evangelicalism sees the suburbs as a haven from the corrupt and immoral city that built on a long-standing American view that cities were inherently bad, while rural life was good. This view was shared by Henry Ford, who felt that people could find community only outside cities (Barrow 2018). Sanitarianism represents the fresh and clean environment of the suburbs in contrast to dirty cities, achieving the cleanliness of Le Corbusier’s Radiant City in a natural setting. Romanticism captures the allure of nature, also expressed in the forces noted above, for its spiritual influence that was well articulated in Henry David Thoreau’s Walden (1854). Finally, class segregation is a powerful force in American urban history as the affluent escaped to the suburbs from the working-class city. Part of this migration is white residents leaving the city supported by public policy that made it easy and affordable to buy a new house if it was in a favored neighborhood.

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

115

4 Detroit: Rise of the Motor City The experience of Detroit is instructive as it catalogs the many factors that have affected rustbelt urban decline and tentative renaissance. The original inhabitants of southeast Michigan were Native Americans who encountered European settlers over 300 years ago. In 1701, Antoine de la Mothe Cadillac explored the Great Lakes with a mission to provide security to French fur traders, and to establish a French outpost that made allies of the local Chippewa, Ottawa, and Miami Native Americans (Mitchell 1958). The location on the straight between Lakes Huron, St Clair, and Erie was easily defendable (Martelle 2012). The resulting settlement was Fort Pontchartrain du Detroit, referencing the straits (détroit) on which the settlement was based. Britain gained control in 1760 and used the name Detroit, which was retained when the United States gained control. From 1805 to 1847, Detroit was the capital of the territory and later the state of Michigan. After a fire, the city was redesigned in 1805 seeking to emulate the grandeur of the great cities of Europe. By the late nineteenth century, Detroit was a major industrial and population center. Henry Ford provided the technology to promote mobility, and later the suburbanization of activity around Detroit. Ford relocated car production to the adjoining suburb of Dearborn and prompted the spread of population away from the city in the early twentieth century. By the 1920s, suburbanization had begun, and with it, demand for personal mobility that drove car sales and sprawl (Barrow 2018). At its peak in the 1950s, Detroit was the fourth largest city in the United States and a global manufacturing center that contained the hub of the automobile industry. The city was ambitious and a magnet for international and national migration, especially southern workers seeking better pay and conditions in the factories of the auto industry. Detroit sought recognition and was runner up to host the 1968 Olympics with plans for major infrastructure development that showcased its car culture. This trajectory was not to last and by the end of the 1960s, Detroit was recognized more for poverty and crime than optimism and energy (Thomas 2013). The fragmented jurisdictions common to US cities creates significant difference between a city and its metropolitan area. In the case of Detroit, the city once accounted for most of the population and economic activity, but started to lose its population dominance to the region in 1940 when Detroit’s growth slowed, and by 1960 the city lost population to its suburbs (Thomas 2013). Since the 1960s, the city has continued to lose population from a peak of 1.85 million in 1950 to 672,000 in 2018 (US Census). While the city lost population dramatically, the region continued to grow to almost 4 million people in 2000 then declining to 3.5 million in 2019 (US Census). The population of Detroit and the surrounding counties, that comprise its metropolitan area, are presented in Fig. 1, showing both the rapid rise of the city and its later sprawl to surrounding areas. There are a number of implications of this trend, including a disconnection in tax base that leaves tax-exempt land in the city supported by a concentrated largely low-income population, and a suburban population shift that took with it many commercial and office functions. By 1950, the city

116

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

Fig. 1 Population for Detroit and metropolitan area 1840–2000. Source Data analysis and presentation by Huiqing Huang using US Census data

had a lower population than its suburbs and started a decline in population that has been consistent over the past 70 years. The map of population by tract for metropolitan Detroit (Fig. 2) shows low populations centrally and higher populations in the suburban tracts. Some of this can be explained by commercial land use in the city center but, in the case of Detroit, it is also due to vacant land and abandoned structures. Ryan (2016) found that, between 1896 and 2002, downtown Detroit had been rebuilt with blocks of commercial redevelopment and freeway construction; 37% of the original block frontage was removed and replaced with only half. Most of the change occurred after the 1950s, remodeling the downtown landscape through large office and commercial complexes, including stadia, casinos, freeways, and vacant land; planners blatantly ignored heritage landscapes as a platform to leverage thoughtful development (Locke et al. 2018; Kickert 2019). The combination of social forces and enabling public policy led to segregated cities characterized by racial and economic disparity (Thompson 2001). Barrow (2018) notes that, in the 1920s, Henry Ford reserved Dearborn for white workers forcing African Americans to live in Detroit or segregated communities. The physical manifestation of redlining is evident in a wall built in Detroit in 1941, that was a half-mile long and 6 feet high, designed to separate white and African-American neighborhoods (Sugrue 2014). The Detroit of today cannot be recognized without understanding the racial and political tensions of the past, that culminated in the July 1967 rebellion prompted by police racism, inequality, and injustice (Darden and Thomas 2013). These same forces remain unresolved and form the basis of many

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

117

Fig. 2 Population by census tract metropolitan Detroit. Source Data analysis and presentation by Huiqing Huang using US Census data

protests, including the 2020 reactions to police treatment of minorities. In short, white institutional racism in the form of urban renewal, expressways, and white suburban resistance were major causes of the civil disorder, or rebellion, of 1967. (Darden and Thomas 2013, 3). The result of decades of economic change today shows a large metropolitan area of 3.5 million people comprising a low-income city surrounded by wealthy suburbs with their own pockets of poverty. As shown in Fig. 3, median household income is lowest in the city of Detroit with only an occasional census tract that reaches the national median income of $61,400. Median income in the city of $29,481 is barely half of the median income in the metropolitan area of $60,513 (US Census). In 2019, one third of the city’s residents lived in poverty compared to one seventh of the national and Michigan populations. The 2008 recession led to Detroit’s bankruptcy in 2013 (McDonald 2014; Farley 2015) and in the absence of public response, the private sector such as Quicken Loans, General Motors, and Ford took over the redevelopment of downtown (Owens et al. 2020). Detroit became known for its abandoned and ruined structures that reflected what Apel (2015) calls the anxiety of decline. Emotions about the city are mixed with some proclaiming its demise (Eisinger 2016), while others see great promise (Gallagher 2013). Furthermore, the irony of Detroit is that the wealth of the metropolitan area is not reflected in the core city.

118

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

Fig. 3 Median household income by tract metropolitan Detroit. Source Data analysis and presentation by Huiqing Huang using US Census data

5 Detroit Innovation and Regeneration Of all rustbelt cities, Detroit faces some of the greatest challenges due to the loss of economic activity dating from the 1970s. As the city continues to lose residents, businesses and lacks even department stores, the decline reinforces its negative narrative harming economic progress. Detroit’s fragmented metropolitan area left a segregated community of low-income and minority residents isolated in the inner city. Detroit’s population is aging with little growth of young educated workers because education opportunities are limited to suburban residents with higher paying jobs (Holzer 2019). The latest threat in Detroit’s comeback is the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on its disadvantaged residents (Laurencin and McClinton 2020). Given its history, since the 1960s, Detroit is a distressed and struggling city, yet its metropolitan area remains a major center for innovation and economic growth with a GDP of US$228 billion in 2017 (Southeast Michigan Economic Data Center 2020). The issues for Detroit are not the total level of activity but its unequal distribution. For example, while the metropolitan area is a center for the automobile industry, most of the sector’s activities occur outside the city of Detroit, and even the head offices are dispersed, with Ford Motor Company in Dearborn, Fiat Chrysler US in Auburn Hills, and only General Motors located in Detroit’s downtown.

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

119

Intellectual talent fuels the increasing science and technology-oriented economy yet many US cities depend on local property taxes and state funding to pay for education, so that the declining population and tax base for Detroit means that its schools lack resources and offer limited educational opportunities to residents (Lubienski and Lee 2016). One reaction to varied public school quality has been the charter school movement. Charter schools are organized as a nonprofit or for-profit alternative to public education that receives some state funding but has greater flexibility in operations, curriculum, and focus. Proponents cite the ability of charter schools to avoid some of the entrenched issues in public schools, while opponents note their limited results in terms of academic achievement and ability to avoid serving students most in need (Peters 2011). More than half of K-12 students in Detroit now attend charter schools, so that the city has closed almost 200 schools in the past 20 years (Ni 2009). Ironically, vacant schools are often adapted for entrepreneurial activities, makerspaces, and community organizations. As rustbelt cities evolve the sources of economic activity shift away from largescale manufacturing to networks of advanced technology and service firms along with retained head office functions. Metropolitan Detroit represents a reservoir of academic and corporate talent associated with research and innovation, although it tends to be in surrounding areas rather than the city. A city’s talent drives its economy and one manifestation of this is a rich entrepreneurial infrastructure that includes makerspaces and a talent pipeline to industrial research and development. Responding to the challenging social and economic landscape, government, businesses, nonprofits, and individuals proposed a variety of solutions, but planners were overwhelmed by the magnitude of economic and demographic changes and lacked the policy tools to respond (Thomas 2013). Economic change comes from many sources but lacks an overall plan or integrated response. As noted earlier, the fragmentation of metropolitan areas into many municipalities means that each seeks its own economic success. Common to many cities, Detroit officials favored a few large-scale projects rather than organic startups from residents. Guided by public tax incentives (Dubb 2015), several initiatives have led to a revival of parts of the city while leaving other areas without an economic base (Owens 2020). Over the past 15 years, a number of innovative changes have occurred including the emergence of makerspaces, Green Detroit, domicology, the development of new commercial/entertainment spaces, and the Midtown/Woodward Corridor initiative. All these initiatives showcase organizational innovation in addressing urban distress but also portray advantages and disadvantages for the city and its residents. Makerspaces Makerspaces provide opportunities for invention, experimentation, and access to equipment and materials that promote an entrepreneurial approach to science and technology. These spaces are the embodiment of discovery given the growing range of small and low-cost prototype and production technologies like 3D printers. Makerspaces share concepts of collaboration and sharing that are often linked to communities, educational institutions, and businesses (Niaros et al. 2016). Given its rustbelt conditions, Moriset (2013) notes that cities like Detroit have a lot to overcome

120

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

in order to develop innovative spaces, yet over the past decade independent, university, and firm-related makerspaces have emerged in the city, and advanced beyond a narrow focus to offer community services and support for education (Holman 2015). The leading makerspaces in metropolitan Detroit are presented in Table 1, that show their location, mission, founding, and organizational form. These makerspaces share many common interests associated with discovery, invention, problem-solving, and technology. Most are organized as nonprofits that have a training function, are aged 10 years or less, and provide access for free to residents or students, or charge a monthly membership fee. The urban makerspaces are community resources that repurpose vacant or underused buildings. As an example, the Mt Elliott Makerspace was founded in 2010 and is “..organized around the values of innovation, internal and external resources, and individual or communal needs or wants.” (Sheradon and Konopasky 2016 p. 31). The focus is on young adults and the local community so that it serves as education, a place, and also a resource (Benton et al. 2013). This makerspace exemplifies many in the city of Detroit with its concern for providing opportunity in areas with few resources and making facilities available at low or no cost (Sheridan et al. 2014). One distinction and generalization for metropolitan Detroit makerspaces is that the urban facilities (Detroit and Flint) tend to be oriented to communities in distress and in need of a focal point and opportunity source, while the suburban makerspaces tend to focus on entrepreneurs, technology workers, and students seeking valueadded opportunities. While usually based in a community, the makerspaces in the suburbs of Detroit tend to focus more on individuals, families, and entrepreneurs in contrast to the predominant community focus of the urban makerspaces in Detroit (Benton et al. 2013). Beyond their economic contribution, makerspaces also bring considerable related benefits to Detroit, such as the development of science and technology-related education and ways for community members to find new opportunities and engagement (Barton et al. 2016; Dousay 2017; Wingo and Sheridan 2018). Makerspaces also promote diversity by encouraging women and minorities to participate in applied science and technology (Herold 2016). Green Detroit The hollowing out of Detroit has left more than 24 square miles (62 km2 ) of vacant land within the city, that many see as a prime resource for development (Gallagher 2019) Green Detroit is an umbrella term used here to capture the many small organizations that seek to incorporate sustainability into the city’s regeneration plan given the availability of underutilized land. In planning for sustainability, however, Detroit needs a strategic approach that optimizes environmental benefits (Meerow and Newell 2017; Liang et al. 2018). While the broad concept of a sustainable future may capture broad appeal, the level of distrust and competing visions of a green city often exclude African-American residents or dismiss their vision of the future city (White 2011; Montgomery 2020). Detroit’s recent history has a legacy of distrust among many residents who fear continued marginalization in any new initiative.

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

121

Table 1 Metropolitan Detroit makerspaces Name

Location

Mission

All hands active

Ann Arbor

“We’re a welcoming 2009 community of makers and hackers committed to sharing and democratizing technology—from circuit board prototyping to spinning wool”

Established

Organization Nonprofit with volunteer management. Standard monthly membership is 20 volunteer hours or $50

Brightmoor makerspace

Detroit

A collaboration 2016 between Detroit Community Schools and the Stamps School of Art & Design at the University of Michigan. “The makerspace enables community members—and young people in particular—to develop creative confidence, improve their making skills, foster intergenerational connections, and nurture community revitalization”

Nonprofit partnership between a university and charter school. Donor funded, no membership fees

Factory two

Flint

“Factory Two is built on the idea that learning, sharing, and creating are empowering and transformative forces which can open doors and revolutionize both perceptions and realities.”

2017

Nonprofit founded by Red Ink Flint, a youth arts nonprofit. Standard monthly membership is $50

H.Y.P.E. makerspace

Detroit

“H.Y.P.E stands for 2004 Helping Young People Excel. It is an umbrella for teen focused programs and services”

Detroit Public Library (government). Donor supported, no membership fees (continued)

122

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

Table 1 (continued) Name

Location

Mission

I3

Ferndale

“We’ve got a burning 2009 passion to create, tinker, hack and make, one that drives us to create the best possible community and space”

Established

Organization Nonprofit operated by members. Monthly membership is $59

Maker works

Ann Arbor

“Whether you’re an artist, engineer, inventor, student, fabricator, entrepreneur, hobbyist, or all of the above, this is a place to actively make your future”

2011

Private member supported organization. Monthly membership is $110 (students $60)

OmniCorpDetroit

Detroit

“…an intense group of 2009 designers, artists, engineers, musicians, thinkers, do-ers and makers that get together to build new things as well as share and collaborate within the Detroit community. In general, we’re making, breaking, reshaping and hacking all sorts of things!”

Nonprofit collective with monthly membership fees of $95

TechShop

Allen Park

“Ford and TechShop, 2011 Inc. have come together in a collaborative effort to open a brand new TechShop location in the Detroit area. We welcome all innovators—from backyard tinkerers to software engineers—to use our resources and bring an idea to life or invent the next big thing in automotive technology”

Chain of 10 US spaces, franchised operations, closed in 2018 due to bankruptcy

(continued)

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

123

Table 1 (continued) Name

Location

Mission

Established

Organization

Work Shop

Westland

“A membership based workshop for businesses, entrepreneurs, tradespersons, craftsman, artist and hobbyist. The Work Shop provides our members with an awesome shop space, filled with high end wood and metal working equipment”

2013

Nonprofit membership organization with monthly fees of $70

Source https://www.i3detroit.org/ https://www.maker-works.com/ https://allhandsactive.org/ https://detroitpubliclibrary.org/services/hype https://brightmoormakerspace.org/ https://opportuni tydetroit.com/blog/omnicorp-detroit-hackerspace/ https://factorytwo.org/en/about

One activity not usually associated with cities is large scale farming using blocks of previously residential land for agriculture. A number of cities with pressing food needs and available land are exploring the potential of urban agriculture as a way to use dormant land and resources as well as address food deserts and nutritional health (Colasanti et al. 2012; Hashim 2015; Walker 2016). Detroit has over 1,400 gardens, although most are small, with several large-scale operations (Pothukuchi 2017). Detroit’s agriculture has allowed households to provide for themselves, grow hope and beauty amidst dereliction, promote community, empower citywide networks, and thus provide alternatives for underserved inner-city neighborhoods (Pothukuchi 2017). Most visible of Detroit’s urban farms is Hantz Farms, established in 2008 and now a 140 acre (57 Ha) urban tree farm that cleared and developed 1,500 parcels of land (Pothukuchi 2017). The decision to farm trees was made to avoid competition and conflict with nearby agriculture and to avoid problems with food grown on contaminated land (Vitiello and Wolf-Powers 2014). Indeed, urban agriculture faces several challenges including legal constraints, planning approvals, soil contamination, access to water, and treatment of runoff (Mogk et al. 2010). Unfortunately, concerns continue to persist about the low cost of taxpayer remediated land, consolidation of land in the hands of a few major farms, and future reuse of land for less sustainable commercial activities. McClintock (2018) sees urban farms as part of an ecogentrification process that uses agricultural and green symbolism to serve the interests of real estate. Domicology One focus of the city has been the responsible management of vacant land and abandoned buildings, dealing first with the legacy of decline before new development takes place. Domicology recognizes the life cycle of structures and seeks to remove or

124

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

deconstruct abandoned structures through policies that avoid wasteful structure loss in the future (Berghorn et al. 2019; Zahir et al. 2016). In 2020, Detroit has over 80,000 units of abandoned housing that pose threats to environmental safety, sustainability, and economic development. Even though demolition is faster than deconstruction, it frequently releases lead-based dust that affects respiratory health (Nelson 2017). Thus, deconstruction is a better alternative due to its environmental-friendliness and recyclable building materials (Berghorn et al. 2019). Regrettably, so far, Detroit has chosen demolition because it lacks the market for recyclable materials so lower cost demolition prevails. Commercial and Entertainment Spaces Makerspaces, green initiatives, and domicology all share a community focus, links to emerging science and technology, and promote sustainability and adaptive reuse of buildings. A second theme of regeneration in Detroit is commercial, often building new structures and focusing on real estate and consumption spaces. Commercial development displays many of the characteristics of urban growth machines, that profit from real estate-based development that captures public resources to promote private gain (Molotch 1976). Cities are often known for their corporate office functions and entertainment districts that attract residents and tourists. These industries had progressively left Detroit since the 1960s and needed to be re-established as part of a development strategy. Among the foci for revitalization were the introduction of casino gambling, the renovation and construction of sports stadia, and the deliberate relocation of corporate headquarters. These investments are usually private but encouraged by city and state financial incentives. Developing these industries over the past 20 years offered Detroit a way to increase its visibility and develop its brand to overcome negative stigma (Che 2008). However, the development was located in prominent central locations while many areas lacking popular assets remained undeveloped. One of the first major initiatives to redevelop the city was “Detroit Renaissance,” a nonprofit with 51 corporate members led by Henry Ford II. The flagship project of the group to signal the city’s progress was the Renaissance Center, a 70-story downtown office and hotel complex completed in 1977 (Kinney 2018). Its goal was to attract suburban residents to the city and form a catalyst for downtown development. However, the project was criticized for its fortress-like design that did not engage with its surroundings, but rather intimidated pedestrians instead of inviting them inside (Bisson 2016). The Center was purchased by General Motors in 1996 and the office space currently serves as its headquarters among other tenants. Detroit Future City is another nonprofit response that started in 2013 to identify policy initiatives and support innovation that promotes community engagement, social equity, environmental responsibility, and economic development (Griffin et al. 2014). One, its development themes is to ‘right size’ Detroit, so that the current infrastructure serves Detroit’s reduced population. Rightsizing, reducing infrastructure to match reduced populations, is a reality faced by many rustbelt cities that have lost population, but the process needs effective decommissioning and recognition of links

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

125

between infrastructure and land use (Morckel 2020). The project, however, disadvantages residents in areas that are not supported with city services so the development fosters gentrification and displacement (Montgomery 2015). Since 2000, the planning vacuum caused by limited public resources opened Detroit to private actors, including billionaire entrepreneurs Dan Gilbert and Mike Illitch, who are able to obtain capital and revise downtown land use that contributes to urban development and serves their business interests (Biles and Rose 2019). Recent entrepreneurial private developments include the head office of Quicken Loans as part of a 40-property portfolio led by Dan Gilbert, new facilities for the Red Wings ice hockey team owned by Mike Illitch, and three casinos (Doucet and Smit 2016). The city benefits from the activity and renewed image while paying through tax concessions and fragmented planning that has led to a focus on downtown development. One eagerly awaited development is Ford Motor Company’s renovation of the historic Michigan Central Station, an 18 story Beaux-Arts structure that has been vacant since 1988 and is located one mile from downtown. Ford plans to use the renovated station for its autonomous vehicle activities integrating the initiative into a mixed-use facility that includes housing and educational services (McConnon 2020). As an anchor for the Corktown neighborhood, the development is well received with an expectation of 5,000 jobs to be created or relocated into the complex. Casinos provide economic activity, add urban vitality, and can benefit complementary retail and service functions nearby (Wiley and Walker 2011), but they also come with a social cost and creation of enclaves disconnected from their surroundings. In Detroit, the Greektown, Motor City, and MGM Grand casinos promote economic activity and enhance the appeal of downtown for tourism and conventions. The labor needs of tourism can also support lower income occupations for those who were excluded or unable to access education and training. However, disadvantages of a casino strategy include an enclave mentality of offering self-contained entertainment that does not represent or connect to the community, subsidies, increased public infrastructure and security costs, and the social welfare costs of gambling. Casinos as urban development carry equity implications. The benefits flow to construction workers, casino employees, and the city in terms of tax revenue, but many casino goers live in the suburbs, while urban taxpayers cover infrastructure costs and tax incentives. Each casino has a large parking garage, that one of the authors (Wilson) observes are advertised as safe and well-lit to attract visitors while reinforcing an enclave mindset. Such projects also tend to be isolated in design and function and not engage their surrounding community (Eisinger 2015). A recent disadvantage of event and entertainment-based economic activity is caused by COVID-19 lockdowns. The three Detroit casinos have been closed so cannot contribute to their annual stream of $170 million in revenue to the city of Detroit that is considered one of its most stable sources of income. In addition, revenues from sports events and conventions that are a mainstay for downtown activity have been canceled or postponed and indirectly cutting tax revenues to the city (Reindl 2020).

126

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

Anchor Development in Midtown Detroit The Anchor Development approach recognizes the value of cultural, economic, and educational assets for development. For example, institutions such as medical facilities, universities, and museums can be nuclei for urban regeneration in Detroit (Vidal 2013). Detroit Midtown, the New Center, and the Woodward Corridor link many of the city’s downtown areas to regional assets like Wayne State University, the Detroit Institute of Arts, and the Detroit Medical Center located about 3 miles north of the city center. These institutions not only offer employment opportunities but also attract people seeking an urban residential environment. However, limited access to capital and economic decline have dampened the development of this urban transect since 2008 (Mohamed 2012). Woodward Avenue has long been a major thoroughfare of the city that fostered office, institutional, and housing growth along its trajectory. To strengthen the Woodward Corridor, Detroit built the QLine Streetcar in 2014 to provide public transit (Sutcliffe et al. 2019). The Kresge Foundation and the city further supported mobility options and affordable housing to low-income residents in the areas along Woodward Avenue, strengthening Detroit’s urban core (Trudeau 2015). The push for development through a short transit connection between strong centers of economic activity, however, has been judged to have limited potential to stimulate the resurgence of Detroit because it serves only a small area, and is part of an underfunded public transit system with limited service (Lowe and Grengs 2018). Furthermore, the combination of downtown and midtown development has brought economic activity and new residents to the city, slowly changing the narrative of Detroit. However, the focus on Woodward Avenue once more reinforces the strength of the core without serving other urban areas still in distress.

6 Conclusions Cities are aspirational and Detroit is no exception. The current regeneration initiatives take place in spite of the many historical and current forces that led to Detroit’s condition today. As in most cities, there are competing visions about the future of the city that vary across geography, class, and race. Detroit is remaking itself through private investment, public initiatives, and the work of many community members and organizations. Detroit’s future recognizes the importance of sustainability, new investment, the attraction of new business, and respect for the city’s heritage. Due to combined efforts, the narrative of Detroit as a ghost city and posterchild of a decaying industrial city is slowly changing to present a positive image. Positive outcomes in some areas of the city, however, should not be used to mask the reality of a poorly funded city with many neighborhoods that continue to experience distress. Acknowledgements We recognize the valuable contribution of Huiqing Huang for data analysis, graphics, and maps of Detroit.

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

127

References Apel D (2015) Beautiful terrible ruins: Detroit and the anxiety of decline. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick Bai X, Roberts B, Chen J (2010) Urban sustainability experiments in Asia: patterns and pathways. Environ Sci Policy 13(4):312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2010.03.011 Barrow H (2018) Henry Ford’s Plan for the American Suburb: Dearborn and Detroit. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY Barton AC, Tan E, Greenberg D (2016) The makerspace movement: Sites of possibilities for equitable opportunities to engage underrepresented youth in STEM. Teach College Rec 119(6):11–44 Batty M (2007) The creative destruction of cities. Environ Plan B: Plan Des 34:2–5. https://doi.org/ 10.1068/b3401ed Beauregard RA (2006) When America became suburban. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Benton C, Mullins L, Shelley K, Dempsey T (2013) Makerspaces: supporting an entrepreneurial system. MSU EDA University Center for Regional Economic Innovation (REI). https://reicenter. org/upload/documents/colearning/benton2013_report.pdf Berghorn GH, Syal MM, LaMore RL, Brockman J, Durst NJ (2019) Domicology: an Emerging research agenda for socioeconomic, environmental, and technological aspects of built environment life cycles. J Architec Eng 25(3):02519001 Biles R, Rose M (2019) Gilbertville, ilitchville, and the redevelopment of detroit. J Plan Hist. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1538513219866139 Bishop B (2009) The big sort: why the clustering of like-minded America is tearing us apart. First Mariner Books, Boston Bisson J (2016) The comparative decline and revitalization processes of Hartford and Detroit. Trinity College Digital Repository. https://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art icle=1041&context=trinitypapers Bluestone B, Harrison B (1982) The deindustrialization of America: plant closings, community abandonment, and the dismantling of basic industry. Basic Books, New York, NY Che D (2008) Sports, music, entertainment and the destination branding of post-Fordist Detroit. Tour Recreat Res 33(2):195–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/02508281.2008.11081305 Colasanti KJ, Hamm MW, Litjens CM (2012) The city as an “agricultural powerhouse”? perspectives on expanding urban agriculture from Detroit, Michigan. Urban Geograp 33(3):348–369. https:// doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.3.348 Cooke P (ed) (1995) The rise of the rustbelt. Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK Darden JT, Thomas RW (2013) Detroit: race riots, racial conflicts, and efforts to bridge the racial divide. Michigan State University Press, East Lansing Davison G (2013) The suburban idea and its enemies. J Urban Hist 39(5):829–847. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0096144213479307 Doucet B, Smit E (2016) Building an urban ‘renaissance’: fragmented services and the production of inequality in greater downtown Detroit. J Housing Built Environ 31(4):635–657 Dousay TA (2017) Defining and differentiating the makerspace. Educat Technol, 69–74 Dubb S (2015) Community wealth: creating a new community economic base in Detroit. JL Soc’y 17:113 Eisinger P (2014) Is Detroit dead? J Urban Aff 36(1):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/juaf.12071 Eisinger P (2015) Detroit futures: can the city be reimagined? City & Commun 14(2):106– 117. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12109 Farley R (2015) The bankruptcy of Detroit: what role did race play? City & Commun 14(2):118– 137. https://doi.org/10.1111/cico.12106 Gallagher J (2013) Revolution Detroit: strategies for urban reinvention. Wayne State University Press, Detroit

128

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

Gallagher J (2019) Social media is arguing about how much vacant land is in Detroit—and the number matters. Detroit Free Press. https://www.freep.com/story/money/business/john-gallag her/2019/10/26/detroit-vacant-land/4056467002/ Griffin TL, Cramer D, Powers M (2014) Detroit works long-term planning project: engagement strategies for blending community and technical expertise. Buildings 4(4):711–736 Hackworth J (2016) Demolition as urban policy in the American rust belt. Environ Plan Econ Space 48(11):2201–2222. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X16654914 Hamlin D (2017) Are charter schools safer in deindustrialized cities with high rates of crime? Testing hypotheses in Detroit. Am Educ Res J 54(4):725–756. https://doi.org/10.3102/000283 1217705060 Harvey D (2007) Neoliberalism as creative destruction. Annals Am Acad Polit Soc Sci 610(1):21– 44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716206296780 Hashim N (2015) Reversing food desertification: examining urban farming in Louisville, Chicago and Detroit. Local Environ 20(6):611–636. https://doi.org/10.1080/13549839.2014.931364 Herold B (2016) The maker movement in K-12 education: a guide to emerging research. Education Week. April 11. https://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/DigitalEducation/2016/04/maker_movement_ in_k-12_education_research.html High S (2003) Industrial sunset: the making of North America’s rust belt, 1969–1984. Toronto: University of Toronto Press Holli MG (2001) The founding of detroit by cadillac. Mich Histor Rev 27(1):129–136 Holman W (2015) Makerspace: towards a new civic infrastructure. Places J. https://placesjournal. org/article/makerspace-towards-a-new-civic-infrastructure/ Accessed July, 2020 Hospers G (2004) Restructuring Europe’s rustbelt. Intereconomics 39:147–156. https://doi.org/10. 1007/BF02933582 Hu X, Yang C (2018) Building a role model for rust belt cities? Fuxin’s economic revitalization in question. Cities 72:245–251 Jessop B (2019) Entrepreneurial city. The wiley blackwell Encyclopedia of urban and regional studies. Wiley Blackwell, Hobochen, pp 1–10 Kickert C (2019) Dream city: creation, destruction, and reinvention in downtown Detroit. MIT Press, Cambridge Kinney RJ (2018) America’s great comeback story: the white possessive in Detroit tourism. Am Quart 70(4):777–806 Kollmeyer C (2009) Explaining deindustrialization: how affluence, productivity growth, and globalization diminish manufacturing employment. Am J Sociol 114(6):1644–1674. https://doi.org/ 10.1086/597176 Laurencin CT, McClinton A (2020) The COVID-19 pandemic: a call to action to identify and address racial and ethnic disparities. J Racial Ethnic Health Disp 7:398–402. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s40615-020-00756-0 Liang S, Qu S, Zhao Q, Zhang X, Daigger GT, Newell JP, Miller SA, Johnson JX, Love NG, Zhang L, Yang Z (2018) Quantifying the Urban food–energy–water nexus: the case of the Detroit metropolitan area. Environ Sci Technol 53(2):779–788. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.8b06240 Locke R, Mehaffy M, Haas T, Olsson K (2018) Urban heritage as a generator of landscapes: building new geographies from post-urban decline in Detroit. Urban Sci 2(3):2–16. https://doi. org/10.3390/urbansci2030092 Lowe K, Grengs J (2018) Private donations for public transit: the equity implications of Detroit’s public-private streetcar. J Plan Educ Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X18761237 Lubienski C, Lee J (2016) Competitive incentives and the education market: How charter schools define themselves in metropolitan Detroit. Peabody J Educ 91(1):64–80. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 0161956X.2016.1119582 Martelle S (2012) Detroit: a biography. Chicago Review Press, Chicago MacKinnon L, High S (2020) Deindustrialization. The Routledge handbook to the political economy and governance of the Americas (pp. 57–67). Routledge, London

After the Rustbelt: Sustainability and Economic …

129

McClintock N (2018) Cultivating (a) sustainability capital: Urban agriculture, ecogentrification, and the uneven valorization of social reproduction. Ann Am Assoc Geograph 108(2):579–590. https:// doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2017.1365582 McConnon A (2020) How Detroit’s revival is anchored in its long-vacant train station. The New York Times, January 23 McDonald JF (2014) What happened to and in Detroit? Urban Stud 51(16):3309–3329. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098013519505 Meerow S, Newell JP (2017) Spatial planning for multifunctional green infrastructure: growing resilience in Detroit. Landscape Urban Plan 159:62–75 Mitchell RS (1958) Cadillac’s village: Detroit under the French regime. Detroit Historical Museum Mogk JE, Wiatkowski S, Weindorf MJ (2010) Promoting urban agriculture as an alternative land use for vacant properties in the city of Detroit: benefits, problems and proposals for a regulatory framework for successful land use integration. Wayne Law Rev 56:1521 Mohamed R (2012) Development trends and developers in midtown Detroit. EDA University Center for Regional Economic Innovation, Michigan State University. https://reicenter.org/upload/doc uments/colearning/mohamed2012_report.pdf Molotch H (1976) The city as a growth machine: toward a political economy of place. Am J Sociol fb82(2), 309–332 Montgomery AF (2015) Creation before creation: meditation on democracy in Detroit. Michigan Quart Rev 54(1):132–148 Morckel V (2020) Flint (MI) missed an opportunity to “right size” with its water crisis. J Am Plan Assoc 86(3):304–310 Moriset B (2014) Building new places of the creative economy the rise of coworking spaces. In: 2nd Geography of Innovation International Conference 2014 Utrecht University, Utrecht Nelson R (2017) Plans to reduce the high asthma burden in Detroit. Lancet Resp Med 5(5):388–389 Ni Y (2009) The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: evidence from Michigan. Econ Educ Rev 28(5):571–584. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev. 2009.01.003 Niaros V, Kostakis V, Drechsler W (2017) Making (in) the smart city: the emergence of makerspaces. Telem Inf 34(7):1143–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.004 Owens R III, Rossi-Hansberg E, Sarte PD (2020) Rethinking Detroit. Am Econ J Econ Policy 12(2):258–305 Peters T (2011) Demanding more from Michigan’s charter schools. JL Soc’y 13:555–583 Pothukuchi K (2017) To allow farming is to give up on the city: political anxieties related to the disposition of vacant land for urban agriculture in Detroit. J Urban Affairs 39(8):1169– 1189. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2017.1319239 Reindl JC (2020) Closed casinos are huge loss for Detroit: how much it could hurt. Detroit free press. https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/2020/05/27/closed-casinos-huge-loss-detroit/523 6641002/ Accessed May 27 Rodrik D (2016) Premature deindustrialization. J Econ Growth 21:1–33. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10887-015-9122-3 Roundy PT (2019) Rust belt or revitalization: competing narratives in entrepreneurial ecosystems. Manage Res Rev 43(1):102–121 Ryan BD (2008) The restructuring of Detroit: city block form change in a shrinking city, 1900–2000. Urban Des Intern 13(3):156–168. https://doi.org/10.1057/udi.2008.21 Schilling J, Logan J (2008) Greening the rust belt. J Am Plan Assoc 74(4):451–466. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01944360802354956 Sheridan KM, Konopasky A (2016) Designing for resourcefulness. In: Peppler K, Halverson E, Kafai YB (eds.), Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments. Routledge, New York Sheridan K, Halverson ER, Litts B, Brahms L, Jacobs-Priebe L, Owens T (2014) Learning in the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educ Rev 84(4):505–531. https:// doi.org/10.17763/haer.84.4.brr34733723j648u Southeast Michigan Economic Data Center (2020) Insights. https://www.oakland.edu/semedc/

130

M. Wilson and E. Kassens-Noor

Sugrue TJ (2014) The origins of the urban crisis: race and inequality in Postwar Detroit. Princeton University Press, Princeton Sutcliffe JB, Cipkar S, Alchin G (2019) Can public transit revitalize Detroit? The QLine and the People Mover. https://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/documents/conference/2019/161.Sutcliffe-Cipkar.pdf Taylor A, Jackson M (2010) Sixty to zero: an inside look at the collapse of general motors and the Detroit auto industry. Yale University Press Thomas JM (2013) Redevelopment and race: Planning a finer city in Postwar. Wayne State University Press, Detroit Thompson HA (2001) Whose Detroit? politics, labor, and race in a modern American city. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY Thoreau HD (1854) Walden; or life in the woods. Boston: Ticknor & Fields. https://archive.org/det ails/waldenorlifeinwo1854thor/page/n3/mode/2up Tiebout C (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Politic Econ 64(5):416–424 Trudeau LJ (2015) M-1 RAIL: a new foundation for growth in Detroit built upon unprecedented partnerships. Inst Trans Eng ITE J 85(4):31–34 Van Agtmael A, Bakker F (2016) The smartest places on earth: why rustbelts are the emerging hotspots of global innovation. Hachette UK, London Vidal AC (2013) Anchor-driven redevelopment in a very weak market. In: Patterson KL, Silverman RM (eds) Schools and urban revitalization: Rethinking institutions and community development. Routledge, London, pp 54–70 Vitiello D, Wolf-Powers L (2014) Growing food to grow cities? The potential of agriculture for economic and community development in the urban United States. Commun Devel J 49(4), 508–523 White MM (2011) Sisters of the soil: urban gardening as resistance in Detroit. Race/Ethnicity: Multidisc Glob Contexts 5(1),13–28 Wiley JA, Walker DM (2011) Casino revenues and retail property values: the Detroit case. J Real Estate Fin Econ 42(1):99–114 Wingo G, Sheridan KM (2018) Beyond the manifestos. In: Garber E, Hochtritt L, Sharma M (eds.) Makers, crafters, educators: working for cultural change. Chapter 16 Woods LL (2012) The federal home loan bank board, redlining, and the national proliferation of racial lending discrimination, 1921–1950. J Urban Hist 38(6):1036–1059. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0096144211435126 Zahir S, Syal MG, LaMore R, Berghorn G (2016) Approaches and associated costs for the removal of abandoned buildings. Construction research congress (pp. 229–239)

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France: The Case of the Loire Valley Region Divya Leducq and Christophe Demazière

Abstract The global number of coworking spaces (CSs) keeps increasing rapidly. This leads to question their role in the territorial economy, in the evolution of urban fabrics and for public policies. In France, this dynamic spans on the whole range of the urban system, from metropolitan areas to villages. The Loire Valley region is a particularly interesting observation laboratory: in this medium-sized region, the number of CSs increased from 2 in 2013 to 25 in 2017, and many projects are still emerging. The chapter is based on a qualitative set of methodologies: maps, direct observations and interviews with managers and coworkers. Interviews helped us to understand how such actors perceive the urban environment and what links they have to amenities or equipment that are present in a city. Our contribution aims to demonstrate the following results. The analysis of the urban insertion of CSs (architectural form, street environment, road signs, accessibility) provides information on the room for improvement of urban policies. The effects of CSs on urban regeneration seem limited, either today or in the medium term. In the Loire Valley region, local government did not see yet the CS as a possible tool for economic and/or urban development.

1 Introduction The geography of economic activities has been transformed under the concurrent influence of technological changes and advances in the digital economy, of the economic crisis and new forms of employment, and of energy and ecological transition. This has led to the emergence of alternative work places, creating new economic models and patterns of urban development (Besson 2017; Liefooghe and Leducq D. Leducq (B) · C. Demazière Université de Tours, UMR CNRS 7324 Cités, Territoires, Environnement et Sociétés (CITERES), Territoires, Tours, France e-mail: [email protected] C. Demazière e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_8

131

132

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

2017). These so-called “third places” take many forms: makerspaces, hackerspaces, fab labs, living labs and coworking spaces (Fabbri 2016; Liefooghe 2018). This chapter focuses on coworking spaces (CSs), which appear to have functions that are clearly distinct from those of other third places (Fabbri 2016). First, CSs can be defined as shared work spaces, with excellent WiFi connections, used by different types of professionals (teleworkers, self-employed workers, etc.) with different levels of specialisation in the vast domain of the knowledge industry (consulting, journalism, multimedia, etc.) (Gandini 2015). The coworking boom has occurred as part of the rapid increase in the number of independent workers and start-up founders who actively use information and communication technologies (Perrin and Aguiléra 2017). Those who use CSs, either occasionally or regularly, do so to overcome the uncertainties of the job market and in the hope of developing a social and professional network of partners (Moriset 2017). The values of openness, community and sustainability underlie the notion of collaborative work, and social and leisure spaces are an integral part of a CS (Spinuzzi 2012; Capdevila 2018). According to Deskmag, a website that specialises in coworking, there are 15,500 CSs worldwide for 1.7 million coworkers, and in the last ten years, the number of functioning CSs has doubled every year. The opening by specialised chains of similar franchised premises in large cities contrasts with CSs created by social entrepreneurs as a result of endogenous, spontaneous and local dynamics. In France, a recent official report showed that CSs can serve also to diversify under-occupied spaces (Lévy-Waitz 2018), including commercial buildings (hotels, neighbourhood shops) or public amenities (libraries, stations). Other CSs are linked to public actions aimed at spreading digital culture within the French population. The urban planner’s interest in the CS boom concerns its consequences on the urban fabric. Indeed, the increasing number of CSs fosters the belief that they are the latest embodiment of economic development facilities enabling regions to become competitive and sustainable (Liefooghe and Leducq 2017). The novelty and flexibility of this type of work space have not facilitated empirical research on its structuring effects at the regional, town and neighbourhood level. This chapter thus aims to address a number of issues concerning the relationships of CSs with different regional, town and neighbourhood entities, in order to gain a better understanding of how this new urban feature is taking root in France. Are CSs spreading outwards, from metropolitan areas to other levels of the urban hierarchy? What are the patterns of location of CSs in the urban space? Do CSs have a transformative effect on the neighbourhood or the town? Our contribution focuses on four points. First, by elaborating a literature review, we examine the relationship of CSs with towns, as seen by geographers and urban planners. Next, we present the methodology used and then describe the situation in the Centre-Val de Loire, a region that has no major metropolitan area. Finally, we describe the results concerning the spread and the choice of location and urban setting of the CSs in our case study.

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France …

133

2 Literature Review Leducq and Ananian (2019) identified two broad approaches in the scientific literature related to CSs. The first, dominated by economists and managers, relates to work on innovation clusters (Waters-Lynch and Potts 2017), and examines the values (collaborative economy, different time-frames, crowdfunding, ecology) and the economic dimension of these new innovative environments (Katz and Wagner 2014), as well as their ability to foster creativity (Hurry 2012). More recently, the second approach investigates the multiple relationships of CSs with the urban space. This approach is particularly evident in work carried out in Italy (Mariotti et al. 2015, 2017; Morandi and Di Vita 2015; Pacchi 2015), but can also be found in studies conducted in English speaking countries (Petch 2015) and France (Moriset 2017). In this section, we will look at the main contributions of this literature on geography and urban studies, in order to identify a number of relevant issues and hypotheses for our empirical study.

2.1 Spatial Distribution and Urban Hierarchy Moriset (2017), Besson (2017) and Liefooghe (2018) have shown that we are currently witnessing a dual progressive expansion of CSs, at global and regional levels, and from the centre to the periphery. Indeed, while CSs first appeared in the centre of global, creative and competitive cities, they can now be found in all large urban areas. Their number has increased from 600 in 2010 to 15,500 today (Deskmag 2017). The number of CSs decreases following the rank-size law of cities, but they can be found in most cities and towns worldwide, and they are now starting to be set up in periurban or rural areas.

2.2 Choice of Location: Density and Diversity of Functions in City Centres The extensive spread of CSs should not mask the strength of location factors that explain the development of leading-edge industries and high-skill services. Mariotti et al. (2017) observed that 80% of the CSs in Italy are located in the heart of very large cities. This prime location is linked mainly to transport facilities, infrastructure and accessibility (Brown 2017). Scaillerez et al. and Di Marino and Lapintie (2017) found that a major asset is a proximity to public transport services (tramway, metro, railway or bus stations). According to Wang and Loo (2017), CS creators, managers and operators also like to be close to banks, town halls and institutions, in order to have easy access to capital and administrative procedures. CSs are linked to the knowledge economy, building on the intelligence of highly skilled and creative

134

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

workers, who prefer dynamic, high-quality urban centres, both to live and to work, following the mantra “Live, Work and Play”, popularised by Florida (2010). Finally, CSs tend to be found in neighbourhoods that have a strong urban identity based on preserved architecture, commercial vitality or the presence of natural spaces (Usai 2019; Ananian 2019; Besson 2017).

2.3 Relationship with the Neighbourhood and Changing Practices A third aspect found in urban studies concerns the links between CSs and the surrounding urban space, raising practical issues for developers and urban planners. Leducq and Ananian (2018, 2019) found that these issues are not formalised through a specific approach but can be observed essentially at the neighbourhood scale in terms of architectural and physical spaces and in terms of social practices. Merkel (2015), Moriset (2017) and Waters-Lynch and Potts (2017) argue that CSs, whether they are public or private initiatives, raise the profile of the neighbourhood as a relevant scale for action and urban projects. On the one hand, they occupy vacant buildings or transform brownfield sites. On the other hand, they provide a place for “nomad” workers to settle and they revitalise the commercial fabric through new uses. Whatever the size of the CS—small, medium or large—and its degree of specialisation, a mixed-use, loosely knit and more or less identifiable space enables both inward and outward flow of movement. Depending on its layout and functions, this “in-between” space enables transaction, exchange and cross-influence between the interior and the exterior, between the place and the environment, between the CS and the town. Pacchi (2015) observed that the relationship of the CS with its local environment can be direct or indirect, open or closed, seamless or patchy, physical or symbolic. Brown (2017) cast a more critical eye on the architectural, urban and landscape integration of CSs, highlighting the risks of conflicts of use or displacement of activities, of coworkers showing a lack of interest in the local community or keeping a distance from it, of accentuating imbalances in urban development, and of the gentrification of certain neighbourhoods.

2.4 Involvement of Decision Makers and Public Policies The dominant economic model of CSs is a private, commercially driven initiative. Sometimes, CSs are also specifically community-based. In both cases, Brown (2017) and Jamal (2018) consider that public policies have a role to play in supporting and regulating these new work spaces, in order to benefit fully from their positive effects on the urban fabric (revitalisation), or, by contrast, to prevent their negative effects (gentrification). However, few studies have examined this role or the involvement of

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France …

135

stakeholders in the dynamics of coworking. France is a country where decentalisation laws were initiated in the early 1980s, i.e. in the midst of a crisis of national interventions in economic, social and territorial matters (Demazière 2018). As their powers have grown, local authorities have developed public policies aimed directly at promoting the economic development of their territory. Digital infrastructures and digital uses are part of their interventions. As part of these policies, CSs can be created through public contracts by different public bodies (Regions, Departments, Metropolitan authorities and Municipalities). Subnational governments can either join together to subsidise a CS, or intervene separately within a kind of competitive approach. Sometimes they prefer public-private partnerships so as to share the risks. But it is quite common to find public CSs whose aim is to bridge the “digital divide”, as well as to change the image of disused industrial areas or social housing districts (Lévy-Waitz 2018). This raises the further question of the complementarity or competition between private initiatives (business or non-profit) and public interventions, alongside the issue of the viability of the private model of CSs, boosted by the economic crisis and the depression of the office building market (Moriset 2017).

2.5 CSs in Mid-sized Towns In France, Baudelle et al. (2018) studied coworking in mid-sized towns in Brittany. Their conclusions were fairly similar to those reached for CSs located in large cities. In both cases, individuals belonging to the “creative class”, “bohemians”, or senior executives who had left their positions in large companies had initiated CS projects, in which they made use of their former professional networks. These private projects were often cited in buildings vacated by manufacturing or commercial activities in non-central transitional districts or that already had a prestigious address (Jamal 2018). Several effects of the CS on the neighbourhood have been described: increased use and traffic (soft mobility) in the adjacent streets, fostering sociability with the inhabitants (Akhavan et al. 2019); a knock-on effect, leading to the creation of other CS projects and city-wide networking; spin-off activities making use of other disused sites; opening up the CS to pre-existing organisations, such as sports or cultural groups; use of local shops by the coworkers; progressive rise in the value of business and then residential property. We can see here the impact of CSs on boosting urban regeneration. To conclude this first section, a review of the literature found no author who concurrently studied the spread and the specificities of coworking in mid-sized towns in France, the factors of location at this scale, the transformational power of CSs at urban and neighbourhood levels, and the way that public authorities actively encourage the creation or establishment of CSs. The aim of our article is thus to fill these gaps in the existing literature, using a qualitative methodology and an original and novel case study.

136

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

3 Research Methodology To study CSs, methodological innovation and originality are necessary for two reasons. First, the phenomenon is new, and the diversity of models makes it difficult to grasp the dynamics. Secondly, few urban studies focus on CSs, and there is no directly replicable method. However, the theoretical corpus derived from studies in economics, management, geography or information-communication shows that the best way to understand CSs involves examining factors related to the founder-manager, coworkers, neighbourhood, public services, business ventures, the town’s elected representatives and civil servants, and the architects/urban planners. One of the specific aspects of urban planning research is that it uses different tools to study a model that is becoming widespread and established in a wide range and variety of spaces. Our research thus involves press reviews, analyses of web sites, field visits (the building, layout and urban environment), maps, questionnaires and interviews. The current research programme, led in France by Tours University and in Canada by Quebec University in Montreal, provided the opportunity to construct a methodology to examine the physical, social and symbolic dimensions of the integration of CSs in the urban setting and their interactions with the town and the neighbourhood. Four lines of research were conducted in the Centre-Val de Loire region: the on-going importance of location factors and hence the clustering of CSs in town centres; the modalities of their physical integration in the built environment; the conditions of accessibility to the spaces, the communities involved and information networks; and finally, the role of public policies and urban programming in driving the development of CSs. To understand this relatively recent and little studied phenomenon, this study was conducted in 2017 and 2018. Three complementary research tools were used: mapping, direct observation and semi-structured interviews.

3.1 Cartography: Mapping to Spatialise, Quantify and Establish Proxemic Relations It is difficult to identify CSs because coworking does not exist in the national classification of activities. Existing databases are declarative or linked to commercial platforms and do not entirely reflect the appearance-disappearance of CSs. Furthermore, the data were initially produced from Internet sites and from information requested from each CS that we identified, and then by information being passed on via coworker networks. We also included data held by a regional digital development agency. In this way, 25 CSs were identified and mapped on 55 maps.

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France …

137

The atlas lists the CSs in the Centre-Val de Loire region, and then at the smaller scales of urban areas, towns and neighbourhoods in order to characterise their environment as precisely as possible, with links to socio-spatial statistical data (income, self-employment rates in a neighbourhood, etc.).

3.2 Direct Observation: An Approach Incorporating Architectural, Landscape and Urban Dimensions This cartographic localisation was complemented by direct observation of aspects of the surrounding environment, including accessibility, walkability and aesthetics of the place and the landscape. An observation grid was created to analyse the urban integration of a CS, based on three aspects: (i) its physical visibility through the architecture of the building, its reception area, or exterior signage; (ii) its accessibility via different modes of transport and proximity to transport hubs; (iii) access to amenities in the surroundings, such as shops, spaces for relaxation, leisure and services, or by contrast, discomfort caused by sensory pollution (noise, light, smell), or an insecure neighbourhood. Field visits were conducted around 14 CSs that were selected because they were both different from each other and complementary in terms of their location and origin (public action or private initiative).

3.3 Interviews: Understanding the Project Through the Stakeholders and Their Strategies Semi-structured interviews were conducted at the CSs with 28 coworkers. The majority were either self-employed or temporary teleworkers, working in the following activity sectors: computing and telecommunications, consultancy, graphic design and media, journalism and translation. The aim of the interviews was to understand how the workers interacted with the urban environment (means of transport and commuting from home to work, patterns of consumption and leisure, perception of the town and the neighbourhood), depending on their personal profile (individual and family status) and based on a typical day’s work in the CS. Concurrently, 14 interviews were conducted with the CEO, founders and managers (account, event, community…), focusing on two broad topics: first, the choice of location of the CS (background, relocation, future strategy, importance of amenities and accessibility of the neighbourhood, etc.); secondly, connections with the neighbourhood (activities and actions set up to encourage links with the inhabitants, arrangements with shopkeepers, relationships with public authorities, etc.). This corpus was completed with two interviews with public and semi-public institutions. Table 1 presents the 8 CSs in the study, the number of available places in each and their estimated daily use, based on the interviews with the 14 interviews.

138

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

Table 1 CSs surveyed in towns in the Loire area Town

CSs visited

Blois

L’Hôte Bureau Le Lab

12

Low

Orléans

Espace&Co

20

Medium

Eurêka Coworking

16

Medium

Tours

Joué-lès-Tours

Le HQ

Number of available places 10

Average daily use High

100

Very high

(S)TART’inbox

25

Very high

MAME

20

High

La Grange numérique

5

Very high

Source Demazière and Leducq

Each of the following CS has been directly observed. Use of these methodological tools enabled us to meet a pre-established research time-frame: analysis and verification of the distribution of CSs across the CentreVal de Loire region; examination of the links between the CS and the town via a selection of representative case studies; development of an exploratory interpretation of connections with the locality based on the statements and practices of the CS managers and users. However, before presenting the initial conclusions of our study, it is important to describe the Centre-Val de Loire region, which has the dual specificity of proximity to Paris and of lacking a strong intercommunal structure.

4 The Specific Context of a Region Without Any Metropolitan City The Centre-Val de Loire region lies within the Paris Basin and traditionally serves as an off-loading space for certain functions and populations of the Île-de-France region. In this way, its economic power was boosted between 1950 and 1970, by the decentralisation of Fordist industries, with the creation of 800 establishments and 95,000 jobs, representing a quarter of the operations and 15% of the new jobs thus created in France. The decentralised activity involved mainly manufacturing, which ultimately became a source of vulnerability; between 2003 and 2013, the industrial workforce dropped by 21.4%, compared to 18.2% in provincial France as a whole. According to numerous indicators, the economic influence of the Centre-Val de Loire is modest. For example, in 2016, with 3.9% of the national population and 4% of mainland employment, it accounted for only 3.2% of French GDP, compared to the Île-de-France, which comprised 20% of the population and accounted for 30% of GDP. Likewise, in 2015, it ranked 11th amongst French regions for R&D spending by businesses. This should be seen in relation to the spatial distribution of the population

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France …

139

and of economic activities, marked by the absence of a large metropolitan area driving development at the regional scale. Within the region, the Val de Loire plays a key role in regional economic development, thanks to the transport infrastructures linking the Île-de-France with the West and South-West of France. This is also the most urbanised part of the region, with Orléans (280,000 inhabitants) and Tours (350,000 inhabitants) which are only 100 km apart. Halfway there is the agglomeration of Blois (65,000 inhabitants in 2016). Orléans is the administrative capital of the region, and Tours is the main centre of facilities for higher education, research and culture. These two conurbations rank, respectively, 23rd and 18th amongst the greater urban zones in France. Nevertheless, at the instigation of their elected representatives, they were recognised as institutional metropolitan areas in 2017, at the same time as other mid-sized urban areas in France with similar economic importance, namely, Dijon, Clermont-Ferrand, Metz, Saint-Etienne and Toulon (Demazière and Sykes 2020).

5 Results 5.1 Spatial Distribution and Polarisation in the Loire Valley In France, the first CS was created in Paris in 2008, and more than a thousand third places containing a coworking space were identified in 2018 (Lévy-Waitz 2018). The leading region is the Île-de-France, which includes the capital city and is a breeding ground for creative, intellectual and innovative activities. However, coworking in the Centre-Val de Loire is also particularly dynamic. Tours is the cradle of coworking in the region, with the creation of three CSs as early as 2012. It is followed by Orléans, where two CSs were created between 2013 and 2015. In 2018, the majority of CSs in the region were still in Tours and Orléans, which are the administrative centres of the two largest urban areas in the region. Their proximity to the Paris metropolitan area makes them attractive to senior executives leaving the Île-de-France. Moreover, student populations are 15,000 in Orléans and 30,000 in Tours, which makes them a significant breeding ground for the “creative class” of workers, self-employed workers, and entrepreneurs. This characteristic supports the argument that CSs develop primarily in towns recognised as being creative and also that have a certain number of valuable resources for these types of structures. However, between 2016 and 2018, 80% of the new CSs in the region were in mid-sized and small towns, indicating a gradual extension of coworking throughout the region, particularly in areas suffering from deindustrialisation and seeking a new economic vocation. Coworking has even started to develop in some villages with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants.

140

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

5.2 Two Main Differences with CSs in Metropolitan Areas The areas investigated for this article were mid-sized towns in a region with no metropolitan area. This leads to two differences with the CSs in major metropolitan areas described in the coworking literature. The first observation arising from our case studies is the very limited nature of their effects on urban regeneration, in contrast to the positive externalities that can be seen in big cities like Paris, Bordeaux or Lille, where there is some potential for regeneration of old buildings and industrial neighbourhoods. This could be explained by the fact that rather than being a potential resource for renovating a neighbourhood, the development of a CS depends on the neighbourhood’s urban, social and economic characteristics. In that respect, midsized towns seem to provide fewer favourable factors than metropolitan areas. This hypothesis is tested through analysis of the urban integration of the CSs. Secondly, alongside the CS projects developed by private entities on a forprofit or cooperative basis, some of the CSs identified in the three towns in our study were created by public bodies. In these cases, the public bodies acted as the contracting authority and were involved in operating the CS, which is in line with recent studies about coworking in other French regions (Lévy-Waitz 2018; Région Nouvelle-Aquitaine 2018). This observation reveals the diversity of CS operators, in contrast to the metropolitan model in which CS projects are initiated and developed predominantly by private entities. Our aim is to document and explain this diversity. Have the local authorities of mid-sized towns adopted the CS idea for strategic purposes, seeing them as a lever of economic and/or urban development? Or, are they acting opportunistically (e.g. property development) in response to the leading role played by CSs in metropolitan development? The concurrent development of private and publicly operated CSs in the same town (Table 2) raises the question of the complementarity or competitiveness of initiatives operated or facilitated by local authorities and CSs that are generated spontaneously. Table 2 shows the objectives and links with the neighbourhood of three categories of CS. In addition to private and publicly operated CSs, we also identified noncommercial CSs, which differ not only in terms of their objectives, but also in their vision for the neighbourhood. Unlike the publicly operated CSs, which are part of an urban project aimed at the economic development of disadvantaged neighbourhoods, the aim of non-commercial CSs is to empower individuals, whoever they are and wherever they live.

5.3 Architectural Integration and Urban Function of the CS Analysis of the integration of the CSs into the urban landscape involves studying not only the architecture of the buildings they occupy, but also how they are indicated

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France …

141

Table 2 Objectives of CSs and vision for the neighbourhood Mode of operation

Objectives of the project

Project operators’ vision for the neighbourhood

Public

To develop economic activity, notably through business creation.

The neighbourhood needs to be developed, which can be helped by bringing in new activities: knock-on effect of new image, juxtaposition of economic activities

Private commercial

Profit-making—creating own or collaborative activity with economic partners, pooling the cost of professional premises

The neighbourhood is a resource for developing the activity. Key factors: location, accessibility, proximity of shops and services

Private non-commercial (Social economy)

Affirming values of solidarity and mutual help through collaborative work (inclusion of employees of non-profit organisations) and encouraging innovative social and community projects

Helping the community to develop, within and beyond the immediate neighbourhood (people-based approach)

Source Demazière and Leducq

visually, enabling the space to be identified and situated in the street, the neighbourhood or town. Our study shows a significant difference between private and publicly operated CSs, that is presented in this paragraph. The physical visibility of a CS is based first on the architectural quality of the building. The privately run and for-profit CSs in our sample in the Centre-Val de Loire all occupy old buildings (Fig. 1). The CSs in our study occupy either a former ground-floor shop, an office building, or even a former residential house. Unlike certain metropolitan areas in France or other countries (Besson 2017), none of the private CSs occupy a disused industrial site. This is linked to the size of the projects; in all three towns, the CSs are generally small, in terms of both surface area and number of work stations (e.g. 150 m2 and 20 coworkers in Eurêka Coworking). The CS initiators have to choose between the cost of renting, which is higher in the town centre than in the outskirts and finding as central a location as possible for maximum visibility and accessibility. For what concerns the cost of renting, the need to manage the cost of professional premises is normal behaviour for entrepreneurs (Mariotti et al. 2017). For what concerns visibility and accessibility, unlike metropolitan areas, the towns in the present study have a single centre, where public buildings, shopping streets, public transport hubs, outstanding built heritage, etc. are concentrated. Furthermore, to attract coworkers, a CS must be visible from the street, comprise open-plan work spaces, as well as rooms suitable for business negotiations or creative work, and also spaces for relaxation (e.g. kitchen, bar, garden) (Merkel 2015; Petch 2015). This accounts for the location of private CSs in town centres.

142

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

Fig. 1 Architectural and landscape integration of private CSs. Source Leducq et al.

In Tours, the case of Le HQ illustrates the importance of centrality and accessibility. Initially, this project, developed by two active members of the digital community in Touraine, occupied a rented building and had 18 work stations with a floor space of 40 m2 . The two founding members then worked with partners to acquire a wing of the former central post office in Tours (for an investment of 2.5 million euros), thus relocating to the most central point of Tours. With a surface area of 1,000 m2 , the CS can now accommodate about one hundred coworkers, enhancing the profile of the project. Amongst all the CSs studied in the Centre-Val de Loire, this is the only one that has changed the function of the building where it moved, a characteristic which is often observed in the literature for CSs in metropolitan areas (Moriset 2017). The interviews confirm that the private CSs all preferred being in the town centre, or, in one case, just a few hundred metres from the centre. The reasons given were the prestige and visibility of the address, and also accessibility (Table 3). Accessibility plays a major role in attracting coworkers at the town level, and also in enabling them to develop business links at the regional or national level. In Tours, Le HQ has excellent accessibility as it is on nine bus routes and a tramway route, and it is close to two major transport hubs. Regarding the publicly operated CSs, these all entail multi-level governance with a large number of public stakeholders, including the State and local authorities. Two distinct approaches underlie the creation of these CSs: urban revitalisation of social housing districts and economic development based on ICTs.

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France …

143

Table 3 Accessibility of the CSs Private CS Le HQ (Tou rs)

Espac e & Co (Orléans)

Location in the town Accessibility

(S)TART’I nbox (Tours)

Central

Fastest access time to rail station by public transport. Number of nearby bus/tramway lines

Eurêka Cowork ing (Orléans)

Publicly run CS L’H ôte Bureau (Bloi s)

5

1 8

Le Lab (Blo is)

MA ME (Tou rs)

Lab’O (Orléans)

Pericentral

7

7

8

13

1 2

2

5

5

1

1 6

1

1

7

24

3

Source Demazière et al.

In France, a national programme for urban renovation was launched in 2003, with the aim of carrying out demolition and reconstruction work to attract new residents and create a greater functional mix (Epstein 2005). To this end, amenities were created, often from scratch, to facilitate the development of economic activities in social housing districts with high rates of unemployment. In Blois and Tours, incubators for start-up businesses were created, including offices and also open-plan spaces for coworking. The business incubator in Tours was opened in 2013, and occupies a cubic building behind a local shopping and amenity centre; it is the same height and size as the surrounding social housing buildings and is discreetly signed (Fig. 2). The building blends particularly well into the environment, with frescoes representing the facades of the surrounding buildings, painted by the local residents in order to involve them in the project. Seven years on, it appears that none of the business creators or coworkers in the business incubator is from the neighbourhood. In Blois, the business incubator initiated by the local urban authority is located in a building constructed in 1970, previously occupied by France Télécom and the Post Office. The renovation was financed by public funds. At the request of elected representatives, it is distinguished from the social housing blocks by its colours (black, white, yellow) and a logo that can be seen from a distance. As the building is entirely fenced in, one could imagine that there would be both a visual and a functional barrier between the business incubator and its immediate environment. However, the manager of the CS instigated the communal weekly lunch arranged for

144

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

Fig. 2 Architectural and landscape integration of public CSs. Source Leducq et al.

the occupants of the incubator to also be open to all comers. The mix occurs in the car park, which is then open, and around the food trucks parked there. As shown in Table 3, the publicly operated CSs are less accessible than the private commercial CSs. In the social housing neighbourhood of Blois, where Le Lab is located, there is a limited and infrequent bus service, particularly for people working irregular hours. In Tours, the mayor wanted the tramway to serve the social housing districts in order to give them greater accessibility. The START’inbox business incubator and the CS that it accommodates are at a tramway station next to the railway and bus stations. By contrast, access time to the two most recent publicly operated CSs—the Lab’O in Orléans and MAME in Tours (both open in 2016)—is two to three times longer than for the private CSs, in spite of the fact that they are flagship projects aiming to accommodate digital economy businesses and projects. Tours Métropole has provided 20 million euros for the redevelopment and interior layout of the former printing works MAME, which now houses a CS with floor space of more than 1,500 m2 and accommodates more than 100 coworkers, as well as a business incubator and start-up accelerator, a fab lab, etc. Orléans developed a similar project, providing almost the same means to develop the Lab’O. However, establishing relations between the flagship building and the surrounding urban fabric (in terms of services, accessibility, etc.) is not on the agenda.

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France …

145

5.4 The Neighbourhood Scale: Potential Interactions Between Place (CS) and Environment (Neighbourhood) In this final subsection, we analyse the different forms of interaction between the CSs and their neighbourhood. Before identifying the facilities and economic activities used by coworkers and the actions specifically set up by CS managers or initiators oriented towards the general public and local population, it is important to examine the functions that exist in the neighbourhood. The proximity and range of local shops and services varies considerably, as illustrated by the cases of Le HQ and MAME in Tours, which, once the work on MAME is completed, will be the two largest CSs in the Centre-Val de Loire region. The interviews with CS users and managers reveal that coworkers use the local shops and services during the day and sometimes when leaving work. This tends to confirm the conclusion of a study carried out in Murat en Auvergne (Ocalia 2014), where coworking provides an additional source of income for local shops and amenities (restaurants, overnight accommodation, etc.). In some cases, the managers of private CSs initiated partnerships between local shopkeepers and coworkers. Where there are few local shops and services, there is little interaction between the coworkers and the surrounding urban environment. This is the case of MAME in Tours and Lab’O in Orléans. Proximity to sports or cultural facilities can encourage coworkers to use them. For example, coworkers at START’inbox in Tours regularly go to one of the sports clubs in the nearby Palais des Sports after work. The economic links of a CS can also be examined at the larger town scale. It is at this scale that the project operators—notably of private CSs—seek to become known and develop links with other economic development structures. For example, the creators of Le HQ established links from the outset with PaloAltours, a particularly active non-profit organisation in the town, which, prior to the creation of Le HQ, regularly organised events in the premises of (S)TART’inbox, the publicly operated CS. When Le HQ opened in 2018, it hosted the Start-up Weekend, officially organised by PaloAltours. The CS, which is one of the main sponsors, benefited from the broad impact of the event in the digital innovation ecosystem at local and regional levels. Le HQ also organises other activities in order to raise its profile and open it up to individuals and organisations outside the digital community. Regarding the social effects of the CSs, our study shows that interactions with the local residents occur first and foremost when the CS stakeholders adopt a communitybased approach. This can be seen above all in the non-profit CSs whose objective is not economic but social or involves urban transformation. In Joué-lès-Tours, La Grange organises digital workshops and activities for local job-seekers. At the same time, this CS works with a network of non-profit organisations across the whole urban area, extending its range of influence.

146

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

6 Conclusions: Ownership, Territorial Contexts and Effects The first aim of this article was to present the results of an empirical study of the similarities and specificities of CSs in a French region without a strong intercommunal structure, compared to the model currently observed in metropolitan areas and described in the grey and academic literature. The second aim was to put to the test a coherent methodology to analyse the complex relations of CSs with different spatial entities (city and neighbourhood). Our results show that CSs in France have been developed in both the private and the public sectors, with specificities on the “coopetition” between administrative entities. Moreover, most of the CSs in midsized towns are modest in terms of size and reach. Finally, due to their recent development in Orléans, Tours and Blois, the positive or negative effects on the urban fabric are barely perceptible. Nonetheless, differences in architectural, landscape and urban integration can be observed between private and public CSs, the former being primarily located in “metropolitan” areas in the heart of densely populated cities close to public transport hubs and in districts with a vibrant commercial activity and strong patrimonial identity, whereas the latter act as tools of urban regeneration, helping to transform the image of a neighbourhood and revitalise the surrounding area. However, our analyses show that the strategies are almost reversed, with the public CSs tending to be physically and symbolically shut off from their environment, raising little sense of local ownership, whereas the private CSs seek greater partnerships with the town and its inhabitants, from arrangements with local food stores to hosting digital, cultural, festive or non-profit events aimed at the general public. In order to pursue the scientific debate, it seems important to extend the study of CSs to the national level, while focusing on inter-regional and international differences, and comparing different views of this model. This would answer a number of questions and highlight important consequences at different regional levels. For example, is there a risk that self-employed workers, start-ups, large groups such as WeWork or International Workplace Group (formerly Regus), and property developers such as Nexity in France will rush headlong into a speculative bubble linked to this revival of the business property market? In spite of their atypical, hybrid or innovative nature, is there a form of standardisation amongst CSs? What are the conditions that enable CSs to develop, or, by contrast, lead to their failure? Finally, what are the long-term local and regional effects of CSs located in multifaceted urban, periurban or isolated rural areas?

The Urban Integration of Coworking Spaces in France …

147

References Akhavan M, Mariotti I, Astolfi L, Canevari A (2019) Coworking spaces and new social relations: a focus on the social streets in Italy. Urban Sc 3:2. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010002 Ananian P (2019) Quartiers de l’innovation et espaces de coworking: évidences et enjeux de transformation de l’environnement urbain dans les villes nord-américaines. In: Krauss G, Tremblay D-G (eds) Tiers-lieux. PUR, Rennes, pp 115–139 Baudelle G, Krauss G, Marinos C (2018) Coworking spaces in innovative environments compared: does the local-regional embeddedness matter? In: 4th GEOINNO conference, Barcelona, 31 January–2 February Besson R (2017) Rôle et limites des tiers-lieux dans la fabrique des villes contemporaines. Territoire en mouvement Revue de géographie et aménagement 34. https://doi.org/10.4000/tem.4184 Brown J (2017) Curating the « Third Place »? Coworking and the mediation of creativity. Geoforum 82:112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.006 Capdevila I (2018) Knowing communities and the innovative capacity of cities. City Cult Soc 13(4):8–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017.05.003 Demazière C (2018) Strategic spatial planning in a situation of fragmented local government: the case of France. disP Plan Rev 54(2):56–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02513625.2018.1487645 Demazière C, Sykes O (2020) Metropolitan development and governance: the cases of England and France. In: Armondi S, Di Gregorio Hurtado S (eds) Foregrounding urban agendas. Springer, Berlin, pp. 185–209 Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2017) Emerging workplaces in post-functionalist cities. J Urban Technol 24(3):5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1297520 Epstein R (2005) Les politiques territoriales post-contractuelles: le cas de la rénovation urbaine. Politiques et Management public 23(3):127–143 Fabbri J (2016) Les espaces de coworking: ni tiers-lieux, ni incubateurs, ni fab labs. Entreprendre & Innover 31(4):8–16 Florida R (2010) The great reset, how new ways of living and working drive post-crash prosperity?. HarperCollins Publishers, New York Gandini A (2015) The rise of co-working spaces: a literature review. Ephemer Theor Polit Org 15(1):193–205 Hurry CJ-P (2012) The HUB Halifax: A Qualitative Study On Coworking. Master’s thesis in business administration, St. Mary’s University, Halifax Jamal A (2018) Coworking spaces in mid-sized cities: a partner in downtown economic development. Environ Plan A Econ Space: 50 (4): 773-788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X1876 0857 Katz B, Wagner J (2014) The rise of innovation districts: a new geography of innovation in America. Brookings, New York Leducq D, Ananian P (2019) Qu’apporte l’urbanisme à l’étude des espaces de coworking? Revue de littérature et approche renouvelée. Revue d’Économie Régionale et Urbaine 5:963–986 Leducq D, Ananian P (2018). Urban studies and coworking spaces: a research agenda for new metropolitan workplaces. In: 48th urban affairs association conference, Toronto, 4–7 April Lévy-Waitz P (2018) Mission Coworking: faire ensemble pour mieux vivre ensemble - Rapport 2018, Fondation Travailler autrement - CGET Liefooghe C, Leducq D (eds) (2017) La révolution numérique: tiers-lieux, hauts-lieux et territorialisation. Territoire en Mouvement 34 Liefooghe C (2018) Les tiers-lieux à l’ère du numérique: diffusion spatiale d’une utopie socioéconomique. Géographie, économie, société 20(1):33–61 Mariotti I, Di Vita S, Limonta G (2015) Una geografia degli spazi di coworking a Milano. Imprese e Città 8:39–47 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Co-working spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Merkel J (2015). Coworking in the city. Ephemer Theor Polit Org 15(1):121–139

148

D. Leducq and C. Demazière

Morandi C, Di Vita S (2015) ICT, nuove modalità di produzione e processi di rigenerazione urbana. I fab-lab a Milano. Imprese e Città 8:81–88 Moriset B (2017). Inventer les nouveaux lieux de la ville créative: les espaces de coworking. Territoire en mouvement 34 Ocalia – ARDTA (2014) Pays de Murat: Une évaluation pour mesurer l’impact de la politique d’accueil des télétravailleurs. Agence Régionale de Développement des Territoires d’Auvergne, Aubière Pacchi C (2015) Coworking e innovazione urbana a Milano. Imprese & Città 8:89–95 Perrin J, Aguiléra A (2017) Stratégies et enjeux de la localisation d’espaces de travail temporaires dans six grandes gares françaises. Territoire en movement 34 Petch Z (2015). The urban planner’s guide to coworking: a case study of Toronto (Ontario). Master of Planning in Urban Development, University of Toronto Région Nouvelle-Aquitaine (2018) Rapport tiers-lieu à l’usage des collectivités. Comment faciliter le développement des tiers-lieux dans vos territoires? Marché public « Assistance à l’amélioration de la performance de l’action régionale en faveur des tiers-lieux » Spinuzzi C (2012) Working Alone, Together: Coworking as Emergent Collaborative Activity. J Busin Techn Commun 26(4):399–441 Usai A (2019) How creative professionals reshape the historic city. The perspective of architects as managers of coworking spaces in Villanova District, Cagliari City. Territ Identity Develop 4(1):35–49 Wang B, Loo B-P-Y (2017) Hubs of internet entrepreneurs: the emergence of coworking offices in Shanghai, China. J Urban Technol 24(3):67–84 Waters-Lynch J, Potts J (2017) The social economy of coworking spaces: a focal point model of coordination. Rev Soc Econ 75(4):417–433

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities: Evolving Geographies of Workspace Innovation in London and Rome Stefania Fiorentino and Nicola Livingstone

Abstract Political and economic market uncertainties across Europe are affecting the locational patterns of innovative small-medium sized enterprises. Growing numbers of freelancing and locally specific socio-economic dynamics have imposed structural changes in commercial real estate markets stimulating an increasing demand for flexible and shared office spaces. This chapter explores the characteristics of different types of coworking spaces (CSs) in two hugely different cities, Rome and London, from the interconnected perspectives of real estate trends and local market dynamics. In both cases, firms participating in this new geography of innovation, and choosing to occupy a CS, are usually providing services to the local economy, but can often be connected to global networks. Users and locations are directly dependent on these emerging and potentially mutually beneficial socio-spatial urban relationships. The chapter builds upon research in both cities and will consider the development of the CS phenomenon in these two vastly different local economies and real estate markets, drawing on qualitative data from interviews, and secondary market data. Three different typologies of CS are present in both markets: regenerative and socially inclusive spaces, entrepreneurial incubators and commercialised workspaces. The chapter reflects on the development trajectory of CSs in the two cities, evaluating the contrasting experiences of growth to date in each capital city. The research points to two main future trajectories of development: CSs delivered as social infrastructure in partnership with local authorities and private flexible office spaces.

S. Fiorentino (B) · N. Livingstone Bartlett School of Planning, University College London, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] N. Livingstone e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_9

149

150

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

1 Introduction Contemporary socio-economic challenges actively shape urban real estate market trends around the world, and recent decades have seen a substantial and continuing drive towards the provision of alternative innovative workspaces. Political and economic market uncertainties across Europe are reflected in locally specific city contexts. Changes across such contexts within cities are emerging in an interconnected way with structural changes in commercial real estate markets, and the dynamics of investors, developers and occupiers (Harris 2020). In particular coworking spaces (CSs) are emerging as a key workspace for small-medium sized businesses (SMEs) and new start-up enterprises (Arora 2017). The impact of such spaces within local economies and real estate markets is variegated. CSs in a local context reflect different outcomes for regeneration, land use, employment trends and real estate values, and are mediated by institutional and regulatory systems (such as planning guidelines, regulatory and governance mechanisms). In this sense, we believe that CSs and the new workspaces in development are a path-dependent phenomenon, which has emerged as a response to a set of local trends: de-industrialization, real estate market trends, changes in the labour pooling, innovation policies and top-down regeneration strategies. This chapter uses the cases of Rome and London to assess the role of CSs and their development trajectories in the early decades of the twenty-first century, exploring two different economies and city contexts, with diverse experiences of CSs and real estate market dynamics. We do not seek to provide a comparative study, as CSs in London are already established within a mature and highly transparent real estate market, whereas in Rome the CS phenomenon is still rather novel and transitional. The aim of this chapter is to explore emerging trends, highlighting particular commonalities and differences found between the two capital cities, and to consider the key driving influences on how CSs continue to evolve. In order to assess burgeoning outcomes and impacts on the local real estate markets of London and Rome, we reflect on three different typologies of CSs. The three typologies were defined as following by Fiorentino (2019): (i) the first carries out a regenerative role associated with social inclusion in local communities, (ii) the second supports entrepreneurs (or start-ups, attracting venture capitalists and investments) to produce economic growth, and (iii) the third reflects a commercial product, which is becoming ever more integrated into local real estate markets, reflecting an increasing demand for flexible and/or serviced office spaces. This chapter updates the work reflecting the emergence of new workspaces like flexible offices, as in the London case, and a more specific real estate perspective. We recognise that within these three typologies very different types of spaces with varied characteristics can develop. However, these three dimensions of CSs offer a way to explore how innovative new geographies have been emerging in Rome and London. In Rome, the real estate market is not as mature as in London, but both cities are well-established, although they vary significantly in terms of size, scale and perceived

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

151

global importance. The Global Real Estate Transparency Index (GRETI),1 ranks London and the UK at the top of the index as “highly transparent”, with London also ranked as the top city market (JLL 2018a). The Italian market is ranked 18th on the GRETI, out of 100 countries, and is considered “transparent”, although Rome does not feature on their list of top 50 global city markets (Milan is the only Italian city to be included). Considering the popularity of the London market as a destination for global capital and investment flows (EY 2016), it is not surprising that the market for CSs has become more prominent more quickly, and that London has a substantial number of CSs across our three typologies. In 2015, coworking spaces in Rome’s “transparent” market were a real novelty and very often emerged as an imported trend in response to the economic recession in the wake of the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). The absence of specific regulations and the limitations of the Italian real estate and planning frameworks relating to CSs has led to the emergence of a wide array of space typologies in Rome that reflect varied impacts and outcomes, from spaces of regeneration and renewal to flexible offices across the local and city scales. London, by contrast, illustrates a more dynamic and responsive demand and supply situation, with more accessible regulatory frameworks and clearer planning mechanisms. Here, policy frameworks such as East London’s Tech City, have helped shape an increasing demand for shared flexible and serviced office spaces. However, a consequence of this is the current lack of affordable office spaces for SMEs. CSs and how they operate are a move-away from traditional real estate operating models, representing a shift towards shorter and more flexible leases and a changing occupier demands in relation to office “experience”. How political impacts such as Brexit will impact CSs in London remains to be seen, as does the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on wider socio-economic trends in both cities. Looking forward, both real estate markets will confront unexpected and unprecedented levels of uncertainty, which will certainly challenge the resilience of occupiers, investors and developers of CSs. In order to explore emerging trends and the key driving influences on the evolution and developmental trajectory of CSs in the rather different real estate markets and local contexts of London and Rome, we have conducted a total of 40 semi-structured interviews with key experts, operators and managers of relevant work spaces, and analysed real estate trends in specific areas in the two cities. We carried out our research following two main paths of investigation which essentially seek to answer the following questions: what are the main socio-economic drivers that contribute to the emergence of such workspaces in local economies? Through an evaluation of the growth of CSs in London and Rome, what are the potential implications for future real estate trends? The following section of this chapter provides an overview of previous studies that have looked at the impact and implications of CSs from social, economic and commercial perspectives in line with our three typologies. We then consider factors 1 Published every two years by JLL, the GRETI considers transparency to be reflective of indicators

such as investment performance, legal and regulatory systems, transaction processes and real estate market fundamentals.

152

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

influencing the demand and supply of the new typologies of workspaces and trends, first looking at the case of Rome and then London. The concluding discussion considers key commonalities and differences among the two cases and reflects on emerging trends relating to local real estate markets and economic development in line with our three typologies of CSs. Finally, we offer reflections on the future of coworking in London and Rome, coupled with evidence-based recommendations for various stakeholders and suggestions for future research.

2 Reflections from Literature: Development Drivers and Outcomes of the Coworking Phenomenon This section outlines some of the key literature relating to the emergence of CSs and reflects on the way previous studies have addressed their contextual impacts, broadly as economic, social and commercial. These perspectives are overlapping and not blunt or clear cut; they should not be considered in isolation and are inherently interconnected, although the degrees of importance in relation to each will differ depending on the urban areas being investigated, and the types of CSs being considered. The phenomenon of CSs and their impacts in our cities can therefore be looked at through multiple lenses. However, within these three angles the most pertinent to our study are those inherently connected to the local real estate markets being studied. The social aspects of the coworking phenomenon were the first to be analysed in literature. The early definition of “coworking” referred to a growing number of freelancers overcoming the fragmentation and dispersion of large-scale cities in the aftermath of the GFC of 2008 (Merkel 2015; Spinuzzi 2012). The proximity of workspaces stimulated knowledge transfers and professional collaborations (Akhavan et al. 2018; Parrino 2015). As a result, CSs have become a symbol of social innovation and a tool to support social entrepreneurship (Surman 2013) and independent professionals (Gerdenitsch et al. 2016). Many of the new workplaces have developed in an organic bottom-up way, from local communities and small groups of professionals. In the specific case of maker spaces (or fab-labs), the social dimension is demonstrated through educating and sheltering a new entrepreneurial class and in the democratization of small scale productions (Nascimento and Pólvora 2016; van Holm 2015), which represent the second type of Fiorentino’s typology (2019). As a consequence, some scholars have started looking at the way these types of spaces could be integrated into regional strategies for innovation (Schmidt et al. 2017) or integrated into wider provision of amenity space as a form of private/public partnership where the public sector provides the premises but they are managed by private firms (Fiorentino 2019; Somerville and Haines 2008). From the perspective of local economic development, most studies on CSs concentrate on the way entrepreneurial innovation is fostered in such spaces. This stream

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

153

of work mainly looks at CSs as integrating spaces for the incubation and acceleration of start-ups and the attraction of venture capital for further investment (Gertner and Mack 2017; Van Holm 2017). In terms of regional development and innovation policies, a wide variety of policy and EU funding frameworks (e.g. the Smart Specialization Strategy and Entrepreneurship Action Plan) have granted support to these new forms of entrepreneurialism. Spaces such as these may also emerge as an evolution of traditional business incubation agencies or as university spin-offs (Auerswald 2003). However, in recent years, the target users and demographics of CSs have changed: this has widened the range of typology of age, gender, occupancy rates and activities of users (Sargent et al. 2018). The evolution of CSs typically represents an urban phenomenon, appealing to start-ups mostly for their lower set-up costs (no fit-out, legal costs, low overhead and minimal capital investment) and for the flexibility of their lease commitments that are more suitable for the initial “testing” phases of a businesses, but this evolution also accelerates the occupiers entry into the market and increases their visibility (Green 2014). However, more recently it has been suggested that spaces for the incubation and acceleration of start-ups could also be adopted as a tool to enhance economic growth and development, in less advanced, stagnating economies or peripheral areas (Armondi and Bruzzese 2017; Fuzi 2015). In this respect, developing CSs can be seen as a catalyst for supporting local economic growth and social benefits. Considering the breadth and depth of potential in the sector across diverse occupiers and diverse professions—ranging from regenerative impacts upon local communities, to supporting incubator and maker spaces, to more commercial and professional services—the social and economic benefits at a local scale reflect a generally positive market presence and growth trajectory of CSs. The global real estate market has changed dramatically in recent decades, leading cities like London to become hubs for financial headquarters dominated by skyscrapers, large volumes of international capital inflows and the significant growth of occupiers related to the service industries such as finance, insurance, and technology. The recent technological shift -including the rapid development of business ideas for start-ups—and the labour uncertainties of SMEs have also had consequences in the wider corporate real estate world resulting in a wider demand for flexible office spaces. CS is the fastest growing sector of the commercial real estate market, although it only accounts for approximately 2–3% of the total market (Roth and Mirchandani 2016). The shift to a knowledge-based economy, the introduction of “agile working” and integrated amenities (like cafés or gyms) to attract a more skilled labour force, steered the direction of corporate real estate towards more flexible solutions (Hampton 2013). The extended “workspace” today offers occupiers the choice of hot-desking or open floor plans with increased densities. The direct consequences of shifting occupational patterns include the requirement of shorter term leases, and an increased risk to bare for landlords (Harris and Cooke 2014), as well as the provision of services. Landlords of office buildings may choose to lease the space to an independent operator, redirecting their management responsibilities and allowing a potentially specialized operator to take control. This is the most common approach (Green 2014), although many other management options

154

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

have developed in more mature office markets such as London. Some landlords still remain skeptical of CS operators taking control over buildings and of the risks associated with renting to multiple tenants, whereas others feel that in the coming digital age of smart cities, office buildings will have to become more flexible and focused on enhancing the personal experience of users (Sargent et al. 2018). More recently, coworking spaces have started to attract larger corporations rather than just SMEs at the first stages of their businesses. What motivates firms like Google or Facebook in joining (or setting up) a CS is usually the pitch for new ideas, whereas in other cases like Barclays or Oracle it might be the preliminary exploration of new locations and solutions, without the commitment to long leases and with substantial cost cutting (Arora 2017; Roth and Mirchandani 2016). In other cases, the choice might be the beginning of a “hub-and-spoke” model where only one central office per city is retained, with local branches in CS (Sargent et al. 2018). By settling in a CS, a corporation can cut between 20 to 40% of their real estate costs (including set-up costs like fit-out or legal) and see a reduction in their administration and management expenses. For smaller businesses, the reduction in costs is even more substantial considering the possibilities of offering flexible locations and services to employees without additional costs spread over multiple locations (Sargent et al. 2018). London displays the biggest share of flexible office spaces with a total of 1.1 m sqm, accounting for 4.6% of the total office space; in Italy the total share is 1.7% for the city of Milan and only 0.4% in Rome, with numbers growing fast (Marchesini 2019). The average desk cost in London is e820 and in Rome is e600 (Colliers 2019). However, coworking is approaching saturation point in some city markets across North America and Europe (Sargent et al. 2018). This chapter looks at the case of Rome and London as at two different stages of this saturation process. The map shows the distribution of key hotspots for CSs with a social innovation value and for increasing demand of flexible office spaces as compared to areas of prime real estate prices for offices and to traditional business districts. Building opportunities: CSs and innovation in Rome. If we compare the start-up ecosystem (and associated workspace trends) of Rome to that of other European cities—among the others, London—the phenomenon is still in its initial stages. The case of Rome is therefore useful to understand the key drivers that led to the emergence of flexible office spaces in a transparent but less globally significant real estate market, as well as the need for governance measures and public sector support tools to enhance their positive regenerative effects and/or any value capture potential, to the benefit of the local economy. CSs in Rome were very much a novelty when this research started in 2015. By and large, they came as an imported product, responding to the economic stagnation and lack of traditional, socially secured jobs, which then precipitated demand for alternative, affordable and innovative workspaces. As highlighted by our research, in 2015 the number of active CSs in Rome could be counted on two hands. Only two years later in 2017, the number of CSs had grown to almost 50. No formal public initiative for their delivery was put into place, and a whole variety of ownership, management and rental structures could be observed: the initial evolution of Roman CSs was organic and dynamic. The worsening of the socio-political context and the lack of a

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

155

strong mayoral authority did not help the local job provision but instead fueled the burgeoning demand for these spaces. In addition, and in response to these drivers of space creation, following the guidelines and directions of funding opportunities originating from EU structural funds, a number of initiatives supporting start-ups and flexible office spaces emerged to support the new requirements of local workspaces. Across Italy, by 2018 36% of people had worked from a coworking, library, café or similar alternative working space, slightly more than the global average of 34% (JLL 2019c). In Rome, the coworking phenomenon can be predominantly considered as a bottom-up response to a local labour market crisis, one which directly reflected wider national socio-economic uncertainties. CSs helped provide alternatives for economically constrained occupiers, such as freelancers, who were unable to bear the cost implications of rising rental rates but also benefit from cohesively working alongside other professionals. From the point of view of the real estate market, the history of the office market is twofold in the Italian capital. On the one hand, Rome is becoming an increasingly appealing destination for foreign investors due to the magnitude of available space for investment, combined with the opportunity of securing it for lower capital costs compared to other European markets such as Paris, London or Brussels (Allen 2019; EY 2016). Although the Italian real estate market is considered “transparent” rather than “highly transparent” (JLL 2018a), and therefore has some weaknesses and particular areas for structural improvement, there are also inherent opportunities in the market: there may be more potential for profit maximization and enhanced returns if appropriate real estate strategies are adopted by developers and investors. The impact of such market behavior is surely a positive element for the wider occupier market: more spaces are available at competitive prices. However, on the other hand, despite its enormous cultural potential, from an occupier’s perspective Rome can be a very challenging real estate environment for SMEs due to all the constraints they face in setting-up functional office premises, such as complex and lengthy bureaucratic processes, possible corruption of access to fully functioning office space with all fit-outs, utilities and pre-operational requirements (Miles 2019). In this delicate balance of macro-economic factors and real estate variables, CSs have emerged as intermediaries of the new local labour market, offering different types of support according to their typology and structure. Mapping the active CSs across Rome, some clusters of concentration have emerged in areas like Garbatella, Pigneto, Tiburtino and more recently in the historical center, typically around transport connections like Termini Central Station (see Fig. 1). These neighborhoods are semi-peripheral inner-city boroughs that grew extensively during the 1970s becoming both a residential and industrial extension of the city. Originally, they were lower income boroughs and hosted the only (light) industrial and manufacturing activities of Rome. Today, they are experiencing a generational turnover in their population, and have become the cultural heart of the city for its residents, in distinct contrast to the more historical centre, largely monopolised by B&Bs, short-term lets and other tourist activities. All areas are deemed by the OMI real estate database as “semi-central to peripheral” and are mainly populated

156

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

Fig. 1 Distribution of key hotspots for CSs. Source the authors

by “abitazioni di tipo economico” (or affordable housing) with commercial spaces reflecting lower capital values (Agenzia delle Entrate 2019). The city centre (grey area in Fig. 1) is the exception to the story of CSs in Rome since it includes a number of spaces suitable for commercial conversions. During the fieldwork, a diversity of spaces based on their regenerative function at the local scale has emerged in line with the three different typologies of CSs. The role of the first group of spaces is predominantly connected with social innovation, referred to as a “social incubator”. A second group has instead targeted the start-up scene and is advocating for venture capital investments and innovative business opportunities across Rome: it is predominantly an “economic incubator”. Finally, rising demand and the scarcity of available CSs led real estate developers

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

157

to pursue profit maximisation from the business opportunity, successfully creating a set of commercial spaces that resonate with the London-style experiences: these can be termed the “real estate incubator” (Fiorentino 2019), which are profiting from the peak in demand and popularity of the product. The regenerative role played by the three typologies and their locations are deeply intertwined variables in this story. Reading the urban fabric of the city and understanding the drivers behind the emerging agglomeration patterns of these new innovative CSs is key to evaluating the bigger picture of their evolution. The aforementioned transitional boroughs already boasted a number of coworking spaces in 2015, mainly from the first category: the social incubator. Interview discussions with the local authorities (LAs) suggest that the support from public officers was quite strong as CSs were viewed as offering an opportunity to tackle social and economic inequalities across the boroughs, and to revitalise a slowly decaying part of the municipality. For example, in Centocelle, a coworking and kindergarten space occupies the former communal area of a social housing complex that was considered as never really fit-for-purpose, which was standing derelict and subject to ongoing vandalism. In this particular CS, the management are part of a cooperative that received support from an LA councilor to write an application to access a financing scheme provided by a private insurance company. The application was successful, and the co-operative leased the space at an affordable price, taking charge of refurbishment costs as part of the deal. In Garbatella, a CS was set in a former market hall on the basis of an initial agreement between the space operator and the LA: the space would provide a social service supplying free desks and a professional network to currently unemployed residents in exchange for free rent and utilities. Other entirely private initiatives include two maker spaces, one in Garbatella and one in Pigneto, both set-up in former garages and active in community-led initiatives to encourage social inclusion, through street festivals for the co-creation of furniture, or other educational activities. In this respect, the space functions as a variant of both our first and second typologies, a local social incubator with smaller scale, limited entrepreneurial aspirations. Another space in Alessandrino, managed by a cooperative, is housed in the former office premises of a nearby peripheral mall, which is now becoming obsolete, and it is promoting local engagement through mixing events, sports activities, technology trainings for the elderly and workspaces. Most of these initiatives have arisen in suburbs with challenging local environments, where social exclusion and economic inequalities prevail, so their role is becoming crucial for community building. In these suburbs and for these specific reasons, LAs are also more welcoming towards initiatives of this type. However, the variety of ways in which the public sector is participating and engaging in partnerships typically remains informal; rather than reflecting the lack of impact that CSs are having in a local context, the situation draws attention to the lack of proper governance tools and underdeveloped policy support for progressive, contemporary CSs. A lot of other hybrid spaces exist and all of them have different allocation or structural arrangements. Typically, common issues found are: the definition of responsibilities in relation to paying utilities, carrying out refurbishment works, in addition to queries over the duration and rights to occupation in the absence of a formalised

158

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

contract or lease. Most of the time, the cause of such issues has been related as a lack of power among LAs to regulate and assess space allocation in CSs on a caseby-case basis, as well as challenges linked with funding and lease management. In the majority of cases, the initiatives which represent our first, and sometimes second typologies, are inherently linked to local politics and are therefore at risk once the mayor gets (re)elected. Other complaints among the users and managers include issues with the bases for, and transparency of, the procedures in allocating public spaces to be used as shared workspace. Interviewees suggested that the draft of more specific and place-based policy tools combined with a more comprehensive regulatory framework for the delivery of such spaces as social infrastructure would provide mechanisms to overcome these issues whilst maximizing their positive externalities. The second typology—the start-up incubator—tells a slightly different story in Rome. Such spaces usually occupy more prime and central premises but the contribution of a public agency, of a university or of a private company is crucial for their success and financial survival. These CSs rely on the participation of venture capitalists and/or EU structural funds to support and grow their entrepreneurialism activities and innovation. The second typology predominantly reflects how investment capital and partnerships can steer economic growth in the capital city and support new business creation. Examples of partners of incubation spaces include telecommunication companies, regional agencies and private companies investing money in return for ideas or a percentage of the income from the development of new patents. The most successful case of this type of CS in Rome occupies the former office premises of Grandi Stazioni, the public company managing Italy’s biggest railway stations. This space is in a prime location at Termini central station and benefits from a partnership with the private university “Luiss Guido Carli”, which specialises in business and economics. Workspaces paired up with incubation and acceleration programmes offer all kinds of support for setting up a company: defining a concept/product, targeting clients and competitors, drafting a business plan and dealing with the legal and contractual side of entrepreneurship. The central location is key in terms of accessibility, exposure and for the events and meetings. The mixture of tenants includes some temporary occupiers like the start-ups and acceleration programmes in addition to some longer-term tenants. Startups tend to use open plan desks and are likely to move out after the end of their acceleration/incubation period or once the company scales up. A mixture of other selected SMEs occupies the different types of more private desks and office areas available. The presence of a variety of SMEs enhances knowledge spillovers whilst cutting some real estate costs for the occupier (as they are renting a prescribed and specific amount of space) and the landlord alike (through minimal fit-out costs, for example). Despite the larger scale of these spaces representing the second typology of CS, the scale of the management firms for the Roman incubators is still “domestic” and local, which allows for an informed selection process in relation to tenants, even if such a process is influenced by informal city specific networks and connections. The rapid increase in demand for contemporary shared workspaces, spurred on by their growing popularity and successes across European capital cities soon led to a commercialisation of the concept of CSs. In Rome, the first commercial spaces

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

159

which are represented by our third typology of CSs, real estate companies and service providers like Regus and Coworkyard, came into the market, but other familiar names such as WeWork did not. These flexible office spaces target mainly professionals and freelancers in need of a space for a temporary period, from start-uppers to overseas companies and local workers, and any potential occupier that wants to escape the cost and time commitment of setting up an office space in Rome. These spaces facilitate the needs of specialist skilled workers in the digital age, where continually occupying an office in the longer term and committing to longer leases doesn’t complement their business strategies. The market for CSs specifically continues to grow, and it is anticipated that this will be bolstered by positive shifts in employment levels and a 6% increase in the number of companies registered in Italy, further stimulating leasing deals. Deals in Rome’s flexible office market are increasing, and accounted for 6% of take-up across the city, reflecting similar trends experienced in other large European city markets (JLL 2019c). As of 2020, developments in the local real estate market appear to be successfully mediating the drivers stimulating growing demand for CSs in the Roman market, but what of their evolution in London?

3 The Global Market Leader: Dynamics of CSs in London The London market is the world leader in CSs, which is not surprising considering its position as a the world’s most transparent city (JLL 2018a), with a diverse real estate market that is often considered a “safe haven” (Fernandez et al. 2016) and one of the leading destinations for investment capital across the world. Transaction volumes in the city were up year on year in 2018, and the city was the largest recipient of cross border investment globally at $36.3 billion (JLL 2018b). Despite Brexit-related uncertainties, London was still the number one global destination for commercial real estate with approximately $22 billion of investment in 2019 (Knight Frank 2019). London is a key location for technological innovation and start-ups, a trend which has driven substantial development in CSs, more inclined towards the second and third of our typologies. There are potential lessons to be learnt from the more established London experience of growing CSs across our three typologies. Regenerative effects do not always result in positive outcomes for the occupiers in the longer term, and maximising value capture potential can have problematic impacts in relation to impacts on local communities. In its more mature stage, the story of CSs up until now in London represents a more antagonistic narrative, shaped significantly by market-led processes. London displays the highest GDP annual growth, the highest population, per capita income and investment of the whole country. The city is also the symbol of national inequalities, generating 23% of the total GVA for the UK and 27% of England as a whole (ONS 2018). The UK economy is capital-centric, and the majority of real estate capital in the country is concentrated in London, which creates challenges across the city. London’s real estate market is characterised by problems such as the ongoing housing and affordability crisis, consistent demand and restricted supply in

160

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

commercial and residential sectors, as well as the financialisaton of the real estate sector more broadly (Raco et al. 2019; Gallent 2019) and the presence of a high proportion of foreign direct investments. The commercial real estate situation in London represents the economic inequality of the city and of the country more widely, with the problem of workspaces polarised among two extreme conditions: on one side there is an increasing demand for flexible office spaces and on the other side there is currently a lack of CSs for start-ups and SMEs. The provision of office space is uneven across the city and reflects prime corporate offices at one end of the spectrum in the established markets (the City of London, the West End and Canary Wharf), and the provision of more peripheral CSs for SMEs on the other. Major corporations are considered as low risk tenants for developers and landlords and are typically committed to more traditional covenants and longer leases. However, as a response to rising office costs and further shifts in remote working, corporate real estate strategies are changing, and progressively reducing the number of square metres per person to save money on prime spaces. These shifts are being driven by the fact that in larger markets there are more workspace options available, and that colocating appeals to a diverse range of occupiers with more contemporary real estate strategies (Weinbrenn 2016). It may be likely that these trends will continue and be exacerbated by the ongoing longer-term impacts of both Brexit and the COVID-19 pandemic. In London, the coworking phenomenon has developed in the City fringe area (e.g. Shoreditch, Aldgate, or Borough; see Fig. 1), hosting smaller firms providing services to the City’s main economic activities, such as the financial and insurance sectors. The first coworking spaces emerged in the early 2000s in Shoreditch (Martins 2015) as affordable solutions for the creative industry (Ferm 2014). Then they expanded to meet the needs of start-ups, SMEs and light industrial activities that could not afford the typical rental values of traditional commercial spaces. However, the situation has already evolved with prices now ranging from £90 per person per month for a hot-desking system to £750 per month for a more central and dedicated desk space. Occupiers have also become more diverse and now even include financial institutions like HSBC, which is renting 1,135 desks in a shared office facility at 2 Southbank Place (Evans 2019). The diversification of demand on the London market has generated a range of shared office solutions enhancing the debate from “coworking” to “flexible” (FOS) and “serviced” office spaces. However, we can still observe the three typologies found in the Roman case in London: the social regenerative space, the economic and entrepreneurial incubator, and the commercialised space (the most common type of CS). However, flexible office spaces are appearing as the future of commercial real estate in the London market that has been colonised by worldwide operator brands like WeWork and Regus (the serviced office provider has been present in the market since the 1990s), as well as local companies such as the Workspace Group (a London provider with 60 buildings across the capital, for one person start-ups to larger teams). Affordable office spaces for SMEs are missing in London. As a consequence of gentrification and urban regeneration in favour of corporate tower blocks, smaller professionals and SMEs have been pushed towards the city outskirts and there is

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

161

now a shortage of available space for smaller-scale entrepreneurial businesses (Lichfields 2018), who would typically benefit from accessing our second type of CS. The shortage of affordable workspaces and of land to be allocated for light industrial and small entrepreneurial activities has been reflected in the New London Plan (2018) asking LAs to prioritise the delivery of such spaces (Chapter 4 & 6). Such consequences reflect the potential negative knock-on impacts across the CS landscape in London, depending on the nature of the occupier considered, and the nature of space in demand across various areas in the city. The preservation of land for light industrial spaces as represented by maker spaces was also addressed by the creation of new mixed typologies (Beunderman et al. 2018; We Made That 2018). Most of these typologies are still in-progress, but in some cases like the Chocolate Factory in the London Borough of Haringey (see Fig. 1), the integration of a CS in a pre-existing industrial estate with the addition of some residential units has been successful. The provision of affordable workspaces for SMEs goes alongside the possibility of uplifting local entrepreneurial skills for more balanced and inclusive local economic development strategies (Jamal 2018). This was the experience in Haringey: the support and capacity of the LA to collaborate was key in the successful delivery of the Chocolate Factory and of other temporary spaces like the Blue House Yards. Other successful cases of this typology across London include Impact Hub in Brixton’s Boxpark providing training programs with social inclusion purposes or maker spaces set up in the London City Hall and in many local libraries. Meanwhile, uses are also part of this group of socially oriented workspaces and equally crucial for urban regeneration purposes. Those spaces need to accommodate the first steps of a new entrepreneurial class or the needs of small businesses not intending to upscale. They are crucial to improve local inclusion and social tensions by providing local affordable employment opportunities. As in the case of Haringey, the partnership of the public sector is indeed key for their successful outcome not just in the delivery of the spaces but also in steering connections among the various actors. From the public sector perspective, the wide rent-gap in the prices of commercial spaces has been translated in the search for adequate strategic planning measures to insure a basic provision of affordable workspaces for SMEs and new enterprises. However, the lack of in-house capabilities and of adequate governance tools for the delivery and management of these spaces is still hampering their successful implementation as a new locally sourced kind of social infrastructure. These spaces represent dimensions of the first and second of our three typologies, as they are engaging with the local communities and businesses in an entrepreneurial way, but they require integration and co-operation between public and private actors and are not without barriers and challenges. Moving forward, the LAs can facilitate and support these types of initiatives, however there is a need for a more developed regulatory and policy mechanism for clarity on the most adequate types of public/private partnerships, to ensure all parties are well-informed and acting together for the mutual benefit of all involved stakeholders. The second type of serviced office space found in London specifically targets start-ups in the technology and digital innovation sector (exclusively typology two).

162

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

In 2017, there were 205 incubators and 163 accelerators active in the UK with £33 m of public investment for start-ups (NESTA 2017). These spaces might be specialized in a specific economic sector or vertically integrate different skills to facilitate cooperation. They might be connected to research centres and universities such as the Hatchery spin-off from University College London, or to other funding investors like venture capitalists. Increasingly, we are observing multinational corporations participating, like Google or Microsoft Ventures, and the specialisation of dedicated spaces like Level 39 in Canary Wharf that provide Fintech services. This approach signals a shift in the way the corporate world is pitching for innovation, allowing for a different way of investing in R&D, one which is more tailored and flexible to changes in trajectory. Incubators are increasingly becoming a facility to set up a business or scale-up a company, either selling the idea to established corporations or acquiring skills and learning how to access funding independently. Following the specialisation of CSs spaces, their decor and appearance is also very important. They sell an “experience” and companies need to identify with the commercial message carried by the provider (and vice versa). The trend here is that incubation spaces are becoming an additional facility offered by certain flexible office spaces, or a new form of public amenity when they emerge as spin-offs of local libraries or from universities. With appropriate policy mechanisms and inclusive events, the benefits of these spaces can be effectively shared. Finally, we come to the third typology of this study: the commercial incubator in London. In the aftermath of the Brexit vote, and due to market uncertainties around how the UK will leave Europe, a lower number of foreign investments has been registered in London; the domestic market is increasingly saturating the demand for flexible office spaces (EY 2019; IWG 2020). In London, the real winners of this situation are providers of CSs, including well-known brands like WeWork, and SecondHome. However, not all flexible office spaces will necessarily be CSs as they may be fully occupied by one tenant: within this third typology comes a further level of granularity. As per Harris, for a space to be “flexible” it must reflect two characteristics: the space will have «shorter, less onerous contractual terms, and a greater degree of service provision» (Harris 2020, p. 3). In the case of flexible office space, the liability for the spaces, the management and service provision responsibilities lie with the landlord, whereas in conventional leases the tenant bears a negotiated level of liability. In response to this, a wide range of management solutions exists. Owners may choose a more passive approach and outsource the management of the space and related services to a third party (WeWork). This is to avoid dealing with fit-outs, and maintenance but most of all with multiple tenants of short-term horizons. Other spaces can be owner-led and investor-led with structures: e.g. operator with a lease and a passive owner (Regus, Instant Group), operator-owner (Workspace), active owner who delivers their own management (Crown Estate, Great Portland Estate) or an active owner with their own operating company (British Land, Storey) (Harris 2020). The rapid increase of demand, the commercialisation of such spaces and the emergence of international operators like WeWork and Regus have led to higher average rental prices along with changing occupier profiles, making CSs no longer an exclusive target for low-income

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

163

entrepreneurs or start-uppers (CBRE Research 2017; JLL 2019b). It is anticipated that irrespective of the operational and management model adopted, “space-as-aservice” will become the default demand from occupiers moving into the immediate future (Knight Frank 2019). The London situation is evolving across its variegated spectrum of occupiers and investors. From one perspective, there are flexible office spaces that provide a certain corporate identity that appeals to tech companies, innovators of all kinds and startups no matter the cost of these spaces, but benefitting from the flexibility offered by the leasing solutions and the relief from fit-out costs and waiting times. From another perspective, there are SMEs and start-ups with limited capital, both looking for affordable solutions, either permanently or just temporarily before a potential scale-up. So, in terms of user targets, on one side there is the entrepreneurial growth driver with very small to individual firms trying to get out of their garages. On the other side, there is the power of the corporate occupier trying to solve their real estate needs that will lead future demand (CBRE 2017). In this respect, the London market is more complex, with blurred definitions of “value”. The city itself is made up of 22 office sub-markets, and is split into inner and outer London, an adaptable and dynamic real estate market with competitive yields and high value properties. Perceptions on the amount of coworking and flexible office spaces across the capital vary, from 8% of the market (Harris 2020) to the 4% estimate of JLL (2018a); but commentators agree that average take-up has been increasing year on year and that this trajectory is likely to continue. London is the largest global market for CSs in terms of volume, but certain parts of the city have very different levels of absorption in relation to flexible office spaces. Figures from Savills (2019) demonstrate this, with flexible office space in London’s West End representing 21% of total take-up, compared to 12% in London City, even though the former is traditionally the more expensive office market across the capital. Rental costs also vary significantly: in Mayfair (the West End) office space is £117.50 per square foot; in Soho, £95 psf.; the City, Shoreditch & Midtown £72.50 psf.; Camden £60 psf and Canary Wharf £51 psf (JLL 2019a, p. 11). In some instances, flexible / CSs may actually make previously unaffordable locations viable for more specialist corporate occupiers. However, the varied rental patterns across the city also exacerbate the inequalities and potential negative impacts discussed at the beginning of this section: the space that is most affordable for some occupiers, may not be the best space for them.

4 Conclusions: Further Innovation or Market Saturation? In both London and Rome, we have traced the key real estate and socio-economic drivers that have led to the emergence of the three main typologies of new working spaces found in Fiorentino (2019). Although the two markets are inherently very different, the data collected suggest that these three typologies are essentially

164

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

converging into two main future paths: (1) CSs delivered as a form of social infrastructure and (2) the flexible office space (FOS) model. This binary trajectory also guides the future of dedicated governance for the establishment of successful private/public partnerships for the delivery of spaces and additional research on ways to respond to future working patterns. The social infrastructure trend reflects successful public/private enterprises and integrates the local community. Although there are some successful examples, the public policy around such arrangements could be better defined and implemented in both cities. Regenerative impacts can be positive, but tensions and antagonisms can emerge—key public/private sector actors should ensure they are more sensitive to local communities and market conditions. The potential of CSs can be successfully harnessed in local economies through place-based policy, tailored by LAs in line with supply, demand and socio-economic characteristics. The dawning of the twenty-first century has introduced contemporary and alternative working practices that highlight the positive and longer-term socio-economic impact of CSs. National and supranational governing bodies should continue to encourage and support the development of these types of CSs as the trajectory of the market is likely to continue moving forward. The FOS model builds on CSs, being led by the private sector. This is much more developed in London, where regulations are needed to slow down the rent gap and ensure inequalities are not exacerbated due to the market-led impacts of real estate developments and socio-economic disparities. Rome could learn from London to ensure that the pattern of development and speculation of FOSs does not replicate the same issues. However, from a value perspective the market for FOSs in London offers investors the competitive advantage of a vanguard of adaptable space provision, and the opportunity to maximise profits and create valuable working spaces for occupiers. Moving forward, from an investors perspective—providing they are covering costs and mitigating risk appropriately—the FOS seems to be a reasonably secure market sector. Despite its international resiliency, the continuous inflation of real estate “values” in London also reflects some potential weaknesses and may lead to a market correction once the market is saturated. The Roman market might be riskier for investors (less transparent and not yet globally established), but rewards could be potentially more valuable given its affordability. Additional difficulties might arise in accommodating the diversity of occupiers—from SMEs to larger scale corporations—with varied space and location requirements, which might not balance out, due to cost implications and the lack of wider positive agglomeration economies. In both cities though, flexibility seems to be the key for more resilience and adaptability to local entrepreneurial and social needs. The existing study opens up a number of areas for future research. First, a new challenge will be the provision of spaces for SMEs and start-ups in left-behind or more peripheral locations as a way to re-instill economic growth and local community engagement (McCann 2019; UK 2070; Commission 2019). Especially post-Brexit, attempts to rebalance the UK economy will need to tackle local economic diversity. The provision of locally sourced employment opportunities can be harnessed by the

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

165

provision of workspaces at lower costs for local businesses through private/public partnerships. Other more recent and equally crucial lines of development regard post COVID-19 office provision in Europe. CSs have been particularly affected by the pandemic, highlighting in some cases the necessity to rethink business models, but also introducing the possibility of even stronger growth in demand in the longer term following higher volumes of remote working. More research is needed to investigate the future of FOSs and CSs, and how supply and demand dynamics are reshaped.

References Akhavan M, Mariotti I, Astolfi L, Canevari A (2018) Coworking spaces and new social relations: a focus on the social streets in Italy. Urban Sci 3(1):2. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010002 Allen K (2019) Why investors are scurrying back to Rome. The Financial Times. (February 15). https://www.ft.com/content/c571fdb2-2e13-11e9-ba00-0251022932c8 Armondi S, Bruzzese A (2017) Contemporary production and urban change: the case of Milan. J Urban Technol 24(3):27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311567 Arora S (2017) Changing dynamics of corporate real estate: the rise of coworking spaces. Corp Real Estate J 7(2):127–136 Auerswald PE (2003) Start-ups and spin-offs. Collective entrepreneurship between invention and innovation. In: Hart DM (ed) The emergence of entrepreneurship policy. Governance. Start-ups, and growth in the U.S. knowledge economy. Cambridge University press, Cambridge, pp 61–91 Beunderman J, Fung A, Hill D, Martyn S (2018) Places that work. https://www.centreforlondon. org/publication/places-that-work/ CBRE Research (2017) The flexible revolution. Insights into European flexible office markets Colliers (2019) The flexible workspace outlook report 2019. https://www.colliers.com/sitecore/ shell/-/media/files/marketresearch/apac/asia/ColliersFlexibleWorkspaceReport2017APAC-5. pdf Evans J (2019) HSBC becomes one of WeWork’s biggest tenants. The Financial Times (June 19). https://www.ft.com/content/3d4c1690-92a2-11e9-b7ea-60e35ef678d2 EY (2016) How can Europe’s investors turn resilience into growth? EY’s Attractiveness survey. https://assets.ey.com/content/dam/ey-sites/eycom/en_gl/topics/attractiveness/ey-eur opean-attractiveness-survey-2016.pdf?download EY (2019) How can Europe raise its game? EY Attractiveness Survey. Europe. https://www.ey. com/Publication/vwLUAssets/ey-europe-attractiveness-survey-2019/%24File/ey-europe-attrac tiveness-survey-2019.pdf Ferm J (2014) Delivering affordable workspace: Perspectives of developers and workspace providers in London. Prog Plan 93:1–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2013.05.002 Fernandez R, Hofman A, Aalbers MB (2016) London and New York as a safe deposit box for the transnational wealth elite. Environ Plann A 48(12):2443–2461. https://doi.org/10.1177/030851 8X16659479 Fiorentino S (2019) Different typologies of ‘coworking spaces’ and the contemporary dynamics of local economic development in Rome. Eur Plan Stud 27(9):1768–1790. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09654313.2019.1620697 Fuzi A (2015) Coworking spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: the case of South Wales. Reg Stud Reg Sci 2(1):462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053 Gallent N (2019) Whose housing crisis? Assets and homes in a changing economy. Policy Press, Bristol Gerdenitsch C, Scheel TE, Andorfer J, Korunka C (2016) Coworking spaces: a source of social support for independent professionals. Front Psychol 7(APR), 1–12

166

S. Fiorentino and N. Livingstone

Gertner D, Mack E (2017) The Entrepreneurial Orientation (EO) of incubators, accelerators, and coworking spaces. Int J Reg Devel 4(2):1 Green R (2014) Collaborate or compete: how do landlords respond to the rise in coworking? Cornell Real Estate Rev 12:52–59 Hampton J (2013) Proworking: redefining the workplace and the role of corporate real estate. Corpor Real Estate J 3(3):207–216 Harris R (2020) Property ownership in a flexible world. IPF Research Harris R, Cooke H (2014) Is corporate real estate at a crossroads? J Corpor Real Estate 16(4):275– 289 IWG (2020). Brexit sees flexspace market boom. (January 31) https://www.iwgplc.com/MediaC entre/Article/brexit-sees-flexspace-market-boom Jamal AC (2018) Coworking spaces in mid-sized cities: a partner in downtown economic development. Eco Space, Environment and Planning A. 50 (4): 773–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/030 8518X18760857 JLL (2018a) Transparency: data, disclosure and disruption. Global Real Estate Transparency Index 2018. JLL, London JLL (2018b) Global capital flows: JLL research report, Q4 2018. JLL, London JLL (2019a) Disruption or distraction. Where next for the UK flex space Market? JLL, London JLL (2019b) JLL reveals top markets primed for flexible space growth. JLL, London JLL (2019c) Office annual report 2018 Italy. JLL, London Knight F (2019) The London Report, what’s next 2019 Lichfields (2018) Industrial evolution. Planning for London’s industrial need. https://lichfields.uk/ media/4909/industrial-evolution-insight_feb-2018_17_.pdf Marchesini E (2019) Uffici « flessibili », le regine di Europa sono Londra, Parigi , Stoccolma e Dublino. Il Sole 24 Ore. (October 4). https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/uffici-flessibili-regine-eur opa-sono-londra-parigi-stoccolma-e-dublino-ABq6RvkB?refresh_ce=1 Martins J (2015) The extended workplace in a creative cluster: exploring space(s) of digital work in silicon roundabout. J Urban Des 20:125–145. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2014.972349 McCann P (2019) Perceptions of regional inequality and the geography of discontent: insights from the UK. Reg Stud 0(0), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2019.1619928 Merkel J (2015) Coworking in the city. Ephemera: Theory Polit Organ 15(1), 121–139 Miles J (2019). In the eternal city, businesses face a battle for functional offices. The Financial Times (November 11). https://www.ft.com/content/a58a0f9e-0478-11ea-a984-fbbacad9e7dd Nascimento S, Pólvora A (2016) Maker cultures and the prospects for technological action. Sci Eng Ethics, 1–20 NESTA (2017). Incubators and accelerators: an updated directory for the UK. https://www.nesta. org.uk/blog/incubators-and-accelerators-an-updated-directory-for-the-uk/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwn cT1BRDhARIsAOQF9LmjbgFegeJo4w8bhl9esI7M5vdKTUBxKz7L3ttrUmFVod5W2CSlLS gaArHfEALw_wcB. Accessed December, 2019 Parrino L (2015) Coworking: assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowl Manag Res Prac 13(3):261–271.https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47 Raco M, Livingstone N, Durrant D (2019) Urban development planning, financialisation and reflexive calculation: investors and developers’ perceptions of London as an investment space. Eur Plan Stud 27(6):1064–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2019.1598019 Roth K, Mirchandani N (2016) The rise of coworking : a growing workplace movement. Corpor Real Estate J 5(4), 314–328(15) Sargent K, Cooper J, Mellwig B, Mcdonald M, Sargent K, Mcdonald M, Mcdonald M (2018) Coworking and the disruption of the current corporate real estate model. Corpor Real Estate J 7(3):267–276 Savills (2019) Flexible office space, Savills spotlight, European commercial research March 2019. Savills, London

Contemporary Coworking in Capital Cities …

167

Schmidt S, Müller FC, Ibert O, Brinks V (2017) Open region: creating and exploiting opportunities for innovation at the regional scale. Eur Urban Reg Stud 25(2):187–205. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0969776417705942 Somerville P, Haines N (2008) Prospects for local co-governance. Local Govern Stud 34(1):61– 79. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930701770488 Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone, together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. Pub J Business Techn Commun 26(4):399–441 Surman T (2013) Building social entrepreneurship through the power of coworking. Innov Technol Govern Global 8(3–4), 189–195. https://doi.org/10.1162/INOV_a_00195 UK2070 Commission (2019) Fairer and stronger. Rebalancing the UK economy van Holm EJ (2015) Makerspaces and contributions to entrepreneurship. Procedia—Soc Behav Sci 195:24–31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.06.167 van Holm EJ (2017) Makerspaces and local economic development. Econ Dev Quart 31(2):164– 173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242417690604 Weinbrenn J (2016) Coming of age: is demand for flexible workspace changing the office market? Corp Real Estate J 5(3):248–260 We Made That (2018) Industrial intensification and co-location study. https://www.london.gov. uk/sites/default/files/136_industrial_intensification_and_co-location_study_-_design_and_del ivery_testing_reduced_size.pdf

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects on the Urban Context: Are Pole Areas Gaining? Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Akhavan, and Dante Di Matteo

Abstract Coworking space is an urban phenomenon, but it is interesting to explore their potential diffusion in non-core areas because of the positive direct and indirect effects that it can produce (direct effects on the coworkers and indirect effects on the urban environment and planning). This chapter aims to fill the gap in the literature on the effects of coworking spaces (CSs). By conducting an empirical study, the “indirect” effects of CSs on the urban context in Italy are explored, with a focus on pole and non-pole areas, as defined in Italy by the National Strategy for Inner Areas (Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne—SNAI). The empirical study is based on an online survey addressed to coworkers (CWs) of the 549 CSs located in Italy (as of January 2018): 326 CWs from 118 CSs have responded. The data are then elaborated by means of descriptive statistics and econometric analysis (propensity score matching/counterfactual). This geographical focus will allow us to understand whether and how CSs may be beneficial also to non-pole areas by promoting: entrepreneurial milieu; knowledge creation by retaining knowledge workers; and the creative class, social inclusion, and spatial regeneration. The findings suggest implications for policymakers and opens new avenues for further research.

1 Introduction Technology has enabled entrepreneurs to streamline the delivery of services in sharing economy sectors, such as car-sharing (for instance, BlaBlaCar or car2go), home-sharing platforms (namely, Airbnb) and also sharing spaces for work I. Mariotti (B) · M. Akhavan · D. Di Matteo Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] M. Akhavan e-mail: [email protected] D. Di Matteo e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_10

169

170

I. Mariotti et al.

(coworking spaces—CSs). Regarding the latter, in fact, the world of work is changing, as it is becoming less dependent on distance, time and space (Gaspar and Glaeser 1998), and with the rising number of self-employed, freelance and independent workers more flexible working styles are emerging. In other words, the borders between private homes, productive spaces and socializing sites are becoming less evident (Moriset and Malecki 2009; Fonner and Stache 2012; Gold and Mustafa 2013). Such changing geographies of work and the workplace may lead to a better work–life balance; yet, teleworking and especially working from home can reduce the level of well-being compared to working alongside coworkers (Reuschke 2019). Coworking seems ideal for start-ups and small companies, as it provides a costeffective workplace and helps to expand the professional network. These are some of the reasons that have fostered the emergence and diffusion of third places for work (Oldenburg 1989)—informal social meeting places separate from the two conventional environments of home (first place) and the productive workspace/office (second place)—which are anchors of communities that may facilitate and foster broader, more creative interaction, and hence are vital for modern societies (Akhavan and Mariotti 2018a). In fact, before the advent of CSs—the first was “Hat Factory” in 2005 in the US—such informal new forms of working spaces already existed in public spaces such as libraries, cafés/bars, hotel, and airport lounges, which are typically not planned to host productive activities, yet are increasingly being occupied as spaces for work (Di Marino and Lapintie 2017). The late 2000s witnessed a wide diffusion of CSs. The coworking movement has roughly doubled in size each year since 2006. According to recent data, the 2019 Global Coworking Survey, by the end of 2019, almost 2.2 million people are expected to work in over 22,000 coworking spaces worldwide (Deskmag Survey1 ). Therefore, in the era of digital economy, growth in entrepreneurship, freelancing and teleworkers, there is an increasing demand for alternative workplaces, such as CSs, and collaborative coworking culture, which facilitates the creation of an economy that supports community and innovation (Davies and Tollervey 2013). In this regard, Merkel (2015: 122) states that «as flexibly rentable, cost-effective and community-oriented workplaces, coworking spaces facilitate encounters, interaction and a fruitful exchange between diverse work, practice, and epistemic communities and cultures». Mainly located in large urban areas where there is a concentration of skilled labour, knowledge and innovation (Moriset 2014; Mariotti et al. 2017; Mariotti et al. 2021)—and the so-called “creative class” (Florida 2002)—CSs may encourage individual/team creativity by providing business infrastructure as well as the opportunity for collaboration and social interaction (Bueno et al. 2018). In fact, the CS is an urban phenomenon, but it is interesting to promote the diffusion in non-core areas because of the positive direct and indirect effects that it can produce (direct effects on the coworkers—CWs and indirect effects on the urban environment and planning). While several studies have discussed the “direct” effects of new working spaces, little is

1 See:

www.deskmag.com.

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

171

known about its “indirect” effects on urban and socio-economic transformations, as well as future urban design/planning (Yu et al. 2019). Although the CS phenomenon is relatively new, researchers from varied disciplines are showing more and more interest and, currently, there is a growing body of literature on the topic: the focus is more on the empirical approach than the theoretical ones; business and management are the dominant disciplines. Yet, scanning the scant number of publications in the fields of urban studies, economics and geography reveals the need for more contributions regarding the geographical and economic implications of CSs, and in particular, the impact of the rise of such workplaces on the urban environment. From a methodological point of view, most studies on CSs have focused on analysing specific cases with more qualitative approaches. Within this context, this chapter aims to fill the gap in the literature by conducting an empirical study of the “indirect” effects of CSs on the urban context, with a focus on pole and non-pole areas, as defined in Italy by the National Strategy for Inner Areas (Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne—SNAI). According to this strategy, pole municipalities are single municipality service centres, that is they simultaneously own the following dimensions: (1) the school dimension, indicating the presence of at least an upper secondary school; (2) the health dimension, which considers the presence of at least one hospital offering the first level DEA (department for urgencies and emergencies); and (3) the mobility dimension, delineated by at least the presence of a silver grade railway station. In particular, the study makes an attempt to respond to questions on • whether and how CWs have perceived that their CS has produced “direct” effects on themselves (economic performance increase, cost saving, etc.); and “indirect” effects on the urban context—via the organization of cultural, sensitizing and community events, agreement with local services, collaboration with social streets and GAS (Gruppo di Acquisto Solidale, “ethical purchasing groups”) and security improvement? • whether CSs located in “pole” municipalities behave differently from those located outside core municipalities, as concerns the effects on the local context? The empirical study of this chapter is based on an online survey addressed to coworkers (CWs) of the 549 CSs located in Italy (as of January 2018): 326 CWs from 118 CSs have responded. The data are then elaborated by means of descriptive statistics and econometric analysis (propensity score matching/counterfactual). This geographical focus will allow us to understand whether and how CSs, mainly an urban phenomenon, might be beneficial also to non-pole areas by promoting: entrepreneurial milieu, knowledge creation by retaining knowledge workers and the creative class, social inclusion and spatial regeneration. The remainder of the chapter is organized as follows. Section 2 provides an overview of the literature on CSs: its definition, evolution, location patterns and direct and indirect effects. Data collection and methodological approach are presented in Sect. 3, while the following Sect. 4 presents the analyses. The findings are discussed in the final section, along with some policy implications that bring the chapter to a close.

172

I. Mariotti et al.

2 The Phenomenon of Coworking Spaces: Definition, Location and Effects CS Definition Though intricate, there is a consensus among scholars to define the CS focusing not simply on the physical space (office) provision but also on establishing a community and a quality of working behaviour “working alone together”, which involves a shared working environment and independent activity (Spinuzzi 2012; Bilandzic 2016; Capdevila 2013, 2014, 2017; Fuzi et al. 2014). Unlike traditional third places such as libraries and bars, CSs are designed and planned specifically as facilitators for work by providing the basic necessities such as desks, technological needs (wifi), meeting rooms and other equipment for workers to develop their own network for a membership fee (DeGuzman and Tang 2011; Jones et al. 2009). According to the literature, CSs are regarded as “serendipity accelerators” designed to host creative people (Spinuzzi 2012) and entrepreneurs who endeavour to break out of isolation and find a convivial environment favouring the development of collaborative communities (Moriset 2014). Social, institutional, cognitive and organizational proximities (Boschma 2005) may lead to an increase in informal exchange, collaboration and interaction with others, knowledge transfer and business opportunities (Spinuzzi 2012; Akhavan et al. 2019). In such a working environment, CWs can therefore learn from each other through sharing spaces and interaction. Location Determinants Shared workspaces, collaborative spaces and hubs for freelancers, the self-employed, remote workers and start-ups are increasingly becoming a subject of local and regional economic development policies since shared workspaces are considered important intermediaries that help deliver entrepreneurial growth and local innovation agendas (Babb et al. 2018; Di Marino and Lapintie 2018; IPPR 2016). Collaborative spaces are spreading nowadays beyond big agglomerations towards medium-sized and smaller cities and even peripheral and rural areas (Capdevila 2017; Fuzi 2015). The scope and function of collaborative spaces in smaller and peripheral cities consist of different characteristics over those that are developed in large urban agglomerations. Most of the time, collaborative spaces in smaller cities can be seen as tools for regeneration purposes, place marketing and for attracting economically active individuals and their families. According to a COWORKMed (2018, pp. 10, 30)2 shared workspaces in rural towns «act as nerve centres, revitalising rural communities and embedding new forms of innovation and development outside big cities», while they can also act as innovation catalysts, «where people can learn and progress through trial-and-error, in rural territories where experimentation is generally avoided». As mentioned beforehand, the CS is an urban phenomenon: CSs are mainly located in large urban areas, in most cases in or around the city centres with a concentration of 2 See:

https://coworkmed.interreg-med.eu.

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

173

skilled labour, knowledge and innovation. CSs may constitute an integral part of the city’s entrepreneurial ecosystem and contribute to its strengthening, especially due to the characteristics of the coworkers (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018; Brown 2017; Capdevila 2017). The location patterns of these new working spaces are similar to those of the creative industries with a particular knowledge base, thus, they tend to locate in areas with high amenity environments (Van Oort et al. 2003; Mariotti et al. 2017), and where the creative class lives, thus attracting similar kinds of knowledgebased activities and new working spaces (Florida 2002). However, CSs can also be found in inner-city suburbs in high-traffic positions (Yu et al. 2019). Coworking business models may provide benefits to corporate real estate management, by creating a sense of community, further agility and flexibility for larger corporate organizations (Garrett et al. 2017). The literature exploring the location patterns of CSs is scant, the few studies carried out focus on (i) the so-called “creative cities” of advanced economies (Moriset 2014); (ii) the Netherlands (Stam and van de Vrande 2017); (iii) small- and medium-sized cities in France and Germany (Krauss et al. 2018); (iv) the city of Milan in Italy (Mariotti et al. 2017). These studies agree that the location of CSs is mainly urban, but a minority of CSs are located outside the larger cities: on one hand, because more and more highly knowledgeable workers tend to work from remote locations where work is cooperative/collaborative rather than collocated (Felton et al. 2010); on the other hand, because, in some cases, these new working spaces are specialized in providing services to the traditional manufacturing system, which is mainly located outside cities. As Felton et al. (2010) stated, the dense proximity cluster networks of the city centre are not the only environment in which creative industries operate since the geography of creative industries is more complex than simple concentric circle models suppose. Indeed, the literature has underlined that the simple co-location itself may not necessarily lead to networking, interaction and collaboration and thereby to knowledge creation, while community facilitators, such as CS managers, may play an important role in enabling more synergies to stimulate encounters and collaborations inside the trust-based community-oriented environments (Fuzi 2015). Specifically, the sense of community can be considered as a solution offered by CSs to overcome the issue of social isolation also in less central areas. Direct Effects of CSs Direct effects of CSs mainly concern the CWs, which can vary from freelancers, self-employed individuals and entrepreneurs to dependant contractors, consultants and employees with diverse professional profiles and competencies. Their fields range from the creative industry—such as architects, designers, journalists, etc.—to engineering and digital sectors—namely IT, software developers, consultants, etc. (Spinuzzi 2012; Gandini 2015; Akhavan and Mariotti 2018b). According to the literature, flexible working models—such as CSs—are considered to facilitate the exchange of knowledge among CWs and encourage more collaborative activities and innovation (Capdevila 2013; Jakonen et al. 2017), in addition to other benefits such as cost savings for office rental and energy consumption (Bentley et al. 2015; Yu et al. 2019), increases in economic performances (revenue growth (Mariotti and Di Matteo

174

I. Mariotti et al.

2019)), and positive impacts on the level of well-being and satisfaction of the CW (Morrison and Macky 2017; Akhavan and Mariotti 2018b). CWs may have higher levels of job satisfaction, with a higher organizational commitment compared to those working in a nonflexible environment (Kelliher and Anderson 2010), and CSs also foster employee work productivity because they save on employees’ commute times (Voordt 2003). So far, CSs have proven to be a profitable business and expand the scope of businesses by adding supplementary services that are welcomed by entrepreneurs and the self-employed (Bouncken and Reuschl 2018). Indeed, CSs offer their hosts a multi-professional environment, characterized by a sense of community3 (Capdevila 2013; Jakonen et al. 2017; Garrett et al. 2017), which is expected to reduce their risks of isolation (particularly high in home working), increase meeting opportunities (Moriset 2014), potentially boost business collaboration and promote innovation through enhanced social interaction, creativity and entrepreneurship at shared workplaces (Spinuzzi 2012; Stumpf 2013). Therefore, individuals who work at a CS can satisfy their needs for social interactions and still maintain their desired autonomy and independence at work. A recent study by Akhavan and Mariotti provides interesting insight into how coworkers experience a sense of community inside their working spaces and outside in the urban context in Italy: the majority of those interviewed have experienced social proximity, and perceived that the CS they work in has had a positive impact on their urban environment, as well as the neighbourhood. Recent studies have stressed the key role played by the proximity measures a là Boschma (2005)—geographical, social, institutional, cognitive and organizational proximities—in fostering: informal exchange, collaboration and interaction with others, knowledge transfer and business opportunities within the CS (Spinuzzi 2012; Akhavan et al. 2019). As stated by Boschma (2005): (i) people sharing the same knowledge base and expertise may learn from each other, facilitating effective communication (cognitive proximity); (ii) people belonging to/joining networks are facilitated in transferring and exchanging information and knowledge, thus improving and fostering learning and innovation (organizational proximity); (iii) actors embedded in social relations (based on friendship, kinship and past experience) are more prone to stimulating interactive learning due to trust and commitment (elements of social capital) (social proximity); (iv) players sharing common habits, routines, established practices, rules or laws that regulate the relations and interactions between individuals, exploit a reduction of uncertainty, which becomes important for economic coordination and interactive learning (Institutional proximity); (v) colocation brings people together, favouring contacts and facilitating the exchange of tacit knowledge (geographical proximity). Parrino (2015) has applied the theoretical framework of proximity in CSs to explore the role of proximity in facilitating

3 Garrett et al. (2017) explored the sense of community in coworking spaces by analysing coworking

members through their day-to-day interactions. They identified three different types of collective interactions which contribute to a sense of community, namely: endorsing, encountering and engaging.

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

175

interaction and transmission of CW knowledge, and then uses an empirical analysis to discuss the importance of social and organizational proximity in promoting collaboration and knowledge exchange among CWs. Indirect Effects of CSs As places or hubs for knowledge creation, diffusion of innovation, transfer of tacit knowledge and local collaboration, CSs may become drivers of economic change while retaining the creative class and knowledge workers in the periphery and thereby increasing competitiveness and performance of remote areas (Fuzi 2015; Capdevila 2017), as well as increasing the urban quality and individuals’ well-being. Therefore, CSs can produce effects on their local context and immediate surroundings. The entrepreneurial buzz may not only bring about changes in community, trust and collaboration on the firm-level, it may also affect the streets or neighbourhoods surrounding the new working spaces, the Jacobs spillover effect, and thus can be a driver of change in local communities. Moreover, indirect effects of CSs may provide benefits that are more valuable to the economy, wealth and community quality of life, i.e. stimulating spatial regeneration and revival of remote neighbourhoods. However, a new entrepreneurial buzz in and around them may generate negative indirect effects, such as parking shortages, noise or increasing land rents. The literature exploring the effects of CSs on the local context is scant. Yu et al. (2019) have carried out a literature review on the impact of future flexible working model evolution on the urban environment, economy and planning (Table 1). Although the focus of the review is broader than the topic of coworking, the authors describe several indirect effects that can easily be associated to the CS. Indirect effects can also be associated to urban and transport planning and policy design. Indeed, due to flexible work locations and working hours (Ge et al. 2018), new working spaces can change energy use patterns both at home and related to travel/transportation (Schipper et al. 1989). Telecommuting has proven to significantly reduce travel (Mokhtarian 1991), and therefore reduce congestion (Zhang et al. 2005), as daily commuting to and from work can be an important cause of urban traffic congestion. In this regard, Ross and Ressia (2015) have shown that coworking has reduced the number of commuters to work. Therefore, developing CSs in the peripheral areas and suburbs can possibly be beneficial also for the environment, as it reduces the traffic caused by CWs. Another recent study regarding the effects of CSs on urban spaces and practices—at urban and local levels—based on field research addressed to 20 representative CSs located in different neighbourhoods of the city of Milan (Mariotti et al. 2017) discusses the spatial effects of CS: (i) the confirmation of the attractiveness of traditional and central commercial, business and gentrified districts; (ii) the development of spontaneous agglomerations formed by CSs and other innovative workplaces (such as makerspaces) in neighbourhoods already devoted to creative and cultural industries; (iii) the development of spontaneous agglomerations of CSs and other innovative workplaces in areas of the city previously characterized by abandon and the presence of empty buildings formerly hosting workshops and businesses owned by tradesmen. Moreover, the effects associated to main practices concern:

176

I. Mariotti et al.

Table 1 The positive direct and indirect effects of CSs Effects typology Coworkers Direct effects

Cost savings (office rental, office energy consumption, employees’ commute times), reduce risks of isolation, increase meeting opportunities, boost business collaboration and promote innovation, foster employee work productivity and working efficiency, reduce CW commute times and earnings growth, boost CW job satisfaction and wellbeing

Indirect effects

Urban space

Practices

Environment/planning

Confirmation of urban attractiveness Development of spontaneous aggregation in districts Episodic transformation in the public space (temporary installations, permanent/new equipment)

Contribution to the development of innovative services Extension of daily and weekly cycles of use Episodic participation in the strengthening of community ties (i.e. Social Streets) Revitalization of existing retail and commercial activities Strengthening mini clusters of creative and cultural productions

Reduction of: pollution, traffic congestion energy use patterns both at home and associated with travel/transportation

Source Authors’ adaptation on Mariotti et al. (2017) and Yu et al. (2019)

(i) the CS contribution to the development of innovative city services (i.e. the organization of dedicated events, or the growth of local, national, and international CS networks), which are mainly devoted to urban communities of—self-employed and freelance—knowledge, creativity, and digital workers. As stated by Mariotti et al. (2017), at the local level, these effects can be read in the episodic transformation of public space (i.e. new urban equipment, spaces designed for rest or leisure, art and cultural installations) or in the modification of the daily and weekly cycles of use within the neighbourhood (i.e. sponsoring evening and night activities or weekend events), and in the contribution and participation in the strengthening of community ties at the neighbourhood level. Finally, other local effects range from traditional services (such as forms of revitalization of existing retail and commercial activities, bars and cafés), to more innovative ones, catering to the different populations who start using the area (i.e. business discount schemes for CWs in neighbourhood shops and services).

3 An Empirical Study in Italy: Data and Methodology As of January 2018, Italy hosts 549 CSs, which are mainly located in large urban areas in Lombardy, Lazio, Tuscany, Piedmont, Sicily and Apulia (Fig. 1) (for a

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

177

Fig. 1 The Geography of coworking spaces in Italy. The image on the left side shows the location of CSs, and the graph on the right side demonstrates the geographical distribution of CSs by class of muncipality. Source Authors’ adaptation on Mariotti et al. (2021)

review see Mariotti et al. 2021); Akhavan et al. 2019). Additional relevant data for this chapter are provided by the online questionnaire addressed to CWs (in 2017): 236 responded, working in 138 CSs (25% of the total number of CSs). Among the several questions composing the survey, some were devoted to understanding: (i) whether CWs experienced proximity typologies in the CS (ii) the direct effects of CSs on the CWs in terms of cost savings, satisfaction and well-being; (iii) the indirect effects of CSs on the urban context, as perceived by the respondents, in terms of activities organized by the CS and their potential impacts on the urban context. In order to explore the potential effects of CSs on the urban environment, disentangling by CSs located in core and non-core areas, this study conducts descriptive statistics and an estimation method based on the selection on observables (Cerulli 2015): the propensity score matching (PSM). The PSM is considered one of the more consistent estimators for evaluating the treatment parameters (ATEs), under the hypothesis of the conditioned mean independence (CMI). One of the main reasons for implementing the PSM in the present study is the character of the collected data (binary and categorical variables), which are well suited for being computed by means of a non-parametric estimate procedure, not requiring any particular parametric linear relationship between the potential outcome (y) and the set of control (or covariates) variables (x i ).

178

I. Mariotti et al.

The general formula for estimating the average treatment effect on the treated units (ATT) comes as follows: 1 AT T = NT

 i∈{w=1}

⎛ ⎝ y1i −



⎞ h i j y0 j ⎠,

(1)

j∈C(i)

where N T represents the number of treated units; i is the treated unit with the characteristics assumed by the x i ; j is the non-treated unit matched with the i-treated unit on the basis of the computation of the propensity score, where hij are the weights (ranging between 0 and 1) to be applied for each j matched to i; the set of C(i) individuates the i-neighbourhood for each j matched to i. Based on the observed variables, the average treatment effect on the treated units (ATT) was computed, where the treatment status (w) identifies the threshold between the treated group (CWs located in urban “poles”) and the control group (CWs located in non-urban poles). The control group here allows one to identify an optimal counterfactual analysis for evaluating the potential impact of the CS in the territorial context of the urban poles and the related difference-in-mean compared to the other non-pole municipalities. First, the ATT was identified using the matching method of Nearest Neighbor and then we report the same results using the matching methods of Radius and Kernel for a robustness check (see the appendix for further specifications of these two other methods). Before computing the average treatment effect on the treated units, the balancing levels both for the propensity score [p(x i )] and for the x i covariates were tested and, given the balancing properties test satisfied in each block, we can take the results as good with an excellent internal validity for the proposed case study (the results of the balancing properties test were performed but not reported, but they can be sent upon request; the graph of the propensity score balancing test before and after the matching is reported in the appendix). The necessary observable parameters to estimate the unobservable ATT are the outcome variable (y), the treatment variable (w), which identify the discontinuity between the treated and non-treated units, and the best set of covariates (x i ) able to predict the optimal propensity score [p(x i )]. The covariates here are divided into three main groups: • a series of general and specific characteristics of the interviewed CW; • social, institutional and organizational proximity à la Boschma experienced by the CW; • a series of positive (direct and indirect) effects observed by the interviewed CW. The following Table 2 summarizes the descriptive statistics of all the observable information.

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

179

Table 2 Variables description and summary statistics Variable

Type

Description

Binary

Binary

Mean (std. dev.)

Min

Max

1 = the CW 0.644 considers “good” or (0.479) “enough” the impact of his/her CS on the territorial context; 0 = otherwise (“low” or “very low”)

0

1

1 = the CW is 0.785 located in an urban (0.411) “Pole”; 0 = otherwise; (the categorization of this variable follows the Italian criteria of the “National Strategy for the Inner Areas”)

0

1

Outcome variable Y

Treatment variable W

Covariates General and specific characteristics Gender

Binary

1 = male; 0 = otherwise

0.564 (0.496)

0

1

Education

Binary

1 = the Coworker is 0.595 high-skilled (0.491) (master’s degree or higher); 0 = otherwise

0

1

Creative worker

Binary

1 = the Coworker is 0.736 a “creative”; 0 = (0.441) otherwise

0

1

Revenue growth

Binary

1 = the Coworker 0.401 found increases in (0.491) his/her revenue; 0 = otherwise (he/she did not find any increases, or he/she found decreases)

0

1

(continued)

180

I. Mariotti et al.

Table 2 (continued) Variable

Type

Description

Mean (std. dev.)

Min

Max

Satisfaction

Binary

1 = the Coworker feels “much” or “enough” satisfied from his/her Coworking experience; 0 = otherwise (“low” or “very low”)

0.966 (0.180)

0

1

Distance from the home to the CS

Categorical

The Coworker encompasses a distance to his/her Coworking from his/her residence of 1 = (1–3) km2 ; 2 = (3–10) km2 ; 3 = (10–20) km2 ; 4 = more than 20 km2

1.886 (0.999)

1

4

Social proximity-trust

Categorical

The Coworker shares trust relationships with other Coworkers: 0 = mainly no; 1 = sometimes yes, sometimes no; 2 = mainly yes

1.668 (0.597)

0

2

Social proximity—friendship

Categorical

The Coworker found 2.205 he/she has created (0.946) new friendship relationships during his/her Coworking experience: 0 = definitely not; 1 = mainly no; 2 = mainly yes; 3 = definitely yes

0

3

Institutional proximity

Categorical

The Coworker shares similar political ideas with other Coworkers: 0 = mainly no; 1 = sometimes yes, sometimes no; 2 = mainly yes

0

2

Proximity measures

0.708 (0.839)

(continued)

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

181

Table 2 (continued) Variable

Type

Description

Organizational proximity—Instruments

Categorical

Organizational proximity—Spaces

Organizational proximity—Services

Mean (std. dev.)

Min

Max

The Coworker found 2.095 he/she has had the (1.007) chance to access new instruments and/or equipment during his/her Coworking experience: 0 = definitely not; 1 = mainly no; 2 = mainly yes; 3 = definitely yes

0

3

Categorical

The Coworker found 2.533 he/she has had the (0.654) chance to access useful spaces (meeting rooms, kitchen, etc.) during his/her Coworking experience: 0 = definitely not; 1 = mainly no; 2 = mainly yes; 3 = definitely yes

0

3

Categorical

The Coworker found 1.972 he/she has had the (1.088) chance to access useful services (secretary, administration, etc.) during his/her Coworking experience: 0 = definitely not; 1 = mainly no; 2 = mainly yes; 3 = definitely yes

0

3

Observed benefits (continued)

182

I. Mariotti et al.

Table 2 (continued) Variable

Type

Description

Professional benefits

Categorical

Information benefits

Formative benefits

Mean (std. dev.)

Min

Max

The Coworker found 2.217 he/she has created (0.975) new professional relationships during his/her Coworking experience: 0 = definitely not; 1 = mainly no; 2 = mainly yes; 3 = definitely yes

0

3

Categorical

The Coworker found 2.088 he/she has had the (1.017) chance to access new information channels during his/her Coworking experience: 0 = definitely not; 1 = mainly no; 2 = mainly yes; 3 = definitely yes

0

3

Categorical

The Coworker found 1.680 he/she has had the (1.159) chance to access new training opportunities during his/her Coworking experience: 0 = definitely not; 1 = mainly no; 2 = mainly yes; 3 = definitely yes

0

3

Source Authors

4 Empirical Analysis 4.1 Descriptive Statistics As mentioned beforehand, Italy hosts 549 CSs, which are mainly located in large cities, and 51% are located in the Italian metropolitan cities, in primis Milan and Rome (Fig. 1a). The analysis of the location patterns of CSs in Italy carried out by Mariotti et al. (2021) has underlined that the more innovative NUTS-3 provinces, with a higher share of skilled employees, attract more CSs because they are knowledgeintensive places for creative people. Moreover, although the urban poles account

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

183

for 76%, and intermunicipal poles for 5%, belt/outlying areas host 16% of the CS, followed by intermediate areas (3%) and ultra peripheral areas (0.5%)4 (Fig. 1b). This demonstrates that CSs tend to sprawl, and most of the times, not far from the main urban areas. The location of CS outside the city centre is explained by the fact that more and more highly knowledgeable workers tend to work from remote locations, where work is cooperative rather than collocated. As Feldone et al. (2010) stated, the dense proximity cluster networks of the city centre are not the only environment in which creative industries operate because the geography of creative industries is more complex than simple concentric circle models suppose. The literature has, indeed, underlined that simple co-location by itself may not necessarily lead to networking, interaction and collaboration, while community facilitators, like coworking managers, may play an important role in enabling more synergies to stimulate encounters and collaborations inside the trust-based community-oriented environments (Fuzi 2015). The sense of community can be seen as a solution offered by CSs to overcome the issue of social isolation, also in less central areas. Evidence on the effects produced by CSs, as perceived by CWs, has been provided by CWs in response to the survey. As concerns the direct effects, about 75% of the 326 CWs have experienced relationships based on trust (social proximity) with the majority of the other CWs, 51% share a similar lifestyle and political view (institutional proximity), 59% have stated that the majority of CWs have similar levels of knowledge and professional experience (cognitive proximity) and 83% make use of the services and facilities offered by their CS (organizational proximity). Moreover, another detailed quantitative study (see Mariotti and Akhavan 2018) confirms the importance of the “sense of community” in the working space in fostering the coworkers’ well-being. The sense of community is founded in social proximity (trust, new friendship and collaboration) and institutional proximity (sharing the same lifestyle, political ideas, etc.). 4 The

SNAI (Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne—National Strategy for Inner Areas) classified the Italian municipality into six typologies ((A) Urban poles, (B) Intermunicipal poles, (C) Outlying areas, (D) Intermediate areas, (E) Peripheral areas, and (F) Ultra peripheral areas) according to the following dimensions: (1) the school dimension, indicating the presence of at least an upper secondary school; (2) the health dimension, which considers the presence of at least one hospital offering the first level DEA (department for urgencies and emergencies); (3) the mobility dimension, delineated by the minimum presence of a silver grade railway station. Specifically, Pole municipalities simultaneously own the three above-mentioned dimensions. When two or more contiguous municipalities, that individually do not own all the three characteristics, but together are able to satisfy them, are classified as multi-municipality service centre. “Belt/Outlying areas” municipalities are classified as such if access time to the Poles is below 20 min, “Intermediate” municipalities are between 20 and 40 min from Poles, “Peripheral” municipalities are between 40 and 75 min from Poles and finally “Ultra-peripheral” municipalities are over 75 min far from Poles (Evangelista et al. 2018, pp. 95–96). The SNAI strategy defines Intermediate, Remote and Ultra-remote areas as Inner Areas: “areas at some considerable distance from hubs providing essential services (education, health and mobility), with a wealth of key environmental and cultural resources of many different kinds, which have been subject to anthropisation for centuries” (Barca et al. 2014). For further specification, see Carlucci and Lucatelli (2013), Evangelista et al. (2018).

184

I. Mariotti et al.

Fig. 2 Activities organized by the CS with potential effects on the urban context (multiple choice). Source Adaptation on Akhavan et al. (2019)

The effects of Italian CSs on the urban context have already been described by Akhavan et al. (2019). About 45% of CWs live within 3 km from their CS, a pattern which may lead to strengthening the neighbourhood community as they share the “sense of place” (Stedman 2002). About 85% of the respondents perceive that their CS has had a positive impact on the urban context (Mariotti and Pacchi 2018). In particular, they have stated that the CS offers the following activities having potential effects on its neighbourhood (Fig. 2): cultural events, agreements with local services, awareness enhancement events, community events, social streets, GAS (Gruppo di Acquisto Solidale, “ethical purchasing groups”) and security improvement. When the sample is divided into pole municipalities and non-pole municipalities, differences arise (Table 3). Specifically, on average, CWs in non-pole municipalities, when compared to those in pole areas: (i) perceived a higher positive impact of the CS in the urban context; (ii) have a lower educational level; (iii) tend to work in a creative sector; (iv) declared to be more satisfied; (v) live closer to the CS; (vi) experienced higher social and organizational proximity, and lower institutional proximity; (vii) have created new professional relationships, and had the chance to access new information channels and new training opportunities inside the CS.

4.2 Counterfactual Analysis The first and pivotal step of the matching procedure concerns estimating the unknown propensity score, which is a function of the x i covariates. This is also useful to perform a prior check of the randomness of the variables, in order to avoid possible problems in the validation of the selected observable values. At this propose, we run a probit model on the treatment variable (w), which is summarized in Table 9 in the Appendix.

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

256

Gender

Education

Creative worker

Revenues growth

Satisfaction

Distance from home to the CS

Social proximity—Trust

Social proximity—Friendship

Institutional proximity

Organizational prox—instruments

Organizational prox—Spaces

Organizational prox—Services

Professional benefits

Information benefits

Formative benefits

256

Source Authors

Max

1.597

2.039

2.191

1.957

2.535

2.058

0.750

2.207

1.613

1.917

0.964

0.359

0.730

0.609

0.542

0.609

1.160

1.032

0.981

1.089

0.637

1.025

0.849

0.941

0.640

1.027

0.184

0.480

0.444

0.488

0.499

0.488

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

70

Obs

Min

Non-pole municipalities Std. dev

Obs

Mean

Pole municipalities

Impact on the territorial context

Variable

Table 3 Descriptive statistics: pole and non-pole municipalities

1.985

2.271

2.314

2.028

2.528

2.228

0.557

2.200

1.871

1.771

0.971

0.557

0.757

0.542

0.642

0.771

Mean

1.109

0.946

0.956

1.089

0.716

0.935

0.791

0.972

0.337

0.887

0.167

0.500

0.431

0.501

0.482

0.422

Std. dev

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

Min

3

3

3

3

3

3

2

3

2

4

1

1

1

1

1

1

Max

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects … 185

186

I. Mariotti et al.

Although the p-values of the probit model indicate that 5 out of the 15 covariates are significant, it is possible to hypothesize that such covariates strongly influence the probability to fall into the treated group or into the control group. After the balancing (see Appendix) and the overlapping (Fig. 3 in the Appendix), and before and after the matching, we fix this problem and can assume with almost total certainty that we are looking at an almost completely randomized scenario. At this point, we estimate the matching taking into account the common support (S), which produces a reduced sample considering the x-support, which is common both to controls and treated, which is assumed by the following hypothesis: S = Supp(x|w = 1) ∩ Supp(x|w = 0)

(2)

where, as previous, the treatment is equal to 1 if the unit corresponds to a CW located in an urban “Pole” and is equal to 0 if it corresponds to a CW located in a non-core municipality. Table 4 summarizes the number of treated and control units pre- and post-matching. Now, given the computed propensity score, the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) is estimated with the one-to-one Nearest Neighbour matching (Cerulli 2014). The results are displayed in Table 5. Before interpreting the results of the ATT estimation, a technical consideration regarding how well the data fit the proposed model is opportune: the significance of the unmatched units and the slight gap between the unmatched and the matched coefficients is already a good indicator of robustness. This means that the unmatched context is not far from the matched scenario in terms of credibility. As for the result of the ATT, although the values reveal the positive impact of CW activities on the own territorial context, the difference between treated and control units reveals a negative impact on the treated units: in other words, it is likely that a coworker located in an urban “pole” would not produce the same impact on the urban environment would be produced by a coworker located in a smaller/peripheral urban Table 4 Number of treated and control units pre- and post-matching Assignment

Before matching

After matching

Controls

70

60

Treated

256

217

Total

326

277

Source Authors

Table 5 ATT estimation with nearest neighbour matching Variable

Sample

Treated

Controls

Difference

Std. err

T-statistic

Outcome (y)

Unmatched

0.609

0.771

−0.162***

0.064

−2.53

ATT

0.631

0.778

−0.147***

0.078

−1.89

Source Authors

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

187

area. These results are assumed to emphasize the debate on CS location strategies because it appears quite evident that the location in smaller/peripheral urban areas would generate a greater impact on the urban environment. A first robustness check about the early findings is to estimate the average treatment effect on the population (ATE) and the average treatment effect on the treated (ATT) by using the corrected standard errors, as suggested in Abadie and Imbens (2006, 2011). In this way, a double robustness is given by the combination of the regression adjustment and the inverse-probability weighting. The results for ATE and ATT are provided in the following Table 6. As Table 6 shows, the coefficients both for ATE and for ATT are very close to the results of the previous estimation, even with slightly higher values, and this check seems to confirm the general robustness of the findings (additional post-estimations and predicted values for the covariates were performed but not reported; they can be sent upon request). The second robustness check is provided by computing the ATT via Radius matching method, which introduces a radius tolerance parameter (normally 0.1 by default) that allows for each treated unit to obtain a counterfactual composed of one or more units, by replacement, for which the distance lies within the set radius (Table 7). The third and last robustness check, Kernel matching method, consists of a procedure similar to the previous because this also makes use of distances here in the form of bandwidths. However, it makes use of a Kernel function to produce the weights to be applied to the treated and control units, while the standard errors here are usually bootstrapped (Table 8). It is immediately visible that the results produced by estimating ATT with Radius and Kernel methods show lower values than all the other methods. Nevertheless, the sign of the ATT still remains negative, and this represents one further confirmation of the validity of these findings. In the following section, the findings are discussed and accordingly some policy implications are provided. Table 6 ATE and ATT (nearest neighbour) with corrected standard errors Outcome (y) Treatment (w) Confounders (x i )

Coefficient

AI Robust std. errors

z

P > |z|

ATE

−0.176***

0.065

−2.71

0.007

ATT

−0.203***

0.069

−2.93

0.003

Source Authors

Table 7 ATT estimation with Radius matching Number of treated units

Number of control units

ATT

Std. err

t

256

68

−0.135***

0.063

−2.131

Note Values of the t that are > of ±1.96 denotes statistical significance at p < 0.01 Source Authors

188

I. Mariotti et al.

Table 8 ATT estimation with Kernel matching Number of treated units

Number of control units

Number of repetitions

ATT

Std. err

T

256

68

50

−0.129***

0.064

−2.024

Note Values of the t that are > of ±1.96 denotes statistical significance at p < 0.01 Source Authors

5 Conclusions and Policy Implications Coworking is a social practice that has in common some social (community), cultural (sharing) and economic (saving) characteristics of other sharing activities (Merkel 2015). The CS phenomenon is polarized in large urban agglomerations, whereas rural and remote regions become less attractive and suffer from population decline and weakening economies. As highlighted by Jamal (2018: 785) having a physical coworking space in the downtown of a mid-sized city promotes urban renewal and preserving affordable space for new enterprise in rapidly gentrifying […] areas. Nevertheless, there is an urgent need to enlarge the (CS) toolkit for local development in smaller towns and rural areas. Without supporting the transformation to “urban” lifestyles and offering new potentials for new economies, such as the potentials of collaborative spaces and hubs, there is an increasing risk of further polarization and peripheralization of non-urban areas in Europe. Thus, further research is needed on whether the diffusion of CSs in peripheral areas may respond to the needs of innovative individuals seeking their future beyond the bigger cities as these have become over-crowded and more expensive in the past years. The CS produces direct and indirect effects that may increase the CW performance (i.e. cost savings, earning growth, business opportunity increases, etc.) and improve the socio-economic environment where it is located. The chapter provides empirical evidence on the effects of CSs in Italy and explores whether these direct and indirect effects differ if the CS is located in a pole municipality or in another area. When the analysis concerns all the municipalities (pole and non-pole), it results that the majority of respondents have taken advantage of social and organizational proximity, while about half of them have experienced institutional proximity. Besides, the majority of CWs have perceived that their CS has had a positive impact on the urban context, also through the activities promoted and/or joined by the CS, such as agreements with local services, cultural, charity, community events, and participation in a Social Street. The link between the CS and the neighbourhood can also be promoted by the CWs themselves: half of them live within 3 km from the CS, and therefore, they are more rooted in the neighbourhood, and consequently more willing to improve it. When distinguishing between pole and non-pole areas, it results that CSs located in non-pole areas experienced a higher and more positive impact on the urban environment than those located in a “pole” municipality. If this is the case, we might expect and foster the rise of such spaces also in more peripheral locations, where

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

189

CSs, with the help of tailored policies, might trigger entrepreneurship in regions with scant entrepreneurial settings through creating the hard infrastructures. Tailored policies should, however, respect the spontaneous and flexible aspects of these new working spaces (Fuzi 2015) by, for instance, subsidizing start-ups and fostering the development of the sense of community within the CS. Besides, the diffusion of CSs in non-pole municipalities can effectively reduce pollution by decreasing traffic congestion and reducing commute times. Moreover, these new working spaces can lead to potential changes in transport and urban infrastructure planning (Vallicelli 2018). The study points out several avenues for further research. First, a specific analysis of the CS located in the Inner Areas (in Italy) could allow us to understand which location patterns played a role in fostering the location and development of the CS (i.e. policy measures). Besides, it should be interesting to understand if these workplaces can be regarded as an opportunity to foster urban regeneration processes, starting from making use of empty spaces. Indeed, the Global Co-working Survey 2015 shows that nearly half of the new CS was opened at locations that had been vacant for at least 6 months before moving in. Further research might include case studies to better understand the indirect effects, the factors enhancing them and those contrasting its development. Although collaborative spaces seem to be a very attractive instrument for small towns and rural communities, we know very little of their functions, user profiles, their links with socio-economic spatial development, etc. If the sense of community is positive regarding the performance of CWs as well as the improvement of the urban context, tailored policy tools might be developed to make it happen also in peripheral and remote areas (Rodríguez-Pose 2018), such as Inner Areas in Italy. Indeed, entrepreneurship can be promoted in sparse regions where the ICT allows economic agents to interact over long distances so that they are not pushed to leave their home region to migrate to the city. Defining authorship: this chapter is a result of a joint collaboration of the three authors. In particular, Ilaria Mariotti and Mina Akhavan have contributed to developing and writing the sections 1, 2, 4.1, 5, and Dante Di Matteo has contributed to sections 3 and 4.2.

Appendix In the one-to-one Nearest Neighbor method, the matching is done by combining for each i-treated unit the closest j-nontreated unit, using the Mahalanobis or Euclidean distance. For the propensity score matching (unlike the exact matching), the distance can be computed as follows (Table 9):    di j =  p x j − p(xi )

(3)

190

I. Mariotti et al.

Table 9 Probit regression model W

Coef

Std. err

Z

P > |z|

Gender

−0.120

0.178

−0.68

0.46

Education

0.121

0.175

0.70

0.48

Creative worker

0.026

0.195

0.14

0.89

Revenue growth

−0.401

0.185

−2.17

0.03

Satisfaction

0.725

0.573

1.26

0.20

Distance from home to the CS

0.079

0.088

0.89

0.37

−0.798

0.235

−3.40

0.00

Social proximity—Friendship

0.210

0.110

1.90

0.05

Institutional proximity

0.183

0.102

1.79

0.07

−0.034

0.114

−0.30

0.76

Social proximity—Trust

Organizational proximity—Instruments Organizational proximity—Spaces

0.206

0.163

1.27

0.20

−0.025

0.100

−0.25

0.80

Professional benefits

0.181

0.114

1.58

0.11

Information benefits

−0.061

0.129

−0.47

0.63

Formative benefits

−0.246

0.102

−2.42

0.01

0.691

0.632

1.09

0.27

Organizational proximity—Services

Cons Log likelihood: −150.77; Likelihood ratio of the 0.11

χ2

= 37.59; P >

(χ2 )

= 0.001; Pseudo-R2 =

Source Authors

while, as for the Kernel matching, given the (1), the weights (hij ) have to be substituted by the following:

hi j =

K

p j − pi b

K ∈[w=0]

K



 pk − pi ,

(4)

b

where K is a Kernel function in which each treated unit is matched with a weighted mean of all the non-treated units and these weights are inversely proportional to the distance between the control unit and the treated unit, this distance is the b parameter of the (4), i.e. the length of the bandwidth (which is 0.6 in this case). The algorithm to estimate the propensity score produced five blocks and the test of validity ensured that the mean propensity score is not different for treated and control units in each block. Subsequently, the balancing properties for each covariate were tested within each block (excepted for block 1 and block 2, where no observations were found given the values of the region of common support later reported) and the final result of the balancing properties test was satisfied since each covariate was found to be balanced in each block (results of the balancing properties test for each covariate here are not reported, but they are available upon request). Given the (2), the region of the common support for the estimation of the propensity score is

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

191

Table 10 Balancing properties test for blocks of propensity score Inferior of block of propensity score [p(x i )]

Assignment Control

Treated

Total

0.4 (Block 3)

11

20

31

0.6 (Block 4)

39

90

129

0.8 (Block 5)

18

146

164

Total

68

256

324

Source Authors

Fig. 3 Overlapping of the propensity score. Source Authors

[0.44203526, 0.99923398] and the final distribution of the control and treated units for each block of the balancing properties test is defined as follows in the Table 10. A graphical representation of the good overlapping of the propensity score is visible in Fig. 3, where in the left-side graph, there is the [p(x i )] before matching and, in the right-side graph, there is the [p(x i )] after matching. As stated above, the situation was partially good also for the unmatched units and it becomes almost completely perfect for the matched units.

References Abadie A, Imbens GW (2006) Large sample properties of matching estimators for average treatment effects. Econometrica 74(1):235–267. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2006.00655.x

192

I. Mariotti et al.

Abadie A, Imbens GW (2011) Bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects. J Bus Econ Stat 29:1–11, https://doi.org/10.1198/jbes.2009.07333 Akhavan M, Mariotti I (2018a) The effects of coworking spaces on local communities in the Italian context. Territorio 87:85–92. https://doi.org/10.3280/TR2018-087014 Akhavan M, Mariotti I (2018b) Investigating new working spaces and coworkers well-being: a comparative analysis of large cities vs. small and medium-size towns in Italy. In: 58th ERSA congress, Cork, Ireland, 28–31 August Akhavan M, Mariotti I, Astolfi L, Canevari A (2019) Coworking spaces and new social relations: a focus on the social streets in Italy. Urban Sci 3(2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010002 Babb C, Curtis C, McLeod S (2018) The rise of shared work spaces: a disruption to urban planning policy? Urban Policy Res 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2018.1476230 Barca F, Casavola P, Lucatelli S (2014) A strategy for inner areas in Italy: definition, objectives, tools and governance. Materiali UVAL, issue 31, Rome Bentley TA, Teo STT, McLeod L, Tan F, Bosua R, Gloet M (2015) The role of organisational support in teleworker wellbeing: a socio-technical systems approach. Appl Ergon 52:207–215, https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2015.07.019 Bilandzic M (2016) Connected learning in the library as a product of hacking, making, social diversity and messiness. Interact Learn Environ 24(1):158–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820. 2013.825811 Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):61–74. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Bouncken RB, Reuschl AJ (2018) Coworking-spaces: how a phenomenon of the sharing economy builds a novel trend for the workplace and for entrepreneurship. RMS 12(1):317–334. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11846-016-0215-y Brown J (2017) Curating the “Third Place” Coworking and the mediation of creativity. Geoforum 82:112–126. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.04.006 Bueno S, Rodríguez-Baltanás G, Gallego MD (2018) Coworking spaces: a new way of achieving productivity. J Facil Manag 16(4):452–466. https://doi.org/10.1108/JFM-01-2018-0006 Capdevila I (2017) A typology of localized spaces of collaborative innovation. In: van Ham M, Reuschke D, Kleinhans R, Mason C, Syrett S (eds) Entrepreneurial neighbourhoods—towards an understanding of the economies of neighbourhoods and communities. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367243.00013 Capdevila I (2014) Coworkers, makers, and fabbers global, local and internal dynamics of innovation in localized communities in Barcelona. PhD thesis, HEC Montréal. https://www.ignasi.cat/ wp-content/uploads/2014/12/v7-D%C3%A9p%C3%B4t-final-th%C3%A8se-Ignasi-Capdevila. pdf. 15 June 2016 Capdevila I (2013) Knowledge dynamics in localized communities: coworking spaces as microclusters. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2414121. 25 May 2016 Carlucci C, Lucatelli S (2013) Aree Interne: un potenziale per la crescita economica del Paese. Agriregionieuropa 9(34):17–20 Cerulli G (2014) TREATREW: a user–written Stata routine for estimating average treatment effects by reweighting on propensity score. Stata J 14(3):541–561. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867X1 401400305 Cerulli G (2015) Econometric evaluation of socio-economic programs: theory and applications. Springer, Berlin COWORKMed (2018) Territorial study on coworking assets for urban and rural areas. Interreg Mediterranean, Deliverable 3.7.1, February. https://coworkmed.interreg-med.eu/fileadmin/ user_upload/Sites/Social_and_Creative/Projects/COWORKMED/Library/3.7.1_Territorial_s tudy_final.pdf Davies A, Tollervey K (2013) The style of coworking: contemporary shared workspaces. Prestel Verlag, Munich DeGuzman GV, Tang AI (2011) Working in the unoffice: a guide to coworking for indie workers, small businesses, and nonprofits. Night Owls Press LLC

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects …

193

Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2017) Emerging workplaces in post-functionalist cities. J Urban Technol 24(3):5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1297520 Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2018) Exploring multi-local working: challenges and opportunities in contemporary cities. International Planning Studies. https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/FzcHtK 2EiQ6PMp3huFKg/full Evangelista V, Di Matteo D, Ferrari F (2018) La Strategia Nazionale per le Aree Interne e il turismo: appunti di riflessione. In: Cavuta G, Ferrari F (eds) Turismo e aree interne. Esperienze, Strategie, Visioni. Aracne, Rome, pp 91–110 Felton E, Collis C, Graham P (2010) Making connections: creative industries networks in outersuburban locations. J Aust Geogr 41(1):57–70, https://doi.org/10.1080/00049180903535576 Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class. Basic Books, New York Fonner KL, Stache LC (2012) All in a day’s work, at home: teleworkers’ management of micro role transitions and the work–home boundary. New Technol Work Employ 27(3):242–257. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2012.00290.x Fuzi A (2015) Co-working spaces for promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions: the case of South Wales. Reg Stud Reg Sci 2(1):462–469. https://doi.org/10.1080/21681376.2015.1072053 Fuzi A, Clifton N, Loudon G (2014) New in-house organizational spaces that support creativity and innovation: the co-working space. In: R&D management conference, Stuttgart, 3–6 June Gandini A (2015) The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review. Ephemera Theory Polit Organ 15(1):193–205 Garrett LE, Spreitzer GM, Bacevice PA (2017) Co-constructing a sense of community at work: the emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organ Stud 38(6):821–842. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0170840616685354 Gaspar J, Glaeser EL (1998) Information technology and the future of cities. J Urban Econ 43(1):136–156. https://doi.org/10.3386/w5562 Ge J, Polhill JG, Craig TP (2018) Too much of a good thing? Using a spatial agent-based model to evaluate “unconventional” workplace sharing programmes. J Transp Geogr 69:83–97. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.04.005 Gold M, Mustafa M (2013) ‘Work always wins’: client colonisation, time management and the anxieties of connected freelancers. New Technol Work Employ 28(3):197–211. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/ntwe.12017 Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) (2016) Start me up. The value of workspaces for small business, entrepreneurs and artists in London. Institute for Public Policy Research, London Jakonen M, Kivinen N, Salovaara P, Hirkman P (2017) Towards an economy of encounters? A critical study of affectual assemblages in coworking. Scand J Manag 33(4):235–242. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.scaman.2017.10.003 Jamal AC (2018) Coworking spaces in mid-sized cities: a partner in downtown economic development. Environ Plann A: Econ Space 50(4):773–788. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X1876 0857 Jones D, Sundsted T, Bacigalupo T (2009) I’m outta here! How coworking is making the office obsolete. Not an MBA Press, Austin, TX Kelliher C, Anderson D (2010) Doing more with less? Flexible working practices and the intensification of work. Human Relat 63(1):83–106, https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726709349199 Krauss G, Le Nadant AL, Marinos C (2018) Coworking spaces in small and medium-sized cities: the role of proximities for collaboration dynamics. Post-Print halshs-01721976, HAL Mariotti I, Pacchi C (2018) Coworking spaces and urban effects in Italy. In: Urban studies foundation seminar series, EKKE, Athens, Greece, 8–9 February 2018 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Mariotti I, Akhavan M, Rossi F (2021) The preferred location of coworking spaces in Italy: an empirical investigation in urban and peripheral areas. European Planning Studies, https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09654313.2021.1895080

194

I. Mariotti et al.

Mariotti I, Di Matteo D (2019) Proximity measures and coworkers’ performance. In: ESSCA annual conference, Paris, 7 June 2019 Merkel J (2015) Coworking in the city. Ephemera Theory Polit Organ 15(1):121–139 Mokhtarian P (1991) Defining telecommuting. Research report. Institute of Transportation Studies, University of California, CA Mokhtarian PL, Center Uo CT, University of California, DCE (1992) An empirical analysis of the transportation impacts of telecommuting. University of California Transportation Center, University of California Moriset B (2014) Building new places of the creative economy: the rise of coworking spaces. In: 2nd geography of innovation international conference 2014, Utrecht University, Utrecht, 23–25 January 2014 Moriset B, Malecki EJ (2009) Organization versus space: the paradoxical geographies of the digital economy. Geogr Compass 3(1):256–274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2008.00203.x Morrison RL, Macky KA (2017) The demands and resources arising from shared office spaces. Appl Ergon 60:103–115. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2016.11.007 Oldenburg R (1989) The great good place: cafes, coffee shops, bookstores, bars, hair salons, and other hangouts at the heart of a community. Paragon House, New York Parrino L (2015) Coworking: assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowl Manag Res Pract 13(3):261–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47 Reuschke D (2019) The subjective well-being of homeworkers across life domains. Environ Plann A Econ Space 51(6):1326–1349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19842583 Rodríguez-Pose A (2018) The revenge of the places that don’t matter (and what to do about it). Camb J Reg Econ Soc 11(1):189–209. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx024 Ross P, Ressia S (2015) Neither office nor home: coworking as an emerging workplace choice. Employ Relat Record 15(1):42–57 Schipper L, Bartlett S, Hawk D, Vine E (1989) Linking life-styles and energy use: a matter of time? Ann Rev Energy 14(1):273–320, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.eg.14.110189.001421 Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J Bus Tech Commun 26(4):399–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070 Stam E, van de Vrande V (2017) Solopreneurs and the rise of co-working in the Netherlands. In: van Ham M, Reuschke D, Kleinhans R, Mason C, Syrett S (eds) Entrepreneurial neighbourhoods. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 65–79. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785367243.00012 Stumpf C (2013) Creativity and space: the power of Ba in coworking spaces. Masters thesis, Corporate Management & Economics. Zeppelin University Vallicelli M (2018) Smart cities and digital workplace culture in the global European context: Amsterdam, London and Paris. City Cult Soc 12:25–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ccs.2017. 10.001 Van der Voordt TJM (2003) Costs and benefits of flexible workspaces. In: The EuroFM international research symposium on innovative workplaces, European facility management conference, Rotterdam Van Oort F, Weterings A, Verlinde H (2003) Residential amenities of knowledge workers and the location of ICT-firms in the Netherlands. Tijdschr Voor Econ Soc Geogr 94(4):516–523, https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00278 Yu R, Burke M, Raad N (2019) Exploring impact of future flexible working model evolution on urban environment, economy and planning. J Urban Manag 8(3):447–457. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.jum.2019.05.002 Zhang X, Yang H, Huang HJ, Zhang HM (2005) Integrated scheduling of daily work activities and morning–evening commutes with bottleneck congestion. Transp Res Part A Policy Pract 39(1):41–60

The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative Makerspaces in Italy Cecilia Manzo

Abstract Makerspaces are collaborative public spaces where new forms of work are developed within the collaborative economy. Within makerspaces, Fab Labs are workshops, open to the public, that offer tools and services for digital manufacturing, thus promoting social and economic innovation from grassroots. Existing research has shown as freedom of access allows communities that share interests in product development to come together and trigger a mechanism of contamination between skills and ongoing informal training. In this sense, makerspaces are capable of activating virtuous relationships with the surrounding environment, producing “local collective goods”. The chapter shows where these workshops have emerged in the first place and then looks at how they have been spreading in recent years. These dynamics of diffusion are shown with a particular reference to Italian case, specifying how national and local factors favored their development. The makerspace are particularly interesting case that is positioned on the international scientific discussion about how the loci of digital fabrication are changing.

1 Introduction Makerspaces are workshops, open to the public, which offer tools and services for digital production, thus promoting social and economic innovation, generating external, tangible and intangible economies, useful for local development. Together with coworking spaces they represent one of the most interesting realities of the new workspaces and pose new research questions about their relationship with the territory where they are based.

In this chapter reference is made to the Fab Labs recognized by the Fab Foundation whose list is available on https://www.fablabs.io/. C. Manzo (B) Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_11

195

196

C. Manzo

Their configuration is simultaneously that of a local and global community: a physical space used for tutoring and innovation that generates small, very close-knit groups of people in frequent contact with each other. At the same time, a “global place”, thanks to the international community (Fab Foundation) that connects groups of distant individuals, is spread all over the world through shared practices and attitudes. The Fab Labs thus mobilise local resources while using a repertoire of practices and resources available on a global scale. Regarding the operating methods, the digital manufacturing laboratories belong to that set of different phenomena that make up the economy of collaboration: they create horizontal relationship systems based on temporary access to production tools and services. With regard to these characteristics, the Fab Labs can be define as “local collective goods” offered by individuals. The chapter shows where Fab Labs have emerged in the first place and then looks at how they have been spreading in recent years with a particular focus on Italy. The first part of the chapter gives a definition of Fab Labs (Sect. 2). In the second part, the focus shifts to the figures and the characteristics of their diffusion (Sect. 3) and a geographical analysis of the Italian case by means of semi-structured interviews (Sect. 4). Finally, some of the features of the current phase are also underlined in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic.

2 Collective Public–Private Local Goods Fab Labs represent a subcategory of makerspace, which in part also includes activities pursued in hackerspaces and coworking environments. The communities that revolve around Fab Labs are one of the manifestations of the so-called “maker movement”. Makers are characterised by a strong passion for “personal fabrication”. Many of them are passionate and amateurs, or pro-am “amateur professionals” (Leadbeater and Miller 2004): innovative, passionate and networked amateurs who maintain high professional standards even though they dedicate themselves to activities only in their free time (Manzo and Ramella 2015). Others, however, are proto-entrepreneurs who use their creative and artisan skills to create new products and to start new businesses: Werner Sombart would have called them “week-day inventors” or “inventors of anything” (Sombart 1916). In other cases, these are activities that do not exclude commercial purposes, generating productive and entrepreneurial phenomena that collocate them partly in the context of the sharing economy and partly in that of the market economy. In some cases, these are activities that are not primarily motivated by acquisitive reasons and are not oriented towards producing goods for the market. They follow a different logic, based on cooperation, in the diffusion and sharing of knowledge and in the application of the principles of open source to the manufacture of material objects (open-source hardware).

The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative …

197

These laboratories work with the typical mechanisms of the sharing economy (Pais and Provasi 2015; Ramella and Manzo 2021): they provide a space with tools and equipment for digital manufacturing and make it available to individual users, small businesses and schools (Ferracane 2020). The workshops have three main objectives: training (tinkering), promotion of digital manufacturing (hacking)and development of collaboration and open innovation (sharing). Maker companies, therefore, take advantage of the opportunities offered by new electronic and information technologies in different phases of the product life cycle: for the creative process (through open innovation and online communities); for the financing of their projects (through crowd-funding platforms); for the design and scanning of products (through CAD softwares and 3D scanners); for the construction of prototypes and small series of products (through 3D printers, laser cutters and online production services); and for sale (via e-commerce).1 In addition, they operate by linking local resources to global networks. On the one hand, in fact, their configuration is that of a local place: a physical location used for tutoring, teaching and implementing creative solutions with groups of individuals interacting in a specific context. On the other hand, they are also a global place, guaranteeing access to an international community of laboratories and groups of individuals with shared practices and attitudes. Drawing on the literature on innovation, we could say that we are dealing with a “private-collective” kind of model, according to which individuals, or small groups of people invest their resources and expertise to produce public goods (Von Hippel and Von Krogh 2003; Von Hippel 2017). Considering the types of activities that the Fab Labs carry out, they can, therefore, be defined as local collective assets (Ramella and Manzo 2018), while following a “private-collective” logic (according to which individuals, or small groups of people invest their resources and skills to produce a goods collective), which differentiates them from the “traditional” local goods described by the literature on local development (Crouch et al. 2001) which are more related to the activities of public institutions (authorities) or interest organisations (associations).

3 Diffusion of Fab Labs in Europe Despite its global diffusion the Fab Lab phenomenon, despite its global diffusion, is a rather concentrated phenomenon from a territorial point of view. Since the first laboratory was founded in Boston in 2003, Fab Labs have had steady but rather slow growth , reaching 1,891 in 2020. The majority are in the United States (241) and

1 For

a more detailed reconstruction of the “maker phenomenon”, (see Anderson 2012; Gauntlett 2011; Gershenfeld 2011, 2012; Hatch 2014; Menichinelli and Ranellucci 2014; Menichelli 2016; Troxler 2010).

198

C. Manzo

slightly less than half are in the countries of the European Union (747).2 The most recent studies on the topic show that the different geographical distribution depends above all on the different urbanisation models, above all, in the different founding mechanisms. In the United States, in fact, there has been a more “institutionalised” generative model, based on policies and educational institutions, while in Europe, there is a more “bottom-up” model based on initiatives by non-profit associations and citizen groups. In Europe, the diffusion of Fab Labs is quite varied and influenced by the demographic dimension of the regions, their level and model of developmentand, finally, by their competitiveness and dynamism. Among the top 20 European regions by number of Fab Labs, there are regions specialised in manufacturing production, such asthe French region of Île de France and the Italian regions of Lombardy, Veneto and Emilia-Romagna. That said, these laboratories are present in a significantly greater number in some countries, for example, in France (223) and Italy (171) which in absolute terms represent the second and third countries in the world, and are characterised by lesser performing national/regional innovation systems (according to the data of the Innovation Union Scoreboard 2016). These two cases are very different from each other. The French case records a continuous increase in the number of laboratories. During the last three years (2016– 2020), 90 new laboratories have opened, more than double compared to Italy, which has seen new spaces open much more slowly in the last three years (44 in total). The proliferation and consolidation of French laboratories is due in large part to support from public and semi-public institutions combined with spontaneous mobilisation by citizens (Ramella and Manzo 2018). The Italian case in which this public support has been lacking is different. Although widespread, the phenomenon of Fab Labs in Italy is in fact characterised by greater “voluntarism” and a certain fragility. The two countries share the characteristics of the space manager. They are real “jacks of all trades” engaged in every area of management, from maintenance and access to machinery, help to members, organisation of training courses, and even opening and closing of the space. In addition, they have the perhaps most important role of community facilitators who, in addition to building relationships with the public, support the management of the laboratory (in France, 54% of the laboratories need a minimum of 10 hours of voluntary work per week; in Italy, 42% of the laboratories have no employees). Within the laboratories of both countries, we find small groups of people who have as their objective the learning, diffusion and development of digital manufacturing. Most of the French laboratories have as main users the “general public” (from citizens to start-ups), an idea of “public service” 2 The

data presented refers to all the laboratories recognised by the Fab Foundation, listed on the Italian section of the website (www.fablab.io/labs) The Fab Foundation –we shall go into more detail about this later on – is a non-profit organisation and part of the Fab Lab program at MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms. The first part of the analysis is based on data on the website of Fab Foundation. The second part is based on data and information gathered through their websites and specialist blogs and aims to reconstruct some of the Fab Labs’ distinctive features. Finally the empirical research carried out on Italian Fab Labs is based on semi-structured interviews with a representative sample of the founders coordinators of laboratories (20 in total, including two coordinators and non-founders) distributed over the entire peninsula (8 in the Third Italy, 8 in the North-West, and 4 in the South).

The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative …

199

and openness to citizens that seems to recall the French tradition of “popular education” (Bottollier-Depois et al. 2014). Italian users have the same profiles: students, people looking for a first job, hobbyists, and private companies, institutions and trade associations.

4 The Italian Case Many of the innovative practices that helped to create this type of Fab Labs were “grass roots” style movements, thanks to the initiative of people who invested resources and skills to create local and national collaboration networks. Fab Labs operate by linking local resources to global networks; they mobilise local resources and use a set of practices and resources available on a global scale. The Fab Labs represent an essential resource for the dissemination of skills related to new technologies. However, to understand how this is possible, it is necessary to consider the fundamental dimensions of the Italian experience starting from the founding and presence of makerspaces in the different areas. The history of the Italian Fab Labs is connected to the presence of hackers3 and open-source community. These are highly skilled people with a strong propensity for sharing knowledge and who support the democratisation of innovation. Although the exact moment when “everything began” is not clear (different protagonists of the phenomenon have different opinions), it is possible to identify two significant events for Italian makers. The first occurred in Turin in 2011 when Fab Lab Italia, a temporary digital fabrication laboratory, was created inside the Stazione Futuro exhibition. The theme of digital manufacturing found fertile ground in the city, and a few months after the closure of the exhibition, the first Italian maker laboratory was founded, the Fab Lab Turin, inside former industrial buildings, near the Coworking Toolbox and the Officine Arduino. The second significant event took place in 2013 when Rome became the site of the first European Maker Faire . Starting from these two events, Italy in a few years became the second European country and the third in the world for its number of Fab Labs. Shortly after that, in 2014, there was a real explosion of the phenomenon with the opening of 38 laboratories (at the end of 2014, there were 52 laboratories). This trend slowed in the following months, with the beginning of a phase which can be defined as the consolidation of existing laboratories and the creation of six new Fab Labs in 2015. The data collected in 2016 made it possible to 3 Hackerspaces

are centres that enable people with common interests, often related to software programming and information technologies, to meet in a physical location, to discuss and cooperate on individual or group projects. Their orientation tends to be one of “open innovation”. Makerspaces, meanwhile, include centres and workshops for DIY artisanal activities equipped with tools, equipment (digital or otherwise) and training programs that are made available to the public to create and design. These workshops may be set up by schools, universities, associations, private individuals and companies, both for educational and amateur purposes and for commercial reasons. On the differences between Fab Labs and the above places, see Cavalcanti (2013) e Make in Italy (2015).

200

C. Manzo

observe the second phase of the explosion, which saw a new proliferation of spaces dedicated to digital manufacturing, 69 in a single year.4 Unlike the first phase, this time these laboratory openings seemed less spontaneous. Active policies provided more guidance; many of the digital manufacturing laboratories opened in territories where a local legislator offered support for their start-up. In fact, in the two-year 2015–2016, the first steps towards promotion and support interventions for makers took place, especially at the local level by regions and local bodies (Veneto, Municipality of Milan, Sardiniaand Lazio). These workshops of “passionate people” are a valuable resource to be exploited. They are useful for spreading new technologies, which some local authorities are trying to seize by transforming—as often happens during innovative processes—the territories into real laboratories for experimentation on innovation governance. The evidence of the phenomenon seems to have attracted the interest of the national legislator who finds himself in two ministries launched in 2016. The first, the Ministry of Education, University and Research (MIUR), has allocated e 28 million to equip the schools with laboratories for digital manufacturing. The second is the Ministry of Economic Development (MISE) which promotes the creation of business networks for the realisation of projects on digital craftsmanship.

5 The New Workspaces: Figures and Characteristics in Italy Digital manufacturing laboratories in Italy have not been opened everywhere, and each place is different, but are in specific places where context and agency factors (i.e., the ability to seize opportunities from the territory) meet. The 171 Italian laboratories are spread over 71 provinces and 19 regions, concentrated in the most developed areas of the country: in the Central, North East and North West regions. At the municipal level, there is a strong presence in urban areas: 111 laboratories are in large and medium-sized cities (Milan and Rome are the cities with the highest concentration) and the remaining 60 in medium-sized and small municipalities. The regions that grew the most between 2016–2020 are those characterised by a greater presence of active policies for digital manufacturing, such as Lombardy (+15 4 The

data presented refer to all the Fab Labs recognized by the Fab Foundation, a non-profit organization that is part of the Fab Lab program of the Center for Bits and Atoms of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and present in the Italy section of the site (www.fablab.io). The first list of Fab Labs in the world was re-issued in 2012 by the Center for Bits and Atoms. To enter the list, it was necessary to send an email with the laboratory details. Initially, there were 128 fab labs, plus 27 “Planned Fab Labs” (in the opening phase). Shortly after the management of the world map of the Fab Labs, it moved to the Fab Foundation which developed the fablabs.io platform. The mechanism for accessing the list also changes with the new platform. Currently, new laboratories are asked to fill out a form within the platform. Their name is inserted on the map and, only once online, the actual existence of the laboratory must be confirmed by at least one another fab lab already present in the list (and usually geographically close) and by the site administrators.

The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative …

201

laboratories), Veneto (+16), Sardinia (+8), Lazio (+12) and Apulia (+4). Other regions that grew considerably were Tuscany (+5) and Emilia-Romagna (+11), where local communities born within the laboratories have become large networks and constitute a real support structure for the creation and consolidation of other laboratories.5 It is interesting to observe that 28 of the 47 new spaces were founded in small- and medium-sized municipalities. Fab Labs are therefore concentrated in large metropolitan centres and small-and medium-sized cities with the diffused development of small businesses. In particular, many are based in the country’s most developed provinces, which have a strong manufacturing economic model that suffers from a deficit of collective goods for digital manufacturing in both the public and private market spheres. Furthermore, in these territorial contexts, there are high levels of education, participation resources and social capital which have facilitated a “voluntary mobilisation” of citizens aimed at producing these collective goods. As for the offices, Italian Fab Labs are located: 1. inside buildings or industrial warehouses (a phenomenon that connects to the use of abandoned spaces); 2. in private spaces adjacent to other activities (architectural firms, companies, associations); 3. in incubators; 4. in a space independently (public or private property). Almost all of them use these spaces free of charge: 74% have their headquarters in a private space, 26% in a public space, and only 10% of those who use private spaces pay rent, while the rest of the laboratories have the location on loan. It is not uncommon for the laboratory site to be incorporated or adjacent to other activities related to the world of design or social innovation, such as coworking spaces (9%), graphic design studios (9%), technology parks or incubators (20%) and small businesses (6%). Sustainability, which includes the costs of using the machines, is partially guaranteed by the membership of the Fab Lab and by the enrolments in training courses, primarily in the smaller Fab Labs. Management activities are carried out by the group of founders and the most active members of the structure in a voluntary way (nonformalised) . Only a few laboratories have paid staff (one or two people at the most) through contractual formulas that provide for collaborations (in many cases, they are independent workers with VAT numbers). The 3D printer is certainly the protagonist of these places, but it does not exhaust the present instrumentation. Within each laboratory, different machines and programs 5 The

first Italian initiative of this type was in Emilia-Romagna (Mak-ER) and is a network aimed at integrating the laboratories and digital artisans present in the regional territory. In Tuscany, the Fab Toscana project aims to create a laboratory in each city of the region, as well as integrate those already existing. In Sicily, a first meeting of the makers of the island took place recently to put their projects online. Among the past initiatives were the FabLabs network promoted by Sardegna Ricerche (research and technological development agency of the Sardinia Region) and the Pesaro Urbino provincial network launched by the Pesaro laboratory in collaboration with the Province.

202

C. Manzo

(open source and freeware) are integrated to allow members to conceive and create physical objects . Access to the machines is accompanied by an informal training that takes place free of charge among the members and payment is limited to only the use of the machine and consumables . Although digital manufacturing laboratories have common characteristics, they offer different services, and often this offer is linked to the territory, as was also mentioned in the in-depth analysis of the Milan case already presented in the first part of this volume. It is, however, possible to identify standard features. Three aspects also reflect how these workshops are experienced: (a) offering a shared workspace; (b) services provided for a research and development laboratory for product prototyping; (c) specific events and training opportunities through informal exchanges between members or paid thematic courses and workshops. The activities carried out at Fab Labs are strongly correlated both to the identity that the founder has given the space and the people who habitually use the laboratory. Inside, communities are created of groups of people who share a common interest— digital manufacturing—and they learn by interacting with each other. The members build relationships in this way, and this can lead to the creation of a sense of belonging which revolves around a common practice in the realisation of a project. These practices are established through common practices, resources, words, tools, ways of operating and shared languages which in some cases may be difficult to codify. These are one of the most interesting aspects of the mechanisms generated in the communities of makers: areas of contamination where physical proximity between people with different skills creates new design ideas, and the availability of tools facilitates the transition from idea to action. The sense of community is not the only element shared by Italian makers. From the stories of the founders, the “surplus of human capital” and a strong passion for activities in the field of information technology and digital manufacturing emerge as a common feature. A strategy of attraction of a “typical user” does not emerge. However, it should be emphasised that the founders know the importance of creating the necessary conditions for collaborations with companies in order to produce new prototypes and reinforce the design part of their work. Not all digital manufacturing laboratories perform the same functions and they differ significantly from one another. In Italy, this distinction is based on two main characteristics of the context: on the one hand, the ability to create a local community,6 that is, to become a point of reference and aggregation for people who share

6 The

ability to create a local community is measured on the basis of: (1) The degree to which the laboratory is open (access times, costs and methods of registration and use of the machines, presence of open days); (2) The presence within the laboratory of a cohesive group of people characterized by stability and frequency of relationships, which tends to develop common interests and projects.

The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative …

203

the same interests; on the other hand, to link with the territory,7 which means relationships created with local organisations (such as schools, public bodies and private companies). Fab Labs that have the function of a gathering place are mostly found in the North West of Italy. These are managed by private individualsand access to the laboratory is usually free, possibly including the use of machines. The space is continuously visited by a group of people who meet regularly and support the founder in managing the laboratory. These places offer both the greatest organisational options and training (such as training or coaching to teach the use of machinery) for new members. The projects carried out internally are linked to the passions of the members and their shared interests. The laboratory founders who belong to this first group often have one or more jobs (employee, freelancer, consultant, etc.). They are passionate about electronics and new technologies and have decided to make a professional investment in the maker laboratory. In these cases, the opening hours of the space depend on the availability of the free time of the founder and the members: it is usually open in the late afternoon and/or in the evening and on the weekend. Collaborations with businesses or schools are poorly structured, but present. The strength of these spaces is their ability to have a more associative than productive function. I first approached this world out of curiosity. I had only heard of Fab Labs, but I didn’t yet know what they were . A guy who had a passion for making introduced me to the topic. It sounded a lot like a sort of “research centre” to me, which seemed very interesting, especially here where there is nothing. After we opened, we found that there are quite a few hobbyists. For now, we are not working much on communication because we don’t have much time lately (…). The idea is to achieve something by gathering all the knowledge (and tools) to do something together. For example, we needed to see a 3D printer, and now we are building one. We wanted to understand if we could create, to see each other to transmit what we know and to be able to extend this thing to others bybringing in other people who bring in their skills. Now the idea is to devote ourselves to small projects that we can show, in order to open up to everyone and make it clear that we are here. (North-West of Italy, founder and coordinator of a maker laboratory, interview n.9).

Fab Labs with a more reliable link with the productive identity of the territory are distributed throughout the peninsula. In these spaces, extensive training activities are addressed to both individuals and businesses, while activities with schools are carried out in a more structured way, especially in the South. Compared to the previous group, these spaces have a more oriented predisposition to the market and to tune in to the production specificities of the context in which they operate. The design and prototyping activity are a crucial component and often the result of collaborations with private companies. The strong connection with the territory is also defined by the ability to attract demand from companies through experimentation with innovative techniques and practices to be applied to the sectoral specialisations of the area. 7 Three indicators were used to detect this second dimension: (1) The ability to activate the demand

for services from citizens, schools, businesses; (2) The ability to establish formal and informal collaborations with public and private actors (for example local authorities, trade associations, banks, foundations, etc.); (3) The local and global design capacity, i.e. the ability to carry out projects with local subjects (craftsmen, entrepreneurs, public bodies, etc.) and/or with subjects external to the territory (outside the region and/or national borders).

204

C. Manzo

Each Fab Lab corresponds to the needs of the territory. Moreover, we have organised our space to reflect the needs of the territory in which we live. The space we have opened is a tool for creating a different, more innovative future for the South and our cities […]. We work with professionals in the sector, but also artisans and companies. Then, we have many activities with and for schools. We work with all schools, from elementary to university. We offer different types of courses, from essential to high-level activities. The programmes are mainly for students, but teachers can also take part, so that we can enable them to continue working even when we finish our course. For this reason, we try to create an integration with school curriculums and customise courses based on the school (South of Italy, coordinator of a maker laboratory, interview n.10). The connection with the territory is strong. We specialise in what we know [furniture]. We’ve had very positive feedback. I think the fab lab is an opportunity for the Italian artisan band to redevelop. Here, we talk about makers because it is fashionable. I know two or three gentlemen who could be my grandparents, and these people are Italian makers! (…) We organised meetings with local companies, and we immediately discovered that they knew nothing about digital manufacturing. The school kids were amazed that these things existed (…). A laboratory is truly a fabulous place. It is a place where you can do everything. For me, the object is important, but even more important is the way that allows you to get to the realisation of the object (Central Italy, founder and coordinator of a maker laboratory, interview n.14).

Finally, some laboratories combine the ability to create a local community with the link to the productive identity of the area. These are found mainly in Central and NorthEast Italy, with some in the NorthWest. Generally, the founders have had other professional experiences related to information technology, electronics and design. After entering into contact with the world of digital manufacturing, they decide to interrupt their professional career and invest in opening a maker laboratory. In addition to an entrepreneurial spirit, they are guided by a belief in an economic model based on the values of sharing and self-production. The aim of the makerlaboratory is, therefore, to become a research and development laboratory outside companies in which freedom of access, shared interests and experimentation trigger a mechanism of contamination involving skills and continuous informal training. These spaces represent, on the one hand, a point of reference for the community of people interested in digital manufacturing; on the other hand, they can activate networks of virtuous relationships with the actors operating in the area. We had our grand opening last year, but we started to deal with these issues 5/6 years ago. Before, I was involved in self-production and in 2011, at an event focused on a 3D-printer and laser cutter, I met people who thought like me about work and new topics, so we decided to work together and open such a market. We wanted a laboratory with shared machines to be made available to citizens and that worked on two main themes, design and fashion. The goal is to combine everything related to digital manufacturing—electronics, 3D printer manufacturing, laser cutting—and everything related to creative production because Milan is a city of fashion and design. (…) Since we have a network of people who worked on maker projects, initially every month we did a travelling event—schools, coworking spaces, and agencies—because we have to make investments and we need partnerships (NorthWest of Italy, founder and coordinator of a maker laboratory, interview n.20). Companies no longer engage in research and development. Those who do tend to close themselves within the company, and cover in all ways the technologies they have developed. Our model is new and requires companies to share what they are doing, looking for resources, people who want to share projects. The fab lab is a way to spread knowledge and culture—I

The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative …

205

speak from the maker’s point of view—to the world of schools and companies. Take a big order for a company you know that skills have developed within the fab lab, some young people are looking for work, and you know that they have attended specific courses, and then asked to work on that project. It is a way to both spread culture and take root in the territory (Central , founder and coordinator of a maker laboratory, interview n.19).

Many of the innovative practices that brought about the advent of Italian Fab Labs were created from the bottom up: from the initiative of founders who invested personal resources and time to create local and national collaboration networks. The two dimensions analysed allow us to highlight that the phenomenon of digital manufacturing laboratories is characterised by their “almost associative” function in creating a local community and by being a point of reference and aggregation for people who share very similar interests. At the same time, those who use these spaces manage in some cases to create a bond with the territory, orienting themselves towards local actors through the productive vocation of the area in which they operate and the ability to carry out projects with local subjects (craftsmen, entrepreneurs, public bodies, etc.) and with subjects outside the territory (outside the region and/or national borders). Moving towards one or the other dimension is influenced by the identity that the founder gives to the space and the community that animates these places. The results of the study presented here allow us to affirm that digital manufacturing workshops distributed throughout the peninsula have been able to move towards local production activities, developing collaborations with companies and creating a series of services and activities related to the productive vocations of territories. These collaborations have a particular specialisation that in many cases is prevalently present in some areas of the country that have a particular tradition in some sectors. In the North West area, there is a more significant presence of Fab Labs specialised in the fields of design and medical technologies, with a higher pro-market vocation and a strong orientation to develop projects and prototypes. In the areas of the Central and North East of Italy, we find Fab Labs more closely related to local manufacturing production and with a more exceptional ability of the latter to weave territorial relationships. Finally, in the southern regions, Fab Labs are more active in terms of training activities aimed at individuals, especially schools and, to a lesser extent, at businesses.

6 Conclusion In general, digital manufacturing laboratories, although they are a concentrated phenomenon in some areas, have numerous elements of interest that have not yet been fully explored and are not fully measurable. They play an important role in the creation and diffusion of innovations (Halbinger 2018; Clausess and Halbinger 2020). The emerging literature (Armondi 2019) analyses how these spaces contribute to a “new urban structure” in the neighbourhoods where they are based and to the emergence of new dedicated local policies. New hypotheses that reinforce the results have

206

C. Manzo

shown on the nature of Fab Labs as “local collective goods” capable of generating economic and social externalities (such as training, means of production, diffusion of innovations, redevelopment of spaces, etc.), of a material and immaterial type, which do not always pass through the market and are often difficult to measure with economic parameters. In general, Fab Labs tend to produce economic, social, material and immaterial externalities, which do not always pass through the market and are often difficult to measure according to economic parameters, especially in the case of those spaces most suited to the community. Ideally—and also according to the now popular definition of Neil Gershenfeld—Fab Labs should be places designed mainly for innovation and collaborative design. These characteristics proved decisive during the Covid-19 health emergency in order to propose replicable solutions very quickly (the projects are shared online and reproducible). In Italy, the case of the hospital in Chieri (Brescia), one of the Italian provinces most affected by the pandemic, was exemplary. This hospital had issued an “alarm” because they had run out of valve supplies for the respirators in the intensive care wards. A network of Fab Labs were organised to use 3D printers to create valves for respirators in Brescia, and they then produced components for protection visors for personnel at hospitals throughout Italy. The Fab Lab Westen Sicily, like that of Trento and Frosinone, has created visors for healthcare personnel. In Spain, a network of volunteers made up of doctors, scientists and engineers (they call themselves coronavirus makers) have created machinery to make medical material. They produced 50 to 100 respirators per day, distributed to hospitals that requested them. In Portugal, the Benfica Fab Lab in Lisbon provided devices to health and police personnel. A Canadian doctor, Tarek Loubani, has activated his international volunteer organisation to supply his North American colleagues with protective masks. At MIT Fab Labs, they created a prototype for a ventilator, in addition to the numerous online communities. The available data shows that in the first months of the emergency, more than five million solutions were created in 49 countries. Despite the presence of encouraging signs on collaborative activities aimed at innovation, at present there is still no open dialogue with the public administration on any level to help strengthen and consolidate this type of practice and to reduce regulatory uncertainty.

References Anderson C (2012) Makers. The new industrial revolution. Crown Business, New York Armondi S (2019) Le spazialità del lavoro emergenti come occasione di riorganizzazione territoriale e di diversificazione economica. EyesReg 9(3). https://www.eyesreg.it/2019/le-spazialita-del-lav oro-emergenti-occasione-di-riorganizzazione-territoriale-e-diversificazione-economica/ Bottollier-Depois F, Dalle B, Eychenne F, Jacquelin A, Kaplan D, Nelson J, Routin V (2014) Etat des lieux et typologie des ateliers de fabrication numérique. Conseil et recherche—FING. https:// www.newpic.fr/doc/dge-etat-des-lieux-fablabs-2014.pdf. Accessed May 2020

The Emergence and Spread of Collaborative …

207

Cavalcanti G (2013) Is It a Hackerspace, Makerspace, TechShop, or FabLab? “Make” https:// makezine.com/2013/05/22/the-difference-betweenhackerspaces-makerspaces-techshops-andfablabs/. Accessed May 2020 Clausess J, Halbinger M (2020) The role of pre-innovation platform activity for diffusion success: evidence from consumer innovations on a 3D printing platform. Research Policy (in press) Crouch C, Le Galès P, Trigilia C, Voelzkow H (2001) Local production systems in Europe. Rise or demise? Oxford University Press, Oxford Ferracane MF (2020) Redesigning traditional education. In: Feldner D (ed) Redesigning organizations concepts for the connected society. Springer, Cham, Switzerland, pp 329–343 Gauntlett D (2011) Making is connecting. The social meaning of creativity from DIY and knitting to You Tube and Web 2.0. Polity Press, Cambridge Gershenfeld N (2011) Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop-from personal computers to personal fabrication. Basic Books, New York Gershenfeld N (2012) How to make almost anything. Foreign Affairs 91(6):43–57 Halbinger M (2018) The role of makerspaces in supporting consumer innovation and diffusion: an empirical analysis. Res Policy 47(19):2028–2036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.07.008 Hatch M (2014) The maker movement manifesto. McGraw Hill Education, New York Leadbeater C, Miller P (2004) The pro-am revolution. How enthusiasts are changing our economy and society. Demos, London Manzo C, Ramella F (2015) Fab labs in Italy: collective goods in the sharing economy. Stato E Mercato 3:379–418 Make in Italy (2015) FabLab, Makerspace, Hackerspace, TechShop: quattro tipi di laboratori. https://www.makeinitaly.foundation/fablab-makerspacehackerspace-techshop-limportanzadelle-definizioni/ Menichinelli M, Ranellucci A (2014) Censimento dei laboratori di fabbricazione digitale in Italia, report fondazione Make in Italy Menichinelli M (2016) Fab Lab e maker. Laboratori, progettisti, comunità e imprese in Italia. Quodlibet, Macerata Pais I, Provasi G (2015) Sharing economy: un passo avanti verso una ‘risocializzazione’ dell’economia? Stato e Mercato, 3 Ramella F, Manzo C (2018) Into the crisis: Fab labs—a european story. Soc Rev 66(2):341– 364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118758535 Ramella F, Manzo C (2021) The Economy of Collaboration: The New Digital Platforms of Production and Consumption. Routledge, New York. Sombart W (1916) Der moderne Kapitalismus. Duncker & Humblot, Berlin, II ed. von Hippel E (2017) Free innovation. The MIT Press, Cambridge Mass von Hippel E, von Krogh G (2003) Open source software and the ‘Private-Collective’ model: issues for organization science. Organ Sci 14(2):209–223

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories. Productive, Educational and Urban Dimensions of Emilian Makerspaces Cristiana Mattioli

Abstract Urban manufacturing has recently entered city planning discourses, fostering an increasing number of urban policies that promote the return and/or the conservation of production activities in the city. Many researchers have studied the diffusion of coworking and makerspaces, concentrating mostly on global cities and regions. Nonetheless, recent inquiries reveal that such activities shape reticular geography, which also includes in-between territories, namely mid-sized cities, industrial districts and widespread urbanizations. This paper investigates this territorial diffusion, assuming the Central area of the Emilia-Romagna Region as a case-study for the co-existence of two processes of manufacturing transformation. On the one hand, we have the transformation of traditional, specialized industrial districts due to globalization, the economic crisis and knowledge economy improvement, on the other hand, the diffusion of new, different makerspaces. Some of them are sustained by public policies, while others are linked to private initiatives. Some are located in midsized and capital cities, whereas others have flourished in dispersed urbanizations and industrial districts. By analyzing some concrete experiences, the paper addresses the following research questions: do makerspaces have relationships with local industrial and education/research ecosystems? Do they shape peculiar places and/or transform existing urban spaces? Do they contribute to social innovation and/or local welfare systems?

C. Mattioli (B) Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_12

209

210

C. Mattioli

1 Italian Makerspaces: A Diffused Geography Rooted in Local Ecosystems With its 130 makerspaces,1 Italy is currently one of the most important countries (the second after the US) for the consistency and diffusion of this phenomenon. In spite of their being limited in relation to economy and production, they reveal great potential in the formation of innovative systems and the creation of small, dispersed, and urban manufacturing (Veltz 2017). Indeed, some inquiries (Menichinelli et al. 2014; Bianchini et al. 2015) showed a concentration of makerspaces2 in the regions of Northern and Central Italy. Not only are they concentrated in big, metropolitan cities (such as Milan, Turin, Rome, etc.), they are also widespread in “in-between” territories,3 namely mid-sized cities, industrial districts and dispersed urbanizations, which are historically characterised by consolidated manufacturing systems of SMEs, today inserted into extended metropolitan networks (Lanzani 2015). The widespread supply of makerspaces questions the role and primacy of big cities, advanced services and high-tech industry in the innovation field. However, whilst territorial diffusion is not an Italian specificity (Sleigh et al. 2015; Rosa et al. 2017), the Italian makerspaces show a clear physical and relational proximity between design, production and the making movement (Bianchini et al. 2015). The phenomenon is quite new in Italy (present after 2011, in response to economic contraction and increasing unemployment); nevertheless, it seems to be rooted on a pre-existing manufacturing basis, thus integrating the typical “Made in Italy” entrepreneurship (Micelli 2011). If new workplaces and digital technologies are connected to the more general third industrial revolution (Rifkin 2011), in recent years industrial districts4 have also experienced a strong metamorphosis (Corò and Micelli 2006). They open up by entering supra-local networks and activating processes of internationalization; also, they are more hierarchized due to the emergence of mid-sized and big firms (De Marchi and Grandinetti 2014). Although being locally rooted, leading companies enter regional and global value chains. In particular, these firms reveal the changing nature of the contemporary industry, which is evolving toward ‘Industry 4.0’ (ICT, innovation, etc.) (Berta 2014) and the internalization of tertiary functions (R&D, 1 Data

elaborated in the FARB research “Nuovi luoghi del lavoro. Promesse di innovazione, effetti nel contesto economico e urbano”, Politecnico of Milan (DAStU), March 2017-August 2018 (Di Vita 2019). 2 The term generically identifies a space used for the design and fabrication of objects. The Fab Lab is instead more specifically devoted to digital production (Gershenfeld 2005). In order to be inserted in the official global network, it needs to offer free activities, subscribe the Fab Charter, be equipped with some specific instruments, and cooperate with other Fab Labs. 3 The “in-between” definition refers to the geographical and political position of these territories, which are located between metropolitan cities and inner areas. While recent urban policies have been addressed to these two kinds of places, “in-between” areas – and, above all, dispersed urbanizations – mainly stand outside national agenda, thus requiring enhanced attention (Calafati 2009). 4 It is quite interesting to notice that some scholars (e.g., Capdevila 2013) compared new workplaces to traditional productive clusters from an organizational perspective, centered on network relationships among members.

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

211

marketing, etc.), while building new relationships with the local territory, mainly for competitive reasons. In regard to production spaces, present workplaces are clean, multifunctional and attractive thanks to private welfare facilities, communication strategies and industrial architecture (Mattioli 2020). This new kind of manufacturing can be particularly interested in creating synergies with makerspaces, especially in relation to product customization and technological innovation (Gress and Kalafsky 2015). The paper analyses the case-study of the Emilia-Romagna Region (in particular, some makerspaces located in the Central provinces of Emilia5 ). The reasons are manifold: first, previous observations (Seu 2019) identified the north-eastern area of Italy and, in particular, the Milan-Bologna axis as the main core of the Italian making movement; second, local and regional institutions have shown great interest toward makerspaces, providing support; third, the productive regional system is still characterized by important industrial districts and internationalized firms. The aim of the research is to understand the nature of Emilian makerspaces by exploring their evolution and observing their relationship with local productive, social, and educational contexts, as well as the role of public policies in sustaining and fostering this kind of new workplaces.

2 Emilian Makerspaces: Experiences in Mid-sized Cities and Industrial Districts In the Emilia-Romagna Region, there are 151 collaborative workplaces. A dedicated research project done by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia analysed and mapped them (Montanari 2020) to understand their role in economic, social and urban terms. They comprise differentiated typologies and are well distributed in the territory: one-third is located in Bologna, the regional capital city, whereas others find their place in mid-sized cities and in smaller urban centres, too. The majority of them are coworking spaces (37%), but the presence of Fab Labs (12%) and multifunctional spaces (20%) is also significant. Furthermore, a specific regional project led to the creation of nine “Open labs”, namely urban spaces equipped with ICT solutions where firms, citizens, NGOs, universities and public administrations can meet and cooperate. In general terms, most regional new workplaces are related to social innovation and territory, in particular its educational system. When located in small municipalities, they are strongly related to the local socio-economic environment. The research revealed a dual nature of these places: on one hand, they sustain individual empowerment and job conditions; on the other hand, they are spaces of resilience, where workers find useful networks and communities, in particular in fragile situations or in transition phases of work life. However, the study pointed out 5 They are the Provinces of Parma, Reggio Emilia and Modena, which form a peculiar metropolitan

territory characterized by a robust industrial environment (well-inserted within global value chains), an excellent welfare system , as well as a multicultural, diverse and inclusive society.

212

C. Mattioli

also weak links with local actors involved in innovation processes, as well as with other collaborative spaces, thus requiring more intense support from regional and local bodies. Moving from this recent inquiry, the paper offers an original contribution to the regional debate, by assuming the broader notion of makerspaces in order to consider two different kinds of new manufacturing workplaces: Fab Labs (Sect. 2.1) and Territorial Laboratories for Employability (Sect. 2.2). The first are now wellknown and diffused in every Province of the Emilia-Romagna Region. Among the existing cases, it is however difficult to distinguish between a Fab Lab and a makerspace due to a certain confusion of the two concepts. The latter represents a more recent evolution of makerspace activity in the field of education that, together with medical and care applications, reveals a specialization and consolidation of the original, general notion of Fab Labs. In the Region, ten groups of high schools applied to a call promoted by the Italian Ministry of Education in 2016: four proposals were funded, and four more entered the official ranking (with a score of 65 or more).

2.1 Digital Makerspaces: Fab Labs 2.1.1

Two Experiences in Mid-Sized Cities

Reggio Emilia Innovazione Fab Lab Founded in 2012, after the pioneering experience of Turin, the Reggio Emilia Fab Lab is an initiative of architect Francesco Bombardi, supported and funded by REI (Reggio Emilia Innovazione), a private–public company dealing with technological transfer and innovation, and the local Municipality, which provided the space. The Reggio Emilia Fab Lab started its activities inside Spazio Gerra, a centre for contemporary art located in the historic heart of the city (Fig. 1). The original mission was twofold: on one hand, it supported companies in developing innovation through interdisciplinary and technological skills. On the other, it promoted research activity and built community, allowing people to learn and use technological instruments. The central location, public support and events organized by Spazio Gerra facilitated the communication and promotion of the makerspace, which rapidly became a reference point in town, counting a community of more than 200 active people. The initial success resized when the Fab Lab moved to the new extension of the Civic Museums, designed by the architect Italo Rota (Fig. 2). Despite its quality, the space was indeed smaller, less visible and rigidly regulated in its access, making it difficult to attract businesses and individual users. The space moved later to the new technopole built inside the former industrial area of the “Officine Meccaniche Reggiane”, and now it is part of C-Lab, a place of contamination dealing with science and educational activities, which is led by the Civic Museums and addressed to primary and secondary schools, as well as to local university students involved in innovation programs. The space, located inside the Civic Museums, combines a lab, a coworking space, a

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

213

Fig. 1 The first temporary Fab Lab, hosted by Spazio Gerra. Source www.francescobombardi.it

Fig. 2 The small space dedicated to Fab Lab activities inside the Civic Museums. Source www.rei nnova.it

Fab Lab and a meeting room. Meanwhile, other makerspaces opened up due to the autonomous, bottom-up initiative of some members of the original community. This is the case for “Impact Hub” and “Officine Gattaglio”. The former is a coworking space, while the latter is a private Fab Lab, founded by a collective of local designers

214

C. Mattioli

and set up in a former warehouse. Both are located in residential neighbourhoods close to the city centre. Makers Modena Fab Lab Makers Modena Fab Lab launched its activity in 2015. It is located in a former commercial space, in the northern part of the city not far from the central train station. The Municipality of Modena, together with Democenter-Sipe (a foundation offering several types of technological transfer services for businesses) and Cambia.MO S.p.A. (the company in charge of urban transformation and renewal), supported the creation of the Fab Lab, providing resources for space refurbishment and technical equipment in particular, while other funds came from a regional announcement linked to the promotion of innovation spaces. The objective was to make it a symbol of local innovation, in particular for a city in which manufacturing has always played a crucial role. Also, together with other workplaces (such as a coworking space and a start-up incubator), it represents an attractive function for the urban and social revitalization of the multicultural complex and neighbourhood where it is located (Fig. 3). In this regard, the idea was to bring new activities and users into that part of the city, in order to make it more liveable and secure. The Fab Lab uses a 220 sqm space (Fig. 4), open daily from 5 to 9 pm, and counts around 400 active people. Rent is free as far as the Fab Lab guarantees free public activities and low prices (e20 for the mandatory introduction course and e20 for the annual membership, plus the costs of using the machinery). Public access is therefore crucial for the vitality of the space. However, for financial sustainability reasons, Makers Modena Fab Lab

Fig. 3 The entrance of Makers Modena Fab Lab, on the ground floor of the residential building. Source picture by the author

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

215

Fig. 4 The internal workplace. Source Makers Modena Facebook page

mainly addresses product design and business consultancy, as well as educational activities. It also provides private citizens and SMEs with training courses.

2.1.2

Two Experiences in the Emilian Ceramic District

Casa Corsini Fab Lab Located in the industrial urban centre of Fiorano Modenese, along the Pedemontana road, 15 km from Modena, Casa Corsini Fab Lab and coworking site opened in 2015. Conceived by a local designer and funded by the Municipality with a e50,000 grant and private donations, this small Fab Lab—actually one single room—is located inside a former rural house, which has already been converted into a well-equipped civic centre (Fig. 5). The 600 sqm of “Casa Factory” enrich the existing, articulated supply of services and activities (youth centre, practice rooms, music library, auditorium, etc.). Even if one of the main aims of the project was to improve the exchange between makers and local firms (in particular, ceramic and mechanical companies located in the territory), the Fab Lab now operates primarily in the field of education and teenagers’ job training. Indeed, both the coworking space and the Fab Lab are intended as employment active policies and places of social innovation and community building. For these reasons, the Fab Lab has few relationships with the productive sector and area businesses. Instead, it works with local NGOs, schools and the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia. Slowly, Casa Corsini has evolved and the youth centre has transformed into a workplace and a space of innovation. It is a truly “enabling” space, which sustains the development of professional competences with the aim to allow people overcoming different forms of social marginality and to

216

C. Mattioli

Fig. 5 Casa Corsini as a new urban centrality. Source picture by the author

offer them opportunities, also through digital fabrication technologies. It promotes several projects and courses tailored to school degrees, in addition to continuous learning and consultancy activities. The Fab Lab is thus a component of a wider project. However, it is also open to the general public one evening per week (Open night) or by appointment. A community of makers developed around the Fab Lab; now an association has been set up and voluntarily runs the space. Made Fab Lab Just a few kilometres away, the Fab Lab in Scandiano (RE) is located inside a youth facility, too. The building is a former warehouse (Fig. 6), which has been recently renovated to allow a functional reorganization and transformed into “Made—Magazzino di Esperienze”, a cultural and multifunctional centre of 2,000 sqm managed by a social cooperative. After an investment of e80,000, the space is now equipped also with a cafeteria, collective spaces for study and work, and some coworking desks. The Fab Lab is organized in a small room upstairs, next to the computer lab sponsored by Coop Alleanza 3.0,6 the multimedia space and the rehearsal rooms. Run by some young members of the local maker community, it is a space for training and experimentation, in which workshops of 3D printing, modelling and new technologies are offered to young people and citizens.

6 Coop

Alleanza 3.0 is the biggest Italian consumer cooperative, created in the middle of the XIX century in the Emilia-Romagna region and now present all around the country with its 400 grocery stores.

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

217

Fig. 6 The urban entrance to MADE cafeteria and collaborative workplace. Source picture by the author

2.2 Educational Makerspaces: The Territorial Labs for Employability The Emilia-Romagna case study reveals an interesting evolution of makerspaces that concerns education and school.7 Many existing Fab Labs are actually specialized in this sector, such as Casa Corsini in Fiorano Modenese, which recently opened the Junior branch of the Fab Lab devoted to STEAM education (Science, Technology, Engineering, Arts, Mathematics) and to workshops conceived for different learning degrees. At the same time, schools have been able to open to external experts, makers included, thanks to European and national funding (PON “Per la scuola” 2014–2020 activated on FESR-FSC resources8 ), which sustains specific projects and the creation of laboratories and digital classrooms (e.g. Atelier digitali for basic competencies in kindergartens and primary schools; flexible and transversal Atelier creativi equipped

7 Even if educational makerspaces are quite recent, they are rapidly spreading throughout the whole

country on the Anglo-Saxon model (Blikstein 2013). program is coherent with Agenda2030, in particular Objective 4 (education) and 8 (employment), EU2020 Strategy (improvement of students’ competencies for equity, social cohesion, active citizenship and youth employability), European and Italian Digital Agenda, as well as 4.0 Industry Plan (digital technologies and competencies).

8 The

218

C. Mattioli

with digital and manual tools, professionalizing labs in secondary schools9 ; Ambienti digitali). Basic technologies of Fab Labs (such as 3D printers and scanners) are comprised in these kinds of public announcements. Makerspaces thus entered schools, thanks to the cooperation of teachers and makers. In Italy, the creation of school makerspaces is the result of specific national policies, in particular the Piano Nazionale Scuola Digitale (National Plan for Digital School), part of the 107/2015 Law (La Buona Scuola—The Good School) by the Ministry of Education. The aim of the strategy is to foster innovation in schools and adapt them to the digital era. However, digitalization is not an objective itself; technologies rather become a crucial, daily part of education, increasing students’ competencies and contaminating school spaces. In spatial terms, the improvement of laboratories is a crucial point of the plan: inside schools, labs are intended as places where the dimensions of knowledge and making meet to strengthen creativity, innovation, and job specialization (in high schools10 ). Moreover, they represent a tool for supporting integration with firms, research centres, Fab Labs, cultural institutions, foundations, associations, etc. In both situations, they are actually makerspaces open to students and the territory. Besides school makerspaces, the National Plan for Digital School foresees the creation of Laboratori territoriali per l’occupabilità (Territorial Labs for Employability), namely advanced, equipped spaces shared among different local high schools where new learning models and labour market policies for young people (in particular the NEET – Not in Education, Employment, or Training – group) can be developed. The Ministry allocated 45 million euros for the realization of 60 Labs, selected through a national competition. These Labs can be located inside or outside schools, and even in private spaces. They must also be open to the general public for free, also outside school hours. The internal location strengthens the idea of the school as a local civic centre, while the external location encourages students’ participation and contamination. In both situations, Labs can actually become a new kind of public makerspace, with a strong relation to the local labour market and productive vocation (Made in Italy sectors). Whereas schools often decide to create digital makerspaces rather than craftmanship labs for insurance and safety reasons, the Territorial Labs for Employability are strictly related to high schools and local production specialization. In this regard, they can have technology and machinery that are more sophisticated and expensive than the basic Fab Lab equipment. 9 Ministry Program fosters the realization of vocationalizing labs equipped with digital and innova-

tive technologies, which strengthen the acquisition of competences required by the labour market, with specific attention to the digital economy, Industry 4.0, the Internet of things and rapid prototyping, according to 2016 Report “Future of Jobs” made by the World Economic Forum (WEF). 10 An interesting experience is held in the northeastern regions of Italy, where Fondazione Nord Est launched a project called “FabLab a Scuola” and created some pilot-Fab Labs inside high schools (2014) as a way to offer students competencies that will be crucial in the near future. Thanks to a crowdfunding campaign, which raised e55,000, some Fab Labs were set up inside technical and professional schools to open them to local productive systems. The project aims to create a network of small Fab Labs spread across the nation.

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

219

In Reggio Emilia, the Lab gathers eight technical high schools of the Province, and it is located in the historic centre to reinforce its openness to the city. It is the result of public–private cooperation: MIUR allocated e750,000, the municipality gave access to a 500 sqm space—the former Student House—(Fig. 7), the Province took part in the process with its organizational competencies, while the University, Unindustria association, the local Chamber of Commerce, ITS Maker, REI and other local foundations, as well as private firms, covered the rest of the costs (around e450,000) and provided human resources and capabilities. The Lab aims to reduce the mismatch between scholar training and job requirements of local firms, by spreading and increasing digital knowledge. It is intended above all as a relational space, a place where education, research and the labour market can create synergies with the common objective of supporting territorial innovation. With the aid of school experts and makers, students can experiment with new technologies and acquire new competencies, private firms can update their structure and promote specific research projects, and citizens can participate in events and meetings. Another interesting project is held in Fornovo di Taro, a village located in the hilly area of the Province of Parma. Here a similar public–private collaboration led to the renovation of a building constructed in the 1950s and owned by the Province, which has been transformed into a Laboratory of excellence addressed to the local technical school. It also hosts the Territorial Laboratory for Employability and an ITS (tertiary technical education). Outside school hours, the spaces are managed and operated by a no-profit consortium (Innovation farm) created by a network of local firms. Funded by a banking foundation, the intervention is intended as a way to innovate training activities and support local business competitiveness, and also offer better job opportunities to students. For what concerns territorial effects, the project contributes to qualifying a degraded urban space and creates a supra-local centrality in a marginal, inner area, where young people are mostly obliged to move for studying. The location of this decentralized, innovative pole is actually related to the presence of Dallara company, an important automotive firm created in 1972 in the nearby hamlet of Varano de’ Melegari. The firm has a long tradition of involvement in the local education system (Magnani 2016): it takes part in orientation, training and education activities and has already funded different initiatives, such as the acquisition of 3D printers for teachers’ training. In this experience, local schools benefit from private resources to improve their quality and attractiveness, despite local depopulation. At the same time, the firm has advantages in terms of workers training and recruitment.

220

C. Mattioli

Fig. 7 The brand-new Territorial Laboratory for Employability located in the former student house in Reggio Emilia city centre. Source Francesco Bombardi, space layout designer

3 Makerspaces in “In-between” Territories: Reflections on Places and Policies 3.1 Urban Localization and (Public) Building Reuse Each makerspace is related to specific dynamics and processes, even when they all share the same socio-economic context. This heterogeneity deals with activities and founders’ identity and history, as they often shape the space in their image, thus also determining makerspace localization. For these actors,11 to be located outside metropolitan cities is not a limit; they point out very clearly the following advantages: less competition and higher visibility; possibility of creating easy, direct and personal relationships with different actors (public and private); public institution interest, involvement in co-design and dedicated policies (sometimes financial support); and a great density of businesses and supply chains as possible customers. The Emilian experiences tell about a certain indifference of makerspaces to urban localization, which is strictly connected to their high mobility. In Reggio Emilia, the Fab Lab has moved several times, taking advantage of high-quality design spaces. In Modena, the Fab Lab initially had to be located in the Villaggio Artigiano neighbourhood due to the proximity to existing manufacturing activities, but then it relocated to a critical urban district. In both situations, the “productive” connotation of makerspaces has been underestimated, thus creating difficult conditions or even 11 The opinion of founders and managers of the analyzed Fab Labs has been collected in occasion of personal interviews and site visits.

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

221

hindering their fruition: the rigid opening hours of the museum in Reggio Emilia and the perception of urban insecurity in Modena represent a disincentive for users. For what concerns spatial configuration and organization, the makerspaces considered in this study do not reveal peculiar differences (maybe a smaller dimension) if compared with the most central ones (Morandi and Di Vita 2015; Pacchi 2017). Spaces are usually small, flexible and informal—in some cases this last element can be a threat for the Fab Lab credibility in the eyes of local firms—. Fab Labs are not only workplaces but also spaces for socialization. For this reason, attention is addressed to spatial quality and comfort. The reported Emilian experiences are located inside existing buildings which were unused. However, their creation did not become an opportunity to reactivate former productive sites,12 despite the high availability of empty, abandoned warehouses, which are flexible spaces potentially suitable for this kind of function. In the four analyzed cases, makerspaces are indeed hosted inside existing public facilities (above all, youth civic centres) (Micelli and Mangialardo 2017) that need to be updated and diversified, especially in relation to young populations’ needs. As a consequence, the four analyzed makerspaces are located in historic urban centres and semi-central areas, which are easily recognizable, accessible and visible. They are often close to other public facilities (schools, parks, etc.), whereas not always handy by car. Instead, like many other regional experiences, they do not penetrate productive areas, nor do they establish concrete and structured relationships with local industrial systems. This is probably linked to the demanding work related to the reuse of former industrial buildings, even in the case of adaptive (Robiglio 2017) or temporary (Inti et al. 2014) interventions. Above all, former industrial buildings usually belong to private owners who are rarely ready to accept the devaluation of their property and supply it as a loan for use, preferring more beneficial destinations, such as the logistical one. It is thus clear that public administrations have difficulties in reactivating industrial spaces. Nevertheless, the increasing underuse of warehouses suggests the experimentation of innovative, public–private planning procedures of urban, social and economic regeneration. In this sense, the Central Emilian area offers interesting cases for study again, even if they do not involve makerspaces, but rather social and cultural activities. In Modena, a former mechanical workshop located in the Villaggio Artigiano neighbourhood, in the western part of the city, has been rented by the Consorzio Attività Produttive Aree e Servizi (the public jointstock consortium company for productive activities, areas and services that normally builds and manages specialized industrial areas) and assigned to two local NGOs (Amigdala and Archivio Architetto Cesare Leonardi). #Ovestlab is a “civic factory” that promotes the encounter of craftsmanship, creativity and contemporary art, as well as relationships with local firms and inhabitants. Through the organization of events and projects, this place also became the starting point of a more extended 12 At

a national level, 28% of existing makerspaces are located in former industrial buildings. This phenomenon is particularly relevant in the northwestern regions (44%). Instead, for what concerns urban localization, it is more frequent to find makerspaces in productive areas in the northeastern regions (28% compared to the national average of 17%) (Di Vita 2019).

222

C. Mattioli

Fig. 8 The former productive building hosting #ovestlab, during a public event. Source picture by Roberto Brancolini, 2018

strategy of urban transformation (Fig. 8). Another experience involves the municipality of Reggio Emilia and in particular the neighbourhood of Santa Croce, located in the northern part of the city centre. Next to the former “Reggiane” industries, which are undergoing a huge process of urban regeneration in order to create a pole for knowledge, creativity and production, private abandoned warehouses — not profitable for the real estate market — are subjected to temporary use initiatives in favour of functions of collective interest (such as sport, cultural and social NGOs). In this process, local administration assumed an intermediary role between private owners and associations. It also found resources (Bando Periferie) for low cost, reversible interventions of adaptation aimed to reactivate and qualify the urban image of this critical area, perceived by citizens as degraded and unsafe (Iori and Sbarzaglia 2019). .

3.2 The Intersection with a Variety of Public Policies In the Emilia-Romagna Region, makerspaces have been widely sustained by public administration, starting from the regional government, through a variety of public policies, sectoral programs and local projects (Gaeiras 2017). For this reason, the maker movement has rapidly and extensively spread through the territory (Fig. 9). The principal support initiative is the constitution of “Mak-ER”,13 an innovative network of regional makerspaces created in 2014 that represents a true model of organization and sharing aimed to avoid duplications and fosters specialization and complementarity among affiliated members. At first, it was basically an informal, 13 The

network title is a pun, in which ‘ER’ stands for the ‘Emilia-Romagna’ Region.

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

223

Fig. 9 Emilia-Romagna makerspaces network. Source image by the author based on ARTER data (2019), other studies (Di Vita 2019; Montanari 2020), and original personal research

analytical activity aimed at strengthening mutual knowledge and mapping existing makerspaces. Indeed, after an initial phase of spatial concentration, which involved mainly the mid-sized cities, makerspaces spread both on an urban and territorial scale, ranking up to 10 in 2014 and 19 in 2018. On the one hand, it is possible to recognize an interesting process of “gemmation”. Many makerspaces generate from an original (central) Fab Lab: in Modena, the founders took part in the development of other labs on the provincial territory (Fiorano Modenese and Carpi), while in Reggio Emilia autonomous groups formed within the first makerspace later supported bottom-up initiatives. After the first phase, other important objectives of the “MakER” network have been the recognition of makerspaces by public administrations and local stakeholders and the coordinated external promotion. To this end, the network was transformed into an association in 2018 with the subscription of the statute by 9 makerspaces, the majority of which are Fab Labs. As a unique and collective entity, regional makers can now take part easily in debates and competitions. They received the patronage of the regional Economic Activities Department and have launched structured joint projects. Among the aims of “Mak-ER”, they figured the increase of regional attractiveness in the field of smart manufacturing, as well as the sharing of technological knowledge. The network activity is promoted by “ART-ER Attractiveness Research Territory”, the joint-stock consortium company created to foster the sustainable growth of the Region by developing innovation and knowledge, attractiveness and internationalization of its territorial system. Makerspaces are thus part of a wider regional ecosystem of innovation, which also comprises technopoles, incubators, other kinds of labs and research centres, tertiary technical high schools (ITS), all gathered around the strategical project “Big Data Valley”—70% of national

224

C. Mattioli

computing power is concentrated in the Region—and “Big Data Technopole” located in Bologna. Within this general framework and in contrast to national data that see the predominance of private and bottom-up makerspaces, the four case studies (but also, more in general, many Emilian Fab Labs and makerspaces) are supported by public institutions, which promoted the project, provided spaces for free, and financed the technical equipment and start-up phase through a mix of differentiated resources. Developing spaces and supplying them with equipment is not enough for creating productive and social innovation; it is extremely important to follow the Fab Lab activities, at least in the initial phase. This has happened in Reggio Emilia, whereas in Modena local municipality required the Fab Lab to be independent and economically sustainable after the first year. Maker Modena has thus become more businessoriented, offering also strategic design and consultancy services to SMEs (Eychenne 2012). Relations with enterprises can be not only a financial necessity but also a distinctive and qualified element of makerspaces (Anderson 2012; Van Holm 2015) and this should mainly apply to those located in industrial districts. As a matter of fact, small firms should represent the natural catchment area for digital manufacturing spaces. In the Emilia-Romagna Region, for instance, Fab Labs have been inserted among the possible suppliers of SMEs willing to access European public funding (POR FESR) devoted to the acquisition of innovative services (see the 2017 announcement ‘Servizi Innovativi per le PMI’—Innovative Services for SMEs). However, since many local firms have internal R&D departments equipped with sophisticated machinery,14 they show poor relationships with local makerspaces, which can be rather exploited for corporate image, communication and talent recruitment. Makerspaces are also used as external services, whereas the design function remains internal to firms. In the four analyzed Fab Labs and other Emilian makerspaces, the social function often prevails. Three different dimensions can be particularly underlined, showing general trends. First of all, makerspaces are often included in more extensive regeneration strategies for the future of the city (or neighbourhoods) and its socio-economic system. In Modena, for instance, the Fab Lab is located—together with a coworking space and a start-up incubator—inside the “Hub Modena R-Nord” (2015) that is part of a complex urban regeneration operation launched in 2006 with the public program Contratti di Quartiere II (Neighbourhood Contracts II). The entire project is about the requalification of a huge residential building built in the 1970s and today perceived as degraded and insecure due to criminal actions occurring there. The local municipality bought and unified some small apartments, which were transformed into a student house in order to diversify inhabitants. Then, thanks to the synergy with Coop Alleanza 3.0, some commercial spaces on the ground floor have been refurbished, while others have been converted to collective services (social concierge, 14 Firms that adopt digital manufacturing technologies (such as 3D printing, robotics, etc.) show higher performances (in terms of profitability, productivity, added value creation, employment, growth) than others (Fondazione Nord Est, Prometeia 2015).

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

225

youth centre, gym, new workplaces, Red Cross headquarters) to increase their use and social control. Another focus is indeed related to the acquisition of competencies and knowledge that can be useful for the individual future career. In particular, within the creative, knowledge, and sharing economy, makerspaces are intended as instruments to promote people training and participation, especially among young populations. They also represent a possible public response to new forms of precarious and flexible jobs in the field of youth policies, active labour market policies or education policies. Makerspaces become, first of all, places for the social encounter, enabling spaces that help overcome social vulnerability and marginality and create new communities around shared interests (Pasqui 2008). For their social role in innovation, they can be considered local collective goods (Manzo and Ramella 2017) or, in other words, new welfare spaces, which enrich the existing, already wide and articulated offer of public services and experiment new (bottom-up) managing settings. According to these conditions, the localization of makerspaces is often bounded to public property availability and forms of free loan, for short or long periods. In the Emilia-Romagna Region, indeed, many of these organisations are located inside abandoned spaces or refurbished youth civic centres thanks to regional public funding and a variety of sectoral policies, especially those implemented by the Department for Youth Policies (regional law 14/08 “Norme in materia di politiche per le giovani generazioni”— “Rules for Young Generations Policies”). On the other hand, public resources can also be an initial trigger to private contributions (made by firms, banking foundations, trade associations, etc.), as it happens in the educational field. The analyzed makerspaces show close links to education, and in particular to local schools. As already pointed out by some studies (Sheridan et al. 2014), the educational aspect is more and more central, also because it is strongly supported by state funding. Thus, it is easy to understand why Casa Corsini is becoming a local reference hub for education (Fig. 10), whereas new Fab Labs are developing inside public schools (Midoro 2015). Moving from the two Territorial Labs for Employability analyzed, in Reggio Emilia and Fornovo, it is interesting to reflect more in general on the added value and innovation produced in school methods by the maker approach (Peppler et al. 2016; Vuorikari et al. 2019) that, in this field, can be achieved by mixing the ideas of “craftsmanship” and “experimental play” (Honey and Kanter 2013). Maker education and project-based learning are indeed the core issue of a dedicated research project developed since 2014 by INDIRE, called Maker@Scuola. Three key elements of maker education are worth being mentioned: a) the hacker approach that favours manual knowledge and contact with objects; b) a tinkering methodology, based on the thinkmake-improve approach; c) the sharing and collaborative approach, linked to open source philosophy, which improves working groups (Guasti and Rosa 2017). In their manifesto, a sustainable and replicable model of school makerspace is defined. First of all, it is crucial to create a dialectic relationship between schools and the existing local makerspaces. As for school, the synergy is crucial in order to receive consultancy in the design phase and training activities, as well as in space management and organization. On the other hand, the involved makers can use a lab, benefit from

226

C. Mattioli

Fig. 10 Casa Corsini Junior Fab Lab. Source “Fablab Junior – Fiorano Modenese” Facebook page

territorial visibility and, above all, develop a specific competence related to education. In creating a school makerspace, crucial issues are then related to: the reuse of an existing space with independent access to foster the territorial openness; the creation of the first group of teachers involved in the project; local involvement of families, public structures, other schools, privates; and fundraising (ibidem).

4 Conclusions: The Hybrid Nature of Makerspaces Emilian makerspaces depict an articulated situation: some makerspaces are supported by public administrations at different levels, others (mainly private-led) tend to be more specialized and structured, and still others are located inside schools or civic centres. Many of them thus combine functions linked to market, education and social innovation. In this sense, makerspaces can become hybrid places,15 especially inside existing public facilities (schools, civic centres, museums, etc.) (Di Marino and Lapintie 2017), thus implementing and providing new collective services. Therefore,

15 The hybrid

nature of makerspaces (and new workplaces in general) is underlined in particular by works concerning third places (tiers-lieux), namely spaces that stand between the public and private spheres (Azam et al. 2015; Scaillerez and Tremblay 2017). In France, some studies (Besson 2017) have recently analyzed their diffusion in periurban and rural areas, stressing some specificities that can be interesting also in “in-between” territories: their creation is linked to the notion of sustainable development (in particular local mobility) and quality of life, as well as to innovation improvement. Also, they offer collective services and have a multifunctional, social dimension, being supported by public policies to enhance the revitalization and attractiveness of low-density territories.

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

227

they are tools used by public policies for reaching different objectives: the development of human capital, employability, workplace well-being, social innovation (Montanari 2020; Montanari et al. 2020). However, makerspaces often play an instrumental role in public policies and can be reduced to “symbols” of urban innovation, with a generic call to the “smart city” concept (Niaros et al. 2017). Local authorities can activate them in order to qualify the city image and make it more competitive (following a territorial marketing approach), as well as to sustain the regeneration of fragile public facilities or urban contexts. The creation of makerspaces can, on the one hand, contribute in responding to the crisis and the redefinition of the welfare state by offering new kinds of services and facilities. On the other hand, it can reactivate (also temporarily) abandoned areas and buildings by involving different actors in urban care projects. This last strategy is part of new workplace philosophy, which is linked to sustainable development (to avoid land consuming or long-distance commuting) and collaborative economy (to collectively use something). In practical terms, it is also a way to cut initial costs during the start-up phase. However, different studies (Armondi et al. 2019) stress the little territorial impact of new workplaces, as they tend to be inward-looking and selective in their access (not only explicitly, but also implicitly). Besides the neighbourhood scale, makerspaces externalities can also be observed in regard to their nexus with traditional production activities (Wolf-Powers et al. 2017). Actually, makerspaces evolution and development proceed mainly parallel and detached from the local economic system. The potential of makerspaces as places of technological and cultural contamination remains mostly unexplored, even if some of them offer specific services for firms, such as consultancy activities, business competence and specialized machinery. Indeed, a survey conducted by Fondazione Nord Est and Prometeia in 2015 revealed that only 2.7% of firms address Fab Labs and makerspaces for digital manufacturing consultancy. As a matter of fact, in productive terms, in Italy, attention to the maker movement appears to be oriented more toward the incorporation of technologies and work methods inside industry in order to compete on a global level than the cooperation between makerspaces and private firms. The creation of structured synergies between firms and makerspaces requires further investigation as it is a crucial field for public policies. Nevertheless, sectoral interventions linked to innovation production and transfer can produce too many and/or too specific initiatives, thus creating possible overlapping, competition and duplication, as well as confusion in citizens and firms in case of lack of communication. For instance, consolidated mid-sized and leading firms are likely to cooperate with technopoles and universities research labs, rather than makerspaces. Whereas the Emilia-Romagna Region has sustained the start-up phase of many makerspaces and their networking, what is lacking is a long-term, local support in relation to space management over time and social innovation activities, in addition to a broader programmatic framework that keeps production, sociability and urban space together (Pacchi 2015). Positively, spatial reuse can be a tool to foster processes of economic and productive reactivation, offering at the same time opportunities for urban and social improvement (Akhavan and Mariotti 2018). In this sense,

228

C. Mattioli

public policies need to be more integrated, thus defining projects able to simultaneously improve the urban context and generate new local entrepreneurship through the combination of traditional and digital manufacturing (Bonomi 2013). On the one hand, the integration and innovation of local productive structure could be supported by promoting the localization of more makerspaces in industrial areas and buildings: for instance, on the model already tested by collective facilities, especially for those areas that are closer to the urban residential fabric (Alì and Valtorta 2013); or in case of industrial building renewal (Lanzani and Zanfi 2010). Makerspaces can bring urbanity inside industrial neighbourhoods, making them more diversified and attractive, and thus inserting them inside the city (Mariotti et al. 2017). On the other hand, the direct participation and funding of private companies and associations could foster economic synergies and concrete experimentations which means that Territorial Labs for Employability could reveal interesting forms of local, productive cooperation that require careful monitoring. The maker movement phenomenon is still rapidly evolving and spreading. At the same time, it is connected to local specificities related to economic, social and institutional background, but also to the spatial setting. Makerspaces play a multiple role, as hubs within local productive ecosystems, as well as urban, social and welfare spaces. For these reasons, it is necessary to monitor their evolution—even in other “in-between” territories—in order to define appropriate public policies and strategies, which need to assume a place-based, inter-sectoral approach to enter local networks and strengthen the hybrid, fertile nature of makerspaces.

5 Sitography https://www.casacorsini.mo.it/fab-lab/ https://www.comune.modena.it/modena-smart-community/smart-economy/hubmodena-r-nord-il-centro-di-sviluppo-di-modena-per-le-imprese-web-e-ict-ditutto-il-mondo https://www.comune.re.it/riuso https://www.mak-er.it https://makers.modena.it https://ovestlab.it https://polomade.it https://www.reinnova.it/servizi-alle-imprese-2/laboratori-di-ricerca-industriale/ fablab/

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

229

References Akhavan M, Mariotti I (2018) The effects of coworking spaces on local communities in the Italian context. Territorio 87:85–92. https://doi.org/10.3280/TR2018-087014 Alì A, Valtorta L (2013) Strategie per la riorganizzazione degli spazi della produzione: prime mosse per una riforma del costruito. In: Lanzani A et al. (eds.) Quando l’autostrada non basta. Infrastrutture, paesaggio e urbanistica nel territorio pedemontano lombardo (pp. 216–235). Macerata: Quodlibet Anderson C (2012) Makers. The new industrial revolution. New York: Crown Pub Armondi S, Caruso N, Di Vita S, Morandi C, Rossignolo C (2019) Make in Italy tra vuoti urbani e piccole economie. In: d’Albergo E, De Leo D, Viesti G (eds.) Il governo debole delle economie urbane. Quarto Rapporto sulle città di Urban@it (pp. 123-131). Bologna: Il Mulino Azam M, Chauvac N, Cloutier L (2015) Quand un tiers-lieu devient multiple. Chronique d’une hybridation, Recherches sociologiques et anthropologiques :46(2):87-104. https://doi.org/10.4000/rsa. 1535 Berta G (2014) Produzione intelligente. Un viaggio nelle nuove fabbriche. Einaudi, Torino Besson R (2017) La régénération des territoires ruraux par les tiers lieux. Le cas des tiers lieux creusois, Urbanews.fr, https://www.urbanews.fr/2017/09/18/52487-la-regeneration-des-ter ritoires-ruraux-par-les-tiers-lieux-le-cas-des-tiers-lieux-creusois/ Accessed April 2020 Bianchini M, Bombardi F, Carosi A, Maffei S, Menichinelli M (2015) Makers’ inquiry (Italia). Un’indagine sui maker italiani e sul Make in Italy. Milano: Libraccio Editore Blikstein P (2013) Digital fabrication and ‘making’ in education: the democratization of invention. Fab labs: of machines, makers and inventors, 1−21 Bonomi A (2013) Il capitalismo in-finito. Indagine sui territori della crisi. Torino: Einaudi Calafati AG (2009) Economie in cerca di città. La questione urbana in Italia. Roma: Donzelli Capdevila I (2013) Knowledge dynamics in localized communities: Coworking spaces as microclusters. SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2414121 Corò G, Micelli S (2006) I nuovi distretti produttivi. Innovazione, internazionalizzazione e competitività dei territori. Venezia: Marsilio De Marchi V, Grandinetti R (2014) Industrial districts and the collapse of the marshallian model: looking at the Italian experience. Compet Chan 18(1):70–87. https://doi.org/10.1179/102452 9413Z.00000000049 Mina Di Marino & Kimmo Lapintie (2017) Emerging Workplaces in Post-Functionalist Cities, Journal of Urban Technology, 24:3, 5-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.129 7520 Di Vita S (2019) Una classificazione dei makerspace italiani. Tra riuso e potenzialità di rigenerazione. EyesReg 9(3). https://www.eyesreg.it/2019/una-classificazione-dei-makerspace-italianitra-riuso-e-potenzialita-di-rigenerazione/ Eychenne F (2012) FAB Labs. Tour d’horizon, FING Fondazione Nord Est, Prometeia (2015) Make in Italy. Il 1° rapporto sull’impatto delle tecnologie digitali nel sistema manifatturiero italiano Gaeiras B (2017) FabLab Lisboa: when a municipality fosters grassroots, technological and collaborative innovation. Field Actions Science Reports, Special Issue 16 Gershenfeld N (2005) Fab: the coming revolution on your desktop—from personal computers to personal fabrication. New York: Basic Books Gress DR, Kalafsky RV (2015) Geographies of production in 3D: theoretical and research implications stemming from additive manufacturing. Geoforum 60, 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2015.01.003 Guasti L, Rosa A (2017) Maker@scuola. Stampanti 3D nella scuola dell’infanzia. Firenze: Assopiù Editore Honey M, Kanter DE (eds) (2013) Design, make, play: growing the next generation of STEM innovators. New York: Routledge

230

C. Mattioli

Inti I, Cantaluppi G, Persichino M (2014) Temporiuso. Manuale per il riuso temporaneo di spazi in abbandono, in Italia. Milano: Altra Economia Iori E, Sbarzaglia D (2019) Il riuso temporaneo come prassi adattiva per nuove politiche urbane di rigenerazione della città. Atti della XXI Conferenza Nazionale SIU. Confini, movimenti, luoghi. Politiche e progetti per città e territori in transizione (Firenze, 6–8 giugno 2018). Roma-Milano: Planum Publisher Lanzani A (2015) Città territorio e urbanistica tra crisi e contrazione. Milano: Franco Angeli Lanzani A, Zanfi F (2010) Piano Casa. E se la domanda fosse quella di ridurre gli spazi? Dialoghi Internazionali—Città nel Mondo 13:126–145 Ramella F, Manzo C (2017) Into the crisis: fab labs—a European story. Soc Revi 66(2):341–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038026118758535 Magnani M (2016) Terra e buoi dei paesi tuoi. Scuola, ricerca, ambiente, cultura, capitale umano: quando l’impresa investe nel territorio. Novara: UTET Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban effect. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Mattioli C (2020) Mutamenti nei distretti. Imprese, produzione e territorio, a partire da Sassuolo. Milano: Franco Angeli Menichinelli M, Ranellucci A (2014) Censimento dei laboratori di fabbricazione digitale in Italia. Milano: Fondazione Make in Italy Micelli E, Mangialardo A (2017) Da riserva di valore a dispositivi di mobilitazione economica e sociale: il nuovo ruolo del patrimonio immobiliare pubblico nelle politiche urbane. In: Fontanari E, Piperata G (eds.) Agenda RE_CYCLE. Proposte per reinventare la città (pp. 175–192). Bologna: Il Mulino Micelli S (2011) Futuro artigiano. L’innovazione nelle mani degli italiani. Venezia: Marsilio Midoro V (ed.) (2015) La scuola ai tempi del digitale. Istruzioni per costruire una scuola nuova. Milano: Franco Angeli Montanari F (2020) Lo sviluppo degli spazi di collaborazione e dei co-working: profilo, organizzazione e impatto su innovazione e trasformazioni del lavoro, https://www.giovazoom.emr.it/lav oro/notizie/spazi-collaborativi-nuove-forme-di-lavoro-e-innovazione. Accessed March 2020 Montanari F, Mattarelli E, Scapolan A (2020) Collaborative Spaces at Work: Innovation, Creativity and Relations. Abingdon: Routledge Morandi C, Di Vita S (2015) Ict, nuove modalità di produzione e processi di rigenerazione urbana. I Fablab a Milano. Imprese Città 8:81−88 Niaros V, Kostakis V, Drechsler W (2017) Making (in) the smart city: The emergence of makerspaces. Telem Inf 34:1143–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2017.05.004 Oldenburg R (1989) The great good place: cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts, and how they get you through the day. New York: Paragon House Pacchi C (2015) Coworking e innovazione urbana a Milano. Imprese Città 8:89–95 Pacchi C (2017) Sharing economy: makerspaces, co-working spaces, hybrid workplaces, and new social practices. In: Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds.) Milan. Productions, spatial patterns and urban change. (pp. 73–83). Abingdon: Routledge Pasqui G (2008) Città, popolazioni, politiche. Milano: Jaca Book Peppler K, Halverson E, Kafai YB (eds.) (2016) Makeology: Makerspaces as learning environments, vol 1. New York: Routledge Rifkin J (2011) The third industrial revolution. London: Palgrave Macmillan Robiglio M (2017) RE-USA. 20 stories of adaptive reuse. A toolkit for post-industrial cities. Berlin: Jovis Rosa P, Ferretti F, Pereira AG, Panella F, Wanner M (2017) Overview of the maker movement in the European union. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union Scaillerez A, Tremblay DG (2017) Coworking, fab labs et living labs. Territoire en movement. Revue de géographie et aménagement, 34. https://doi.org/10.4000/tem.4200 Seu G (2019) Perché i fablab trainano l’innovazione tra Emilia e Veneto, Wired.it, 15 marzo

New Workplaces in “In-Between” Territories …

231

Sheridan K, Halverson ER, Litts B, Brahms L, Jacobs-Priebe L, Owens T (2014) Learning in the making: a comparative case study of three makerspaces. Harvard Educ Rev 84(4):505–531 Sleigh A, Stewart H, Stokes K (2015) Open dataset of UK makerspaces. A user’s guide. London: Nesta Van Holm EJ (2015) Makerspaces and contributions to entrepreneurship. Proc Soc Behav Sci 195:24–31 Veltz P (2017) La société hyper-industrielle. Le nouveau capitalisme productif. Paris: Editions du Seuil et la République des Idées Vuorikari R, Ferrari A, Punie Y (2019) Makerspaces for education and training—exploring future implications for Europe, EUR 29819 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. https://doi.org/10.2760/946996,JRC117481 Wolf-Powers L, Doussard M, Schrock G, Heying C, Eisenburger M, Marotta S (2017) The maker movement and urban economic development. J Am Plan Assoc 83(4):365–376. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/01944363.2017.1360787

Where Are the Knowledge Workers? The Case of Silicon Valley North in Ontario, Canada Filipa Pajevi´c and Richard Shearmur

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the discourse on changing workplaces in the knowledge economy, by focusing specifically on the rise of mobile and multi-locational knowledge work (workplace mobility). Drawing from the experiences of 25 knowledge workers based in Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo, Ontario in Canada (also known as Silicon Valley North), in this chapter we show that these new ways of working affect not only the use of different spaces for work, but also how workspaces—and office-based work—are being defined. This will affect how workplaces are studied, understood, and planned for. Finally, by exploring changes in work location that were underway prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, these findings also provide some insight into how workplaces are likely to look once the pandemic is resolved.

1 Introduction Even before the Covid-19 pandemic, how and where we work was changing. Setting aside the massive—and probably temporary (Calbucci 2020; Shearmur 2020)—shift to online work in March 2020, ubiquitous wireless technologies, with their everexpanding possibilities, have broadened the geographical scope of everyday working lives. A growing number of workers, especially knowledge workers, can seemingly perform their work at any time and at any place, provided they are properly equipped with the appropriate device, digital application, and decent Wi-Fi connection. This enables work to be performed at different locations (beyond a designated, or fixed, workplace), between locations (on-the-go), and at times even at multiple locations simultaneously (virtual work and teleconferencing). In short, it is often assumed F. Pajevi´c (B) · R. Shearmur School of Urban Planning, McGill University, Montréal, Canada e-mail: [email protected] R. Shearmur e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_13

233

234

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

(by commentators who are themselves mobile) that knowledge work is spatially unbound: Cairncross’s (1997) prophecy seems to have belatedly come true. Of course, the death of distance only seems to have come true: even though large proportions of the workforce adapted to working from home because of the COVID-19 crisis, the absence of physical movement, of meeting people, and of co-presence has highlighted the important roles they play. Workplace mobility—the combination of different work locations that enable (depending on time and place) inter-personal contact, isolation, remote , and, when necessary, social distancing—is likely to increase as working worlds adapt to the new normal. This chapter focuses on the state of mobile work and of work locations prior to the Covid-19 crisis among a group of young(ish) knowledge workers in a region recognized for its concentration of technological know-how: we describe these work practices and assess what they can tell us about the likely future of work location. The impact of digitization (and digital technologies) on work has been the subject of ongoing research across different disciplines: broader media accounts have cited the many benefits of mobile work, which include more flexibility and freedom, creativity and collaboration, and potential for entrepreneurship and innovation. Such ideas have gradually trickled into policy discourses, aiming to uncover the most effective ways to support and anchor “digital nomads.” But are all knowledge workers spatially unbound? Is mobile, multi-locational work prevalent, or is it just more feasible than before? Are there only benefits associated with mobile knowledge work, or are there pitfalls, too? Finally, if knowledge workers are less bound to fixed locations, how is this changing the use of space for work? New ways of working warrant critical attention not only because they affect how knowledge work is organized (managed, supervised, and exploited) but also because they affect where it is performed. This is of concern to urban planners and economic geographers, whose understanding of the urban economy has hinged on the assumption that work has a fixed location: the ability to locate and establish physical boundaries around a sector or an industry enable planners and policymakers to plan for performance. If knowledge work is indeed multi-locational, then how can cities adapt to these changes—and should they? Recent studies show that the inability to locate where knowledge work is performed is becoming quite the administrative conundrum for planners (Di Marino and Lapintie 2017, 2020; Di Marino et al. 2018). At the same time, available data suggests a gradual rather than a sweeping change: most knowledge workers continue to work from a fixed place of work, either an office or home (Putri and Shearmur 2020). The purpose of this chapter is to contribute to the discourse on changing workplaces in the knowledge economy, by focusing specifically on the rise of mobile and multi-locational knowledge work. Drawing from the experiences of 25 knowledge workers based in Kitchener–Waterloo, Ontario in Canada (also known as Silicon Valley North), we show that mobile and multi-locational work does indeed occur. We show that these new ways of working—workplace mobility more generally— affect not only the use of different spaces for work but also how spaces and work are being defined. This will affect how workplaces are studied, understood, and planned for.

Where Are the Knowledge Workers …

235

Organized in five parts, this chapter starts with a brief overview of literature that is key to the understanding of mobile and multi-locational knowledge work. This is followed by an overview of data and methods and a more detailed presentation of findings. The last section discusses overlapping themes that this case shares with existing research and teases out new themes that will improve how spaces of work in the knowledge economy are understood and empirically approached.

2 Literature Review In recent years, scholarship on the mobility and multi-locality of work has grown (Elliott and Urry 2010; Flecker 2016; Nelson et al. 2017; Taylor and Luckman 2018; Thompson 2019). This interest is rooted in broader phenomena such as the ubiquity of wireless technologies, the increasing flexibility (and casualization) of work exacerbated by the digitization of work and work processes, and the global shift towards a knowledge-based economy. Scholars across disciplines have tackled the mobility of work from different angles: managerial and organizational, sociological and spatial, among others. This section briefly outlines the key themes concerning spaces of work that emerge from this growing body of research. Management and organizational studies (MOS) have revealed that a growing number of office-based occupations are less rooted in fixed locations and tend to be mobile and multi-locational (Felstead et al. 2005; Perry and Brodie 2006; Hislop and Axtell 2007, 2009; Vilhelmson and Thulin 2016; Koroma and Vartiainen 2018). Ubiquitous mobile phones and other handheld devices, coupled with the digitization of work, enable workers to perform their work on-the-go, anywhere at any time. This broadens the geographical scope, or rather the spatial trajectory, of many professions beyond the office to include also the home, client locations, and locations visited while traveling. The growing popularity of “third spaces,” which include coworking spaces and makerspaces, as well as cafés, libraries, and other spaces of a more open, public nature that are not traditionally associated with office-based work, has also been highlighted (Kingma 2016, 2019). More generally, workers’ wireless mobility enables “nomadic work” (Ciolfi and De Carvalho 2014; Thompson 2019). Such workplace mobility is most often associated with knowledge-intensive professions, due to the intangible, symbolic nature of their work (Vilhelmson and Thulin 2016; Jarrahi and Thomson 2017; Nelson et al. 2017; Aslesen et al. 2019), although the most mobile workers are those in traditional sectors, such as transport and construction, that have never been locationally fixed (Putri and Shearmur 2020). The difference between knowledge workers and traditionally mobile workers is that workplace mobility is a relatively novel phenomenon for the former, and that it is digitally enabled. Mobilities scholars examine the mobility of work in a context of intensifying need for “multi-presence”, i.e., the practice of multiple mobilities (from physical to virtual) at the same time (Kesselring 2006; Urry 2007; Elliott and Urry 2010; Kesselring 2015). These scholars argue that the need to be mobile has been both enabled and exacerbated by modern technologies, as has the expectation that workers

236

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

be connected or “networked.” Studies show that workers frequently commuting or traveling for work use the time spent in transit to work (Lyons and Urry 2005; Lyons et al. 2007; Axtell et al. 2008). This includes working on trains, airplanes, and in cars (Lassen 2006, 2009; Hislop 2013). This blurs the temporal and physical boundaries that exist between personal and working lives (Axtell et al. 2008; Sørensen 2011; Cousins and Robey 2015). Meanwhile, economic geography scholarship—traditionally concerned with the location of economic activities—has not adapted its dominant paradigms on work location to reflect this dynamic spatiality of knowledge work. While the probability of complex space–time geographies has been discussed—albeit conceptually—since the 1960s by geographers like Torsten Hägerstrand and Doreen Massey (see also Thrift 2004), empirical studies based on aggregate sectoral data show that little has changed in terms of where knowledge firms locate (Shearmur and Alvergne 2002; Shearmur and Doloreux 2015). In cities, central business districts, buzzing neighborhoods, and transit hubs still concentrate on knowledge-intensive employment (Shearmur and Coffey 2002; Duvivier and Polèse 2017; Duvivier et al. 2018). However, studies of project-based, creative work highlight the multi-geographical nature of the profession, as workers frequently move between projects and locations (Vinodrai 2010; Vinodrai and Keddy 2015). Recent studies of digital skills show the increasingly dynamic geographies of these tech-supported and tech-oriented professions (Richardson and Bissell 2017). They also examine how the practice of coworking and shared digital work leads to work sprawl beyond a fixed location (Richardson 2017). Still, skepticism persists, and likely due to lack of sufficient empirical evidence to warrant a paradigm shift on the location of work at the city scale. Scholarship relying on census-type data shows that changes, although present, are rather slow to take root (Felstead 2012). A recent study based on a more detailed survey of mobile and multi-locational work in Europe shows that irrespective of advancements in wireless technologies, knowledge workers continue to work predominantly at their employer’s location, though it is likely that these professions will be working more from home in the future (Ojala and Pyöriä 2018). Indeed, although these studies show that there has not yet been a “revolution” in established patterns of employment in cities, subtle shifts do exist and warrant empirical attention (Putri and Shearmur 2020). It is possible that the lack of nuance in studies of work location are a reflection of the limitations of existing data, methods and the concepts that underpin them (Pajevi´c and Shearmur 2017). It is not necessary to postulate an ‘either/or’ scenario: data revealing the continued prevalence of fixed work locations are not incompatible with studies revealing that knowledge work is increasingly mobile. Indeed, even if knowledge workers now work during their commute, work from home, and perform micro-work while waiting for lunch, this does not mean that they do not spend large proportions of their work time within a given office building, campus, or neighborhood. Work locations may have radically expanded, but they may—more modestly—have become fuzzy without losing their traditional geographic focus.

Where Are the Knowledge Workers …

237

Canadian census data1 show that between 1996 and 2016 the proportion of highorder service workers declaring no fixed place of work remained constant at about 8%, with an increased proportion working from home (up 5–20%) and fewer working at a fixed place outside the home (down 5 from 77%). These data therefore illustrate some changes but hardly a revolution—particularly the rise in work from home, which has been accentuated, but not triggered, by the Covid crisis. Of course, they do not capture the “fuzzy” mobility of high-order service workers during their workday: it is likely that those working “at home” and those working in “fixed places” move about during the day while staying centered on a fixed work location—and this could be what scholars who study workplace mobility are in large part observing. The question of the population-level prevalence of workplace mobility remains unresolved: current data are unable to measure it in all its dimensions, so the notion that knowledge work is increasingly mobile is driven by anecdotes, media stories, and case studies. Such studies are important, though, because the very concept of workplace mobility remains vague, and cannot be measured until it is well understood. New evidence illustrating changing everyday work experiences continues to surface (e.g., Flecker 2016; Taylor and Luckman 2018). Given that most of this scholarship—especially in MOS and Mobilities—is based on European experiences, this study explores the Canadian context for these themes.

3 Data and Methods Two key assumptions undergird this study: one, in a knowledge-based and rapidly digitizing economy work experiences are shifting and this shift includes changes in the use of spaces for work; and two, knowledge workers are increasingly spatially detached. To examine if and how these changes are occurring in the Canada, this chapter focuses on knowledge workers in Kitchener, Cambridge and Waterloo (KCW) in Ontario—also known as Silicon Valley North. KCW is part of ongoing federal and provincial policy efforts to concentrate knowledge-intensive activities along a 112 km stretch between KCW and Toronto. Dubbed “Innovation Corridor,” this strip is meant to strengthen the link between KCW’s bourgeoning high-tech startup community and Toronto’s business and financial services with the aim to rival California’s Silicon Valley. What is more, the Corridor is one of five national “superclusters of innovation,” set to specialize in “next gen manufacturing” (Government of Canada, 2020). It is important to note that Waterloo is the home of Blackberry (formerly Research in Motion) and Google Canada’s new research and development headquarters are located in downtown Kitchener. Also, established companies in financial services (e.g., Deloitte) have vacated their purpose-built facilities in the suburbam extensions of the tri-city area for smaller, “cooler” and repurposed spaces

1 Special tabulations: approximately 1.5% work outside the country, and for the sake of this sentence

these have been aggregated with the ‘fixed place outside the home’ category.

238

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

in downtown locations. It is worth noting that these spaces are treated as prototype “offices of the future”. A dual sampling strategy (criterion and snowball) was used to identify and recruit the 25 knowledge workers for in-depth, semi-structured interviews (see Table 1 for an overview). The interviews were conducted in person over a two-year fieldwork period, from February 2017 to April 2019, and lasted roughly between 30-90 minutes. Questions targeted where knowledge workers perform their work, what they did at these locations and why, and what enables them or hinders them to work in these spaces. The aim of the interviews has been to generate a better understanding of the extent to which knowledge workers can be spatially detached, and how this affects the use of space for work-related purposes. All interviews were transcribed and coded twice: once for existing themes in the literature (deductive), and a second time for new themes that emerge from the interviews (inductive). The findings are discussed in the following section.

4 Findings: Where Do Knowledge Workers Work? The 25 knowledge workers discussed the nature of their work, their reliance on technology, their typical workdays, and, most importantly, the spaces where they perform their work. The spaces identified as workspaces by these knowledge workers have been sorted into three categories: official, unofficial, and connecting spaces. Official Workspaces All interviewees associate official workspaces with spaces where they are expected to be visible in their professional capacity. These spaces include the office, client locations, and worksites. Knowledge workers in financial and real estate services list client locations among their most frequented official workspaces. This is not unexpected given the mobility that is an essential component of the work itself, i.e., auditing clients (accounting) and property or site visits (real estate). With the exception of one interviewee, who runs her start-up business from home, the remaining 24 interviewees are all employees of established companies, have an “official” office and spend considerable time there on a weekly basis. Most of these workers are expected to show up at the office for team meetings and visibility (access to colleagues). As expected, the need to be at the office is also linked to the role, level of responsibility and the type of occupation. However, most arrangements tend to be flexible: for example, team meetings and other activities are usually negotiated with colleagues on the basis of urgency and importance, which workers are then asked to attend in person or “plug in” via Slack, Skype, Zoom, or other video-conferencing software. To maximize their time at the office, workers tend to have preferred days and times for office meetings, though these usually hinge on the location and preferences of remote team members (across different time zones). Due to this organizational fluidity, most workers struggle to describe a typical workday.

Where Are the Knowledge Workers …

239

Table 1 Overview of interviewees ID

Gender (F/M/N)

Age Group

Role

Profession (NOC)

Industry (NAICS)

KCW_KW_1

F

26–35

Co-founder, CEO, Engineer

Natural and Manufacturing Applied Science (31–33) (2)

KCW_KW_2

F

26–35

Founder, CEO Natural and Professional, Applied Science Scientific and (2) Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_3

F

26–35

Project Manager

Education, Law, Professional, Government Scientific and Services (4) Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_4

F

26–35

Project Manager, Researcher

Education, Law, Professional, Government Scientific and Services (4) Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_5

M

36–45

Senior Business, Manager, CPA Finance and Administration (1)

KCW_KW_6

F

46–55

CEO

Management (0) Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_7

M

46–55

CIO

Management (0) Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_8

M

26–35

Special Effects Compositor

Art, Culture and Information and Recreation (5) Culture (51)

KCW_KW_9

M

26–35

Software Designer

Natural and Professional, Applied Science Scientific and (2) Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_10

F

26–35

Project Manager, Researcher

Education, Law, Professional, Government Scientific and Services (4) Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_11

M

26–35

Journalist, Media Coordinator

Art, Culture and Professional, Recreation (5) Scientific and Technical Services (54)

Finance and Insurance (52)

(continued)

240

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

Table 1 (continued) ID

Gender (F/M/N)

Age Group

Role

Profession (NOC)

Industry (NAICS)

KCW_KW_12

F

36–45

Executive Assistant, Facilities Manager

Business, Finance and Administration (1)

Wholesale Trade (41)

KCW_KW_13

F

26–35

Executive Assistant

Business, Finance and Administration (1)

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_14

M

26–35

Journalist, Ghost Writer

Art, Culture and Professional, Recreation (5) Scientific and Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_15

F

26–35

Customer Sales Executive

Sales Services (6)

Wholesale Trade (41)

KCW_KW_16

F

26–35

Financial Analyst

Business, Finance and Administration (1)

Finance and Insurance (52)

KCW_KW_17

F

26–35

Real Estate Analyst, Senior Researcher

Business, Finance and Administration (1)

Real Estate and Leasing (53)

KCW_KW_18

M

46–55

CEO

Business, Finance and Administration (1), Management (0)

Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (54)

KCW_KW_19

F

26–35

Project Manager

Business, Finance and Administration (1)

Real Estate and Leasing (53)

KCW_KW_20

M

26–35

Manager, Mergers and Acquisitions, Technology

Business, Finance and Administration (1)

Finance and Insurance (52)

KCW_KW_21

M

26–35

Manager, Tax Services

Business, Finance and Administration (1)

Finance and Insurance (52)

KCW_KW_22

M

36–45

Project Manager

Education, Law, Professional, Government Scientific and Services (4) Technical Services (54) (continued)

Where Are the Knowledge Workers …

241

Table 1 (continued) ID

Gender (F/M/N)

Age Group

Role

Profession (NOC)

Industry (NAICS)

KCW_KW_23

F

26–35

Project Manager

Business, Finance and Administration (1),

Real Estate and Leasing (53)

KCW_KW_24

F

26–35

Project Manager

Business, Finance and Administration (1),

Real Estate and Leasing (53)

KCW_KW_25

M

56–65

Senior Partner Business, Finance and Finance and Insurance (52) Administration (1), Management (0)

Source Authors

“It seems to really depend on your manager. It depends a lot on how flexible your manager is… so I’m very lucky that my manager cares more about getting the work done than where I actually physically work, so I am able to move my hours around and work essentially wherever. That said, I do try to be in the office. Every Wednesday I’m in the office just because we have some team meetings that day. There’s certain days where I’d look ahead in the week and if I know I have conversations coming up that would be better in person then I’d try and be in the office, but overall I can be quite mobile.” (Knowledge Worker 10). Some workers explain that they are always required to be at the office. Reasons include company culture, the nature of work being performed, and the need for discretion or privacy when working with sensitive information. The latter is especially important for knowledge workers whose work can be broadly classified as “creative” (film) and “innovative” (software development). Contrary to popular belief, not all creative professions are spatially detached, visiting “cool” café-like open office space when they feel like doing so! “Working in the film industry… um… like there’s so many non-disclosure agreements and it’s really strict with the file access and the servers and everything. So, unfortunately, although a lot of us want to work from home—and it should be possible because the work we do doesn’t necessarily or shouldn’t necessarily keep us in the office—but because of like working with Hollywood and big movies we must all be in one place.” (Knowledge Worker 8). Interestingly, while technology is considered an enabler of mobile work, in some cases it is also a hindrance. In addition to meeting “basic needs”, such as having access to a strong Wi-Fi connection and working electrical outlets, there are also requirements when it comes to “tech specs.” More specifically, some knowledge workers, especially in software development and video game design, depend on

242

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

powerful machines that cannot be moved between locations. As a result, they are bound to their workstations at the office. “The video game industry is very different. It’s a lot harder to do remote work because to run a video game you need to have a very powerful computer, which tends to be a desktop and so realistically the only place where you can have access to that is the office so everyone works from the office all of the time.” (Knowledge Worker 9). In website-building companies, like Google, the requirement to be at the office appears to be quite strict. Due to the sensitive nature of the work (and risks of leaks and corporate espionage) remote work is enabled but restricted to official locations. Workers can move around and within the boundaries of the office, as well as inbetween offices. Moreover, brand-name companies with multiple locations across Ontario (and Canada), encourage employees to move between these locations to expand the geographical range of their work activities (i.e., engage with a broader range of clients). For some workers this is a decent way to balance personal needs (e.g. choosing to live in Toronto and work in Kitchener). As a result, workers claim that they spend most of their time working from the office, but this term encompasses multiple locations. This raises an important issue concerning how spaces are defined. “I have set hours that technically I need to be online, so 8:30–5:30 every day I have to be at the office, but that doesn’t mean I have to be sitting at my physical desk at [client location]. I spend quite a bit of time working out of coffee shops when I’m in Toronto, [and] a little bit when I’m in Kitchener-Waterloo… My day is kind of all over the place given [that] we just rent a desk essentially.” (Knowledge Worker 16). In the case of this financial analyst, being online is equated to being at the office. Although her company is officially based in Montreal, they rent spaces either through clients (at client locations) or via coworking space providers. It is the act of being connected and available for work-related purposes that is referred to as being at “the office”. The office is a loosely applied (and defined) term, referring to places and times where work-related activities are performed. Unofficial Workspaces In keeping with the census data cited earlier in this chapter, the counterpart of the office is the home. Interviewees also identify holiday homes, hotels (rooms and lobbies), and unofficial spaces such as cafés, libraries, even parks as temporary workspaces. With few exceptions, most workers are permitted to work from home at least one day a week. As with work from the office, working from home is usually negotiated with the team or the employer. Family obligations, project demands, and the need for quiet spaces for concentration are among the factors listed as encouraging working from home. “I do a lot of work from home in the evenings, so I would say most evenings I’m doing a couple of hours or so, and then again I try to be in the office as much as I can in terms of my work… So I would say probably my evenings I mostly do a lot of work from home. Probably every other week I’m working like a day from home, but for the most part I try to be at the office.” (Knowledge Worker 13).

Where Are the Knowledge Workers …

243

Interestingly, even though this worker claims to be working from home once every two weeks, she actually works from home every evening and every morning before leaving for the office. When asked to describe their workday, most interviewees tended to exclude work activities performed early morning, such as checking emails and calendars, making phone calls, and arranging meetings (among others). Only when prompted did the interviewees realize that they were working over breakfast at home: “I try not to spend the first hour [at the office] checking emails—actually I wake up checking emails” (Knowledge Worker 13). Preparatory activities such as reading and minor administrative work are not always considered “work”. However, activities like research and continuing education are considered work. “Generally, [on] Sundays I plan the week ahead a little bit, and just get into my head of what’s coming up. And what remains of worth, I’ll spend several hours just doing that. Lately, because I’ve been doing my masters part-time, and part of it’s related to a work project, there has been a lot of overlaps so I’ve been finding most weekends I do work for my masters, but then some of those hours I can count towards work, so it kind of blends together.” (Knowledge Worker 10). Few interviewees make a conscious decision to separate work time and leisure time—and, by extension, workspaces and leisure spaces. Those working with teams operating out of different locations (and at times even different time zones) find this distinction difficult to make. “I get my daughter; I run and grab her and then go home and turn back on my laptop and my phone. And if our executive team is in San Francisco, obviously there’s a time difference, so those days are a little bit longer, so answering emails up until midnight.” (Knowledge Worker 13). For most interviewees, the struggle to define what counts as work also contributes to these blurring boundaries. As expected, technology is an enabler: most interviewees rely on one phone and one laptop for both professional and personal use. The ease with which workers can now access communication channels enables them to perform certain tasks in unlikely places. “If there is a meeting taking place while I’m on vacation that’s really important I will call into that meeting. Obviously, I still check my email while I’m away, so if it’s an urgent email I will respond to it” (Knowledge Worker 9). One interviewee revealed that she checks and writes emails on the beach whilst on vacation (Knowledge Worker 6). Spaces like cafés are generally used to perform minor, routine tasks, or for brief meetings with colleagues and clients. The choice to work from home or from a café has less to do with the work activity and more with a need for a change in atmosphere or “a different vibe” —and sometimes just access to better coffee. “Unless I’m building or working on a lot of collaborative things, it’s the exact same setup as on a coffee station… a lot of the stuff is really similar to what I would do if I was gonna go work at a coffee shop or work at home, like I have a home monitor and a home desk setup as well so it’s pretty [easy] for me. I work at a coffee station or work at home on like a quieter day…There are a few coffee shops around me that kind of have a good vibe and I find that sometimes if I hit like a wall and I’m getting a little bit sluggish, or feeling a little bit slower, I do pop into a new coffee shop and the change of environment is really nice.” (Knowledge Worker 15).

244

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

Alternatively, some workers choose not to work from home because of the amenities provided at the office: “When I’m in Toronto and I’m trying to decide between working from home and working from the Toronto office, I will often choose go to the Toronto office because the food is really good (laughs)” (Knowledge Worker 9). In this case, the employer offers gourmet meals, café spaces, gyms, and libraries at the office. Libraries are also used for work for hours at a time and are generally considered quieter than cafés. It is important to note that this is changing: libraries, like offices, are incorporating open, collaborative spaces and cafés so as to attract more visitors. As a result, no matter where they are—the office, the home, the café, or the library— workers cope with the lack of quieter areas by listening to music or wearing noisecancellation headphones. “It’s a mental distinction sometimes between being in the office and not. I feel that when I choose to work [at the office] or work at a coffee shop, it’s more me planning my own time, which is kind of nice” (Knowledge Worker 10). Essentially, for most interviewees, the decision to work from a public space is made so as to feel more in control of their time. “Sometimes I find the library is better. Even though they’re encouraging more people to talk in the library, there’s still that old sentiment that you can’t talk in the library. So I find it’s generally quieter than other places, but I do work well with my headphones, so I find that helps me concentrate so even if it’s a louder coffee shop I usually can manage fine.” (Knowledge Worker 10). Three important considerations emerge: one, unless the work activity is collaborative or requires intense concentration, the work setup is the same and can be “transported” to any space; two, open layouts result in a need to compensate for the lack of available quiet, private spaces by adapting the activity to the space, or by using more technology in order to get work done; and three, official workspaces are incorporating amenities that offer the same perks (quality of food, vibe) so as to give employees on site. Coworking space providers like WeWork were discussed in the interviews, but did not seem to be popular. Renting coworking desks at client lcations, however, did appear to be a common practice: “We rent space from one of our portfolio companies in Toronto, but we are not planning on opening a standalone [company] space” (Knowledge Worker 16). This suggests that coworking—not only as a design layout but also as means of generating revenue—is adopted by companies within their official workspaces.2 This allows companies based elsewhere to establish a temporary presence in a place, avoiding the costs of standalone offices by renting spaces at the

2 This

also explains why there are so few coworking space providers like WeWork in KCW. The majority of coworking spaces are clustered around downtown Kitchener in former industrial spaces. Two of the largest and most occupied spaces are Communitech, a government-funded innovation hub, and Velocity, a university-run makerspace and tech lab. Velocity is an applicationbased program that provides space and equipment to students looking to develop start-ups; and Communitech grants temporary workspaces to start-ups for free, and only established, brand-name companies pay rent for a “fixed” desk. Velocity and Communitech share the same building.

Where Are the Knowledge Workers …

245

client locations. This begs the question: whose knowledge workers work at whose offices? Finally, the need to be available via multiple communication channels (Slack, Zoom, Google Hangouts and email, among others) is what drives work sprawl across unofficial workspaces. Hotels often turn into temporary workspaces because workers feel obliged to avoid a communication backlog and overflowing inboxes: “I find [travel] stressful in a sense you just can’t—emails just keep piling up while you’re at the conference so, both nights I—for the Ottawa conference—I just came back to the hotel and just powered through a little bit, so it’s a bit of a challenge” (Knowledge Worker 4). This is also why work is performed in connecting spaces, such as moving vehicles and transit spaces. Connecting Spaces Most interviewees disclose that they check emails or make phone calls while in transit or during travel. This includes cars, buses, trains, and airplanes. While some hesitated to admit to working while driving, they did reveal that phone calls are frequently made, especially over longer commutes. “I make phone calls—my car has Bluetooth—but depending on the call I probably wouldn’t. It’s hard to call your customer and have like a serious call if you’re only half listening. If it’s a conference call for sure, yeah.” (Knowledge Worker 15). Again, this reflects the need to be available and to avoid communication backlogs. Some interviewees feel that since the car is a quiet, private space, it is better suited for work-related conversations requiring privacy. Bus commutes are usually shorter, less private and are therefore used to check emails: “I will sometimes check my emails to kind of prepare and see if there’s any fires that have to be dealt with right away” (Knowledge Worker 10). Interviewees that frequently commute between Kitchener and Toronto opt for the Greyhound or the GO Train (a regional train service) in order to have time to work: “Traffic and parking downtown is such a hassle. And then I lose at least two hours where I can’t do anything, because I’m sitting in the car driving versus like being able to respond to emails” (Knowledge Worker 16). Occasional phone calls are made, though some interviewees feel that the lack of privacy is disrespectful to the interlocutor. One interviewee commutes daily between Toronto and Kitchener, and works in the company-operated shuttle bus that transports employees between the company’s offices in both cities. The shuttle bus is equipped with Wi-Fi, and it is expected to use the travel time to work. “The bus ride takes about an hour and 45 min, and there’s I guess about 20–30 employees from this office who live in Toronto, so the bus makes a couple of stops to pick up people at different locations. And we also have Wi-Fi on the bus, so it’s pretty much treated like office space. Everyone is on their laptop and everyone is working.” (Knowledge Worker 9). In this case, by virtue of being run by the company, the shuttle bus becomes an official workspace in which workers are required to perform even though they are in between locations. A private space (one’s own car), a public space (public bus or

246

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

train) and a company-run shuttle bus all become temporary workspaces—sometimes by choice, sometimes by necessity. Work in the film industry is mostly project-based, and contracts typically last between three to six months, during which mobility is restricted. However, these contracts are themselves mobile and multi-locational, and workers often have to relocate to where the project is. Knowledge workers whose work is collaborative and client-facing (real estate, financial services, occupations in management) travel more frequently. In the case of the financial analyst, the travel is near-constant. “On a weekly basis I commute and so I’ll spend a day or two in Toronto… On a monthly basis I probably have at least one trip to another city where [company] has a strong presence… I would go and spend a couple of days in Montreal or New York or San Francisco or attend a conference somewhere every six week-ish. Once a quarter we as a whole team would get together and so we’ll do an off-site for three-ish days and, umm, either one of the cities where we have a principal office, or we’ll go somewhere more relaxing… I would go to one or two big conferences a year so that is more substantive travel. And I would be gone for a week. A couple of weeks ago I had a crazy schedule where I went to Montreal, Toronto and Montreal and then home—it wasn’t a fluke necessarily. The reason I did that was because I was judging a case competition in Kingston, so I added a couple of days in Montreal and worked out of those offices. So I would do that occasionally where I would be in separate places, so I would spend some time in the intermediary working.” (Knowledge Worker 16). When traveling longer distances interviewees typically perform work at airports (waiting areas, lounges) and on airplanes. Connecting spaces like trains and bus stations do not emerge as temporary workspaces for these knowledge workers.

5 Conclusions: Blurred Lines and Blurred Definitions This chapter explores where knowledge workers perform their work and how they use space for work-related purposes. In addition to exploring the extent to which changes observed in Europe can be observed in Canada, this chapter offers fresh insights on new ways of working pre-pandemic that should be considered in future research. What is more, by exploring changes in work location that were underway prior to the Covid-19 crisis, these findings offer clues on what workplaces are likely to look once the pandemic is resolved. Our study reveals that blurred work-life boundaries lead to blurring definitions of workspaces (for some, to be online is equivalent to being at an official workspace, and the expectation to work while commuting also leads to defining a moving vehicle as an official workspace) and of work (workers struggle to catalog activities performed at leisure spaces like the home or while on vacation as work). Indeed, work is performed across a range of official, unofficial and connecting spaces, some of which are used interchangeably based on either need or the type of activity being performed. It is important to stress, however, that the traditional office is not being

Where Are the Knowledge Workers …

247

replaced: rather, it is being supplemented by other places as work encroaches upon all moments (and places). What can the situation described in this chapter reveal about the possible future of work locations? The majority of our interviewees are young (below the age of 35) and KCW is Canada’s hotbed of technological change. Even in such a context, where new work practices are embraced, virtually no interviewee worked wholly from home before Covid-19 struck. Indeed, all interviewees speak of the need for face-to-face meetings, and much of the work mobility they describe is linked with the need to meet clients and colleagues. Furthermore, team meetings, confidentiality, access to objects, and physical machines (such as powerful computers) all require a more traditional workplace. While many workers enjoy working from home one or two days a week, even these workers tended—before Covid-19—to seek out libraries, cafés, or other shared spaces like Communitech, for at least part of their home workdays. Such minor changes in location seem to provide a sense of control over time spent working (Knowledge Worker 10), as well as an opportunity to socialize after longer periods of isolation: “I went from working in an office to working on my own at the house, so I probably take any opportunity to meet in person” (Knowledge Worker 2). To the extent that it is possible to foresee how work practices for traditional office workers will evolve, then the picture that emerges from these interviews is a reasonable place to start. The “office”—a space where teams meet, where key documents and equipment can be found, and where informal work-related discussions can occur in a confidential and controlled environment—will remain central to most working lives. Yet the office will increasingly be supplemented by homework, remote meetings, and other technologically mediated practices that can occur in a variety of physical spaces. Many more workers (i.e. not just tech-savvy millennials) have now become aware of remote technology’s workplace potential: but, simultaneously, its drawbacks have been revealed, whether from the perspective of employees (ergonomics, lack of space at home, loneliness, difficulties in coordination, lack of work–life balance, surveillance concerns) or employers (management challenges, coordination challenges, acculturation of new employees, concerns with cybersecurity, team morale). Paradoxically, the surge of work from home and the undeniable success—in an emergency—of remote work may reinforce certain aspects of the traditional office that had been taken for granted. Broadly speaking, where people work today is similar to where they worked 30 years ago (Putri and Shearmur 2020). However, at the margins, there has been considerable change: what used to be conceptualized as a fixed workplace (the office) has become a fuzzy field of possibilities, usually centered on an office or a home, but encompassing many other work locations. The Covid-19 crisis will accelerate this change but has also shed light on why (some form of) the traditional office—a place where people meet, where teams are constructed, employees acculturated, and coordination facilitated—is here to stay (Shearmur 2020; Calbucci 2020).

248

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

References Aslesen HW, Martin R, Sardo S (2019) The virtual is reality! On physical and virtual space in software firms’ knowledge formation, Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, 31:9-10, 669682. https://doi.org/10.1080/08985626.2018.1552314 Axtell C, Hislop D, Whittaker S (2008) Mobile technologies in mobile spaces: findings from the context of train travel. Int J Human-Comput Stud 66(12). Mobile human-computer interaction, pp 902–915. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.07.001 Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Reg Stud 39(1):61–74. https:// doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Calbucci M (2020) If working from home is the ‘future of work,’ here are 11 reasons why the office sounds better, GeekWire. https://www.geekwire.com/2020/working-home-future-work11-reasons-office-sounds-better/. Accessed May 2020 Cairncross F (1997) The death of distance: how the communications revolution is changing our lives. Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, MA Cheng C (2020) Shopify is joining twitter in permanent work-from-home shift—Bloomberg. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-05-21/shopify-is-joining-twitter-in-per manent-work-from-home-shift. Accessed June 2020 Ciolfi L, De Carvalho AFP (2014) Work practices, nomadicity and the mediational role of technology. Comput Support Cooper Work (CSCW) 23(2), 119–136. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10606014-9201-6 Cousins K, Robey D (2015) Managing work-life boundaries with mobile technologies: An interpretive study of mobile work practices. Infor Technol People 28(1): 34–71. https://doi.org/10. 1108/ITP-08-2013-0155 Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2017) Emerging workplaces in post-functionalist cities. J Urban Technol 24(3):5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1297520 Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2020) Exploring multi-local working: challenges and opportunities for contemporary cities, International Planning Studies, 25(2): 129-149. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 63475.2018.1528865 Di Marino M, Lilius J, Lapintie K (2018) New forms of multi-local working: identifying multilocality in planning as well as public and private organizations’ strategies in the Helsinki region. Eur Plan Stud 26(10):2015–2035. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2018.1504896 Duvivier C, Polèse M (2017) The great urban techno shift: are central neighbourhoods the next silicon valleys? Evidence from three Canadian metropolitan areas. Papers Reg Sci 97(4), 1083– 1111. https://doi.org/10.1111/pirs.12284 Duvivier C, Polèse M, Apparicio P (2018) The location of information technology-led new economy jobs in cities: office parks or cool neighbourhoods? Reg Stud 52(6):756–767. https://doi.org/10. 1080/00343404.2017.1322686 Elliott A, Urry J (2010) Mobile lives. Routledge, London Felstead A (2012) Rapid change or slow evolution? Changing places of work and their consequences in the UK. J Trans Geograp (Supplement C). Social Impacts and Equity Issues in Transport: 21, pp 31–38. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2011.10.002 Felstead A, Jewson N, Walters S (2005) Changing places of work. Palgrave Macmillan, London Flecker J (ed) (2016) Space, place and global digital work. Palgrave Macmillan, London Government of Canada I (2020) Canada’s new superclusters. Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada. https://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/093.nsf/eng/00008.html. Accessed June 2020 Hislop D (2013). Driving, communicating and working: understanding the work-related communication behaviours of business travellers on work-related car journeys. Mobilities 8(2), 220–237. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2012.655972 Hislop D, Axtell C (2007) The neglect of spatial mobility in contemporary studies of work: the case of telework. New Technol Work Employ 22(1):34–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X. 2007.00182.x

Where Are the Knowledge Workers …

249

Hislop D, Axtell C (2009) To infinity and beyond?: workspace and the multi-location worker. New Technol Work Employ 24(1), 60–75. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005X.2008. 00218.x Huber F (2012) Do clusters really matter for innovation practices in information technology? Questioning the significance of technological knowledge spillovers. J Econ Geograp 12(1):107–126. https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbq058 Jarrahi MH, Thomson L (2017) The interplay between information practices and information context: the case of mobile knowledge workers. J Assoc Inform Sci Technol 68(5):1073–1089. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23773 Kesselring S (2006) Pioneering mobilities: new patterns of movement and motility in a mobile world. Environ Plann A 38(2):269–279. https://doi.org/10.1068/a37279 Kesselring S (2015) Corporate mobilities regimes. Mobility, power and the socio-geographical structurations of mobile work. Mobilities 10(4), 571–591. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/ 17450101.2014.887249 Kingma SF (2016) The constitution of ‘third workspaces’ in between the home and the corporate office. New Technol Work Employ 31(2):176–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12068 Kingma SF (2019) New ways of working (NWW): work space and cultural change in virtualizing organizations. Cult Organiz, 25(5): 383-406. https://doi.org/10.1080/14759551.2018.1427747 Koroma J, Vartiainen M (2018) From presence to multipresence: mobile knowledge workers’ densified hours. In: Taylor S, Luckman S (eds.) New normal of working lives. The New Normal of Working Lives (pp. 171–200). Palgrave Macmillan, London Lassen C (2006) Aeromobility and work. Environ Plann A 38(2):301–312. https://doi.org/10.1068/ a37278 Lassen C (2009) Networking, knowledge organizations and aeromobility. Geografiska Anna Series B, Human Geogr 91(3):229–243 Lyons G, Urry J (2005) Travel time use in the information age. Trans Res Part A Policy Pract 39(2):257–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2004.09.004 Lyons G, Jain J, Holley D (2007) The use of travel time by rail passengers in Great Britain. Trans Res Part A: Policy Pract 41(1):107–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2006.05.012 Nelson SB, Jarrahi MH, Thomson L (2017) Mobility of knowledge work and affordances of digital technologies. Int J Inf Manage 37(2):54–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2016.11.008 Ojala S, Pyöriä P (2018) Mobile knowledge workers and traditional mobile workers: assessing the prevalence of multi-locational work in Europe. Acta Sociol 61(4):402–418. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0001699317722593 Pajevi´c F, Shearmur R (2017) Catch me if you can: workplace mobility and big data. J Urban Technol 24(3):99–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1334855 Perry M, Brodie J (2006) Virtually connected, practically mobile. In: Andriessen JE, Vartiainen M (eds.) Mobile virtual work: a new paradigm? pp 95–127. Springer, Berlin Putri D, Shearmur R (2020) Workplace mobility in Canadian urban agglomerations, 1996 to 2016: have workers really flown the coop? Canadian Geograp. https://doi.org/10.1111/cag.12622 Richardson L (2017) Sharing as a postwork style: digital work and the co-working office. Cambridge J Reg Econ Soc 10(2):297–310. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsx002 Richardson L, Bissell D (2017) Geographies of digital skill. Geoforum. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. geoforum.2017.09.014 Shearmur R (2020) Covid-19’s effect on work is a shift, not a major revolution. Policy Options. https://policyoptions.irpp.org/magazines/may-2020/covid-19s-effect-on-workis-a-shift-not-a-major-revolution/ Accessed May 2020 Shearmur R (2011) What is an urban structure? The challenge of foreseeing 21st century spatial patterns of the urban economy. Institut national de la recherche scientifique (INRS)-Urbanisation, Culture et Société Shearmur R, Alvergne C (2002) Intrametropolitan patterns of high-order business service location: a comparative study of seventeen sectors in Ile-de-France. Urban Stud 39(7):1143–1163. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00420980220135536

250

F. Pajevi´c and R. Shearmur

Shearmur R, Coffey WJ (2002) A tale of four cities: intrametropolitan employment distribution in Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, and Ottawa—hull, 1981–1996. Environ Plann A 34(4):575–598. https://doi.org/10.1068/a33214 Shearmur R, Doloreux D (2015) Central places or networks? Paradigms, metaphors, and spatial configurations of innovation-related service use. Environ Plan A 47(7):1521–1539. https://doi. org/10.1177/0308518X15595770 Shearmur R, Coffey W, Dube C, Barbonne R (2007) Intrametropolitan employment structure: polycentricity, scatteration, dispersal and chaos in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver, 1996–2001. Urban Stud 44(9):1713–1738. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420980701426640 Sørensen C (2011) Enterprise mobility: tiny technology with global impact on work. Springer, Berlin Spencer GM, Vinodrai T, Gertler MS, Wolfe DA (2010) Do clusters make a difference? defining and assessing their economic performance. Region Stud 44(6):697–715. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00343400903107736 Taylor S, Luckman S (2018) New normal of working lives. Springer, Berlin Thompson BY (2019) The digital nomad lifestyle: (Remote) work/leisure balance, privilege, and constructed community. Int J Soc Leisure 2(1):27–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41978-018-000 30-y Thrift N (2004) Movement-space: the changing domain of thinking resulting from the development of new kinds of spatial awareness. Econ Soc 33(4):582–604. https://doi.org/10.1080/030851404 2000285305 Urry J (2007) Mobilities. Polity, Cambridge Vilhelmson B, Thulin E (2016) Who and where are the flexible workers? Exploring the current diffusion of telework in Sweden. New Technol Work Employ 31(1), 77–96. https://doi.org/ https:// doi.org/10.1111/ntwe.12060 Vinodrai T (2010) Designed here, made there? Project-based design work in Toronto, Canada. In: Rusten G, Bryson J (eds.) (2009) Industrial Design, Competition and Globalization (pp. 117–140). Springer, Berlin Vinodrai T, Keddy S (2015) Projects and project ecologies in creative industries. The Oxford Handbook of Creative Industries, pp 251–268

Agenda

The Metamorphosis of Production. Which Issues for Policy and Planning? Simonetta Armondi and Stefano Di Vita

Abstract Coworking spaces (CSs) and makerspaces (MSs), which can be considered as symbolic spaces of the ongoing digital innovation in working and making, are more and more the object of political and media rhetoric. However, they demand further scientific investigation: on the one hand, to better understand their economic outcomes, and their effects on the social and physical environment; on the other, to reflect about strategies and solutions of urban and regional policy and planning in order to support the development of the digital production of goods and services as an occasion of urban and regional regeneration and rebalancing. On the background of research activity, which has been conducted in Italy, with a specific focus on the Milan urban region, the chapter highlights the spatial locations and geographies of CSs and MSs in relation to features of both the built environment and the production system. At the same time, it outlines the experimental approach as well as the weaknesses of related strategies and solutions promoted by urban and regional policy and planning. The chapter contributes not only to dismantle the frequent emphasis on these innovative workplaces but also to exploit their potentialities in connection with multi-scalar territorial contexts. Furthermore, it contributes to support innovation in urban and regional policy and planning, and related tools and mechanisms, going beyond some current strategies and solutions such as the subsidizing policies and building rules, which are often fragmented, and difficult to integrate with the multi-level socio-economic and spatial issues expressed by knowledge-intensive and creative activities, and new manufacturing.

S. Armondi (B) · S. Di Vita Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU), Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] S. Di Vita e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_14

253

254

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

1 Introduction The present chapter integrates reflections about both coworking spaces (CSs) and makerspaces (MSs) in the final section of the edited book. On the one hand, this contribution highlights some different ways in which innovative productive activities (material and immaterial) and workplaces ‘narratives’ around CSs and MSs (developed in urban and regional policies and plans) establish roots in specific spatial contexts. On the other hand, this contribution outlines the relevance for public policy and planning, at different scales, to deal with local and supra-local networks, and trans-scalar nodes, which are connected to the digital metamorphosis of production such as CSs and MSs. Within this framework, this chapter illustrates some outcomes of the research activity, which has been conducted by the authors within the research hub “New urban Economies, Workplaces and Spaces (NEWS)” of the Politecnico di Milano, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies (DAStU).1 The research activity was carried out up to 2019, thus before the worldwide spread of the Covid-19, that is disrupting socio-economic activities and uses of physical spaces, is upending the sharing approach of contemporary production and the real estate industry, and has brought unconventional working spaces such as CSs and MSs to the brink. In particular, the chapter discusses: • how projects for new, knowledge/creative, and manufacturing working spaces like CSs and MSs relate to local patterns and place-making; • how such innovative workplaces constitute trans-scalar nodes of multi-scalar socio-economic networks; • how strategies and solutions of urban and regional policy and planning could support the development but also the consolidation of such small working spaces in relation to both current global megatrends and local features. The chapter deals with several research questions regarding the multi-scalar framework, and the socio-economic and spatial dynamics in the link between coworking spaces, makerspaces, cities, regions, and public policy and planning at different levels. Thus, it interrogates how this nexus can be mobilized to understand and drive multi-level agendas. Besides a theoretical framework to contextualize CSs and MSs within the current trends of contemporary production (Sect. 2), the chapter tries to highlight the relations between the development of CSs and MSs, and the features of both the built environment and the production system of the Milan urban region (Sects. 3 and 4). After analyzing strategies and solutions of urban and regional planning promoted in the Milan urban region to support the development of CSs and MSs (Sect. 5), the chapter 1 Specifically,

the chapter illustrates some of the outcomes of the FARB research project “New working spaces. Promises of innovations, effects on the economic and urban context” (2017–2019, Politecnico di Milano, DAStU; coordinator: Ilaria Mariotti) and the contribution to the research “POPSU 2—Plateform d’Observation des Projects et Strategies Urbaines 2” (2017, PUCA—Plan Urbanisme Construction Architecture; coordinator: Alain Bourdin).

The Metamorphosis of Production …

255

ends with a reflection on the multi-level agenda to consolidate such new workplaces by strengthening their connections with the urban–regional context (Sect. 6).

2 About Contemporary Production: A Theoretical Framework For over two decades, cities of the Global North have planned for postindustrial change, as part of broader governmental agendas that position manufacturing industries as “inevitably in decline” and industrial lands as underutilized and open to redevelopment. This trend has been supported by a persistent and powerful collection of intertwining discourses and policy agendas around deindustrialization, the emergence of the digital/knowledge economy with the development of distinct urban spaces such as technology parks and innovation precincts (McNeill 2016; Yigitcanlar and Inkinen 2019), forms of entrepreneurial governance emphasizing place marketing, and the capitalization of the built environment in the economy of enrichment (Boltanski and Esquerre 2020). It is now well understood that response to these trends is variegated and geographically uneven and that both manufacturing and the workplaces themselves have been reconfigured in diverse ways (Bryson et al. 2008; Hatch 2013). In the Global North, in the context of dramatic reductions and restructuring to manufacturing and changes in its spatial distribution, intensive research focused on the relation between economic growth, society, city, and region. This issue has been recently neglected in the urban and regional studies under the catchword of a generic ‘post-industrial transition,’ and assuming the existence of new digital ‘knowledge and creative economy’ (from Florida 2002, up to Ygitcanlar and Inkinen 2019). However, since the 2010s, close to the raise of knowledge and creative economy, a reversal in the decline of European manufacturing has gradually developed, with impressive growth rates (Eurostat 2017) as regards • ten industry’s shares in total value added (plus 6% since 2009); • employment, with over 1.5 million net new jobs in industry since 2013; • labor productivity, with 2.7% per year growth on average since 2009, higher than both the US and South Korea (0.7% and 2.3%, respectively). The attention paid to the so-called ‘cognitive capitalism’ (increasingly based on the sharing paradigm) is contributing to the interpretation of current urban and regional change processes and projects, which are often boosted by multi-scalar networks crossing cities and regions, and connecting them with other near and far places (Castells 1996; Taylor 2004). Accordingly, a new spatial lexicon defines socioeconomic and spatial phenomena that can refer to traditional compact cities and surrounding metropolitan areas, as well as to fragmented but networked contemporary urban dynamics, which extend to regional scale: a new phase of multi-scalar

256

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

regional urbanization (Soja 2011): from city-regions (Scott 2001; Hall and Pain 2006) to post-metropolitan territories (Soja 2000; Balducci et al. 2017). A theoretical framework, through which the nexus between knowledge/creative economy, manufacturing, and processes of spatial change can be conceived, is more and more urgent at the international level. According to Grodach et al. (2017) and Grodach and Gibson (2019), we find a more varied conceptual framing of the metamorphosis of workspaces within and between cities and regions. For instance, although the advanced, new manufacturing discourse is strong, several cities also attempt to incorporate urban manufacturing tied to legacy industries, and cultural and “maker” economies (Marsh 2015; McKinsey 2015). In Milan, in Paris (APUR 2017), Barcelona (Guallart 2012), Bilbao (Patti 2018) or New York (Zukin 2020), and in other urban areas,2 local government, and planning offices have tailored local economic urban development strategies around selective—sometimes questioned—readings of urban production that affect the geographies of CSs and MSs. In EU countries and the US States, much has been made of the potential of additive manufacturing policy, artificial intelligence, and digital technologies to reconfigure production and open to a fourth industrial revolution (Birtchnell and Urry 2016; EU Parliament 2015; Schwab 2017). Meanwhile, as manufacturing progressively hybridizes with design and cultural production activities, the social and institutional milieu becomes increasingly essential (Storper and Venables 2004). In policymaking, this implies a need to push beyond a traditional sectoral focus in economic development and look toward new policy platforms around shared knowledge (Asheim et al. 2011; Budge 2018). The knowledge-based economy can be understood and defined in several ways, encompassing new economy, learning economy, creative economy.3 According to Peters (2009), several academic, policy discourses and definitions from the 1950s tend to “highlight the growing relative significance of knowledge compared with traditional factors of production—natural resources, physical capital, and low-skill labour—in wealth creation and the importance of knowledge creation as a source of competitive advantage to all sectors of economy” (Peter 2009, 4). Knowledge and creative economy, as also related to digital technologies, concern new geographies of working spaces and productions (Florida 2002; Pratt 2008; Scott 2014), affecting spatial patterns and uses, as well as social practices, thus challenging traditional interpretative categories and assumptions concerning the controversial nexus between space, creativity, and knowledge. The growth of ICTs has been determining the raise of knowledge and creative workers, as well as the spread of new productive activities and spaces, which have potentially been providing different effects: both spatial (large brownfields’ and small buildings’ reuse) and socio-economic (knowledge transfer, informal exchange, interaction, and collaboration) (Armondi and Fini 2019). The challenge of the twenty-first century is the 2 For instance, Cities of Making

is a research programme investigating the role of manufacturing in European cities, see: https://citiesofmaking.com/. 3 For more than fifty definitions of the knowledge economy, see Carlaw et al. (2006).

The Metamorphosis of Production …

257

resumption of urban manufacturing, albeit in new and more specialized forms mixing manufacturing and services, more and more difficult to distinguish. Indeed, the recent advances in ICTs have been fostering not only transmissions of information but also interactions among users, with a consequent boom in shared production and consumption of goods, services, ideas, skills, or time (Guallart 2012). The ICTs development has massively reduced the transaction costs, associated with overcoming spaces and multi-locality (Di Marino and Lapintie 2015). Accordingly, the digital revolution seems to have increased the democratization of work, society, and urban space (Anderson 2012). However, while ICTs favor high flexibility and hybridization of workplaces—including unusual places like libraries, cafes, hotel, and airport lounges—knowledge and creative workers still need face-to-face contacts (Johns and Gratton 2013; Moriset 2014). The paradigms of sharing and knowledge economy are irreducible to specific clusters and global production chains, and they intercept an articulated field of activities, projects, forms of production, technologies, requiring unprecedented skills, knowledge and business models. Italian industrial districts (Becattini 1979, 2004; Bellandi 2017), recalling the Marshallian designation—are geographically defined production systems characterized by a high density of small- and medium-sized firms that are involved in various stages of the production process in a particular industry. The main feature of industrial districts is a specific milieu, developed far away from city centers, that includes local institutional infrastructures (i.e., local banks, trade associations, training institutes), as well as cultural atmosphere and endogenous social practices (i.e., craft traditions, trust, social integration, competition–cooperation, learning-bydoing). Industrial districts define a peculiar Italian development model—in particular with the ‘discover’ of the Third Italy (Bagnasco 1977)—that overlaps the economic sphere and must be seen as a dynamic expression of economics, local community, and exclusive characters in terms of places potentialities and productive dynamics. The theoretical context of Learning Regions refers to the institutional proximity to a common set of rules and codes, stimulating organizational forms which enable cooperation and interactive learning processes (Lundvall and Johnson 1994). Finally, following Boschma (2005), the transfer of tacit knowledge, as well as the development of creative and innovative skills are favored by different forms of proximity: spatial/geographical, relational/social, institutional/organizational, cognitive. This evidence has been challenged by the outbreak of Covid-19, which opened to new unexpected dilemmas about the crisis of spatial proximity. The workplaces of knowledge and creative economy are economic activities in which the separation between manufacturing, tertiary, and consumption sectors is blurred. In order to better understand which are the spatial organization and effects of knowledge and creative economy, a crucial point is a scale in which these phenomena occur: from main urban and regional centralities (frequently hosting knowledge and creative economy’s top-down big project and functions) to outskirts and peripheral areas (increasingly expressing knowledge and creative economy’s bottom-up experimentations). That is, from large urban transformation projects and related main urban functions (such as university campuses) to wide urban regeneration processes

258

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

(such as innovative clusters made by coworking spaces, makerspaces/Fab Labs, or other hybrid new workplaces dedicated to the production of goods and services).4 These latter constitute a niche phenomenon, even though they effectively represent the ongoing hybridization of goods and services production.

3 Multi-Scalarity of the Nexus Between the Knowledge/Creative Economy and Manufacturing in the Milan Urban Region Manufacturing’s share of EU value added has been on a continuous decline for several years. However, manufacturing will matter for the EU economy, not because of the sheer volume of activities and jobs it entails, but because of the nature of the activities and jobs, it represents (Veugelers 2017). Against this backdrop, Milan, like other leading European cities, as well as other global cities on a world scale, is experiencing the transition from the third to the fourth industrial revolution. From certain aspects, in the Milan urban region—into the wider Northern Italy city-region—the combination of the production of goods and advanced services seems to encourage the growth of a new generation of knowledge and creative workers, as well as of innovative workplaces—such as incubators, innovative firms, as well as coworking spaces, makerspaces/Fab Labs, and other hybrid spaces— which are developing beside the traditional small manufacturing enterprises (Centro Studi PIM 2016; Assolombarda 2018). Specifically, this section focuses on the link between new knowledge and creative economy’s spatial formations and their territorial manufacturing backgrounds by referring to the Milan urban region. According to this territorial context, this section investigates the potential spatial nexus between the current small-scale development of the digital revolution and two phenomena: • on the one hand, the R & D and knowledge/creative functions of the urban core; • on the other, the inherited forms of the spatial organization of production rooted in the Italian industrial districts, also on the base of their (new or traditional) connections to technological innovations. In our hypothesis, some Milanese site-specific elements—such as the multifaceted production with a balance between cooperation and competition; the role of places with specific “localized” knowledge, expertise, resources, and social interactions (which nourished the growth of the industrial districts) but also the provision of services such as universities and ICT infrastructures (which can play as common goods to foster enterprises, together with specific, complex local features, and its policy and planning experimentation)—can be still inspiring to interpret forms of production rooted in the knowledge and creative economy. 4 For definitions of coworking spaces and makerspaces/Fab Labs, see the Introduction of this edited

book and chapter 2.

The Metamorphosis of Production …

259

In order to deal with the effects on emerging spatial patterns of both large-scale public policies, and molecular practices and projects of urban change connected to knowledge and creative economy, this contribution focuses on the Milan case study focusing not only on the compact city of the Milan urban core but also on geographical and institutional dynamics at a wider scale of the Milan urban region. What makes the Milan case so alluring is related to several reasons. The “multiscalar” Milan emerges as a significant city in virtue of an essentially economicproductive role. Furthermore, considering indicators related to international reputation, Milan can be compared with a broad panel of global and European leading cities (Assolombarda 2018). Precisely, the city displays remarkable similarities with Chicago, Barcelona, or Munich: all diversified economic hubs, with strong international aptitudes and without the function of political capital (Assolombarda 2018). In Lombardy, that is the administrative region where the Milan urban region is located, almost 20 thousand knowledge-intensive start-ups were born in the period 2009–2017. In a recent comparison between Lombardy and regions of Europe (Assolombarda 2019), growth performance by sectors shows that in Lombardy manufacturing knowledge-intensive start-ups can be extraordinary. The specific contribution is fundamental for these results of the Lombard and Milanese manufacturing ecosystem, where the start-ups can deal with a dense and integrated network of multinationals, large enterprises, medium-sized enterprises with an international vocation (Mariotti 2018), and several small family firms. In 2017, before the Covid19 pandemic, Lombardy was confirmed as a growing economy, thanks to a 2.9% increase in GDP per capita, equal to 38,211 euros. It was of a result higher than the national figure, standing at 28,494 euros (Polis Lombardia 2018). Against this backdrop, Milan—defined as the Italian economic capital since the Italian unification in 1861—by the beginning of the 2000s is one of the crucial nodes of world urban networks and knowledge and creative economy. Multi-scalar urban change processes and projects are an important component of these positive dynamics, by showing how ‘space matters’ also for the knowledgebased economy. In our hypothesis, the spatial and socio-economic change of Milan is an original and unusual example of regional urbanization process related to knowledge and creative economy: indeed, before the Covid-19 pandemic, it offered an interpretation of the relationships between late capitalism and work in the aftermath of the economic crisis and in the traditional manufacturing decline. From certain aspects, the Milan urban region recalls the situation of highly developed urban regions in Europe and in the world. After the service metamorphosis implemented since the 1980s through large real estate development projects, currently the city highlights and experimental a new metamorphosis connected to innovation and neo-manufacturing perspectives. The greatest strength is its manufacturing production system, able to create value and export in a logic of social and environmental sustainability. At the

260

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

same time, key enabling technologies5 underpin the blending of the digital and the physical worlds, central to a new global wave of innovation. Milan urban core is a testbed for knowledge-based activities as, in the decade 2001–2011, the growth of Knowledge-Intensive Business Services (KIBS) employees is higher than that of total employees. It concentrates the 11.1% of KIBS employees at the national level, and 43.1% of KIBS employees at the regional one. KIBS are typically urban and they have the potential to strengthen the role of the cities, thus contributing to the innovation of the Milan urban system and confirming the city as a testbed for the experimentation of new productions and works6 (Castiglioni and Pais 2016). The Milan urban region is featured by a combination between some local and traditional economies (such as fashion, design, business tourism, and culture) and the presence of some specialized services (such as health, high education and research, finance) and industrial activities (such as mechanic, mechatronics, chemical and pharmaceutical, logistics, aviation, silk, plastic, taps, as well as home furnishing). In particular, the knowledge-intensive business services, and the production mixture of advanced goods and services, are established on strong relationships between the urban core of the compact city and its urban region, thus encouraging the development of a new generation of knowledge and creative workers in the production of value (Centro Studi PIM 2016). It is on the background of this relationship that the Milan urban region can be considered as a spatial interface between knowledge-creative economy and manufacturing. While the Milan urban region has always been the main Italian economic and financial hub—well integrated with global networks and characterized by diversified sectoral patterns—from the late 1970s to the 1990s it was affected by a long and complex metamorphosis from a mainly industrial-based economy to a largely service-based one. Furthermore, this happened with limited social costs. Despite the Italian fragmentation of local business, the Milan urban region is still registering fair economic performances at the international level. Notwithstanding the Italian problems of efficiency and competitiveness, it has been favored by a polyarchy of public and private actors able to mobilize local resources and to attract external investments, talents, and technologies (Armondi and Bruzzese 2017). Therefore, since the beginning of the 2008 global crisis, and before the disruption of Covid-19 pandemic in Italy, Milan economic performances were better than other Italian cities in terms of

5 The

Key Enabling Technologies of the future include advanced materials and nanotechnology, photonics and micro- and nano-electronics, life science technologies, advanced manufacturing and processing, artificial intelligence and digital security and connectivity. 6 The Milan metropolitan area hosts the highest number of the innovative Italian start-ups officially registered in 2016. On the total amount of 5,443, it hosts 802 innovative start-ups, in comparison with the metropolitan areas of Rome (476), Turin (272), Naples (173), and Bologna (155) (Castiglioni, Pais, 2016). At the same time, the Milan metropolitan area hosts the highest number of the Italian innovative start-ups and SMEs officially registered in 2018. On the total amount of 9,742 in the whole country, it hosts 1,679 innovative start-ups and SMEs, in comparison with the Lombardy Region (2,405) (Comune di Milano, 2018).

The Metamorphosis of Production …

261

(i) unemployment rate; (ii) growth of new firms7 ; (iii) foreign direct investments; (iv) limited decrease of real estate prices; (v) foreign or ethnic entrepreneurships (Armondi and Di Vita 2018).

4 Clustering and Classifying CSs and MSs. The Leading Role of the Milan Urban Region Within the socio-economic and spatial context of the Milan urban region, described in Sect. 3, the spatial location and geographies of CSs and MSs can be observed in relation to features of both the built environment and the production system. Specifically, a typological classification of CSs and MSs can be developed against the backdrop of their origins, performances, and estimated effects (both direct and indirect): for instance, private or public initiatives; business-oriented or social-oriented activities; local or supra-local networking; levels of urbanity, and functional and morphological features of their spatial context. Despite the “high” bubble risks and the precariousness of the job market that they intercept (Moriset 2014; Pacchi 2018; Merkel 2019), both CSs and MSs can be considered as signs of new relationships between forms of production (of goods and/or services) and urban spaces, although their effects on local development trends are still weak (van Holm 2017; Doussard et al. 2018). Milan is the Italian city where the concentration of coworking spaces is higher: in 2018, 99 of the 549 Italian CSs are located in the area of the Milan Metropolitan City, and most of them are in the area of the Milan Municipality: that means that the 18% of the Italian CSs are in the heart of the wider Milan urban region, and most of them are in the densest urban core (Akhavan et al. 2019; Mariotti and Akhavan 2020). CSs mainly agglomerate in the northern part of the city (about 67% of the total amount), whereas smaller clusters are recognized in central districts (with 20%) and in southwestern districts (with the remaining 13%). All these neighborhoods are characterized by good public transport accessibility, high urban density (of inhabitants and firms), functional mix, proximity to universities and research centers, and availability of vacant buildings. Moreover, large-sized CSs, which are more innovative, visible, and open to external community (frequently hosting several facilities and events, and hybridized by other activities in the fields of creative and cultural production), are often located in former industrial and/or commercial buildings in more peripheral areas. On the contrary, small-sized CSs, which are more devoted to a specific activity and secluded from their surroundings (frequently, being similar to professional offices), are often placed in former professional spaces and residential units in more central areas (Mariotti et al. 2017; Mariotti and Akhavan 2020).

7 The

Milan municipal area hosts the 6% of Italian firms and the 21% of Italian firms’ sales values. At the same time, the Milan growth of firms is higher than the national one (+0.34% in comparison with +0.20%) (Comune di Milano, 2018).

262

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

It is not easy to isolate the specific effects of CSs from the externalities of other uses and functions, especially in very dense areas. However, some emerging effects of CSs located in the Milan municipal area have been identified in terms of both physical spaces and social practices. At the urban scale, they have confirmed the attractiveness of traditionally commercial, business, and gentrified districts, as well as the development of spontaneous agglomerations with other cultural activities and creative production in neighborhoods involved in more recent processes of spatial and socio-economic regeneration. At the same time, they have contributed to the development of innovative city services, which are mainly oriented to urban communities of knowledge and creative workers, local and international. On the contrary, at the neighborhood scale (where the effects of CSs are still difficult to recognize), they have contributed to the episodic transformation of public spaces, the modification (temporary or permanent) of uses within their city districts, or the revitalization of existing commercial activities (Mariotti et al. 2017). Milan is also the Italian city where the concentration of makerspaces is higher: in 2018, 18 of the 130 Italian MSs are in the area of the Milan Metropolitan City (thus, corresponding to 14% of the total). The Milan MSs are mainly based on private initiatives, with the significant exception of the laboratories opened by the Politecnico di Milano, the Museum of Science and Technology, or the Municipalities of Cinisello Balsamo and Rozzano. Furthermore, they are often hybridized with other activities (such as CSs), and they are often characterized by multiple specializations: both local (e.g., the organization of training and cultural events) or supra-local (e.g., the participation in national and international experimentation, research, and production networks, entrepreneurial or social) (D’Ovidio and Rabbiosi 2017; Morandi 2019). Although that of MSs is still a niche phenomenon, that is not relevant from the quantity point of view, it is interesting for its potential contribution to the development of innovation ecosystems (Veltz 2017). Only 7% of the Italian MSs are located in peripheral areas of the country (referring to the National Strategy for Inner Areas8 ), whereas 63% are located in northern regions, thus showing an analogy with the structure of the urban settlement and production systems of the country. Furthermore, Italian MSs, which have been confirmed to be mainly “urban” working spaces, represent an interesting cross section of molecular processes of urban recycling. They are located mostly in small spaces (less than 100 sqm), replacing or integrating existing or pre-existing activities: not only industrial and artisanal buildings (28%), in particular in northern regions, but also shops and offices (19%), residential units (11%), and different kinds of public facilities (28%) such as schools, universities, and museums, in particular in peninsular regions. These differences can be interpreted as an expression of the local indifference of additive manufacturing. At the same time, they should be related to the heterogeneity of initiatives. On the one hand, they often represent spontaneous, but fragile, responses to the ongoing economic downturn and unemployment growth. On the other hand, they often represent the evolution of a traditionally widespread culture 8 Website:

https://community-pon.dps.gov.it/areeinterne/progetto-aree-interne/la-strategia-nazion ale-per-le-aree-interne/.

The Metamorphosis of Production …

263

of artisanal production (Manzo and Ramella 2015; Manzo 2019). Specifically, 63% of Italian MSs are based on private initiative, promoted by entrepreneurs and associations (in particular, in northern regions), whereas 37% are based on public initiative, promoted by local institutions (municipal, provincial, and regional governments), as well as schools, universities, and museums (in particular, in peninsular regions). Furthermore, the heterogeneity of both spaces and initiatives of the Italian MSs can be interpreted as an expression of the wide range of activities that they develop in the field of additive manufacturing: not only entrepreneurial but mostly educational, training, or recreational-creative. However, the effects of Italian MSs on urban and regional processes of regeneration and innovation have been not demonstrated, yet. Despite the potential for socio-economic and spatial renewal, most of the laboratories appear introverted and unable to foster other interventions, being effects mainly connected to the reuse of abandoned buildings by the MSs themselves than to the regeneration and innovation of their surroundings. Despite the frequent events of opening/closing/replacement and improper definition of both CSs and MSs, it is not surprising that, in Italy, the multi-scalar Milan is the epicenter where the diffusion of these new working spaces is highest. The intensity of the socio-economic and spatial dynamics of the Milan urban region, and its current transition provide favorable conditions for their growth. Despite the variety of the initiatives (private or public, profit or non-profit, business or educational, service-oriented or manufacturing-oriented), in the Milan case study, CSs and MSs confirm to be trans-scalar nodes of multi-scalar networks. However, their effects on processes of urban and regional revitalization are still implicit, as well as their rooting still needs to be confirmed, at both the local and international levels. After the start-up phase—while further research is necessary on tensions between inclusiveness and exclusiveness of new working spaces (Pacchi 2018)—the consolidation of CSs and MSs and their effects outlines as a new challenge for public policy and planning.

5 CSs and MSs in the Public Agenda of the Milan Urban Region Focusing on the Milan urban region, the chapter takes into account public policies, plans, and related tools able to support productive activities in the contemporary knowledge and creative economy. Referring not only to the potential for urban and regional innovation and regeneration but also to the socio-economic fragility and to the cultural and spatial selfreferentiality of coworking spaces and makerspaces,9 urban and regional policy and planning could improve their effectiveness. For example, they could drive the fragmentary, sectorial, and occasional nature of these new working spaces into a multiscalar vision of the relationship between new economies, and urban and regional 9 See

Section 4.

264

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

development: in relation to both global networks and supply chains, and local features. This is a challenge in a country like Italy. Indeed, this country is characterized by an intense and molecular manufacturing economy, that is widespread and rooted in territories, but increasingly less competitive due to the lack of integrated strategies for production ecosystems, cities, and regions, as well as the low level of investments in innovation. It is in this scenario that the consolidation of the existing CSs and MSs should be included,10 also referring to public services, multi-utility companies, and existing productive platforms.

5.1 Urban Policy Since 2011, the (at that time, new) Milan City Council has chosen to promote economic innovation and social inclusion as one of the main characters of its smart city agenda, considering the smart city not only as an occasion for technological innovation. Since 2013, the Municipality assigned to coworkers and makers economic incentives to pay the rent of the desk and the City Council assigned abandoned spaces and flats (owned by the municipality), to private initiatives, to develop innovative working places. Moreover, the Milan municipality fostered the creation of an updated qualified register of CSs, FabLabs, and MSs located within the city (and particularly in peripheral areas). According to the current debate (Garcia et al. 2015; Morandi et al. 2016), in the Milan urban core, the public policy approach recognizes urban smartness as a multifaceted and place-based concept. Also through public debates, as well as a systematic process of confrontation with experts and researchers, one of the results of this participative process has been the delineation of the so-called ‘Milano IN’ and ‘Manifattura 4.0 policies focused on the reuse of vacant public spaces or buildings to foster economic development and social inclusion.11 Therefore—besides the exploitation of ICTs potentialities—the Milan approach to smartness can be defined as between the social and the spatial (De Boyser et al. 2016), based on the use of new technologies while combining economic development and social inclusion, infrastructures and human capital, innovation and training, as well as research and participation. Accordingly, it inspires smart policies and projects focused not only on ICTs potentials but also on vulnerable populations (e.g., children, young and elder 10 See

Section 4. instance: after the first experience of the PoliHub incubator (promoted with Politecnico di Milano in 2012), the new Co-Hub, located in the historical centre; Base, located in the dynamic south-western city sector of Porta Genova/Zona Tortona, by reusing the buildings of the former Ansaldo factory; the LUISS Hub for Makers and Students, located between the historical centre and the new Porta Nuova centrality, an incubator dedicated to makers, students, and digital manufacturing; the ongoing Smart City Lab, located in the dynamic south-eastern city sector of Porta Romana, that aims at becoming an incubator explicitly dedicated to the development of ICT-based goods and services. They are located in the urban core. 11 For

The Metamorphosis of Production …

265

people, people with disabilities, migrants) to increase equal opportunities and reduce discrimination. Social inclusion, as a principle, has a strong mobilizing power in reaction to economic and technological interpretations and applications of innovation (Moulaert et al. 2013). Thus, it can be assumed to be the antithesis of a first generation of ‘smart city’ rhetoric. The attempt of the Milan Municipality, involving an unprecedented framework, is based on a mix of private and public investment. As the first step of the Milan Smart City program, the Milan Municipal Administration, therefore, organized a public event (April 2013), entitled ‘Public Hearing: Smart City towards Milan Smart City,’ to involve the main city stakeholders in creating a governance network. Furthermore, the ongoing Milan Sharing Cities project, funded by the Municipality and by European grants and involving the Politecnico di Milano as a scientific partner, aims at transforming the entire Porta Romana neighborhood into a comprehensive smart district. Against the backdrop of the Milan Sharing Cities Guidelines (2014), the Municipality supported the development of new sharing workplaces and productions, beginning with the registration of accredited coworking spaces and fab-labs (which could benefit from specific funds dedicated to improve their spaces and sustain the start-up of their activities). In particular, the municipality promoted cyclical ad hoc public actions by focusing on the nexus between workplaces and social innovation in peripheral neighborhoods (Comune di Milano 2019; Morandi and Paris 2018). Besides the support of crowdfunding through the development of a dedicated web platform, some public initiatives have been crucial.12 For instance, in 2014, the incubator for the social economy and innovation FabriQ opens in the Quarto Oggiaro neighborhood.13 In 2018 and 2019, the Municipal programs ‘FabriQ Quarto’ and ‘Metter su Bottega’ selects 14 new social businesses and 29 new commercial activities, respectively, to support their start-up in some peripheral areas of the urban core.14 These are only samples of a system of public policies aimed at boosting the development of new economic activities with social value.15 12 Considering the 573 new firms supported by the Milan Municipal Administration from 2012 to 2018, 238 are innovative start-ups and SMEs. Out of the total amount of 573 new firms, 52% rely on the service sector, the 35% on the commerce sector, and the 11% in the manufacturing sector. Out of the total amount of the 238 new innovative start-ups and SMEs, 72% relies on the service sector, 22% in the commerce sector, and 4% on the manufacturing sector. Despite its small incidence, Milan is the Italian city able to concentrate on the highest number of manufacturing start-ups (Comune di Milano, 2018). 13 Quarto Oggiaro is a peripheral public housing neighbourhood built in the 1960s for immigrants from southern Italy, within a huge national public estate program. Today it suffers from social segregation, poverty, micro criminality, and an overall high rate of unemployment (youth unemployment is around 70%). 14 270,000 e the first, and 1,400,000 e the second, respectively (Comune di Milano 2018). 15 For instance, the following projects: Acceleratore Impresa Ristretta; Agevola Credito; Alimenta 2 Talent; Coworking spaces; Creare coworkers; Fab-labs spaces; Fare Impresa Digitale; Openagri; Risorse in periferia; Start up in rete; Startupper; Tira su la cler; Tra il dire e il fare; Welcome Business. Through these initiatives, aimed at supporting new firms, the Milan Municipal Administration invested 2.1 million e in 2012; 3.3 million e in 2013; 3.4 million e in 2014; 1.2 million e in 2015;

266

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

Even in the face of criticism about public policies supporting self-employment and freelance work, it is not possible to neglect their potentialities. Therefore, without ignoring the risks of the fragile contemporary job market, planners, and policymakers of the current Milan Municipal Administration (2016–2021) should take strongly into account the general and specific features concerning the local system of new workplaces. On the one hand, it should stress its vocations (not only Finance, or Art, Culture and Design but also Life Sciences, Agribusiness and Manufacturing 4.0). On the other, it should exploit its cultural and human resources (Assolombarda 2018). Milan and its urban region seem to prove how the crisis has been able to divert a long-term process of spatial and socio-economic de-centralization and delocalization into a renovated process of re-centralization (Knieling and Othengrafen 2016). A complex interaction among political and socio-economic cycles has been affecting the urban development and changing the urban agenda after a long period of stability. These are some of the issues on which a new, and until now missing, urban–regional agenda is asked to deal with, in order to overcome the limits of obsolete municipal borders and competences and drive the whole urban region development beyond the growing dualism between centralities and peripheries (Pasqui 2018) provided by a long-standing and un-planned process of ‘poor metropolisation’ (Garofoli 2016). This analysis confirms more comprehensive studies on the “Milan Model” (Assolombarda 2018), within which three crucial development strands are at work: “Manufacturing 4.0, social inclusion and polytechnic knowledge” (Calabrò 2018). Planners and urban policymakers have tended to view industrial uses as incompatible with urban mixed-use settings. On the contrary, in Milan, by integrating manufacturing within the broader knowledge economy discourse, policymakers aim to contradict the decline narratives at play for decades. Reframing urban production in this way may serve not only as a smart rebranding exercise but it also succeeds in addressing the challenge of reshaping the narrative trajectory of the post-industrial itself.

5.2 Urban and Regional Planning As in other global cities, also in Milan the development of new working spaces, often in connection with districts of cultural and creative production, was not planned at its origins, but mainly supported “by-doing” by public policies.16 For about 10 4.8 million e in 2016; 3.8 million e in 2017; 5.6 million e in 2018. Considering the total amount of 26 million e from 2012 to 2018, it invested 3,17 million e to support existing firms; 11.54 million e in supporting new firms; 1.96 million e to support incubators (Comune di Milano 2018). 16 Just to mention some international examples, we can consider the public policies in New York City and other US cities, in North America (e.g., Levers, Wolf-Powers, 2016; National League of Cities, 2016; Wolf-Powers et al., 2016), or in Amsterdam, Barcelona, Berlin or London, or in the rest of Europe (e.g., Guallart, 2012; Diez Ladera, 2017; Pradel, 2017).

The Metamorphosis of Production …

267

years, the development of new working spaces has mainly been based on bottom-up initiatives. Despite the exceptions of fragmented investments promoted by big ICT companies and real estate developers, and the references to international communities of coworkers and makers, the greatest part of the Milan CSs and MSs have local origins, sizes, and missions (Armondi and Di Vita 2019). After more than 10 years, it is clear their potential for socio-economic and spatial innovation, regeneration, and hybridization. However, it is also clear (i) the heterogeneity of CSs and MSs (e.g., in terms of locations, promoters, activities) and (ii) their socio-economic and spatial weaknesses while facing the financial and economic crisis (e.g., in terms of precariousness, low profitability, brand speculation, elitism and exclusivity, urban effects).17 It means that, after the first “start-up” phase of subsidizing policy, which has been mainly promoted by the Milan Municipality,18 a new phase is necessary: not (only) to support the development of new CSs and MSs but (also) to survive, consolidate, and root the already existing new working spaces, as well as their activities, workers, and networks, in the frame of the cognitive-cultural capitalism (Scott 2014). This is a challenging issue that deals with multiple socio-economic and spatial geographies of CSs and MSs. Accordingly, this could be an occasion to reflect also about the need for renewal of urban and regional planning tools and mechanisms. In order to face the financial and economic crisis of 2008, the Piano di Governo del Territorio (PGT) that was approved by the Milan Municipality in 2012 was the first attempt to contain the pro-growth approach of previous urban plans: for instance, by downsizing the building rights. This was a radical change in a planning context that, since the 1980s, has been mostly characterized by the deregulation of land-use and the promotion of urban change processes through large redevelopment projects (Pasqui 2018a). However, only the current Piano di Governo del Territorio (PGT), that was approved by the Milan Municipality in 2019, really tries to overcome the pro-growth approach and fragmentation of previous urban plans and projects and to connect the ongoing urban change processes to a new urban vision, called ‘Milan 2030.’ Specifically, the PGT 2019 aims at rebalancing the urban development trends, focusing on environmental and social problems of the outskirts. Also through a participatory approach, the PGT 2019 aims at making the Milan urban core not only more attractive but also more inclusive: first, by promoting bigger and smaller projects fostering the reuse of abandoned resources and the renewal of public realm; second, by intercepting other urban policies. Despite the vertical organization into specific sectors of the Milan Municipality, the PGT 2019 intercepts the program for the regeneration of neighborhoods (‘Piano Quartieri’ 2016), as well as the measures for the technological and economic innovation and social inclusion promoted by the smart and sharing city programs.19

17 See

Sect. 4. Sect. 5.1. 19 See Sect. 5.1. 18 See

268

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

Also according to these urban policies, the PGT 2019 defines the new urban vision ‘Milan 2030’ and its multiple strategies. One of these strategies concerns the improvement of peripheral areas and neighborhoods, for instance, through the renewal of public spaces and the reuse of abandoned buildings. In parallel, another one of these strategies concerns economic innovation and social inclusion, aiming at fostering the huge variety of firms and working spaces (for the greatest part, small and medium-sized) which traditionally represent one of the excellences of the city. This strategy aims at supporting the development of innovative firms and working spaces (including incubators, co-working spaces, makerspaces, and fab labs), which mix the production of goods and services, usually locate in small but high-quality spaces, and produce low environmental impact. Referring to these strategies, the PGT 2019 includes multiple measures to promote the reuse of abandoned buildings and spaces (private and public), and to favor the development of economic innovation and social inclusion, by facilitating both the functional mix and change: • the re-investment of public takings from large urban projects; • the re-development of a selection of squares in peripheral neighborhoods and interchange transport nodes (e.g., by increasing the urban density, or improving the quality of public spaces and connections with their surrounding contexts). • besides other incentives for interventions in specific urban regeneration areas, the abrogation of costs and simplification of procedures to facilitate changes of the urban land-use between different kinds of economic activities (e.g., office, commercial, tourist, and manufacturing activities)20 ; • the assimilation of some typologies of new working spaces (e.g., those connected to digital innovation and with high social value, such as CSs and MSs) to collective facilities. It is too early to assess this vision, its approach, and measures, as well as its implementation. However, it is still possible to appreciate, yet, a long-term experimental approach in the Milan urban core’s agenda, as well as an innovative coordination between different urban policies, plans, and projects (Di Vita 2020). What is still weak is the regional planning level. While wide urban regions are crucial in their duality which connects the international and the sub-national (Taylor 2013; Herrschel and Newman 2017), also in the case of Milan, the relationships between knowledge and creative knowledge and manufacturing mainly occur at the regional level.21 Milan is a multi-scalar city, that extends beyond the municipal borders of the urban core, up to a post-metropolitan urban region (Balducci et al. 2017; Pasqui 2018b). Within this context, the administrative borders, as well as the political powers and competencies and the economic resources of the new Milan Metropolitan City22 are still not adequate to deal with the complexity, trans-scalarity, and new uncertainties of spatial and socio-economic dynamics (Balducci 2018). 20 For

instance, additional services are not requested. Sect. 3. 22 That, according to the National Act 56/2014, replaced the former Milan Province. 21 See

The Metamorphosis of Production …

269

The first strategic plan of the Milan Metropolitan City 2016–2018 (‘Milano. Metropoli reale, metropoli possibile’) synthesizes the existing of regional and urban plans.23 Through a participation approach, the first strategic plan tried to define the new agenda of the Milan Metropolitan City through so-called ‘project platforms’ (transversal and thematic). Within them, specific focuses concerned the strengthening of traditional and new relationships and ecosystems between knowledge and creative economy, and manufacturing: for instance, by explicitly referring to the public policies promoted by the Milan Municipality,24 the support to the development of new working spaces (including CSs and MSs) through the networking of existing activities, the reuse of abandoned buildings and areas, the development of new services and digital technologies, the cooperation between public institutions, private companies, associations, universities, and research institutions, as well as the use of financial, economic, and administrative incentives. Referring to the ‘project platforms’ of the first strategic plan, the second strategic plan of the Milan Metropolitan City 2019–2021 (‘Milano metropolitana al futuro’) promotes a set of policy, which are intersected by a system of inter-sectorial and cooperative strategic projects. Within these policies, one of the focuses concerns the economic development, education, and labor (e.g., including co-design and selfentrepreneurship), and multiple are the strategic projects which could intercept the development of new working spaces, but no specific actions or measures are defined. Waiting for a future ‘Piano Territoriale Metropolitano,’ now under construction, the two strategic projects of the Milan Metropolitan City do not and will not have a direct operational effectiveness on spatial and socio-economic dynamics, as well as on urban and regional planning. They are preliminary milestones for their attempt to coordinate, integrate, and re-orientate policies, plans, projects, and governance. Nevertheless, this is not an easy goal to achieve, as it involves a huge variety of actors and stakeholders: not only local authorities but also universities, multi-utility companies, firms, foundations, associations, and other public and private actors and stakeholders, which are and will be able to produce new narratives for the Milan urban core and region but also conflicts.

6 Conclusions and Further Research The contribution highlights some common and contradictory features of coworking spaces and makerspaces in the Milan urban region: trans-scalarity of workplaces which are able to enhance local resources in relation to supra-local networks, but enclave effect compared to other economic and social categories; potential for urban regeneration, but risks of fragility and introversion; experimental and innovative approach of strategies and actions of public policy and planning in the urban core, 23 For instance, the regional plan of the Lombardy Region and the urban plans of the 134 Municipalities which the Milan Metropolitan City consists of. 24 See Sect. 5.1.

270

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

but lack of vision and fragmentation of tools, mechanisms, and solutions in the urban region. In Italy, while the processes of urban metamorphosis of other industrial urban regions have been deeply affected by the recent economic downturn, Milan and its urban region have confirmed a different capability to assimilate the crisis effects, being considered as an economic and political laboratory (Armondi and Bruzzese 2017). Before the Covid-19 pandemic, Milan and its urban region have been able to deal with the growing dual development, relaunch new resilience trends and opportunities, and change their image. Among the others, the following two specificities of this transition phase could represent a good chance for local policies and plans: (i) the richness of the knowledge and creative economy and manufacturing ecosystem, which might enhance local expertise and social interactions; (ii) the Milan approach to innovation and change “between the social and the spatial issues” that is implicitly shared by private and public actors, as part of the urban and regional culture (Assolombarda 2018). Before the Covid-19 pandemic, the multi-scalar Milan has highlighted the beginning of a new phase of the transition process that followed the end of Fordism and post-Fordism. After a first phase, where knowledge and creative economy was alternative to manufacturing and instrumental to the development of huge real estate projects the new phase has been exemplified by the implementation of long-term processes of urban regeneration. This new phase has been supported by local policies and plans, and it has connected also to the (mainly bottom-up) spread of new hybrid workplaces, which have interpreted the growing sharing face of knowledge and creative economy and manufacturing.25 Nevertheless, this dynamic urban–regional environment and transition process—made by several public and private efforts in polyarchic governance and in an articulated system of small and large projects—still shows the lack of a wide strategic vision, and of policy and planning solutions able to deal with: 1. the complexity and multi-scalarity of the urban–regional governance; 2. the uncertainties of the growing sharing face of knowledge and creative economy and manufacturing. One of the main weaknesses of the multi-scalar Milan can be recognized in the lack of coordination between different-level policies and plans (municipal, metropolitan, regional, national), that reflects in the lack of a wide strategic vision able to go beyond the administrative borders of the Milan Municipality and Metropolitan City. This wide strategic vision could be also the framework for policy and planning tools and mechanisms, which should be able to deal with the multiple issues related to traditional and new relationships between knowledge and creative economy and manufacturing: for instance, to consolidate the niche phenomenon of new working spaces, and to better exploit their potential of economic innovation, social inclusion, and spatial regeneration, after the first “start-up” phase of experimentation.

25 See

Sects. 4 and 5.

The Metamorphosis of Production …

271

In order to support the development of a new phase, aimed at the scaling up of new working spaces and the improvement of their urban effects, policy and planning tools, and mechanisms (at urban and regional levels) could implement a multifaceted approach: • trans-scalar, to cope with the traditionally vertical organization of urban and regional governance, and the spatial limits of strategies and actions; • multi-sectoral, to overcome the traditionally vertical organization of public institutions, and the fragmentation of their goals and projects; • organic, to promote strategies and actions to foster the growth of economic and social ecosystems, and not only support the spread of fragmented sectors; • active, to promote strategies and actions of local development in global networks (e.g., through new services and connections), and not only support the start-up of singular initiatives (e.g., through subsidies and building rules); • selective, to identify the priorities for investments and projects; • people-based, to better collect the needs and issues expressed by different users and populations; • flexibility-based, to face the typical rigidity of policy and planning rules, and deal with the growing hybridization and temporary solutions of activities in new workplaces; • place-based, to favor processes of urban and regional regeneration. The ongoing transition stresses for the update of interpretation which is traditionally used by socio-economic and spatial analyses, as well as tools, mechanisms, and solutions put in place by local institutions: from both the point of view of public policy, and urban and regional planning. However, even though Milan represents a meaningful case study, at both the local and international levels, further research is advocated, for instance, to compare the multi-scalar Milan with other worldwide urban regions, which are able to connect their home countries with global networks of culture and economy, but also with peripheral areas, which risk to be excluded by processes of potential socio-economic innovation and inclusion. This further research could also support public and private actors within the current Covid-19 pandemic, that has suddenly and radically affected the economic, social, and spatial contexts in which CSs and MSs were born and have grown for 15 years. Defining authorship: The chapter is shared by the two authors. However, Sects. 2, 3 and 5.1 were developed by Simonetta Armondi and Sects. 4, 5.2 and 6 were written by Stefano Di Vita.

References Akhavan M, Mariotti I, Astolfi L, Canevari A (2019) Coworking spaces and new social relations: a focus on the social streets in Italy. Urban Sci 3(2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci3010002 Anderson C (2012) Makers. The new industrial revolution. Crown Pub, New York

272

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

APUR—Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme (2017) La ville autrement. Initiatives citoyennes, Urbanisme temporaire, Innovations publiques, Plateformes numériques. https://www.apur.org/fr/nos-tra vaux/ville-autrement-initiatives-citoyennes-urbanisme-temporaire-innovations-publiques-platef ormes-numeriques. Accessed 20 May 2020 Armondi S, Bruzzese A (2017) Contemporary production and urban change: the case of Milan. J Urban Technol 24(3):27–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311567 Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds) (2018) Milan: productions, spatial patterns and urban change. Routledge, London-New York Armondi S, Fini G (2019) The changing spatialities of employment. Geographies of industry and services. In: Leal Filho W, Azul AM, Brandli L, Özuyar PG, Wall T (eds.) Sustainable cities and communities. Encyclopedia of the UN sustainable development goals. Springer Nature, Cham, pp 1–13 Asheim B, Boschma R, Cooke P (2011) Constructing regional advantage: platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases. Region Stud 45(7):893–904. https://doi. org/10.1080/00343404.2010.543126 Assolombarda (2018) Milano Scoreboard 2018. Report. https://osservatoriomilanoscoreboard.it/ sites/default/files/2018-06/Osservatorio-Milano-2018-ENG.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 Assolombarda (2019) Natalità, sopravvivenza e crescita delle startup knowledge intensive: un confronto tra Lombardia e regioni d’Europa. Centro studi Assolombarda, Dipartimento di Ingegneria Gestionale Politecnico di Milano. Booklet 7. https://www.assolombarda.it/centro-studi/boo klet-startup-2019. Accessed 20 May 2020 Bagnasco A (1977) Tre Italie. Il Mulino, Bologna Balducci A (2018) Pragmatism and Institutional actions in planning the metropolitan area of Milan. In: Salet W (ed.) The Routledge handbook of institutions and planning in action. Routledge, London-New York Balducci A, Fedeli V, Curci F (eds) (2017) Post-metropolitan territories. Looking for a new urbanity. Routledge, London-New York Becattini G (1979) Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale. Alcune considerazioni sull’unita di indagine dell’economia industriale. Rivista di Economia e Politica Industriale V(1):7–21 Becattini G (2004) Industrial districts. a new approach to industrial change. Cheltenham, Edward Elgar Bellandi M (2017) New forms of industrial districts. Economia e Politica Industriale, Special Issue on Giacomo Becattini, Industrial Economics and Local Development, 22–38 Birtchnell T, Urry J (2016) A new industrial future? 3D printing and the reconfiguring of production, distribution, and consumption. Routledge, Abingdon Bolocan Goldstein M (2018) Urban regionalization and metropolitan resurgence: discontinuity and persistence of a spatial dialectic. In: Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds) Milan: productions, spatial patterns and urban change. Routledge, London-New York, pp 36–47 Boltanski L, Esquerre J (2020) Enrichment. A critique of commodities. Cambridge, Polity Press Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. Region Stud 39(1):41–45. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Bryson JR, Taylor M, Cooper R (2008) Competing by design, specialization and customization: manufacturing locks in the West Midlands (UK). Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography 90(2):173–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2008.00285.x Budge K (2018) Making in the city: disjunctures between public discourse and urban policy. Aust Geogr 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2018.1503045 Calabrò, A. (2018). Milano metropoli europea tra cultura politecnica e sharing economy. In: Lodigiani R (ed.) Milano 2018. Agenda 2040. Rapporto Ambrosianeum. Franco Angeli, Milano Camera di Commercio di Milano (2016) Milano Produttiva 2016. 26° Rapporto. Camera di Commercio di Milano, Milano Centro Studi PIM (2016) Spazialità metropolitane. Economia, società e territorio. Argomenti e Contributi, 15

The Metamorphosis of Production …

273

Carlaw K, Nuth M, Oxley L, Tohrns D, Walker B (2006) Beyond the hype: intellectual property and the knowledge society/knowledge economy. J Econ Sur 20:633–690. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6419.2006.00262.x Castiglioni G, Pais I (2016) Lavoratori della conoscenza e innovazione a Milano: luoghi, attori, culture. In: Lodigiani R (ed.) Milano 2016. Idee, cultura, immaginazione e la Città metropolitana decolla. Rapporto Ambrosianeum. Franco Angeli, Milano Comune di Milano (2018) Dati sulle imprese sostenute dal Comune di Milano 2012–2018. Milano, Comune di Milano Comune di Milano (2019) Il capitale urbano. Economia e innovazione sociale al servizio della città. https://economiaelavoro.comune.milano.it/sites/default/files/2019-02/Report_CdM_ Capitale_Urbano.pdf. Accessed 20 May 2020 De Boyser K, Dewilde C, Dierckx D, Friedrichs J (eds) (2016) Between the social and the spatial. Routledge, London-New York Diez Ladera T (2017) Seven short reflections on cities, data, economy and politics. In: de Rycke K et al. (ed.) Humanizing digital reality. Springer, Dordrecht. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978981-10-6611-5 Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2015) Libraries as transitory workspaces and spatial incubators. Libr Inf Sci Res 37(2):118–129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.01.001 Di Vita S (2019) Una classificazione dei makerspace italiani. Tra riuso e potenzialità di rigenerazione. Eyesreg 9(3):1–12 Di Vita S (2020) The complexity of the metropolitan planning and governance in milan: the unintentional innovations of an implicit urban agenda. In: Armondi S, De Gregorio Hurtado S (eds) Foregrounding urban agendas: the new urban issue in European experiences of policy-making. Springer, Dordrecht, pp 265–306 D’Ovidio M, Rabbiosi C (eds) (2017) Maker e città. La rivoluzione si fa con la stampante 3d? Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli: Milan Doussard M, Schrock G, Wolf-Powers L, Eisenburger M, Marotta S (2018) Manufacturing without the firm: challenges for the maker movement in three U.S. cities. Environ Plann A—Econ Space 50(3):651–670. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X17749709 Eurostat (2017) Eurostat Report COM(2017) 479 final, 13.9.2017. https://ec.europa.eu/transp arency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/EN/COM-2017-479-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF. Accessed 20 May 2020 Florida R (2002) Cities and the creative class. Routledge, London-New York Gandini A (2015) The reputation economy: understanding knowledge work in digital society. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke Garcia TA, Pardo T, Nam, (eds) (2015) Smarter as the new urban agenda: a comprehensive view of the 21st century city. Springer, Cham Garofoli G (2016) Regione urbana Milanese: una metropolizzazione povera. Argomenti e Contributi, 15 Grodach C, Gibson C (2019) Advancing manufacturing? Blinkered visions in U.S. and Australian urban policy. Urban Policy Res 37(3):279–293. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08111146.2018. 1556633 Grodach C, Gibson C, O’Connor J (2017) Manufacturing and cultural production: towards a progressive policy agenda for the cultural economy. City, Cult Soc 10:17–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ccs.2017.04.003 Guallart V (2012) The self-sufficient city. Actar, New York Hatch CJ (2013) Competitiveness by design: an institutionalist perspective on the resurgence of a “Mature” industry in a high-wage economy. Econ Geograp 89(3):261–284. https://doi.org/10. 1111/ecge.12009 Herrschel T, Newman P (2017) Cities as international actors. Urban and regional governance: beyond the nation state. Basingstocke, Palgrave McMillan Johns T, Gratton L (2013) The third wave of virtual work. Harvard Busin Rev 91:66–73 Knieling J, Othengrafen F (eds) (2016) Cities in crisis. Routledge, Abingdon

274

S. Armondi and S. Di Vita

Levers A, Wolf-Powers L (2016) Planning, social infrastructure, and the maker movement: the view from New York City. Carol Plan J 41:38–52 Manzo C (2019) Fab lab in Europa: diffusione, caratteristiche ed esternalità locali. EyesReg 9(3) Manzo C, Ramella M (2015) Fab Labs in Italy: collective goods in the sharing economy. Stato E Mercato 3:379–418. https://doi.org/10.1425/81605 Mariotti I (2018) The attractiveness of Milan and the spatial patterns of international firms. In: Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds) Milan: productions, spatial patterns and urban change. Routledge, London-New York, pp 48–59 Mariotti I, Akhavan M (2020) Gli spazi di coworking a Milano: localizzazione ed effetti sul contesto urbano. Ebook Milano City School, Fondazione Giangiacomo Feltrinelli: Milan, pp 146–165 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Co-working spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Marsh P (2015) New Manufacturing: opportunities and Policies. How ideas in production industry can re-energise the world economy, Report for the OECD Centre on Entrepreneurship, SMEs and Local development McNeill D (2016) Governing a city of unicorns: technology capital and the urban politics of San Francisco. Urban Geograp 37(4):494–513. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2016.1139868 Merkel J (2019) Freelance isn’t free.’ Co-working as a critical urban practice to cope with informality in creative labour markets. Urban Studies, 56(3):526–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/004209801878 2374 Moriset B (2014) Building new places of the creative economy. The rise of coworking spaces. Paper presented at the 2nd geography of innovation international conference (Utrecht, January 2014) Moulaert F, McCallum D, Mehmood A, Hamdouch A (eds) (2013) The international handbook on social innovation: collective action, social learning and transdisciplinary research. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, USA McKinsey & Company (2015) Manufacturing’s next act https://www.mckinsey.com/business-fun ctions/operations/our-insights/manufacturings-next-act. Accessed 20 May 2020 Morandi C (2019) Radicamento e relazioni di contesto dei makerspace milanesi. EyesReg 9(3) Morandi C, Paris M (2018) Forms of urban change: nodes of knowledge-based networks as drivers of new metropolitan patterns in southern milan. In: Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds) Milan: productions, spatial patterns and urban change. Routledge, London-New York, pp 84–95 Morandi C, Rolando A, Di Vita S (2016) From smart city to smart region. Digital services for an internet of places. Springer, Cham National League of Cities (2016) How cities can grow the maker movement. Research Report. https://www.nlc.org/. Accessed 20 May 2020 OECD (2006) OECD territorial reviews. OECD Publishing, Milan, Italy, Paris Pacchi C (2018) Sharing economy. Makerspaces, Coworking spaces, hybrid workplaces, and new social practices. In Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds.) Milan: productions, spatial patterns and urban change. Routledge, London-New York, pp 73–83 Pasqui G (2018) The last cycle of Milan urban policies and the prospects for a new urban agenda. In: Armondi S, Di Vita S (eds) Milan: productions, spatial patterns and urban change. Routledge, London-New York, pp 133–144 Patti D (2018) The role of Industry 4.0 in the creation of a new urban identity: the case of the AS FABRIK in Bilbao. Techplace online, https://www.techplace.online/the-role-of-industry-4-0-inthe-creation-of-a-new-urban-identity/. Accessed 20 May 2020 Peters MA (2009) Introduction: knowledge goods, the primacy of ideas, and the economics of abundance. In: Peters MA, Marginson P, Murphy P (eds) Creativity and the global knowledge economy. Peter Lang, New York, pp 1–22 Pradel M (2017) Barcellona e le politiche sui maker. Una prima valutazione. In: D’Ovidio M, Rabbiosi C (eds.) Maker e città. Feltrinelli, Milano, pp 117–127 Pratt AC (2008) Creative cities. The cultural industries and the creative class. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geograp, 90(2):107–117. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2008.00281.x Schwab K (2017) The fourth industrial revolution. Currency, New York

The Metamorphosis of Production …

275

Scott AJ (ed) (2001) Global city-regions: trends, theory, policy. Oxford University Press, Oxford Scott AJ (2014) Beyond the creative city: cognitive-cultural capitalism and the new urbanism. Region Stud 48(4):565–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2014.891010 Soja E (2011) Regional urbanization and the end of the metropolis era. In: Bridge G, Watson S (eds.) The new Blackwell companion to the city. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford and Chichester Taylor P (2004) World city networks. A global urban analysis. London-New York, Routledge Taylor P (2013) Extraordinary cities. Millennia of moral syndromes, world-system and city/state relations. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Yigitcanlar T, Inkinen T (2019) Geographies of disruption. Place making for innovation in the age of knowledge economy. Springer, Cham Van Holm EJ (2017) Makerspaces and local economic development. Econ Develop Quart 31(2):164–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242417690604 Veltz P (2017) La société hyper-industrielle. Le nouveau capitalism productif. Editions du Seuil et La république des idées, Paris Veugelers R (2017) Remaking Europe: the new manufacturing as an engine for growth. Bruegel, Brussels Wolf-Powers L, Schrock G, Doussard M, Heying C, Eisenburger M, Marotta S (2016) The maker economy in action: entrepreneurship and supportive ecosystems in Chicago, New York and Portland. Portland State University, Portland Zukin S (2020) The innovation complex: cities, tech, and the new economy. Oxford University Press, New York

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces: Patterns and Future Trends Irene Manzini Ceinar and Ilaria Mariotti

Abstract The Covid-19 pandemic has altered the way of working, the habits and lifestyle of every citizen worldwide. All sectors of the economy had to respect «social distancing» in order to minimise the chances of transmission of the virus, although with different degrees. Specifically, most of the service workers had to move from traditional work in the office to work at home through remote or tele-working, as in the case of the creative and innovative class of workers, to which most coworkers of the coworking spaces belong. Within this framework, the present chapter aims to explore the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on coworking spaces by describing the results of an international survey addressed to coworking managers. Moreover, future trends for the coworking business model and its location dynamics are put forward together with policy implications.

1 Introduction The pandemic caused by the massive spread of the new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 in 2019–2020, well known as Covid-19, has rapidly altered the habits and lifestyle of every citizen worldwide and will have effects in the medium-long run (Mariotti and Di Matteo 2020). As at the time of writing, the majority of the world’s countries continues to fight the rapid spread of Covid-19, and many people are confined to their homes in order to minimize the risks of contagion and transmission of the virus. The forced need to comply with “social distancing” (Joan Subirats 2020) is radically altering the way people move through, live in, and think about the urban environment. This has inevitably raised the need to also reshape the working methods of individuals: many private professionals and public employees are been urged to I. M. Ceinar (B) The Bartlett School of Architecture, University College London-UCL, London, UK e-mail: [email protected] I. Mariotti Department of Architecture and Urban Studies -DAStU, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_15

277

278

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

work from home, also called remote or tele-working. The economic sectors have been hit by the pandemic with different degrees according to their physical proximity and exposure to infection. Specifically, services, also including coworking spaces, retail trade and the organisation of events have been mainly hit, while agriculture, which is characterised by little to no physical proximity, has not entered the lockdown phase. Most of the service workers had to move from traditional work in the office (Second place) to work at home (First place) through remote or tele- working, as in the case of the creative and innovative class of workers, to which most coworkers of coworking spaces (Third place) belong. This has greatly altered the foundations of the coworking space that mainly concern a sense of community amongst the people working there (Coworkers, hereinafter CWs), which may enable them to benefit from knowledge transfer, informal exchange, cooperation, and forms of horizontal interaction with others, as well as business opportunities (Spinuzzi 2012). According to the literature, coworking spaces (hereinafter CSs) represent a lifestyle (Deskmag 2011; McWilliams 2015) or “homes away from home” (Ross and Ressia 2015) where unrelated people relate in an inclusively sociable atmosphere, offering both the basis of community and celebration of it (Oldenburg 1989), and self-employed workers, freelancers, innovative start-ups and businesses can interact thus reducing the risks of isolation (Gandini 2015; Merkel 2018), and increasing the opportunities for meeting and the exchange of knowledge and experience, with the purpose of fostering a sense of local place and community. Furthermore, the coworking space’s staff plays a crucial role in the sense of attachment to the place as they promote, support, and accelerate the dynamics in favour of relationships of trust and friendship, enhancing the production of domestic feelings and new business opportunities (Pais 2012). Generally speaking, co-constructing a sense of community (Garrett et al. 2017) is an ongoing objective for CS managers. In fact, one of the key aspects of the community side of CSs is the organisation of events open to the community and to the public that contribute, sometimes significantly, to the manager’s revenues (Mariotti and Di Matteo 2020). The Covid-19 pandemic has forced CS’ managers to support their communities with online social-services, home-delivery provision and, remote work (Coworker.com 2020; Italian Coworking Survey 2020). Besides, in Phase 2 of the pandemic, CSs were equipped to respect the social distancing measures. Within this framework, the present chapter aims to explore the effects of the Covid19 pandemic on CSs by describing the results of an international survey addressed to CS managers worldwide.1 It is discussed whether and how the “nature” of these working spaces has been undermined and which measures have been undertaken by the CSs managers to face the pandemic. Besides, future trends for the CSs business model as well as its location dynamics are put forward together with policy implications. The chapter is structured into five sections. The Introduction is followed by a 1 The book chapter is supported by COST Action CA18214 ‘The geography of New Working Spaces

and the impact on the periphery’, which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework programme of the European Union (project website: http://www.new-working-spaces.eu/; European Union Website: https://www.cost.eu/actions/CA18214).

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

279

literature review about the effects of the pandemic on the economic sectors as well as on the new geography of work. Section three is dedicated to the impact of the pandemic on the CSs’ proximity typologies and their “sense of community”. The results of the survey, addressed to coworking mangers worldwide, are presented and discussed in section four, while the last section is dedicated to conclusions, policy implications and further research to predict future trajectories for the coworking economy.

2 Social Distancing, Sectors, and New Geographies Early lockdowns in Phase 1 of the pandemic, and physical and social distancing measures undertaken in Phase 2 (i.e. remote and tele-working and the closure of schools), helped to tamp down the pandemic and flatten the curve in some cities (Kington 2020). Besides, psychological mechanisms led to physical isolation and a desire to leave the chaotic and apparently unsafe city centres. Due to Covid-19, people were not allowed to move about and travel for work purposes. By the end of March, nearly two-thirds of knowledge workers in North America were working remotely as a reaction to “social distancing” measures, according to an estimate from the software company Netskope (Canzanese 2020). According to a new MIT report (Brynjolfsson et al. 2020), 34% of Americans, who previously commuted to work, reported that they were working from home by the first week of April 2020 due to Covid-19 (Molla 2020). According to a national report (ISTAT, May 2020) on commuting in Italy before Covid-19, in 2019, 22 million people moved to work and 11 million to go to school every day. These figures represent 36.44% of the national population. Within those, 12 million employees and 3.5 million students commuted between regions every day. However, during the lockdown phase, commuting was not allowed, while with the beginning of Phase II, only 10% of workers (approximately 300 thousand people) are using public transport, according to initial estimates (Il Sole 24 Ore 2020). In order to face the uncertainty of the current situation, many companies are establishing systems that enable staff to work from home rapidly, evolving the concept of “working from everywhere” (Ross and Ressia 2015) to which more workers are getting accustomed. The sectors of the economy are characterised by different degrees of physical proximity to other people and exposure to infection and disease risk (Barbieri et al. 2020).2 This is especially true for the majority of the health industry, that could not be put on lockdown, and for several other sectors, mainly related to personal services,

2 This

analysis is run by the National Institute for Public Policies Analysis (INAPP) using the ICP survey concerning about 16,000 workers occupied in around 800 occupations, according to the 5digit CP2011 classification (the Italian equivalent of the ISCO-08 ILO’s classification) (see Barbieri et al., 2020).

280

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

Fig. 1 Distribution of occupations by physical proximity and sector. Source Barbieri et al. (2020, p. 10)

leisure and recreation, which are not directly exposed to infections and diseases but need physical proximity to operate. Overall, the retail trade sector seems to be at higher risk of contagion because of physical proximity in the workplace, but also service activities (i.e. bar, restaurants, events) such as those performed in the CSs. On the other hand, a less risky sector, which is little exposed to physical proximity is agriculture. Nevertheless, most workers who can operate from home have not been put under lockdown (i.e. public administration, some education subsectors, but also creative workers), and are currently (in Phase 2) working, thus nullifying the risk level. Therefore, both physical proximity and exposure to infection and disease risk were the main issues during the lock down in Phase 1 of the pandemic, while social distancing was applied to all. Figure 1 shows the occupational distribution in each percentile rank of the physical proximity index in the main five sectors of the economy (Barbieri et al. 2020, p. 10). It results that most of the employment in occupations highly exposed to interpersonal contacts is in the services sector (including healthcare) and in retail trade. As stated by Barbieri et al. (2020), manufacturing makes up the bulk of employment between 30 and 80 percent of the physical proximity index distribution. Agriculture, which also provides us with necessary goods, accounts for most of the employment at the other end of the spectrum (little to no physical proximity) (Fig. 1). Besides, there is a positive correlation between the share of remote working and income percentile (Fig. 2): higher income workers are more actual or potential home workers, while frontline workers in health care, delivery and grocery stores, that are particularly exposed to the virus, cannot stay at home. This analysis underlines the strong impact of the pandemic on CSs. Indeed, it will be explained in Sect. 3, during Phase 2, specific measures have been applied in the spaces, also concerning the services often offered by the CSs such as cafés and restaurants, which are highly exposed to physical proximity.

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

281

Fig. 2 Relationship between remote working and percentile income. Source New York Times Census, cited in Kluth (2020)

The implications of physical and social distancing for big cities are immense and there is clear evidence of a deep seismic shift in the work culture. In examining the trajectory factors that exacerbate this pandemic, the virus has set in motion a great migration away from dense, populous urban centres, effectively putting an end to the back-to-the-city movement of the past couple of decades (Florida 2020). Proximity and density are, indeed, two common factors correlated to the spread of Covid-19 and its death rate (Kutchler et al. 2020; Beam Dowd et al. 2020). Richard Florida states that «The very same clustering of people that makes our great cities more innovative and productive also makes them, and us, vulnerable to infectious disease» (Florida 2020) referring to density as a key factor in determining vulnerable urban places. Across the world, Covid-19 has taken roots and hit hard in several types of places (Hopkins University 2020 in UK Office for National Statistics 2020). First of all, the large dense cities such as New York and London, highly visited by flows of visitors and tourists, diverse global populations and dense residential areas. Secondly, industrial centres like Wuhan, Detroit, and Northern Italy, which are connected through supply chains. Thirdly, the most touristic places, such as the ski slopes of Italy, Switzerland and France (Italian National Institute of Statistics 2020). Jed Kolko’s analysis on Indeed (2020), finds density to be significantly associated with Covid-19 deaths across US counties, along with other factors. His analysis also finds that Covid-19 death rates per capita are higher in counties with older populations and larger shares of minorities, and colder, wetter climates. Besides, as in the case of Wuhan (China), and the Pianura Padana (north of Italy), the presence of particulate has enhanced the transmission of the virus. Yet, density is likely just one of the key factors that determine how vulnerable places are to the virus. Beam Dowd et al. (2020) argue that population age structure,

282

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

supported by a high degree of residential proximity, may explain the remarkable variation in fatalities across countries and why countries such as Italy are especially vulnerable (Gatto 2020; Credit 2020) (Figs. 3 and 4). Richard Florida’s article mainly focuses on the geography of Covid-19 in the US. Using data developed by the New York Times he argues that rural recreation counties suffer from a rate of Covid-19 cases that is more than two and a half times higher than for other rural counties, referring to Bishop and Marema (Bishop and Marema 2020). His analysis only looks at the US panorama, and other parts of the world may be overlooked. However, like the Italian case, it is not density or proximity in itself that makes cities susceptible, but the kind of density and proximity as well as the way they impact daily habits and lifestyle. In fact, areas can be dense and still provide places for people to isolate and be socially distant while supporting the population with online social services, home-delivery, and education and work remotely. This density gap is vividly apparent in the geographic breakdown of Covid-19 across New York City: the virus is hitting hardest not in uber-dense Manhattan but in the less-dense outer boroughs, like the Bronx, Queens, and even far less dense Staten Island. The graph below cited in Florida, 2020 shows the Covid-19 death rate by type of county as of 1st of April. Large urban counties top the list, falling off by degree of density, from the high-density suburbs down to the rural areas. In terms of working practices, some work typologies are still partially hidden due to their fluidity in the job market, as well as their possibility to work remotely, such as freelancers. Another key aspect of CSs is the location of the space itself (Vartiainen et al. 2007; Mariotti et al. 2020); several scholars argue that CSs tend to be located in

Fig. 3 Covid-19 death rate by type of county as of 1st of April, New York. Source New York Times Census, cited in Indeed (2020)

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

283

Fig. 4 Relationship between remote working and percentile income, New York. Source Kluth, cited in Florida (2020)

dense, urbanised areas that are easily reachable by public transport (Mariotti et al. 2017, 2020). Many are the factors affecting the locations of CSs: (i) the degree of accessibility to urban areas (central and most accessible, peripheral neighbourhoods or small towns and sparse regions); (ii) proximity to relevant activities, services, etc., as well as proximity to specific economic sectors and categories (Yang and Bisson 2019); (iii) potential clusters of aggregation. Due to the high concentration of amenities (Van Oort et al. 2003), the presence of a good local public transport network (Mariotti et al. 2017), and the availability of open access public Wi-fi (Di Marino and Lapintie 2017), CSs are mainly localised in urban areas and in highest knowledge and innovation intensity suburban clusters. Therefore, density and proximity are both core aspects of the coworking economy and key elements for the Covid-19 expansion. From the spatial point of view, this makes CSs potentially more vulnerable to the virus, being both in a condition of working in most affected locations and in an open floor-plan kind of building configuration. The location aspect of working practices during the pandemic has been discussed by several scholars, highlighting the decision to work from home, also called remote working or tele-working, with impacts on CSs location patterns. From the current trends, it is possible to summarise two main mechanisms, accelerated by the effect of social distancing (Subirats 2020) regarding digital workers: (a) the costs of distance– those who can afford smart working will migrate to smaller cities and peri-urban territories—; and (b) the organised forms of mutualistic cooperation (for example, home delivery) that will generate sustainable mutual aid solutions to be socially connected with the community.

284

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

3 Coworking Spaces: Proximity and Sense of Community Users of CSs may exploit the following proximity measures a là Boschma (2005): (i) Geographical: the spatial or physical distance—short distances bring people together, favouring contacts and facilitating the exchange of tacit knowledge; (ii) Social: socially embedded relations between actors at the micro-level (based on friendship, kinship and past experience) that may stimulate interactive learning due to trust and commitment (elements of social capital e.g. trust); (iii) Institutional: common habits, routines, established practices, rules, or laws that regulate the relations and interactions between individuals, which may reduce uncertainty and bases for economic coordination and interactive learning; (iv) Cognitive: people sharing the same knowledge base and expertise may learn from each other, facilitating effective communication; and (v) Organisational: such as networks, which are mechanisms that not only coordinate transactions but also enable the transfer and exchange of information and knowledge beneficial for learning and innovation (for a review see: Mariotti and Akhavan 2020). Specifically, geographical proximity is related to co-location in the same space, and traces back to the economic geography literature where proximity is considered fundamental as it “underpins the joint production, circulation and sharing of knowledge” (Gertler 2008, p. 203). The key role of geographical and social proximity has been recognised since the beginning of the 1900s (Weber 1909/1929), and they have been addressed as two genetic conditions necessary, though not enough, for an area to be an industrial district (Marshall 1925; Becattini 1990; Capello 2007). Some studies have confirmed that the different proximity dimensions should not be considered separately, and it is crucial to study their interaction. While the proximity literature is generally based on the level of companies, only a few studies have focused directly on the importance of proximity dimensions at the workplace level. The empirical work by Parrino (2015)—on CSs in Milan and Barcelona—has shed light on the theoretical framework of proximity in CSs and specifically examined the role of proximity in facilitating interactions and the transmission of knowledge among workers in CSs, and the relational potential of geographical proximity of CSs. Within this context, the sense of community represents an added value of CSs, and it is related to the other forms of proximity. As described by Akhavan and Mariotti (2018, p. 3), “the term “community” has several definitions, and Hillery (1955) has identified 94 of them. One of the basic meanings of community comes from two Latin words, namely “com” and “munis”: “com” means “together” and “munis” means “to serve”, hence “to serve together””. Besides, Bellah et al. (1985, p. 333) define community as “a group of people who are socially interdependent, who participate together in discussion and decision making, and who share certain practices that both define the community and are nurtured by it. Such a community is not quickly formed. It almost always has a history and so is also a community of memory, defined in part by its past and its memory of the past”. Nevertheless, despite any definition, according to the above-mentioned studies, in every community three main aspects can be identified: (i) it is a union of people with a particular social structure, for instance, a rural community or an urban one;

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

285

(ii) there is a sense of belonging or community spirit; and (iii) all the activities of any community are self-contained and take place in a certain geographical area. In the literature of several disciplines there is a tendency to delineate co-working focusing not simply on physical space (office) provision, but, more importantly, on establishing a community and a quality of working behaviour, “working-alonetogether”, which involves having a shared working environment and flexible work activities (Spinuzzi 2012; Capdevila 2017, 2014, 2013; Fuzi et al. 2014; Bilandzic 2016). In the more recent literature, CSs are acknowledged as potential “serendipity accelerators” designed to host creative people and entrepreneurs, who endeavour to break isolation and to find a convivial environment that may favour meeting and collaboration (Moriset 2014). Kwiatkowski and Buczynski (2011) have defined coworking by five main values: collaboration (the willingness to cooperate with others to create shared values), community (intangible benefits, shared purpose), sustainability (do good to do well and offset the environmental footprint of the space), openness (free sharing of ideas, information and people), and accessibility (financially and physically accessible, diversity). In other words, CSs can be defined as a “phenomenon that happens in shared, collaborative workspaces in which the emphasis is on community, relationship, productivity and creativity” (Fuzi et al. 2014, p. 4). Fuzi (2015) also argues the importance of CSs in promoting entrepreneurship in sparse regions through creating the necessary hard infrastructure. Unlike traditional third places such as libraries and bars, CSs are designed and planned specifically as facilitators for work by providing the basic necessities such as desks, technological needs (WiFi), meeting rooms, and other equipment to develop their own network. Such contemporary shared workplaces, therefore, offer geographical proximity and non-hierarchical relationships, which may generate socialization and, consequently, business opportunities (Spinuzzi 2012). One diffused hypothesis is that sharing the same space may provide a collaborative community to those kinds of workers—such as self-employed professionals and freelancers—who otherwise would not enjoy the relational component associated with a traditional corporate office (Mariotti et al. 2017). Most of the definitions of CSs refer to the sense of community. The following Table 1 summarises some of the main definitions of CS, which shows the importance of community, proxied by the terms: sharing, interactions, and collaborations. Here, it is worth underlining that among other terms such as “sharing” and “collaboration”, in almost all studies on CSs, “community” is repeated and emphasized as an added value. Nevertheless, only one study has in particular studied the “emergence of community in coworking spaces” (Garrett et al. 2017): with an in-depth analysis on a CS in the Midwestern US, the authors have discovered that sense of community at work “was achieved through three overlapping interacts—endorsing, encountering, and engaging; and by co-constructing a sense of community, independent workers can satisfy their need for social connection, while maintaining their desired autonomy and independence” (ibid: 837–88).

286

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

Table 1 Definition of coworking space Contribution

Discipline

Definition of CS

Spinuzzi (2012)

Sociology

CSs are open-plan office environments in which people work alongside other unaffiliated professionals for a fee

Capdevila (2013)

Business/Management

CSs are defined as localised spaces where independent professionals work sharing resources and their knowledge with the rest of the community

Bilandzic and Foth (2013)

Technology

CSs provide a flexible and autonomous use of office and social space that eases the direct interaction among the users for social, learning and business-related interests

Moriset (2014)

Geography

CSs as potential “serendipity accelerators” …beyond the room layout, coworking is first an atmosphere, a spirit, and a lifestyle

Avdikos and Kalogeresis (2017)

Economy

It helps freelance designers become more embedded in business networks (in terms of collaborations), both local and foreign, compared with working alone

Robelski et al. (2019)

Psychology/ Health care

As a telework arrangement, coworking spaces are becoming an increasingly established workplaces for the self-employed and freelancers working in creative lines of business, as opposed to home offices that are mainly used by remote employees

Source Mariotti and Akhavan (2020, p.40)

4 Comparing the International Impact of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces As stated above, one of the most obvious consequences of Covid-19 has been the massive rise in the number of people working from home, and consequently, the huge impact on coworking operations and accessibility. This has led to the creation of several surveys promoted all over the world to measure the implications for the coworking economy, in particular for small and medium-sized coworking spaces.

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

287

Fig. 5 Top consequences that coworking spaces worldwide have experienced as a result of the Covid-19 lockdown. Source: Coworker.com

In this chapter, we consider the findings highlighted by an international survey run by Coworker.com survey, between 16th-18th of March 2020 in 172 countries worldwide, that brings a broad international overview on the discussion. The survey highlighted the situation during the first phase of the pandemic. Since then, the situation has become more acute as more nations—including Italy, Spain, France and the UK—have entered lockdown and the majority of coworking members have been forced to stay at home. Starting from a broad perspective, the survey “How Coworking Spaces are Navigating Covid-19” (Coworker.com 2020) collected information from 350 CSs and 364 remote workers worldwide (Coworker.com and Coworking Insights, May 2020) about how CSs are navigating COVID-19, engaging with their members, and sustaining their operations during the lockdown phase. The survey identified a significant drop in the number of people working from their space since the outbreak by 71.67% of spaces all over the world. This has been followed by a negative impact on membership and contract renewals, reported by 40.8% of CSs, along with a drop in the number of new membership enquiries by 67% of spaces (Fig. 5). Furthermore, CSs have seen more members choosing to work from home, delays of move-in dates for new coworkers, and a shift to providing online-only services, such as audio editing and recording (Fig. 6). The consequences of Covid-19 on CSs are both threatening and highly disruptive to coworking operators across the world, who are reinventing the space itself to keep the community together while facing the lack of physical proximity. In this sense, a large number of CSs are finding alternative ways to deal with the effects of the outbreak in a positive way. By reassessing their services and creating new solutions, many spaces have adopted alternative business models to contain the spread of Covid-19, support their community’s current needs, and establish a structured online network to boost future subscriptions. The survey has collected insightful experiences on how CSs adjusted their business models or introduced innovative activities to engage during the lockdown, for

288

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

Fig. 6 Responses from the “How is your coworking space navigating the consequences of Covid19?” survey—prediction of long-term effects for CSs. Source Coworker.com

instance streaming events, online support for the organisation and management of remote working, listening service to members and local residents, social breaks such as morning coffee on Zoom, online FuckUp Night event, virtual happy hours, tax and labour policy support related to Covid-19, direct help during the emergency (such as 3D printing of mechanical parts for hospital respirators), etc. The efforts of CSs to keep their community together are currently adding more value to the negative effects of the economic crisis on coworking members. In fact, along with the community actions, CSs are putting in place strategical measures to counterbalance the economic effects, such as membership suspension, lower pricing for new members and discounts to current members, new student memberships for university students transitioning to online classes and ability to roll over unused days (Coworker.com 2020). Moreover, to find a way to mitigate the risks and get back to a more normal situation, CSs are forced by consumer demand (especially at the enterprise level) to up-level their cleaning procedures and frequency. In this regard, guidelines and best practices have been put in place to deal with the virus in practical terms. In order to create a safe work environment there are specific preventive measures that CSs are implementing. For instance, the Global Workspace Association (GWA, https://www.globalworkspace.org/) launched the guide “Coronavirus: A Guide to Protecting Your Flexible Office Space” providing a toolkit for “flexible office operators” while the SocialWorkplaces (SocialWorkplaces.com 2020) proposes to train coworking staff on hygiene practices, implement cleaning protocols and new hygiene

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

289

procedures (i.e.clean things like door handles, taps, light switches, etc.), as well as the “namaste instead of handshake habit” to avoid physical contact between members and the digital thermometer station: «Are you suffering any of these symptoms? Please, take your temperature!» (Coworker.com survey). Aside from the good educational hygiene behaviours, SocialWorkplaces enhances the remote working of members, allowing people to take home furniture from the CS to be able to work from home. Similarly, Coworker.com promotes the “Most common measures by coworking spaces to stop the spread of Covid-19”, highlighting the importance of more frequent sanitization of all high-frequency touchpoints (supported by 84.56% of respondent CSs) as well as making hand sanitizer accessible throughout the space (embraced by 74.16% of respondent CSs). At the national level, the Italian Rete COWO drafted a manifesto based on good criteria including good hygiene-sanitary practices for coworkers to promote working in healthy spaces as a common strategy for the whole community. It is also important to use face masks in presence of coughing or sneezing symptoms, and the reconfiguration of the space in order to allow 1.5–2 m from one seat to another (Rete COWO 2020). An interesting trend has emerged regarding the relationship with the city and the geographical location of the space itself. Recently, some interesting local initiatives have emerged, such as making partnerships with local businesses to assist members and their families, including additional services by food delivery companies (Coworker.com 2020), or diversifying the portfolio by expanding the network to public and/or private spaces (e.g. municipal libraries, cafés, etc.) scattered across the territory, and using the main space in the inner centre for different uses: «We are now using the space for different business needs, such as storage» (York_space, Moscow in Coworker.com 2020). Something similar has been experienced in Italy, where only the 60% of CSs has physically shut down (Italian Coworking Survey 2020), while other spaces are subletting, sometimes at rather high costs, to companies and workers of essential activities guaranteeing, at this stage, an important service to local contexts, such as Talent Garden Calabiana in Milan. Being the current situation ongoing with long-term trajectory predictable, it is possible to summarise the transformation actions that CSs worldwide are putting in place, splitting them into three representative categories: New digital offering, such as organizing virtual classes and workshops, online weekly community lunches, or providing a platform for hanging out; (ii) Immediate financing aid and hygiene guidelines, such as adjusted cancellation policies to allow for more relaxed cancellation periods, lower pricing for new members and discounts to current members and the ability to roll over any unused days to future months for part-time shared desk members or to pause membership entirely. But also to structure a set of general rules for good hygiene-sanitary practices; (i)

290

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

(iii) Long-term strategies, such as changing marketing strategies to reflect a new focus on selling private office memberships, space rearrangement to guarantee healthy and safe working conditions for future opening, and in some cases the temporary relocation in peripheral or rural areas (those less impacted by the virus) to attract more users. These new actions, impacting on the coworking business models, showcase the adaptability of the coworking industry, which reflects its nature of being adaptable and providing flexible solutions in whichever manner is needed most (Coworker.com 2020) (Fig. 7). As explored above, CSs worldwide adjusted their business model or introduced new business models in response to the outbreak. Furthermore, probably for the first time in the history of work, a massive number of people experienced remote working and its pros and cons.

Fig. 7 Responses from the “How is your coworking space navigating the consequences of Covid19?” survey—prediction of long-term effects for CSs. Source Coworker.com

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

291

Fig. 8 Responses from the “How is your coworking space navigating the consequences of Covid19?” survey—number of coworking members that plan to go back to coworking after the pandemic. Source Coworker.com

While there are certainly some challenges to remote work, the majority of people seem to believe it has more benefits than drawbacks, including a better work-life balance and boosted productivity. Perhaps most significantly, people who were forced to work remotely for the first time as a result of the pandemic have found it to be an overall positive experience, rating remote work a 70 out of 100 on average. As a result of this increased productivity and satisfaction, 88.6% of the respondents who regularly utilised CSs prior to the pandemic said they will plan on returning to them post-pandemic (Coworker.com 2020). Moreover, a majority of first-time remote workers who worked in an office prior said they would consider joining a coworking space in the future (Fig. 8). However, studies reveal that social distancing has been followed by an increased fear regarding physical proximity (Florida 2020), especially in the work environment (Molla 2020). Findings from the European SocialWorkplaces survey (https://social workplaces.com/product/survey-impact-of-covid-19-on-coworking-spaces/) reveal that CS owners and employees have been witnessing their members having two main fears in the presence of this sudden outbreak of Covid-19. Firstly, is the “direct” fear of catching the virus in crowded areas, such as communal spaces or on public transport when commuting to the workplace, and taking it home to one’s family, loved ones or vulnerable people. Secondly, is the “indirect” fear related to the economic impact. Members are afraid of the severe economic consequences that Covid-19 might bring to their jobs and lives. Lastly, some members voiced their concern that their CSs might be forced to shut down and they are afraid of losing their community and workspace (SocialWorkplaces.com 2020).

292

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

Fig. 9 Responses from the “How is your coworking space navigating the consequences of Covid19?” survey—number of people that consider joining a coworking space after the pandemic. Source Coworker.com

Despite the uncertain situation during the first phase of the lockdown, data collected reveal an optimistic trend regarding the coworking economy, with a significant number of corporates and SMEs that will adjust their policies to reflect the success they experienced during the pandemic with a remote workforce. From an international perspective, a significant majority of those that worked from a CS before lockdowns said they plan on returning to the space once isolation ends, plus people that weren’t previously exposed to coworking spaces before the pandemic will look to try coworking for the first time (Coworker.com 2020) (Fig. 9).

5 Conclusions and Future Trajectories Coworking is a social practice that focuses on social (proximity) and the other proximity measures a là Boschma (2005), which are enhancing the sense of community and mutual support (Rus and Orel 2015, Garrett et al. 2017). Even if many spaces have decided to close temporarily, there are potential opportunities that may come from the current situation. Several coworking managers are optimistic that things will return to normal once the curve has flattened, leading into speculative long-term positive effects: "Companies are thinking about decentralization of work, improving efficiency, and reducing costs. Compulsory work-from-home or opting for a nearby coworking space may be an eye-opener for corporates" (manager of CoworkCascais Portugal, in Coworker.com 2020). However, no shared space is free from the potential of Covid-19 contamination and, despite actions taken to ensure the safety of members, a new way of working is emerging, totally transforming the work paradigm. In fact, as highlighted by a

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

293

Colliers survey (Neubauer 2020), 82% of employees around the globe hope to work from home at least once a week after the pandemic, representing a potential for CS trend that could accelerate as a result of more remote work (Boerner 2020). Advancing the observation of Florida and Pedigo (2020) about how the pandemic should prompt cities to “embrace telework”, CSs can play a key role in the transformation process, hosting the relocated remote workers and helping them plug into the local scene (Strangler 2020), as well as becoming a lifeline for small businesses that operate on the periphery (Katz et al. 2020). From the perspective of local administrators, attracting CSs located in urban areas that have been greatly affected by the Covid-19 to peripheral or rural suburbs might be a good strategy. This can also be implemented by offering incentives and/or tax benefits to relocate to their municipality (Mariotti and Di Matteo 2020). However, it cannot be denied that creative, innovative, and skilled workers are more willing to live in metropolitan areas (Florida 2002), where transport accessibility and others public infrastructures, such as broadband, are more efficient, although remote areas show a higher quality of life. An interesting example has been experienced in Norway, where the public administration promoted the re-location of public CSs to peripheral areas by hosting them in public libraries or other public premises (Di Marino and Lapintie 2018). It should be, therefore, necessary to verify: (i) the potential demand of members and managers and their willingness to pay for these services, evaluating also the long-term trajectories in terms of sustainability; (ii) the technical feasibility and start-up costs; (iii) the risk of shifting the coworking concept, due to the loss of dynamism and involvement in sharing the space in favour of a more static and utilitarian use of it. This scenario, beyond the complexity of the time being, is characterised by the uncertainty of the operation’s time lane and, therefore, by the impossibility to estimate the investment payback time (Mariotti and Di Matteo 2020). Just as important as economic impact is the community dimension that will be critically important for recovery and rebound post-pandemic. As we move into a future defined by some ever-present level of social distancing, community ties could fray (Strangler 2020). In this sense, it is interesting to understand how the more resilient CSs (Gandini and Cossu 2019) were able to keep the community together, while big and medium-size spaces (Avdikos and Merkel 2019) struggled more. In fact, the so called resilient CSs (Gandini and Cossu 2019), or community-led CSs (Avdikos and Merkel 2019) embrace the evolution of work in a direction of flexibility and independence, preferring a deep relationship with the context with the purpose to benefit the local context through entrepreneurial activities. Although the paper is the result of a joint work of the authors, the sections may be attributed as follows: Sect. 3 to Ilaria Mariotti, Sect. 4 to Irene Manzini Ceinar, Sects. 1, 2 and 5 to the two authors.

294

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

References Avdikos V, Kalogeresis A (2017) Socio-economic profile and working conditions of freelancers in co-working spaces and work collectives: evidence from the design sector in Greece. Royal Geograph Soc. Area 49(1):35–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/area.12279 Avdikos V, Merkel J (2019) Supporting open, shared and collaborative workspaces and hubs: recent transformations and policy implications. J Urban Res Pract 1(10):1753–5077. https://doi.org/10. 1080/17535069.2019.1674501 Barbieri T, Basso G, Scicchitano S (2020) Italian workers at risk during the Covid-19 epidemic. INAP WP, Rome. http://oa.inapp.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/661 Beam Dowd J, Adriano L, Rotondi V, David B, Block P, Ding X, Mills MC (2020) Demographic science aids in understanding the spread and fatality rates of COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020 May 5;117(18):9696-9698. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2004911117. Becattini G (1990) The Marshallian industrial district as socio-economic notion. In: Pyke F, Becattini G, Sengenberger W (eds) Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Cooperation in Italy, International Institute for Labour Studies, Geneva, pp 37–51 Bellah R, Madsen R, Sullivan W, Swidler A, Tipton S (1985) Habits of the heart: middle America observed. Hutchinson, London Bilandzic M, Foth M (2013) Libraries as coworking spaces: understanding user motivations and perceived barriers to social learning. Library Hi Tech 31(2):254–273 Bishop B, Marema T (2020) Pandemic spreads into rural America at rate similar to urban areas. Daily Yonder. https://www.dailyyonder.com/pandemic-spreads-into-rural-america-at-ratesimilar-to-urban-areas/2020/04/01/ Accessed April 2020 Boerner D (2020) In A Post-Pandemic Future, Coworking May Be Multifamily’s Newest Amenity Read more at https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/multifamily/multifamily-developers-maylook-for-bigger-units-and-more-coworking-post-pandemic-104100?utm_source=CopyShare& utm_medi. https://www.bisnow.com/national/news/multifamily/multifamily-developers-maylook-for-bigger-units-and-more-coworking-post-pandemic-104100 Accessed April 2020 Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. J Region Stud 39(1):61– 74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887 Brynjolfsson E, Horton J, Ozimek A, Rock D, Sharma G (2020) COVID-19 and remote work: an early look at US data. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, CA Canzanese R (2020) Remote Work Increasing Exponentially Due to COVID-19. https://www. netskope.com/fr/blog/remote-work-increasing-exponentially-due-to-covid-19 Accessed March 2020 Capdevila I (2017) A typology of localized spaces of collaborative innovation. In: van Ham M, Reuschke D, Kleinhans R, Syrett S, Mason C (eds) Entrepreneurial neighbourhoods—towards an understanding of the economies of neighbourhoods and communities. Edward Elgar Publishers, Cheltenham, UK, pp 80–97 Capello R (2007) Regional Economics, Routledge, London and New York, NY Coworker.com (2020) Survey: how coworking spaces are navigating COVID-19. https://www.cow orker.com/mag/survey-how-coworking-spaces-are-navigating-covid-19 Accessed March 2020 Credit K (2020) Socio-demographic disparities in COVID-19 case rates and testing: an exploratory spatial analysis of ZIP code data in Chicago, IL. RSPP Working Paper nº 2020.002, Special Series on Covid-19. de Peuter G, Cohen N, Saraco F (2017) The ambivalence of coworking: on the politics of an emerging work practice. Eur J Cult Stud 20(6):687–706. https://doi.org/10.1177/136754941773 2997 Deskmag (2011) Coworking 101: a new definition. https://www.deskmag.com/en/coworking-spa ces-101-a-new-definition Accessed March 2020 Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2017) Emerging workplaces in post-functionalist cities. J Urban Technol 24:5–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1297520

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

295

Florida R (2020) The geography of Coronavirus. CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/equity/2020/04/ coronavirus-spread-map-city-urban-density-suburbs-rural-data/609394/ Accessed April 2020 Florida R, Pedigo S (2020) How our cities can reopen after the COVID-19 pandemic. The Avenue: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/03/24/how-our-cities-can-reo pen-after-the-covid-19-pandemic/ Accessed March 2020 Fuzi A, Clifton N, Loudon G (2014) New in-house organizational spaces that support creativity and innovation: the co-working space. R & D Management Conference 3–6 June, Stuttgart. Gandini A (2015) The rise of coworking spaces: a literature review. Ephemera Theory Polit Organ 15:193–205 Gandini A, Cossu A (2019) The third wave of coworking: ‘neo-corporate’ model versus ‘resilient’ practice. Eur J Cult Stud 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367549419886060 Garrett LE, Spreitzer GM, Bacevice PA (2017) Co-constructing a sense of community at work: the emergence of community in coworking spaces. Organiz Stud 38(6):821–842. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0170840616685354 Gatto M (2020) Diffusione e dinamica dell’epidemia di COVID-19. LinkedIn di AlumniPolimi. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aW_8SlnqGT3Cqn15e18e_xBy6pblRRU9/view, Intervieweur. Accessed April 2020 Grasselli G (2020) Critical care utilization for the COVID-19 outbreak in Lombardy. Italy, JAMAAmerican Medical Association, Early Experience and Forecast During an Emergency Response Hillery G (1955) Definitions of community: areas of agreement. Rural Sociol 20:111–123 Hopkins University (2020) Coronavirus resource center. Johns Hopkins University & Medicine: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/map.html Il Sole 24 Ore (2020) Lavoro, Cgil: 8 milioni di italiani in smart working con epidemia Covid-19. https://www.ilsole24ore.com/art/lavoro-cgil-8-milioni-italiani-smart-wor king-epidemia-covid-19-AD7aAMR?refresh_ce=1 Accessed May 2020 ISTAT (2020) Gli spostamenti sul territorio prima del COVID-19. https://www.istat.it/it/archivio/ 242574. Accessed May 2020 ISTAT (2020) ISTAT during the Covid-19 emergency. https://www.istat.it/en/archivio/240106 Italian Coworking (2020) La riaccensione: ci saranno più opportunità per i coworking dopo l’emergenza? https://www.italiancoworking.it/la-riaccensione-ci-saranno-piu-opportunita-per-icoworking-dopo-lemergenza/ Accessed April 2020 Italian Coworking Survey 2020 (2020) Italian coworking. https://www.italiancoworking.it/italiancoworking-survey-2020/?mc_cid=6aa9626fd6&mc_eid=711106bfb7 Accessed April 2020 Joan Subirats CF (2020) Re-inventing the city—Coronavirus emergency observatory (F. p. Urbana, Intervieweur) Accessed March 2020 Katz B, Saadine M, Higgins C (2020) Saving small business: supersize the local role. The new localism. https://www.thenewlocalism.com/newsletter/saving-small-business-supers ize-the-local-role/ Accessed April 2020 Kington T (2020) As Italy extends quarantine zone, many flee; angry officials tell them to go back. Los Angeles Times: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-03-08/italy-extends-qua rantine-across-north-many-flee Accessed March 2020 Klaus I (2020) Pandemics are also an urban planning problem. CityLab. https://www.citylab.com/ design/2020/03/coronavirus-urban-planning-global-cities-infectious-disease/607603/ Accessed March 2020 Kluth A (2020) This pandemic will lead to social revolutions. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomb erg.com/opinion/articles/2020-04-11/coronavirus-this-pandemic-will-lead-to-social-revolutions Accessed April 2020 Kutchler T, Russel D, Stroebel J (2020) The geographic spread of COVID-19 correlates with structure of social networks as measured by Facebook. https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03055. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.03055 Kwiatkowski A, Buczynski B (2011) Coworking: how freelancers escape the coffee shop office and tales of community from independents around the world. Cohere Coworking

296

I. M. Ceinar and I. Mariotti

Li H, Liu Z, Ge J (2020) Scientific research progress of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2 in the first five months. J Cellul Molec Med 24:6558–6570. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcmm.15364 Mariotti I, Di Matteo D (2020) Coworking in emergenza Covid-19: quali effetti per le aree periferiche? EyesReg 10(2). Eyesreg. http://www.eyesreg.it/2020/coworking-in-emergenzacovid-19-quali-effetti-per-le-aree-periferiche/ Mariotti I, Akhavan M (2020) Exploring proximities in coworking spaces: the evidence from Italy. Eur Spat Res Pol 27(1):37–52. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.27.1.02 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in Milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24:47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Mariotti I, Akhavan M, Rossi F (2020) The location of coworking spaces in Urban vs. Peripheral Areas, European Planning Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1895080 Marshall A (1925) Principles of economics. Macmillan, London McWilliams D (2015) The flat white economy. Gerald Duckworth & Co Ltd., London Mélypataki G (2020) Dematerialisation of workplace in non-classical labour law relations. Zbornik Radova 53, 671.https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338336402_Demateria lisation_of_workplace_in_non-classical_labour_law_relations Merkel J (2015) Coworking in the city. Ephemera Theory Politic Organiz 15(1):121–139 Merkel J (2018) Freelance isn’t free. Coworking as a critical urban practice to cope with informality in creative labour markets. Urban Stud 56(3), 526–547. https://doi.org/10.1177/004209801878 2374 Molla R (2020) How coronavirus could force the work-from-home movement. https://www.vox. com/recode/2020/2/26/21153343/coronavirus-covid-19-work-from-home-remote-pandemic. Accessed February 2020 Molla R (2020) This is the end of the office as we know it. https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/4/14/ 21211789/coronavirus-office-space-work-from-home-design-architecture-real-estate. Accessed April 2020 Mould O, Vorley T, Liu K (2014) Invisible creativity? Highlighting the hidden impact of freelancing in London’s creative industries. Eur Plan Stud 22(12):2436–2455. https://doi.org/10.1080/096 54313.2013.790587 Neubauer K (2020) Survey: 69% of companies plan to shrink office footprint, increase remote work read more at: https://www.bisnow.com/new-york/news/commercial-real-estate/ new-surveys-show-that-work-from-home-is-expected-to-be-more-permanent-104187 Accessed April 2020 Nixey C (2020). Death of the office. The economist 1843: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/ death-of-the-office. Accessed June 2020 Oldenburg R (1989) The great good place. Da Capo Press, New York Pais I (2012) La rete che lavora. Mestieri e professioni nell’era digitale. Egea, Milano Parrino L (2013) Coworking: assessing the role of proximity in knowledge exchange. Knowl Manag Res Pract 13(3):261–271. https://doi.org/10.1057/kmrp.2013.47 Robelski S, Keller H, Volker H, Mache S (2019) Coworking spaces: the better home office? A psychosocial and health-related perspective on an emerging work environment. J Environ Res Public Health 16(13): 2379. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16132379 Ross P, Ressia S (2015) Neither office nor home: coworking as an emerging workplace choice. Employ Relat Rec 15:42–57 Rus A, Orel M (2015) Coworking: a community of work. Teorija in Praksa 52(6):1017–1038 Silvia Fanzecco, Talent Garden Calabiana (2020) Webinar SofàSoGood Resistenze Digitali— coworking e Community. (I. R. Emilia, Intervieweur) Accessed April 2020 Spinuzzi C (2012) Working alone together: coworking as emergent collaborative activity. J Bus Technic Commun 26(4):400–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651912444070 Strangler D (2020) here are three reasons COVID-19 makes coworking spaces even more important. https://www.forbes.com/sites/danestangler/2020/04/03/here-are-three-reasons-covid19-makes-coworking-spaces-even-more-important/#5dbbac2433ac Accessed April 2020

The Effects of Covid-19 on Coworking Spaces …

297

UK Office for National Statistics (2020) Coronavirus (COVID-19). https://www.ons.gov.uk/people populationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases Van Oort F, Weterings A, Verlinde H (2003) Residential amenities of knowledge workers and the location of ICT-FIrms in the Netherlands. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En Sociale Geografie 94(4):516–523. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9663.00278 Vartiainen M, Hakonen M, Nieminen M (2007) Distributed and mobile work—places, people and technology. Otatieto, Tampere Waters-Lynch J, Potts J, Butcher T, Dodson J, Hurley J (2016) Coworking: a transdisciplinary overview. SSRN Electr J. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296669434 Weber A (1929) Theory of the location of industries. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Yang E, Bisson C (2019) Coworking space as a third-fourth place: changing models of a hybrid space in corporate real estate. J Corpor Real Estate 21(4):324–345. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcre12-2018-0051

A Research Agenda for the Future of Workplaces Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Akhavan, and Stefano Di Vita

Abstract The concluding chapter outlines the main findings of the book concerning the analysis and discussion of new workplaces, specifically, CSs and MSs, in different geographical contexts, by: (i) providing definitions, exploring their typologies, users, and location factors; (ii) investigating the effects on the local context; (iii) exploring urban planning and policies. Several case studies in Europe (Italy, UK, and France) and in the USA have been explored. The results show that the phenomenon is mainly urban, but even suburban and peripheral areas are becoming attractive to new working spaces. Although the book is concerned about the period before the Covid-19 pandemic, this chapter opens the discourse towards the immediate and future effects of the pandemic on the geography of work and new working spaces and suggests new avenues for future research.

The present book describes and analyses new workplaces (specifically, CSs and MSs) in different geographical contexts, by providing definitions, exploring their typologies, users, and location factors, investigating the effects on the local context, discussing urban planning and policies as well as the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic on new workplaces.

1 Cost Action CA18214 “The geography of new working spaces and the impact on the periphery”, which is funded by the Horizon 2020 Framework programme of the European Union (project website: http://www.new-working-spaces.eu/; European Union Website: https://www.cost.eu/act ions/CA18214), involves 31 countries and about 100 members. Ilaria Mariotti is Chair, Mina Akhavan Leader of WG2 “Atlas” and Stefano Di Vita vice-leader of WG1 “Taxonomy”.

I. Mariotti (B) · M. Akhavan · S. Di Vita Dipartimento Di Architettura E Studi Urbani, Politecnico Di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: [email protected] M. Akhavan e-mail: [email protected] S. Di Vita e-mail: [email protected] © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021 I. Mariotti et al. (eds.), New Workplaces—Location Patterns, Urban Effects and Development Trajectories, Research for Development, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_16

299

300

I. Mariotti et al.

The definition of workplaces is not univocal, and according to a recent report of the Cost Action CA182141 “four can be their main typologies: (i) collaborative and creative working spaces (CSs and Smart work centres); (ii) makerspaces and other technical spaces (i.e. Fab Labs and Open workshops); (iii) other new working spaces (i.e. Hackerspaces, Living Labs and Corporate Labs); (iv) informal new working spaces (i.e. Coffee shops, Libraries)” (Micek et al. 2020, p. 35). The focus of the present book is on CSs—which are the pioneers and have grown exponentially from the year 2015 till the beginning of 2020—and MSs, including Fab Labs. These two typologies of workplaces, defined as permanent or temporary spaces for working, which enable collaboration, mutual learning, knowledge sharing, as well as social and spatial relationships among users, present differences and similarities. The main difference concerns the principal sector of specialisation being services for CSs and manufacturing for MSs. Specifically, MSs are closer to craft workshop rather than to industrial production sites, and many of them combine functions linked to market, education and social innovation, thus becoming hybrid places (Di Marino and Lapintie 2020) implementing and providing new collective services. The development of both MSs and CSs has been mainly based on bottom-up initiatives, despite the exceptions of fragmented investments promoted by large ICT companies and real estate developers, as well as public policy tools subsidising the development of such spaces. In CSs and MSs, proximity and the sense of community play a key role (see ch.2 by Mina Akhavan); besides, CSs and MSs may play multiple roles, as hubs within local productive ecosystems, as well as urban, social and welfare spaces. The users of CSs and MSs—namely, coworkers and makers—are mainly young knowledge workers; they are freelancers, microbusinesses, employees or selfemployed workers. As stated in ch. 4 by Ilaria Mariotti and Carolina Pacchi, CWs share a similar level of expertise, predominantly in knowledge-intensive fields, in creative industries as well as in the ICTs and digital sector. The firms the CWs work for are small and very small and about 11,7% are start-up firms; income is, on average, low-medium size. The analysis of the CWs’ income shows that most users earn uncertain and low incomes, and CSs do not appear to work as springboards in securing them a more stable career and recognised social status. The principal motivations to choose a CS are cost reduction and the lively and creative environment, characterised by the sharing of services, spaces and knowledge, which could increase new business opportunities (see also Mariotti and Akhavan 2020). As the literature has stressed, CSs are an urban phenomenon, and while some chapters have focused on the European cities of Rome and London (ch.6), and Milan (ch.14), others have analysed the phenomenon in the American cities of Seattle (ch.6) and Detroit (ch.7). Nevertheless, even small and medium size cities as well as peripheral areas are becoming attractive, thus confirming that the dense proximity cluster networks of the inner cities are not the only environment in which creative industries operate because of the complexity of their geography (Felton et al. 2010). In ch. 8, Divya Leducq and Christophe Demazière describe the case of the Loire Valley Region (France) and underly that private CSs are primarily located in “metropolitan” areas in the heart of densely populated cities, whereas public CSs act as tools of urban regeneration, helping to transform the image of a neighbourhood and revitalise the

A Research Agenda for the Future of Workplaces

301

surrounding area. Besides, in ch.10, Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Akhavan and Dante Di Matteo state that CSs in not pole areas in Italy exhibit higher positive effects on the urban environment than those in pole areas. Moreover, MSs and FabLabs also tend to concentrate in municipalities with a strong industrial character such as, for instance, the Italian industrial districts (see ch. 11 by Cecilia Manzo and ch.12 by Cristiana Mattioli). The location of these workplaces in non-core areas may enhance their socio-economic development, therefore it is necessary to monitor their evolution in order to define appropriate public policies and strategies, which need to assume a place-based, inter-sectorial approach to enter local networks and strengthen the hybrid, fertile nature of makerspaces. The final section has drawn attention to the planning and policy issues and the impact of Covid-19 pandemic on new workplaces. The urban planner’s interest in the CS boom concerns its consequences on the urban fabric. Indeed, the increasing number of CSs encourages the belief that they are the latest embodiment of economic development facilities enabling regions to become competitive and sustainable (Liefooghe and Leducq 2017). As concerns MSs, and specifically Fab Labs, they are considered “local collective goods” capable of generating economic and social externalities (such as training, means of production, diffusion of innovations, redevelopment of spaces, etc.) of a material and immaterial type, which do not always pass through the market and are often difficult to measure with economic parameters. In some areas, CSs and MSs have been subsidised by public policies at different levels with the aim of developing human capital, employability, workplace well-being, social innovation also by involving different actors in urban regeneration’ interventions. Although the positive effects of new workplaces have been recognised, in ch.14 Simonetta Armondi and Stefano Di Vita have underlined the lack of coordination between different-level policies and plans (municipal, metropolitan, regional, national), that is also reflected in the lack of a wide strategic vision able to go beyond the administrative borders, as in the case of the Milan Municipality and Metropolitan City. Finally, as described in ch. 15 by Irene Manzini Ceinar and Ilaria Mariotti, the analyses and studies aiming to understand the impact of Covid-19 on CSs and CWs underline how the need to guarantee social distancing has massively impacted these new workplaces which require new business models and policy incentives. The findings of the chapters recall for further research concerning: (i)

comparison of workplaces in different regions, countries and cities that would help to comprehend the spatial and cultural factors in creating different typologies of CSs and MSs; (ii) a better understanding of the impact of CSs and MSs on the space and the local urban environment, also in terms of the durability and performance of these communities; (iii) the recent developments and dynamics of workplaces in the current Covid-19 pandemic and in the following phases, which have been dramatically hit by the crisis.

302

I. Mariotti et al.

Further interdisciplinary research along these lines, carried out jointly with policymakers and managers of workplaces, is advocated to help policymakers to acknowledge the full potential of share workplaces, and to provide findings that lead to the design of more tailored policies and actions favouring the development of these spaces, especially in the case of peripheral and marginal areas. As underlined by Filipa Pajevi´c and Richard Shearmur in ch. 13, “the blurring of professional-personal boundaries leads to blurring definitions of place (for some, to be online is equivalent to being at an official workspace, and the expectation to work whilst commuting also leads to defining a moving vehicle as an official workspace) and of work (workers struggle to catalogue activities performed at leisure spaces like the home or whilst on vacation as work)”. However, these emerging workplaces (also known as “Third places” and “collaborative spaces” for work) present different socio-spatial and functional characteristics. On the one hand, public libraries, cafes, restaurants, hotel and airport lounges are not originally conceived to host work functions but are increasingly used as informal places for work. On the other hand, CSs and MSs are specifically designed as working locations for self-employed and freelance workers, who rent these new workplaces, and recently, more established companies, including affiliates of multinational companies. Here, it is also worth underlining the importance of the sense of community created inside the working space and in the neighbourhood (Garrett et al. 2017; Mariotti et al. 2017; Akhavan and Mariotti 2018; Spinuzzi et al. 2019). The potential of MSs as places of technological and cultural contamination and of CSs as places for sharing innovation, knowledge spillovers and fostering new start-ups, remains largely unexplored. Although in some areas public policies have sustained the start-up phase of MSs and CSs, a long-term policy programme is missing. Another issue worth mentioning is the lack of studies about the dynamics and typologies of new workplaces in the developing and less-developed world: as even underlined in the present book, most of the studies focus on the global north. Since the book, as most of the cited literature, has been written before the Covid19 pandemic, further research needs to be carried out to explore the recent developments and dynamics of new workplaces in this pandemic period and in the following phases, and to understand the aftermath of the government-led lockdown, and, in some countries, the re-opening of workplaces with strict health-related inquiries, and the formation of a “digital community” in the pandemic and post-pandemic era. The pandemic has altered the way of working: the “second place” (office) and “third places” have been more and more replaced by the “first place” (home). Many more workers have now become aware of remote technology’s workplace potential, but at the same time, its drawbacks have been revealed from the perspective of employees (ergonomics, lack of space at home, loneliness, difficulties in coordination, lack of work–life balance, surveillance concerns) or employers (management challenges, coordination challenges, acculturation of new employees, concerns with cybersecurity, team morale). The Covid-19 crisis will accelerate this change but has also shed light on why (some form of) the traditional office—a place where people meet, where teams are constructed, employees acculturated and coordination facilitated—is here to stay (Calbucci 2020).

A Research Agenda for the Future of Workplaces

303

The surge of working from home—to minimise the risks of contagion and transmission of the virus—has undermined the co-location and ‘sense of community’ users experience in workplaces, which can be considered the “soul” of these places because they enhance the proximity measures a là Boschma (2005) and consequently knowledge spillover, informal exchange, cooperation and forms of horizontal interaction with others, and business opportunities. To face this new “normal”, the majority of CSs have tried to feed the community via webinar, online meetings, etc., and are planning to invest more in them. As described in ch. 15 by Irene Manzini Ceinar and Ilaria Mariotti, the Covid-19 pandemic has led to rethink the business model as well as the location dynamics of these spaces, giving more emphasis on the peripheral areas. Specifically, new workplaces located in peripheral and suburban areas could offer a valuable service to support the recovery of the economy with specific attention to environmental and social sustainability. This already happens in other European countries (e.g. Finland, Norway and Catalunya), where policymakers have recently promoted, in peripheral areas, the diffusion of CSs that also incubate innovative start-ups, offer “neighbourhood” services, and develop inclusion activities. As stated by Mariotti and Di Matteo (2020), the potential benefits deriving from a workplace located in a remote area are well known: higher general well-being, lower congestion, less polluted air, lower location cost, etc. As Eder and Trippl (2019) have pointed out, peripheral areas host the so-called “slow innovators” that rely less on information and knowledge that is time-sensitive; their ideas result in incremental and process innovation rather than in radical innovations, and they benefit from social and cultural diversity their small communities offer. Besides, the location in peripheral areas may represent a good alternative for digital workers aiming to live close to their family, and it may foster entrepreneurship in less central locations. From the perspective of local administrators of peripheral municipalities, attracting CSs located in urban areas that have been greatly affected by the Covid19 might be a good strategy, maybe offering them incentives and/or tax benefits to relocate to their municipality. Besides, even firms which reorganise their premises to guarantee social distancing might offer vouchers to their employees to work in a third place, close to their home, probably saving long-time commuting. Besides, these third places in peripheral areas might change their business model to improve the work–life balance of their users, thus offering services like babysitting. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that creative and skilled workers are more willing to live in metropolitan areas (Florid 2002): if the locus amoenus patterns of remote areas improve the quality of life, the lack of infrastructures (i.e. broadband, low transport accessibility) can inhibit every type of work.

References Boschma R (2005) Proximity and innovation: a critical assessment. J Region Stud 39(1):61–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/0034340052000320887

304

I. Mariotti et al.

Calbucci M (2020) If working from home is the ‘future of work,’ here are 11 reasons why the office sounds better, GeekWire. https://www.geekwire.com/2020/working-home-future-work11-reasons-office-sounds-better/. Accessed May 2020 Di Marino M, Lapintie K (2020) Exploring multi-local working: challenges and opportunities for contemporary cities, International Planning Studies, 25(2):129–149. https://doi.org/10.1080/135 63475.2018.1528865 Eder J, Trippl M (2019) Innovation in the periphery: compensation and exploitation strategies. Grow Change 50(4):1511–1531. https://doi.org/10.1111/grow.12328 Felton E, Collis C, Graham P (2010) Making Connections: creative industries networks in outersuburban locations, Australian Geographer, 41(1):57–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/000491809035 35576 Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class. Basic Books, New York Garrett LE, Spreitzer GM, Bacevice PA (2017) Co-constructing a Sense of Community at Work: The Emergence of Community in Coworking Spaces. Organization Studies. 38(6):821–842. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0170840616685354 Liefooghe C, Leducq D (2017) La révolution numérique: tiers-lieux, hauts-lieux et territorialisation. Territoire en Mouvement, 34 Mariotti I, Akhavan M (2020) Exploring proximities in coworking spaces: evidence from Italy. Eur Spat Res Policy 27(1):37–52. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8034-6914 Mariotti I, Di Matteo D (2020) Coworking in emergenza Covid-19: quali effetti per le aree periferiche? EyesReg 10(2):1–5 Mariotti I, Pacchi C, Di Vita S (2017) Coworking spaces in milan: location patterns and urban effects. J Urban Technol 24(3):47–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/10630732.2017.1311556 Micek G, Mariotti I, Di Marino M, Akhavan M, Di Vita S, Lange B, Paas T, Sinitsina A, Alfieri L, Chebotareva M (2020) Definition and typologies of the new working spaces Deliverable D 1.1. Internal working paper. COST Action CA18214: The geography of new working spaces and impact on the periphery (2019–2023) Spinuzzi C, Bodroži´c Z, Scaratti G, Ivaldi S (2019) Coworking is about community: but what is “community” in coworking? J Bus Tech Commun 33(2):112–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/105 0651918816357