This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/acceptedfor publication in the following source:

Pancholi, Surabhi, Yigitcanlar, Tan, & Guaralda, Mirko(2018)Attributes of successful place-making in knowledge and innovation spaces:evidence from Brisbane’s Diamantina knowledge precinct.Journal of Urban Design, 23(5), pp. 693-711.

This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/118218/

c© Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters

This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under aCreative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use andthat permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu-ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then referto the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog-nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe thatthis work infringes copyright please provide details by email to qut.copyright@qut.edu.au

Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record(i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub-mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) canbe identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear-ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source.

https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1454259

1

Attributes of Successful Place Making in Knowledge and Innovation Spaces: Evidence from Brisbane’s Diamantina Knowledge Precinct

Surabhi Pancholi

Doctoral Researcher School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Queensland University of Technology (QUT) 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia Tel: +61.7.3138.1181 E-mail: surabhi.pancholi@hdr.qut.edu.au

ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-8649-2813

Tan Yigitcanlar*

Associate Professor School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment Queensland University of Technology (QUT) 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia Tel: +61.7.3138.2418 E-mail: tan.yigitcanlar@qut.edu.au

ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7262-7118

* Corresponding author

Mirko Guaralda

Senior Lecturer School of Design Queensland University of Technology (QUT) 2 George Street, Brisbane, QLD 4001, Australia Tel: +61.7.3138 2464 E-mail: m.guaralda@qut.edu.au

ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5370-5766

Surabhi Pancholi is a Doctoral Researcher at the School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. She researches on the topic of design principles and planning processes of urban knowledge and innovation spaces.

Tan Yigitcanlar is an Associate Professor at the School of Civil Engineering and Built Environment, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. The main foci of his research are clusters around three interrelated themes: knowledge-based urban development; sustainable urban development, and; smart urban technologies and infrastructures.

Mirko Guaralda is a Senior Lecturer at the School of Design, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia. He researches on the topics of urban morphology and sense of place, urban hacking and unstructured use of public spaces, and inclusive and accessible urban design

2

Attributes of Successful Place Making in Knowledge and Innovation Spaces: Evidence from

Brisbane’s Diamantina Knowledge Precinct

Abstract: Place making in knowledge and innovation spaces is a challenging task for planners and

designers due to the lack of competent conceptual frameworks and design guidelines. To address this

issue, the study adopts a qualitative methodological approach to carry out an empirical investigation in

a case study from Brisbane, Australia—i.e., Diamantina Knowledge Precinct. This investigation is

guided by a conceptual framework derived from the interdisciplinary literature review. Interviews,

supported with various data sources, are conducted among a range of key stakeholders. The findings

reveal the key design attributes and considerations for successful place making in knowledge and

innovation spaces.

Keywords: Place making; knowledge and innovation spaces; knowledge-based urban development;

Diamantina Knowledge Precinct; Brisbane

1. Introduction

Place making is a multilayered process that involves the spatio-temporal shaping up of spaces

through both tangible product-in-transition-design and intangible facilitators such as context, history,

processes, linkages, and meanings (Cresswell, 2004; Carmona, 2010; Røe, 2014). Cityscapes have

been undergoing major global spatio-economic transformations due to the emergence of advanced

typologies of mixed-use urban clusters aimed at the production and proliferation of knowledge—i.e.,

knowledge and innovation spaces (KISs) (Evers et al., 2010; Lönnqvist et al., 2014). These

locations—where knowledge-intensive activities aggregate together—act as the spatial nucleus of

knowledge-based urban development (KBUD) in the global knowledge economy’s contemporary

cities (Sarimin & Yigitcanlar, 2012).

In recent decades, many cities across the world have been branding themselves based on the

success of their induced or planned KISs. Successful examples include, but are not limited to,

22@Barcelona (Barcelona), Arabianranta (Helsinki), DUMBO (New York), Macquarie Park

Innovation District (Sydney), One North (Singapore), and Strijp-S (Eindhoven) (Van Winden et al.,

2013; Esmaeilpoorarabi et al., 2018). Given the pivotal role of human capital in generating knowledge

and innovation in these flourishing locations (Millar & Ju-Choi, 2010; Yigitcanlar et al., 2012), place

making is now being practised in many cities around the world as a principal strategy for both

attracting and retaining knowledge workers and remaining globally competitive (Florida, 2002;

Secundo et al., 2015; Pancholi et al., 2015).

Although place making is widely acknowledged (Musterd & Kovács, 2013), the understanding of

its conceptualisation—particularly in manifesting distinguishable design attributes—still stands at an

3

embryonic stage in the context of KBUD (Battaglia, 2014). Furthermore, to arrive at a detailed

conceptualisation, it is necessary to consider the specific challenges of contemporary KISs.

Incomprehension of both the place making phenomenon and the unique conditions in KISs presents a

major challenge for the innovative scholars, policymakers, planners, and designers who want to

integrate place making strategies for developing prosperous KISs (Pratt, 2000; Wu, 2000; Pollock &

Paddison, 2014).

Recent studies have established that ‘place’ is an outcome of physical, political, economic, and

social processes, including its history and the meanings attached to it by users (Farhat, 2012; Durmaz,

2015; Martins, 2015; Esmaeilpoorarabi et al., 2018). This paper adopts this multidimensional

definition of place. With a specific focus on design, the study reported in this paper focuses on the

following research questions: (a) What are the key design attributes that define successful place

making in KISs? (b) What are the major challenges and considerations for place making in KISs?

To address these research questions, the study embraces a case study-based approach. An empirical

probe is carried out in an exemplar KIS from Australia—a renowned knowledge economy worldwide

owing to the success of KBUD in Sydney, Melbourne, and Brisbane. Brisbane’s Dutton Park

Knowledge Precinct—recently renamed, or more correctly rebranded, as Diamantina Knowledge

Precinct (DKP)—is selected for the investigation because it is a deliberate planning attempt in an

urban location to reinvigorate KBUD. Brisbane’s economic system is at the centre of a deep change,

and the city is reinventing itself as an innovation and knowledge hub. Numerous examples of KISs are

being developed within and around the city’s urban region. DKP, as one of them, presents an inspiring

physical context as a KIS because of its central location, aggregation of educational and research

institutions, and presence of projects that have won architectural awards, and heritage listed buildings.

The spatio-temporal investigation of DKP development reveals the challenges that are commonly

faced by many other urban KISs. Therefore, investigating this case can inform future place making

projects.

This paper investigates the selected case through interviews conducted among a range of key

stakeholders, such as government officials, planners, designers, developers, managers, community

organisations, and knowledge workers. With the specific focus on design, a multilayered place-making

conceptual framework is adopted as a base for the investigation. The layers of this framework include

feature, function, form, image, and context. The following section elaborates on these layers in detail.

In simple terms, feature refers to ‘what sells a KIS’; form refers to ‘what forms a KIS’; function refers

to ‘what happens in a KIS’; image refers to ‘how a KIS is perceived’; and context refers to ‘what

surrounds a KIS’—in terms of socio-cultural, politico-economic, and spatio-environmental conditions.

The insights and lessons generated from this study lead to comprehensive propositions on integrating

place-making in a KIS global context. Theoretically, the study contributes to knowledge in the field of

KBUD as it explores multilayered and multidimensional aspects of place making in KISs. The

4

findings outline the key design attributes that define place making in KISs and the major

considerations for the design and development of KISs.

2. Developing an Interdisciplinary Perspective for Place Making

KISs have been acknowledged as spatial nexuses of KBUD that originate and circulate knowledge

at the local, regional, and global levels (Yigitcanlar & Bulu, 2015). They act as integrated centres of

learning, commercialisation, and lifestyle underpinned by shared value systems (Carrillo, 2006).

Numerous studies have supported the role of geographical proximity and agglomeration in enhancing

knowledge spillover and cross-fertilisation of ideas (Bathelt et al., 2004; Lopez-Saez et al., 2010).

Concurrently, KISs have been undergoing constant physical and functional metamorphosis from their

origin as science cities, high-tech clusters, or techno-industrial complexes (Huggins, 2008). In recent

decades, they have advanced as ‘creative/innovation clusters/districts’ or ‘new economy spaces’—

aimed at revitalising inner-city economies and dilapidated sites by integrating arts and culture—and

mixed-use knowledge precincts (Baum et al., 2009; Evans, 2009).

No longer limited to just being economic engines, they have increasingly become regional and

local engines for social, cultural, environmental, and organisational growth (Scott, 2006; Van Winden

et al., 2013). Another point of view indicates the rise of an era of open innovation as the increasing

returns of knowledge—a sharable commodity—propel growth. Hence, KISs aspire to become highly

networked spaces. However, the literature on KBUD reveals that place making—in the KIS context—

remains an under-investigated phenomenon (Markusen & Gadwa, 2010; Metaxiotis et al., 2010). To

arrive at an explicit understanding on place making in KISs, this paper explores multidimensionality

and the redefined role of place making within the context of the global knowledge economy.

Knowledge regarding place lies fragmented within various disciplines and contested discussions,

each possessing a different perspective. In spatial studies, including urban planning and design, two

key theoretical positions contest over the stature of place as ‘location’. While one of these proclaims

‘placelessness’ in the increasingly ‘slippery space’ produced with the ‘death of distances’ (Markusen,

1996; Castells, 2000), another group of scholars profess its impact on the shaping up of knowledge as

well as its role in giving rise to creative minds (Livingstone; 2003; Peschl & Fundneider, 2012;

Oksanen & Stahl, 2013). However, an obscurity of understanding is made explicit by simultaneously

exploring the multidimensionality of place put forward by sociologists, cultural and political

geographers, and psychological study experts.

Considering the term ‘place’ only as its physical dimension or ‘location’ makes it oblivious to

regional, socioeconomic, and political processes, and most importantly, the meanings and emotional

constructions of people—all of which work together to shape a place (Auburn & Barne, 2006; Healey,

2010). Lefebvre (1991) elucidated that place can be conjectured only when apprehended in its

5

‘conceived’, ‘perceived’ and ‘lived’ forms. Montgomery (1998) simplified these as ‘form’, ‘image’,

and ‘activity’. Additionally, defining place as a mere physical location ignores the ‘path-dependency’

in its socio-political context and accumulated history (Meusburger et al., 2009). Furthermore,

considering the dynamics of globalisation, the characteristics that define place are rooted in myriad

networks that integrate the locale into the wider world (Massey, 1991; Castells, 2000).

In defining a good urban place, Montgomery (1998) puts forward that apart from their physical

attributes, these places have a structure and are dynamic with underlying activity. Therefore, good

urban places include the quality of all three critical elements: (a) Physical space; (b) Experience, and;

(c) Activity. Montgomery also specified that vitality or ‘vibrancy’ of activities—the extent to which a

place is lively or vibrant—distinguishes successful (or good) urban places from others. It is to be noted

here that the ‘success’ of a location, such as KISs here, is measured in terms of the presence of a

strong sense of place (Williams, 2014). Healey (2010) asserted that ‘sense of place’ can be understood

as the assimilation of physical experiences and imaginative constructions, which result in the

attachment of meanings and values.

Van Winden et al. (2014) typified 22@Barcelona (Barcelona) as a successful model of

contemporary KISs. They attributed its success equally to its spatial and physical factors, functional

aspects such as networking and events with image-related aspects arising from its history, localised

base, and marketing factors. Other KISs such as Digital Hub (Dublin) and Strijp-S (Eindhoven)

exhibit similar factors in their success as good urban places (Van Winden et al., 2013). Therefore, it

can be concluded that place making cannot just be considered as the deliberate design of a tangible

end product, but it should also accommodate the evolutionary stages wherein a place gets shaped

through its intangible facilitators—i.e., context, history, processes, linkages, and meanings (Cresswell,

2004; Carmona, 2010; Røe, 2014).

In this study, a place making conceptual framework for place making in KISs is adopted, derived

by integrating the abovementioned interdisciplinary perspectives together. This framework—

previously developed by Pancholi et al. (2017)—is conceptualised after exploring the interdisciplinary

literature. It is based on a theoretical paradigm delving into the production of space as a coherence

between its ‘conceived’, ‘lived’, and ‘perceived’ forms, while also considering the globalised

‘context’. The framework defines place in four layers within the specialised context of KISs. They are

manifested as four dimensions: ‘feature’, ‘form’, ‘function’, and ‘image’; they are surrounded by

‘context’ as the fifth dimension (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of place making in KISs (Pancholi et al., 2017, p. 77)

The surrounding context for a KIS includes a broader set of socio-cultural, politico-economic, and

spatio-environmental conditions. Corresponding to the conceived layer, there are two dimensions in

6

the framework. The first one is feature, which refers to the intangible marketability factors of a KIS

that strengthens its brand identity to attract firms and talent. The second is form or conceived hard

factors, which involve the spatial and physical aspects of a KIS. The lived layer is manifested as the

third place making dimension of a KIS, i.e., function as a place. Function incorporates all of the

activities, socioeconomic processes, and networks in a KIS. The last dimension depicting the

perceived layer is image, which refers to the perceptions of the KIS’s users and stakeholders.

3. Empirical Investigation

3.1. Methodology and Research Design

This study used a case study method for investigation. When using a case study methodology, a

case can be selected intrinsically or purposefully. Where cases are selected purposefully, they are

chosen by virtue of being either unique, information rich, revelatory, critical, or extreme. Here,

Brisbane is selected purposefully as an information rich and revelatory case in order to investigate its

most reputable KIS’s development. The steps of this investigation are summarised below:

§ Step 1- Adoption of a framework: The investigation is guided by a place making conceptual

framework. In this framework, the earlier-studied dimensions of place making (context, feature,

form, function, and image) were identified by thoroughly reviewing the interdisciplinary

literature. The framework guided the data collection and data analysis stages.

§ Step 2- Data collection: The study adopted a semi-structured, interview-based approach to carry

out the empirical investigations in the selected case study. However, to make a single case study

method successful, it is necessary to utilise multiple sources of evidence as data (Yin, 2011).

Hence, the data from these interviews are integrated with others collected from primary and

secondary sources—i.e., policy and plan documentations obtained from government

organisations, planning and design firms, developers, research institutes, and onsite tenant

firms. Other sources such as field observations, photographs, physical plans, and maps, also

contributed to the analysis as primary data sources in three ways: (a) Prior to interviews, to

identify issues to form site-specific questions; (b) During interviews, to support the

discussion—such as maps and other spatial data; (c) Post-interviews, to confirm the findings. In

order to gain a holistic understanding, the perceptions of a range of the project’s key

stakeholders were taken into consideration.

A total of 17 interviews were conducted among government agencies, planners, architects,

tenant firms, business groups, community organisations, and knowledge workers. From these

groups, the interviewees were selected as knowledgeable individuals at key positions related to

the case, with each having a deep understanding of the issues and dynamics. Table 1 presents

7

their details. The framework acted as an overarching guide for designing the questionnaire, and

also as a guide for data collection from other sources. Interviews were undertaken in the second

half of 2015; each lasted between 45 to 60 minutes, were digitally recorded, and then manually

transcribed into text. Where relevant, investigations are also supplemented by comparing data

with other contemporary KISs on the basis of secondary sources.

§ Step 3- Data analysis: In a single case study, an analytical method based on reasoning is

generally preferred over a statistical method to establish a robust and reliable generalisation

from the findings. Analytical reasoning can be done either as deductive, inductive, or abductive.

The abduction approach involves positing a possible case after following a process of applying

a known or created rule on facing an unexpected fact (Johansson, 2007). In the deductive

approach, a theory is developed at the beginning of the research, and then it is validated in the

case settings (Yin, 2011). In the inductive approach, a theory is generated that consists of a set

of related concepts with the help of data from within the case (Glaesar & Strauss, 1967).

According to the requirements of the case, many research studies utilise a combined approach,

where two or more approaches are adopted throughout the study (Johansson, 2007).

This research study utilises both inductive and deductive approaches. The deductive approach

first hypothesises the framework and then validates the dimensions of the adopted

multidimensional framework. Simultaneously, the inductive approach to content analysis—

informed by phenomenographic methodology—is used to analyse findings and derive the

attributes. Analysis is done through manual coding to identify the themes emerging in the form

of significant concepts overarched by the guiding framework. Data from the different groups of

interviewees contributed to different dimensions of the framework. Inputs from Groups 1 and 2

mainly contributed to analysing the feature and form dimensions, whereas inputs from Groups

3, 4, and 5 are considered for analysing the function dimension (Table 1). Finally, the joint

perceptions and the meanings associated by all of the stakeholders are analysed under the image

dimension.

Table 1. List of interviewees

The findings help to gather a better understanding of the topic under investigation. It is to be noted

that while the findings have a specific focus on the design, the research undertakes a multidimensional

exploration. This is in accordance with the definition of place as a product of tangible as well as

intangible factors, which this research rests itself on (Lefebvre, 1991; Montgomery, 1998; Castells,

2000). As a result, the findings from this investigation are presented under the following five

subsections derived from the dimensions of place making in KISs: (a) Context; (b) Feature; (c)

Function; (d) Form; (d) Image.

8

3.2. Context

DKP, located in the Dutton Park inner suburb of Brisbane, is an idea conceived as a part of a larger

city-level development of a knowledge corridor supported and announced by the Queensland

government under its prominent Smart State and Smart Cities strategies (Yigitcanlar & Dur, 2013).

Along the lines of Sydney’s knowledge corridor, Brisbane’s one that hosts DKP at its southernmost

axis runs as a spine from north to south—i.e., Bowen Hills to Woolloongabba, interconnecting and

integrating a number of research and development (R&D) precincts, tertiary institutions, and cultural

facilities.

Historically, the area of Dutton Park was renowned as a leading health precinct in Australia owing

to the location of the regional-level health care service providers in its vicinity—i.e., Princess

Alexandra Hospital (PAH) and Mater Hospitals. As seen in the Monash Employment Cluster in

Melbourne, the potential generated by existing collocation of these eminent hospitals with established

institutions, such as the University of Queensland (UQ), Queensland University of Technology

(QUT), and Griffith University (GU), paved the pathway for the conception of the Ecosciences

Precinct (EP) as a seed project for the broader DKP project. A number of Queensland government

departments and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), jointly

invested with a vision to develop it as Queensland’s premier R&D location, brought together over

1000 scientists from different locations in and around Brisbane to work in an interdisciplinary and

collaborative environment, internationally recognised for the quality of its research facilities.

The project gained further momentum by establishing other famed institutions such as the

Translational Research Institute (TRI), which were funded by Federal and State governments in

collaboration with the institutions UQ, QUT, and Atlantic Philanthropies. The Queensland Department

of State Development, Infrastructure and Planning initiated a master plan in 2012 for providing a

framework to DKP’s current and future developments. DKP was developed in collaboration with the

major stakeholders located in Dutton Park. These include PAH, Pharmacy Australia Centre of

Excellence (PACE), TRI, Biopharmaceutical Australia, UQ, and CSIRO. Brisbane Diamantina Health

Partners played an important role by acting as a common organisational platform while virtually

overseeing the project.

Van Winden et al. (2013) asserted that a supportive political and institutional context has been one

of the key reasons for the success of KISs like Digital Hub in Ireland. In terms of policy and planning,

DKP has a supportive context at the state, city, and neighbourhood/cluster levels for its development

as a KIS. Policies such as Smart State Queensland 2005, Smart Cities 2007, and Smart Communities

2009, that support innovation, identify the area as a ‘super-precinct’ (a term used for the KIS) and

provide guidance for its development (Hortz, 2016). Other local government documentations such as

Brisbane City Plan 2014, Brisbane’s Global Precincts 2017, City Shape 2026, West End-

9

Woolloongabba District Local Plans, Woolloongabba Urban Development Schemes, and Eastern

Corridor Neighbourhood Plan, also recognise the priority of the area as a global health precinct,

expanding the current rail and bus infrastructure as well as strengthening its accessibility.

Considering economic support, interviewees from Group 2 expressed their satisfaction in terms of

seed funding provided by the Federal and State governments for initiation of the project. For instance,

Interviewee#3 stated that, “The institute has been getting an enormous amount of support from

government; without them we would not have been here.” Contrarily, Group 2 highlighted the lack of

a strong institutional framework at the regional level, and of sustained funding support at later stages

of the project. Under the recently launched Advance Queensland Program, investment for innovation,

skills, education, business development, and start-ups has been prioritised. The Queensland

government has announced its plan to establish an Innovation and Translation Centre in a new

partnership between TRI and Siemens. However, the current government agenda reflects a lesser focus

on the physical planning and development of KISs.

3.3. Feature

DKP is located 3.5 km south of the city centre, making it a strategic urban location. The site is

served by some of the major infrastructure projects such as the Pacific Motorway, railway line, and the

eastern busway. The strong connectivity and high accessibility of the site with the rest of the city are

revealed as among the most satisfactory factors in the interviews. Interviewee#5 comments, “You can

get on the bus way here and in 5 minutes you are at EP and in another 5 minutes you are at UQ.” The

Cross-River Rail project—a highest priority infrastructure project of the Queensland government,

proposing a 10.2 km rail link from Dutton Park to Bowen Hills, with a 5.4 km underground tunnel

through central Brisbane—will further strengthen its connectivity.

The collocation of strategic anchor projects within its proximity holds the potential for establishing

the area as a centre for knowledge activity. TRI is one of the largest and most prominent medical

research institutes in the southern hemisphere, recognised for its R&D on head and neck cancer. EP—

a $270 million precinct—has won numerous awards for its architectural and sustainable design, which

creates a collaborative R&D environment. At the local level, the Boggo Road Gaol acts as a key

landmark, along with institutes like PAH and PACE, that boast a high standard of technological

infrastructure and quality internal environments. However, despite the individual fame of these

institutions, the precinct lacks an integrated identity as a KIS. In the interviews, respondents seemed

oblivious towards the term ‘DKP’ for the study area.

Another primary attraction of DKP is its functional uniqueness in pharmaceutical drug

development, from conception, research, and testing, through to clinical trials and manufacturing. The

‘Bench-to-Bedside’ concept of TRI hinges on extensive collaboration between its researchers, the

clinicians at PAH, and the manufacturing facilities of companies like Patheon Pharmaceutical and

10

Siemens. Interviewees in Group 2 expressed their opinion on how the possibility of collaboration with

other established researchers acts as a luring factor for newer business relationships to blossom. In this

regard, Interviewee#4 points out that, “Commercial entities want to be located here because of the

researchers.” Interviews acknowledge the significant role of current leadership in developing strong

relationships at the global level. For instance, Interviewee#5 states, “The way companies come here is

through a leading researcher.”

Despite the previously mentioned factors that strengthen its image, the industrial and commercial

component of KIS still needs to further augment itself, apart from a few big names such as Patheon

and PAH that are located onsite. In this regard, a CEO from a business networking group

(Interviewee#11) highlights that a lack of strong interest on the part of private commercial developers

is due to unassured returns; he states, “You are not going to build a shop unless you got customers.”

To make the area attractive—particularly for start-ups and SMEs—he also points out that availability

of short-term leasing might act as a dominant appealing factor. Likewise, high rental prices, lack of

space for expansion, and investment in facilities such as incubators, are other challenging factors that

may deter companies from readily locating in Dutton Park. Groups 2 and 4 particularly expressed this

view.

3.4. Form

DKP is characterised by an orthogonal interconnected street grid pattern surrounded by a low-

density residential neighbourhood (Figure 2). Despite being served by a key railway and road

infrastructure which gives easy access to the site from the rest of the city, this advantage comes at an

expense. The boundary created by major heavy traffic roads such as Pacific Motorway, Ipswich Road,

Gladstone Road, and Annerley Road is a barrier in the spatial integration of the site with its

surroundings—i.e., its permeability. Interviewee#7 calls them “Awfully busy roads.” This detachment

from its surroundings isolates the KIS and reduces the scope to expand (Figure 4). Lack of

permeability is also seen in the interweaving of land uses—land uses are non-diverse, with dominant

single-use—i.e., health and supporting infrastructure (Figure 2). Additionally, they are strictly zoned

and do not integrate horizontally or vertically, as observed in contemporary KISs such as One North in

Singapore.

Figure 2. Existing and proposed land use plans of DKP

An equally significant aspect emerges as order—i.e., the relationship within sub-clusters and the

relationship of built spaces and site. Within the site, major passenger and freight railway lines

punctuate the site, dividing it into two halves and, therefore, the continuity of the grid structure is

interrupted (Figure 2). Interviewees from Group 3 point out a very evident and stark distinction

between sub-clusters. Interviewee#7 stresses, “What is missing out in the precinct is a highlighting

11

order,” and Interviewee#6 points to “The need to connect two parts of the precinct” to remedy the

lack of order. Interviewee#10 states, “In my pedestrian experience, the two sides of the area feel so

disconnected.” The nationally awarded projects are featured as buildings ‘without walls’ to encourage

knowledge exchange and a collaborative environment through the use of shared spaces and resources.

Notwithstanding this flow in the internal environment, the architectural design of the buildings is

largely introverted. Interviewee#10 adds, “The buildings are enclosed and the public access is

difficult. It is not visible from outside.” Despite being collocated, they do not respond to the

surrounding streets or buildings and reveal no correlation (Figure 4).

The role of flagship projects in assigning a unique image and augmenting the creative character of

a place is globally acknowledged by many KISs (Van Winden et al., 2013). This is evident in the

heritage revival undertaken in projects like Arabianranta in Finland, Digital Hub in Dublin, and so on.

In DKP, factors like climate-sensitive designs and heritage integration strengthen the sustainable

character of KIS. Interviewee#9 sees the redevelopment of the historical gaol as “a beneficial

prospective move,” adding to the uniqueness of the location and acting as a branding tool. However,

the rest of the public areas within DKP are mundane and lack the unique character that reinforces

innovation and creativity (Figure 3). As an architect, Interviewee#10 asserts, “I do not find the space

as an engaging space. The area feels isolated and cold.”

The lack of common open and casual spaces, where people can take a break and relax during

working hours, emerges as a noteworthy issue (Figures 3 & 4). Interviewee#14 compares it with

earlier sites, and comments, “Here it is very kind of clinical. It is not spontaneous and as much fun;

people have just lost interest in it a bit and they would rather go home.” In parallel, to make the

environment more people-oriented, interviewees hold the view that the site needs to further strengthen

way finding and walkability. Currently, it is not very walkable, with large blocks having low

interconnectivity. PAH alone sits on 18.5 ha out of a total area of 63 ha (Figure 4).

Figure 3. Photographs of DKP

Figure 4. Isometric view of DKP

3.5. Function

Irrespective of the group categories, the use of terms like ‘networking’, ‘collaboration’, ‘bump-in

factor’, or ‘accidental encounters’ is frequent in the interviewees’ responses. Interviews demonstrate

the strong formal connections between PAH, PACE, and TRI—i.e., institutes for medical research—

and between EP and UQ—both related to environmental research. Unlike knowledge sharing, facility

sharing emerges as a strong reason for collaboration between non-uniform disciplines. The role of

informal events, catch-ups, and information sessions in strengthening the internal and external

networks is uniformly recognised by the institutions. TRI, as an example, organises about 400 events

12

annually. Interviewee#14 explains, “Someone will come along and give a talk and that is open to

everyone. You just turn up with your cup of tea... and I guess that is a good way that scientists would

get to collaborate with each other.”

The interview findings delineate that although formal connections have started developing, they are

yet to mature to a level where they convert into fruitful collaborations. Lack of an overarching

management or active networking groups is highlighted by Interviewee#14, “There was not a whole

lot of assistance in how we go about meeting people.” To integrate community, institutions organise

programs like ‘busting the myths’ (in TRI), science week, art exhibitions (in EP), and so on. At EP,

eight ‘artists-in-residence’ worked in collaboration with the scientists. Their creative work was later

exhibited at an ‘Art-meets-Science’ exhibition to the general public. A series of such projects,

organised by CSIRO, are running successfully, where researchers work in collaboration with

Aboriginal people.

Analysing the lived layer further, one of the most significant observations of interviewees is the

lack of strong vibrancy of functions. Vibrancy, in general, refers to the utilisation of facilities,

pedestrian flow, measure of active street life, and number of formal and informal events

(Montgomery, 1998). Following the technique used by Montgomery (1998) to measure vibrancy, the

lines of movement in DKP were roughly marked on a map by the interviewees from Group 5. The

results display that researchers stay pretty much limited to the use of areas in/around of their own zone

or building. Discussions revealed their indifference towards the rest of the KIS too. Interviewee#7

delineates, “The precinct develops an unsafe feeling, particularly during night hours, for the female

workers, due to the railway line and lack of vibrancy.” Furthermore, despite the proximity to the city

that supplements DKP with a range of residential, retail, and leisure activities, Groups 4 and 5 hold the

common view that the lack of diversity of functions in its immediate vicinity also results in

insufficient levels of vibrancy.

Although some of the cafes in the buildings provide creative seating arrangements, their introverted

design serves as an option for catch-ups during breaks only for the building occupants. Additionally,

there is a lack of amenities that serve the overall KIS rather than serving a single unit. To prevent a

low vibrancy situation, a mixed-use precinct development—as a part of the Boggo Road Gaol

Redevelopment Project—is under construction. While the addition of residential sites is anticipated to

bring more vibrancy to the area, Group 3 draws attention to the development of the site as a ‘high-end’

residential, instead of affordable units for knowledge workers. Interviewee#6 highlights, “People who

have started to work in this precinct probably are priced out of these.” This is pertinent to the need for

beneficial returns and assurance that the real-estate property market can offer in this inner-city

location.

13

3.6. Image

This section analyses place making as manifested through the perceptions of people related to the

KIS, that is, through image. Discussions with Groups 1–3 underline the role of communication in

developing a sense of ownership at earlier stages of design and development. As the interviews with

Group 5 suggest, for a few of the knowledge workers, the shift brought a kind of interruption, due to

their attachment with previous locations, set cycles of life pattern, and their working style, which was

usually isolated and in cabin-like research offices. Adapting to this newer working style of open-plan

workplaces was challenging. To address this, the project team appointed different teams, which

consisted of architects, managers, and consultants.

Workshops and sessions were organised to communicate the whole idea of a knowledge precinct—

a new concept at that stage—to the major stakeholders. Events at the local and global levels, along

with informal catch-ups and group activities, act as a major constructive factor. Contrarily, reasons

such as long commuting times, lack of public amenities, and staying far from the workplace, due to

lack of affordable, large units, are identified in the interviews with Group 5. These have a negative

impact on the development of a sense of place. Interviewee#15 highlights, “I do not hang around here

because it takes me an hour to get home. So, I guess in a way that influences my participation in other

activities.” For Group 2, the location of prestigious institutes in the vicinity contributes to the

development of a sense of pride and belonging. Tenants acknowledged their democratic participation

all through the decision-making process.

Another noteworthy aspect is the identity of a KIS that DKP sends beyond its boundaries, to the

wider community, formal and informal organisations, businesses, and so on. One influencing aspect is

the coordination between anchor stakeholders. The interviews largely display a synergistic

relationship, as evinced by the trust in the system demonstrated by tenants, who strongly appreciate

the funding and support provided by government. However, considering transparency between

tenants, Interviewee#3 discusses intellectual property (IP) issues in such a research-oriented KIS:

“When we are doing something, it’s our own IP with our own research team.” Owing to the attached

heritage value with the historic Boggo Road Gaol, the project has a lot of community interest vested in

it, as evidenced by the statement of Interviewee#12: “We can see that this place had a very strong

influence on some of these people. It has got such a powerful history and any initiative needs to be

respectful.”

The relationship with community—described as “fraught” by Interviewee#7—was challenging for

planners during earlier stages, due to the lack of clear communication of the vision behind the project

and its heritage integration. To combat this, the project team increased their levels of communication

with the community as well as their engagement in the decision-making process. As a result, the

project garnered greater support in the later stages. Interviewee#12, representing the community,

14

states, “Certainly it was an approach that we were quite pleased with. We think it makes a lot of sense

and we think there are a lot of strengths to the plan.” Concurrently, the community-engagement

projects run by institutions on the premises contribute to the community’s capacity building and

knowledge exchange to and from the KIS.

4. Findings and Discussion

Established in 2011, DKP is still in its embryonic stage when compared to its contemporaries.

Contextually, in spite of a strong and supportive innovation and creativity policy framework, and the

individual support for institutions, the focus of current government lags in terms of physical planning

of the area. The interviews conducted demonstrate the need to achieve a defined, integrated identity of

DKP as a KIS. A stronger policy focus to establish DKP as a regionally, nationally, and internationally

recognised KIS is inevitable.

In terms of the lived layer in KISs located close to the CBD, vibrancy should come as a natural

advantage. However, this is not the case with DKP. Economically, it lacks diversification of functions.

Considering the layer of formal networks, knowledge-sharing between tenant firms and interaction

between the different disciplines is still in the early stages. Similarly, taking into account the informal

ties, despite initiatives like the community engagement programs organised by institutions to

encourage knowledge exchange, their effect on vibrancy is short-lived. Hence, low vibrancy levels are

observed in DKP. Thus, in spite of boasting functional uniqueness in pharmaceutical drug

development, one of the strongest current challenges for DKP is to further stimulate the

commercialisation of research. Despite its central location, it has not been very successful in attracting

companies to locate on the site. One of the key reasons that emerges is the lack of overarching

management or efficient networking organisations. The interviews also highlight the need for a

stronger institutional framework at the regional level, and funding support in the later stages of the

development.

When investigating people’s perceptions, the interviews reveal a lack of sense of attachment in

knowledge workers, and earlier conflicts with the community in relation to future plans. Despite the

challenging process of bringing different departments and the community together, the critical role of

the key actors is exhibited in the successful accomplishment of pulling together ‘the KIS dream’—i.e.,

forming a knowledge hub in the heart of Brisbane to boost its performance in the global knowledge

economy. However, the DKP case explicitly illustrates that KISs should not only aim for R&D,

innovation, and inclusiveness that lead to economic benefits, but also for approaches that lead to a

democratic and cohesive society. The planners aimed to convert a place, originally defined by

conflicts, into a place defined by coordination through actively promoting an effective communication

process with the community. This is evident in the later build-up of positive support regarding the

heritage planning of the site.

15

In addition to the intangible dimensions described above, analysis of the DKP case revealed the

following tangible design attributes of the physical environment which are inevitable for place making

in contemporary KISs:

§ Permeable: In the era of open innovation, knowledge needs to circulate freely. Physical space

acts as a medium for this flow by allowing the exchange of people and ideas, thus lubricating

the strengthening of virtual networks. This includes circulation within the site—i.e., between

different tenants and sectors as well as the various departments, and externally at the local,

regional, and international levels. Hence, KISs should be developed as permeable and open

spaces. This can be sub-divided at two levels: (a) Urban level—i.e., integration with

surroundings; (b) Connectivity within site—i.e., relationship within sub-clusters.

§ Integrated: Physical integration contributes to manifesting an integrated identity as a KIS. This

is observed as: (a) Order—i.e., how the built spaces relate to each other and the site; (b) Land

use—Within KISs, land uses should be finely integrated by merging horizontally and vertically

into each other. In addition, the lack of diversity in land use and functional mix in KISs result in

the lack of vibrancy.

§ Inclusive: KISs as global spaces cater to knowledge workers and the community comprising

diverse ethnicities, nationalities, culture, income groups, and so on. To cultivate a sense of place

in these spaces, it is necessary to develop an environment that satisfies their diverse needs. This

includes planning for a diverse housing mix. Similarly, in economic terms, KISs need to

accommodate diverse businesses of varying scale, size, and sectors. Hence, a variety of

commercial spaces will attract companies, irrespective of their scale, to locate in KISs.

§ People-oriented: For developing a sense of place, contemporary KISs should bring forth a

people-oriented image defined by attributes like walkability, connectivity, safety, and

accessibility. In addition, the availability of a range of casual and open spaces provides a

common space to congregate, play, sit, or relax.

§ Innovative: Creative architectural and urban designs, climate- or environmental-sensitivity, and

the use of innovative materials are among the evident ways to reflect the innovation and

progressiveness of KISs.

§ Interactive: As Interviewee#10 asserts, “To be truly innovative, the place should offer the

opportunity to interact not just with people but with urban space as well.” This is also an

opportunity for disseminating knowledge by the display of new technologies, as evident in KISs

like Strijp-S in the Netherlands, which is known for the innovative display of interactive

lighting technology.

§ Cultural: Blending local into global can achieve uniqueness of character in KISs. This means

not only developing an environment that reflects innovation, but also simultaneously integrating

16

KISs’ cultural and historic character in the form of heritage revitalisation. Moreover, interviews

with Group 4 reveal that it is not merely the presence of heritage that acts as an identity booster,

but the perceived image depends on its proper integration in such a way that it blends with the

context.

However, the exploration also revealed certain challenges specific to such centrally located KISs,

which needs to be considered in the process of place making. These are as follows:

§ Market demand: The property market has a natural demand for high-end residential property

close to the centre of the city. Hence, developers are reluctant to invest into commercial spaces

or housing mixes catering to a range of ethnicity or income groups.

§ Cost factor: Proximity to the city leads to expensive land prices and discourages small-scale

companies from locating in centrally located KISs.

§ Insufficient developable land: In central locations, the shortage of developable land leaves a

limited scope for expansion. With commercial and research spaces, this also means lack of large

open spaces.

§ Existing land use: Redefining the land uses in a centrally located area—which has many layers

of history attached to it—poses a challenge.

§ Infrastructure disruptions: In centrally located KISs like DKP, despite allowing for strong

connectivity, the disruptions caused by rail or road infrastructure break the spatial flow of the

site.

§ Design restrictions: Designers and planners face design challenges from the existing layers of

regulations, buildings, layout, and structure.

§ Preservation of heritage: In historic areas, the community sentiments attached to heritage and

tradition matters can be a hindrance to prospective physical development, particularly in the

case where communication and consultation are not handled well.

§ Integration of the new with the old: Retrofitting or revitalisation of old buildings, in such a way

that they are integrated with the new KISs physically and functionally, arises as an opportunity

as well as a challenge.

In summary, under the five-dimensional lenses—i.e., context, feature, function, form, and image—

the investigation of DKP demonstrates that place is a product of both: (a) Intangible—i.e., historical,

social, cultural, economic, and political processes, as well as the meanings attached to the perceived

image; (b) Tangible—i.e., infrastructure and design attributes.

17

5. Conclusions

The literature, such as Zelinsky (2004) and Moultrie et al. (2007), highlight the important role of

the physical environment in boosting place making innovation capabilities. In this context, DKP is

placed under the place making microscope—a planned KIS located in an inner-city location of

Queensland’s capital city Brisbane— and presents an interesting study. The research determined the

key design attributes that define successful place making in KISs and highlighted the main challenges

and considerations for place making. To conclude the paper, some practical implications—for

designers, planners, and policymakers engaged in devising place making strategies in KISs—can be

derived from the analysis of the DKP case. These are:

Context-wise:

§ Building upon local: Identifying unique local strengths and building upon them provide a strong

base, giving DKP a competitive edge over other KIS developments.

§ Perpetual prioritisation: In plans and policies, KIS projects should be given continued

prioritisation irrespective of the change in governments. Similarly, economic support should be

extended from seed funding to later stages.

Feature-wise:

§ Profile development: Established institutions and leading researchers develop a profile or brand

identity for KIS. In addition, well-planned marketing and branding strategies can be used as a

helpful promotional tool for defining an integrated identity to KIS.

§ Incentivised infrastructure: For attracting companies—specifically start-ups and SMEs—

planning and provision of cost-effective physical and virtual resources are necessary.

Function-wise:

§ Virtual connectivity: Establishing networking organisations and common management can

contribute to interaction and strengthen the formal and informal networks between tenants as

well as with those outside the KIS, irrespective of disciplines.

§ Community engagement: For fruitful knowledge exchange from the KIS, community

participation in the activities of the KIS, as practised by the institutions of DKP, should be

encouraged.

Form-wise:

§ Developmental incentives: In contemporary KISs, developmental incentives such as relaxation

of regulations can be used as a tool for achieving the desired physical character; for example, by

ensuring flow and connectivity within the precinct, vertical permeability, or the provision of

affordable housing.

18

§ People-oriented design: A fine-grained mix of land use diversity with timely, designated,

engaging public spaces for knowledge workers and the community contributes to enhancing the

vibrancy necessary for the development of a sense of place. Safety and walkability are other

vital factors.

Image-wise:

§ Effective communication: Transparency in regard to the plans and proposals related to KIS, and

explicitness in interpreting KBUD, are the main requisites for effective communication by

designers and planners.

§ Democratic participation: KISs should pioneer the democratic participation of all stakeholders

in decision-making processes to develop a sense of ownership in them.

This research advocates that unidimensionally exploring the term place making without

considering its various aspects and stages will lead to a disintegrative approach. As the literature

suggests, each KIS boasts a unique identity produced as a result of the intersection of multiple

identities, meanings, processes, and histories at a point (Lefebvre, 1991; Cresswell, 2004; Healey,

2010). In the light of the findings, this paper emphasises that place making in KISs is a multi-staged

and multifaceted concept—with five pivotal dimensions. Its role, spatio-temporally, is spread across

all the consecutive stages that KISs go through—therefore embodying the conceived, lived, and

perceived layers of space and context.

Lastly, it can be concluded that the purpose of place making in knowledge-nurturing locations—

with a number of actors holding separate or mutual interests—is not limited to the economic success

of KISs. Place making—with integration of all the aforementioned dimensions—results in the

assignment of a unique character, development of a sense of place, and generation and transmission of

knowledge, all of which contribute to the socioeconomic and environmental success of KISs. The

picture portraying place making, however, can only be completed by apprehending the unique

conditions and specific considerations presented by the context of spontaneously agglomerated

locations.

References

Auburn, T. & Barnes, R. (2006). Producing place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 38-50.

Bathelt, H., Malmberg, A. & Maskell, P. (2004). Clusters and knowledge. Progress in Human Geography, 28, 31-56.

Battaglia, A. (2014). Creative industries and knowledge economy development. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 5, 238-252.

Baum, S., O’Connor, K., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2009). The implications of creative industries for regional outcomes. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy, 5, 44-64.

19

Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc T., & Tiesdell, S. (2010) Public places urban spaces. London: Architectural Press.

Carrillo, F. (2006). Knowledge cities. London: Routledge.

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of network society. Malden: Blackwell.

Cresswell, T. (2004). Place. London: Wiley.

Durmaz, B. (2015). Analyzing the quality of place. Journal of Urban Design, 20, 93-124.

Esmaeilpoorarabi, N., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2018). Place quality in innovation clusters. Cities, 74, 156-168

Evans, G. (2009). Creative cities, creative spaces and urban policy. Urban Studies, 46, 1003-1040.

Evers, H.D., Gerke, S. & Menkhoff, T. (2010). Knowledge clusters and knowledge hubs. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 678-689.

Florida, R. (2002). The rise of the creative class. New York: Basic Books.

Glaser, B.G., & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory. Chicago: Aldine.

Healey, P. (2010). Making better places. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Hortz, T. (2016). The smart state test. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 7, 75-101.

Huggins, R. (2008). The evolution of knowledge clusters. Economic Development Quarterly, 22, 277-289.

Johansson, R. (2007). On case study methodology. Open House International, 32, 48-54.

Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Malden: Blackwell.

Livingstone, D. (2003). Putting science in its place. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Lopez-Saez, P., Emilio Navas-Lopez, J., Martín-de-Castro, G., & Cruz-Gonzalez, J. (2010). External knowledge acquisition processes in knowledge-intensive clusters. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 690-707.

Lönnqvist, A., Käpylä, J., Salonius, H., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2014). Knowledge that matters. European Planning Studies, 22, 2011-2029.

Markusen, A. (1996). Sticky places in slippery space. Economic Geography, 72, 293-313.

Markusen, A. & Gadwa, A. (2010). Creative placemaking. Washington, DC: National Endowment for the Arts.

Martins, J. (2015). The extended workplace in a creative cluster. Journal of Urban Design, 20, 125-145.

Massey, D. (1991). A global sense of place. Marxism Today, 35, 24-29.

Metaxiotis, K., Carrillo, J. & Yigitcanlar, T. (Eds.). (2010). Knowledge-based development for cities and societies. Hersey, PA: IGI Global.

Meusburger, P., Funke, J. & Wunder, E. (2009). Milieus of creativity. Dordrecht: Springer.

Millar, C.C., & Ju-Choi, C. (2010). Development and knowledge resources. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 759-776.

Montgomery, J. (1998). Making a city. Journal of Urban Design, 3, 93-116.

Moultrie, J., Nilsson, M., Dissel, M., Haner, U.E., Janssen, S. & Van der Lugt, R. (2007). Innovation spaces. Creativity and Innovation Management, 16, 53-65.

Musterd, S., & Kovács, Z. (2013). Place-making and policies for competitive cities. London: John Wiley & Sons.

20

Oksanen, K. & Ståhle, P. (2013) Physical environment as a source for innovation. Journal of Knowledge Management, 17, 815-827.

Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T., & Guaralda, M. (2015). Place making facilitators of knowledge and innovation spaces. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 6, 215-240.

Pancholi, S., Yigitcanlar, T. & Guaralda, M. (2017) Governance that matters. Journal of Place Management and Development, 10, 73-87.

Peschl, M. & Fundneider, T. (2012). Spaces enabling game-changing and sustaining innovations. Journal of Organisational Transformation and Social Change, 9, 41-61.

Pollock, V.L., & Paddison, R. (2014). On place-making, participation and public art. Journal of Urbanism, 7, 85-105.

Pratt, A. (2000). New media, the new economy and new spaces. Geoforum, 31, 425-436.

Røe, P.G. (2014). Analysing place and place-making. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 38, 498-515.

Sarimin, M., & Yigitcanlar, T. (2012). Towards a comprehensive and integrated knowledge-based urban development model. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 3, 175-192.

Scott, A. (2006). Creative cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 28, 1-17.

Secundo, G., Vecchio, P.D. & Passiante, G. (2015). Creating innovative entrepreneurial mindsets as a lever for knowledge-based regional development. International Journal of Knowledge-Based Development, 6, 276-298.

Farhat, R.R. (2012). Beyond regulation. Journal of Urban Design, 17, 353-370.

Van Winden, W., Van Berg, D. & Pol, P. (2007). European cities in the knowledge economy. Urban Studies, 44, 525-549.

Van Winden, W. de Carvalho, L., Van Tuijl, E., Van Haaren, J. & Van den Berg, L. (2013) Creating knowledge locations in cities. London: Routledge.

Williams, D.R. (2014). Making sense of ‘place’. Landscape and Urban Planning, 131, 74-82.

Wu, F. (2000). The global and local dimensions of place-making. Urban Studies, 37, 1359-1377.

Yigitcanlar, T., Metaxiotis, K., & Carrillo, F.J. (Eds.). (2012). Building prosperous knowledge cities. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

Yigitcanlar, T., & Dur, F. (2013). Making space and place for knowledge communities. Australasian Journal of Regional Studies, 19, 36-63.

Yigitcanlar, T., & Bulu, M. (2015). Dubaization of Istanbul. Environment and Planning A, 47, 89-107.

Yin, R.K. (2011). Qualitative research from start to finish. London: Guilford Press.

Zelinsky, M. (2004). The inspired workplace. Beverly: Rockport.

21

Figure 1. Conceptual framework of place making in KISs (Pancholi et al., 2017, p. 77)

22

Figure 2. Existing and proposed land use plans of DKP

23

Figure 3. Photographs of DKP

24

Figure 4. Isometric view of DKP

25

Table 1. List of interviewees

Group Category Identification Profile Relation

Group 1

Government officials

Interviewee#1 Executive director Involved in the strategic planning of the region

Interviewee#2 Department head Involved in the neighbourhood planning of the suburb

Group 2

Institution managers

Interviewee#3 Executive manager Executive of an onsite anchor business Interviewee#4 Senior manager Executive of an onsite business Interviewee#5 Division director Executive of an onsite anchor business

Group 3

Planners and designers

Interviewee#6 Senior planner Involved in the master planning of the site

Interviewee#7 Senior urban designer Involved in the urban design of the site

Interviewee#8 Senior architect Involved in the architectural design of a building at the site

Interviewee#9 Project manager Involved in the construction of a building complex at the site

Interviewee#10 Architect Involved in the conceptual design of the site

Group 4

Community organisations

Interviewee#11 Chief executive officer

Active participant of a local networking group

Interviewee#12 Committee member Active participant of a local networking group

Group 5

Knowledge workers

Interviewee#13 Research director Manager of an onsite business Interviewee#14 Technical manager Manager of an onsite business Interviewee#15 Principal scientist Scientist of an onsite business Interviewee#16 Senior researcher Scientist of an onsite business Interviewee#17 Senior researcher Scientist of an onsite business