David Taylor talks to Jonathan Burroughs, CEO of Creative Places and NLA’s expert panel chair for Innovation Districts
 

Hi - I've been talking to the expert panel chairs with a view to trying to get some synthesized thoughts about the content that you've been working with - overall takeaways, which are probably quite difficult to distil! But what are the key takeaways on Innovation Districts that you've managed to elicit from the panel members over the years?

 

Hello! I've looked after what is now the innovation districts panel for a few years and we have ultimately created eight points that we think are important going forwards for the NLA and importantly, the mayor's office, to ultimately think about with reference to innovation districts. 

 

To cut through those eight, what have you found are, say, the three most important takeaways?

 

I think that relatively dense development with strong public realm is quite a fundamental thing to aim for. That's an important message to get across to people. Because if we don't have density, we find that people aren't rubbing against each other as much as they otherwise would. And if we haven't got strong public realm, there isn't that sort of built environment that means they come together in ways that they enjoy for periods of time. And if we're going to make innovation districts impactful, then they need to deliver to the people who are using them, whether they're based there or whether they visit there; we need to ensure that those people are engaging with others, out of which comes enhanced social capital and ultimately, more collaborations and joint initiatives. Which is what, at the end of the day, we need for innovation. We need people coming from different backgrounds and different disciplines to be working creatively around solving problems or coming up with new ideas, new ways of doing things. So, I think the density and the strong public realm is quite important. That aligns well with what the NLA is about in terms of the built environment.

 I think there's a need for affordable workspace that is important in these places.  And I identify that as one of the three from the eight, just because it is quite a hot topic in that various boroughs have the aspiration, but how you go about delivering it is still a challenge. I think that, going forwards, it is going to be one of the key activities that brings a sense of dynamism and inclusivity and interest to a place. Because you can have your big corporates doing their innovative thing. But if we're going to truly have a district that's functioning well, I think that that blend of space, so that it caters to people who are starting businesses who haven't necessarily got any money, or much money at all, is important. So, I think that's one I would identify for us to flag up. 

And then the third one, I guess, would be about the culture of innovation that we need to curate, and foster, and ultimately build up. And that culture of innovation - it does require the built environment to deliver things, so amenities for example, and meeting spaces, and opportunities for seminars, that sort of thing. But it is also the programme of activities that ultimately means that people come to the place and enjoy being in the place, because of the way it helps them think differently, or takes them into new areas of thought that are helpful in boosting productivity and innovation. So that culture is about the mix of people who are using the place but also about how they use the place and what they're doing and how they're thinking and behaving differently. It is helpful for us to think about if we have got an ambition successful innovation districts. So, they are my three.

 

Where would you say London's position is on the world stage with regards to innovation districts?

 

I think we're extremely good. I hesitate to say world-leading because I think that different cultures have got different agendas, and the solutions are different. But I think that we are excellent at it for the aspirations and needs that we have. I think if you compare us to the US, which is naturally the place that most people would think of as being world-leading in innovation, particularly in science, tech, and innovation, districts, I think that where London excels is that it is very much a city that works at the sort of pedestrian level, and we've got districts within London which are founded around some extraordinarily strong universities, and involving some of the best corporates globally from around innovation. Take the King's Cross district for example; you have Google there and now MSD moving in. We're clearly delivering something that provides a commercial edge. But I think, interestingly, our culture is around invention. And I think we genuinely enjoy creating new things and we do so in a collaborative manner. And possibly we're world-leading in the way in which we do that. I think the way that we don't put public sector money into things like this to such an extent means that we have to be very inventive, and the people involved have to literally spend every waking hour making a success of these things and it does turn out really good results. If you've got places that receive an enormous amount of public sector funding, where everybody's out for themselves, you don't necessarily find that people come together in the same constructive way across research and across R&D activities. So, I think that in the UK, we have a reputation for innovation and enterprise. And I think we do it naturally. thanks to our culture, in a positive manner. If you compare us to, say, Germany, where the German government was jealous of the way in which we've been creating innovative businesses SMEs, based on science and tech and making a success of those, and they introduced a program where they were putting a lot of money into start-ups and companies. These start-ups could apply for quite significant grants. What they found was that it didn't change the way in which their people thought particularly and individuals with the grants were still sort of approaching the work as a nine-to-five type job. We weren't finding many of our innovative SMEs working in a nine-to-five type way of achieving success.  They come up with every trick in the book and put all the hours in to make a success of their ventures. That stress, whilst it's not necessarily a very nice place to be in for a long period of time, it does actually ensure that you think in very creative ways, and you do actually collaborate with others; you leverage what's available to you in a very efficient manner. And you're result driven…

 

So, almost through financial adversity then...?

 

Yeah, that's why Israel has been so extraordinary in innovation. If you look globally at the innovation index, and you see who is innovative, you do see that need, actually, is an extraordinary driver. But also, culture. And I think London, to answer your question directly, is up there with the very best, because of our culture. We've got a history of innovation, and we've got an extraordinary research base. And if you're talking about scientific endeavour and using science and technology to develop new products and services, our research base in London, and with a short distance, access to Cambridge and Oxford Universities, who are also extraordinary in research…London, thanks to the way the infrastructure is designed without links between Cambridge and Oxford that are very strong, physically - you can't go by train from one to the other. You end up with London sitting there at the centre of quite an extraordinary research area in the world. And we build on that in creating innovation that is then world-leading. So yeah, we're right up with the very best, and things like the Argent development at King's Cross but also what's happened out at White City, with Imperial setting up a new campus and then investing in an innovation centre and building grow-on space for their companies and encouraging people to relocate who are undertaking research from South Ken out to White City. The boroughs there, Hammersmith and Fulham particularly, are driving a great ambition around innovation enterprise – it does have extraordinary payback. And so, we've got some centres of excellence and Guys and St Thomas's Hospital working with King's College London and advancing the SC1 initiative down there. And also, UCL and UCLH and British Land coming together to build further at the western end of Euston Road an innovation district there that's very powerful. We've got some fantastic platforms from which we're taking actions that then deliver really good places.

 

Do we as a nation, undersell it a bit, this ability? And also, as a subsidiary question to that, what are the changes you've noticed in this area in the time that you've been doing this panel and what do you see happening potentially in the next five years?

 

Personally, I'm not sure how much we undersell it, but there are people who do believe that we do. I think that the large corporates that are looking internationally at where they put their people or where they base themselves to advance their product service development, I think they've got pretty good visibility of what's happening around the world. You can see the research base that I touched on – there are league tables produced for subject areas. It is not rocket science to actually see exactly where some of the best work is being done and the areas that they're particularly interested in. They know where the best people are. I think that it's helpful for us to sell London in the context of the Golden Triangle so that Oxford and Cambridge are seen as the other, and I think that we do need to sell some of the areas of excellence that people want to bang the drum about, giving them more of a platform to do that. I think MedCity joining London and Partners may lead to being a sort of more comprehensive sales pack, as it were, that sells the sizzle than it perhaps had before.

In terms of the changes that we've noticed, I think that the sustainability agenda has definitely come to the fore over the last five years. I'd like to think that's going to continue into the future. And certainly, Rob Partridge on our panel put together a paper about the way in which we need to build science and technology-capable buildings in a very sustainable way going forwards, advancing the metrics that are used to measure that, both in built carbon and carbon in use. And we do need to get better at not just producing the metrics but also ensuring that the way in which design teams are briefed by clients and go about building sustainability into their designs is ever-improved. Often, it's like something that's sort of value engineered during the process, but actually if we were more punchy about what we were wanting to achieve as far as sustainability is concerned at the outset of the design journey, we believe that we could end up with some more powerful results. Of course, we can look at converting existing buildings as well as new ones. So, there's a sustainability piece. I think that's changed.

I think the desire to be more inclusive has come more to the fore. Local authorities particularly are really keen now to ensure that their innovation districts are not just for the privileged and those that are skilled and qualified in science and technology and from the districts and those that have lived in the area for a very long time, and those that aren't necessarily with as much skill in the areas that are needed for the future are given the opportunity to upskill or reskill or get involved in these places in ways that are far more natural for them. It's quite easy for these places to feel quite foreign to those that have lived there historically. And they need to be made to feel more part of an evolving place and where there is more inclusivity. So that's changed and is definitely going to be something that we need to put more effort into and become better at into the future.  I see a lot of desire to do that, and that's encouraging.

I guess lastly, I'd say the way that we blend uses probably requires a bit more thought and attention going forwards because I think that there is opportunity to have perhaps more residential within innovation areas than we've properly thought through in the past. Developers have often pushed for residential being in an area. But I think that integrating residential and ensuring that we've got a range of residential accommodation, including affordable, is going to be important. And I think that as you've got that density and that range of people living there and using a place and ensuring that our places are highly accessible, I think there are then opportunities around health, for example, to be enhanced in an innovative way that we ought to strive towards. Education and training around diet and where food comes from and how we recycle waste food, and all that sort of thing. A successful innovation district actually ought to be auditing that sort of activity and thinking about how it builds, so that we are looking after the health and wellbeing of the people that use the place and live in the place. There's a lot there, David! (laughs)

 

There is! 

A couple more very quick questions, if you don't mind, just to finish off with. Firstly, do you think the notion of an innovation district is understood by the public and do you think that's important if they don't understand the notion or recognize that term?

 

I shouldn't think many recognize it and I shouldn't think many understand what I mean by it. I'm not sure we as an industry have an agreed interpretation of it. And that's actually one of the things that we spent a few of our initial panel meetings debating. But I don't think we actually reached a conclusion other than that there are a range of innovation districts in London, and there is potentially room for them all. By which I mean I think the property industry typically has thought about innovation districts as being city-based Science Park-type activities, where you've got Googles and high-tech companies based, undertaking interesting development of their products and services. And where you have got start-ups doing interesting things. I think that's probably what people think of as innovation districts. But that's typically the very best innovation districts on the global stage around scientific endeavour, and where the use of science and technology is quite heavy in the innovation. And I would argue that in today's difficult world - I think it is difficult in many different areas - I think innovation and enterprise are really important. I think individuals need to innovate. They need to think differently. They need to be more creative about their employment; how they're going to earn their money. How they're going to work. And there is a room for districts across London, including for example Republic, Tower Hamlets. It's bringing in universities that are focused on education rather than research. In their education remit, they're working to help people upskill and reskill. And they're thinking about where the needs are for the local people and how we might widen opportunity for local people. Innovation and enterprise are a key part of that. A number of people are going to have to work for themselves into the future. You don't just seek to work for the government or the army or the NHS or Amazon or indeed the scientific companies that I touched on like MSDs. A lot of people are going to need to invent products and services that local people want, or people further afield want, where they're starting from the bottom up, and it doesn't necessarily need to mean science and technology; it might be how you clean windows in the area. Or how we look after people who, with ill health, with immobile health, who can't necessarily get into hospitals as much as they need to, but where we need to develop new care systems. That is all about innovation. We need that culture of enterprise to come forward in new ways. And I think therefore that districts across London that aspire to providing new opportunities for their people in their districts are just as important for London as those headlines such as Kings Cross or White City. 

 

Last question: what have you personally got out of chairing this group? 

 

A lot of fun, just talking around this subject with industry leaders in their own particular fields. You know, with John Anderson from Imperial College attending, he's been the individual that's pioneered what's happened to White City. He bought the land for the college, and he's actually been instrumental in agreeing how they approach it and what they build and who they partner with and how they go about it. Having wise people like him attend a discussion on the subject - his insights into the way forward are invaluable. So, it's just been fun for the NLA to convene people from the public sector – we've had representatives from Camden council, for example, on the panel from the new SC1 initiative down in Lambeth and Southwark. Having those people come together I think, has been really helpful. I touched on some of the professionals that are involved with the built environment. Working on sustainability in laboratories, for example - it's really important stuff that we just come together and convene discussion around, and where there is a need for a paper perhaps to be written and work to be done to raise the profile of some of our issues with local government, I think is really helpful.

 

Brilliant. Thanks for your time. That was a really fascinating whistlestop tour of this quite complex subject! Thank you very much.

 

Okay, well good luck with it all! Bye!