BOSS Magazine #57 - Real Estate and the University Campus by Boss Magazine

CAMPUS

MAGAZINE #57

September 2016

Real Estate and the University

BOSS Magazine 56

From the editor

Sarah Heemskerk

In front of you lies the last magazine that our committee was responsible for and it is a very special one. Since we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of our master track, this BOSS Magazine is combined with a special lustrum edition. When you flip the magazine around you can read the opinions about the master track from the professors as well as (ex-) students.

written from a variety of standpoints and the universities are studied at multiple scales. Students have shared their experiences at universities abroad, which shows the differences with the campus of the TU Delft. A debate is written around the question whether a university should have a centralised campus outside the city centre or whether the faculties should be spread throughout the city. All in all the magazine gives an overview of the real estate within university campuses.

The part on this side is the regular BOSS Magazine, with a matching theme: University Campuses. It is a complicated type of real estate that we, as students, experience every day. The way campuses are organised can be of great importance to the quality of the education and the well-being of students and staff. However, this has not always been well studied in the past, which has resulted in a mismatch between supply and demand at multiple locations.

I would like to thank Alexandra den Heijer, the expert in the field of university campuses at our faculty, for suggesting multiple authors for this magazine. Besides that I would like to thanks my committee, who all have worked very hard the past year to produce three magazines. Astrid, Joan, Britt, Heleen and Luuk, thank you for all the hard work, creativity, energy and enthusiasm! Enjoy the magazine!

This magazine includes studies into the campuses of multiple universities in various countries. The articles are

Kind regards, Sarah Heemskerk Editor in Chief

Astrid

Joan

Sarah

Luuk

Britt Heleen

June 2016

Content

Book Tips

The End of the Campus

Debate

Campus Development as Catalyst

Facade Leasing

The Development of Dutch Campuses

The Indian University Campus

Student Housing on Campus

Singapore versus Delft

by John Heintz

by Ronald van Warmerdam

with Yawei Chen and Tom Daamen

by Flavia Curvelo Magdaniel

by Juan Azcarate-Aguerre

with Alexandra den Heijer

by Karan Gupta

by Jessica de Boer

by Corina Regales

Study place preferences: Quiet please!

Smart Tools on Campuses

YES!Delft

BOSS Study Trip 2016

by Theo van der Voordt

by Bart Valks

by Alexander Naorniakowski

by Sarah Heemskerk

Tweets

Lennart Harpe @LennartHarpe June 11th, 2016 TU #Delft werkt aan eigentijds horecaconcept voor de @TUDelft_campus en nodigt ondernemers uit voor “speedmeets” The TU Delft is working on a contemporary catering concept for the TU Delft campus and invites entrepreneurs for “speedmeets”

AWB @a_world_blog July 14th, 2016 Is nowhere safe?!! Pokémon Go it Set to Invade the TU Delft campus.

follow BOSS on twitter @bosstudelft

CampusJeunes.net @CampusJeunes July 10th, 2016 Delft University of Technology has developed Massive Open Online Courses that are available for free on edx

TU Delta @tudelta July 28th, 2016 Facades for lease: Questions are still looming as to what will happen with campus’ iconic EWI building in the...bit.ly/2awWsmj AD Delft@ADDelft June 20th, 2016 TU Delft is als hoogste Nederlandse universiteit in de ranking van Europe’s Most Innovative Universities The TU Delft is the highest ranked Dutch university of Europe’s Most Innovative Universities

TechAcute.com@TechAcuteCom July 20th, 2016 TU Delft is working on Self-Healing concrete #Construction #Innovation #SmartCities

June 2016

Event diary

Applied Sciences

Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences

Construction costs: unknown Realised: 2016 Architect: Ector Hoogstad Architects Customer: FMVG TU Delft Program: Classrooms, offices and laboratories Surface: 30,000 m2 In 2014 the construction of the new faculty of Applied Sciences of the TU Delft started. This new building houses the disciplines Construction costs: unknown

of nanobiology, chemical engineering and biotechnology. This

Realised: 2015

building, which is situated at the south of the campus near the

Architect: INBO and JHK Architects

nuclear reactor, provides space for more than 600 staff members

Developer: University of Leiden

and 8,000 students. The building has two main entrances - at

Program: Lecture rooms, study places, offices, and

the south and north, leading to the middle part of the building:

a canteen

the general meeting hall.

Surface: 99,000m2 Research within the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences encompasses the disciplines of mathematics, computer science, astronomy, physics, chemistry, bio- pharmaceutical sciences, biology and environmental sciences. All these disciplines are clustered in this building - there will be a lot of knowledge exchange in Leiden.

BOSS Magazine 57

Planned: 2017 Contractor: J.P. van Eesteren and Croonwolter&Dros Developer: UvA Program: Classrooms, lecture rooms, study places, horeca and retail Surface: 42,000 m2 The faculty of Law of the University of Amsterdam will move to a building at the Roetersstraat. In between this building and the faculty of social and behavioural sciences, a new entrance for both buildings will be realised. Underneath this entrance a large bicycle basement will be built with space for 2,200 bicylces. In addition, UvA’s biggest lecture hall will be realised, with a capacity of 450 students.

Faculty of Law

Renovation Atlas Building

Construction costs: 12,5 million

Construction costs: unknown Planned: 2018 Architect: TeamRSVP Consortium: TU Eindhoven Program: Classrooms, lecture rooms, study places, offices Surface: 42,000 m2 The old main building of the TU Eindhoven will be renovated. After the renovation the faculty of Industrial Design and Industrial Engineering & Innovation sciences will move here. The ambition of the TU Eindhoven is to be a 50% energy-neutral campus in 2030. The renovation should contribute to this ambition. If the expected BREEAM score of ‘outstanding’ will be obtained, it will be one of the most sustainable education buildings in the Netherlands.

September 2016

Book tips by dr. John Heintz

Self-published in 2014 <<

This book describes six ways one might play the role of the

project manager. Rather than focusing on project management systems or tools, Smith examines the behavior and actions of project managers in a variety of situations typically met during the course of projects. He emphasizes the social aspects of the roles and the embodied performance required of the project manager. Further, he charts out how one might develop from one role to another in advancing a career as project manager.

Against Management: Organization in the Age of Managerialism by Martin Parker Published in 2002 by Piloty <<

Intentionally controversial, this book, by an important British

management educator, challenges managerialism – the blithe assumption that management is always necessary and good. He discusses a wide range of situations where management and managerial thinking have preempted the original goals of organizations, policies or governments, and argues that too much management can become a problem. Drawing on a wide range of scientific and literary critiques, he points to alternative

‘non-managerial’

approaches

organization.

The Mars Trilogy: Red Mars, Green Mars and Blue Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson Published in 1992, 1993 and 1996 by Harper Voyager <<

Cheating as the trilogy is three rather than one book. The

trilogy tells the tail of the colonization and terraforming of Mars, in particular the ways in which the colonists organize themselves both to achieve the project and to create a new society. The books provide a pretext of a series of debates about prescient ecological, organizational and political issues. You could call it the documentation of a mega-project.

BOSS Magazine 57

got a book tip? bossmagazine@tudelft.nl

Playing the Project Manager by Charles Smith

The end of the campus by Ronald van Warmerdam To prepare for this column I hopped on my bike and toured around the campus to get a taste of the atmosphere. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t feel good and I get a lost feeling in no time. Because of the canals, dead-end streets, and vague cycling routes, the area feels disconnected from the city centre. The character of the campus is also completely different from the surrounding neighbourhoods. The buildings seem to have been scattered randomly over the campus area. I almost get lost in the expansive parking lots where the cars of the corps of professors live, while the Mekelpark is the contrasting domain of the cycling students. I have no idea where, apart from the Bouwpub, the centre of the area might be. The long green axis of the Mekelpark enhances the desolate feeling, I almost catch agoraphobia. On the outskirts of the campus it becomes even drearier. Here and there I see some student housing. The people living here improve the feeling of desolation and solitude a little for me. Is this the campus we need? A new world of sustainability, circular thinking, Smart City, and innovation, needs interdisciplinary labour, knowledge sharing, participation, crosscultural, living labs, and cooperation.

After BREXIT, it seems like England doesn’t believe in it anymore, but if we want to continue with our western prosperity, democracy, and happiness, we need more cooperation, not less; more interdisciplinary, more intercultural. A university like ours should facilitate that both physically and socially. In short, the monofunctional campus we have now needs to change a lot. Everywhere in the country, but also elsewhere across the world, monofunctional areas like office districts and old business parks are transforming into multifunctional live-work-sportlife areas. Districts with historically a mainly residential function are turning more often into places to work and to meet people. There’s a reason the Coffee Company is as popular as it is; the concept of incubators is hip. Since the alderman read Richard Florida’s The rise of the creative class, every city wants to attract creative industries. Let’s learn from this development! I think that changes are necessary if the TU wants to keep up with the speed of the innovative nations. The campus can transform from monotonousness to a district where study, research, living, working, teaching, eating, drinking and sports go hand in hand. So,

John Heintz John is an assistant professor at the MBE department and is, together with Ronald, responsible instructor of the course Design & Construction Management. << Photo by Marcel Bilow

more residential buildings for people studying and working there. Secondly, there should be more special facilities that can be used for interdisciplinary study, interdisciplinary research, and interdisciplinary work. The free zones are a nice idea, but in practice not much is happening there. We need to create places and buildings where students from different faculties can work together on current questions, meet each other, cooperate, and study. Physical space and necessary facilities. An interesting design assignment to start off with, the Mekelpark has enough space for some pavilions. Finally, we shall also need to adjust the education and develop new modules and courses in which interdisciplinary work are the top priority, and where practice and science meet each other. This will require some amount of flexibility from the professors. Interdisciplinary working requires the let go of one’s hobbyhorses. It means literally and figuratively crossing borders and learning from others; other cultures, other disciplines, and other schools of thought. The end of the campus is in sight, or at the very least the end of the campus as we know it.

Ronald van Warmerdam Ronald is senior project manager at the municipality of Amsterdam and is, together with John, responsible instructor of the course Design & Construction Management. September 2016

DEBATE Faculties spread throughout the city centre are better people and cultures. This is extremely important for students whose studies are more in relation with urban studies and social environments. 4. Many employers that offer internships will offer their opportunities in the city if students want hands-on experience before graduation. 5. Faculties throughout the city centre may create positive interactions between the university and

in favor

IN FAVOR The growth of universities in many countries demands more space. Often the universities use their expansion as an opportunity to develop a completely new campus in a suburban area, where more space is available. This phenomenon is not only observable among European universities since the 1970s, but more recently prevailed among Asian universities.

the local business sector. The same can be said The drivers behind the expansion in a campus outside of the

about interaction among university staff, students, local

city centre are threefold: First, there is enough land available in

business networks, local communities as well as interaction

greenfields outside of the city centre to realize the expansion

between different knowledge institutions.

ambition of growing universities. Second, often the expansion of university campuses is in line with the cities’ ambition to

When viewing the campus planning from the perspective of

develop its own knowledge economy and high-tech sector.

creating knowledge spaces and creative quarters in cities,

Therefore, the new campuses are often developed together

developing university faculties throughout the city centres may

with the city’s new high-tech park to share facilities and create

create more of a synergy effect to enhance the city’s urban

synergy. Third, acquiring cheaper land in the name of public

environment and competitiveness. Birmingham City University

interest and profiting from real estate booms are behind many

developed its Curzon Building for its Business, English, Law and

expansions of Asian universities.

Social Sciences students in the city. The city considered this university’s project as a catalyst by the city council, to turn the

However, when examining the use of these suburban campuses,

eastside into a hub for education and creative development.

it is not difficult to find out that the conditions in these new

Newcastle University also chose to develop its new campus

suburban campuses are often far from satisfactory for the

within the city’s central business district (CBD) as a part of the

end users - students and staff of universities. To underpin this

city’s urban renewal strategy. The drive behind this plan is to

statement, a list of advantages that lead to students and staff

create synergy between university staff, students and CBD,

preferring urban colleges to suburban campuses follows:

an injection of people and activities that helps local economy

1. Urban colleges offer a more attractive learning and living

and accelerate the city’s rejuvenation. The presence of these

environment and rich social-cultural experiences as faculties

knowledge institutions are key to the economic, social and

benefit from the diversity of mature urban surroundings.

cultural improvement of the city centres. This synergy vision

2. It’s much easier to get around at urban colleges because they

may have been considered in the development of suburban

can be accessed from a robust public transportation system.

campuses but in reality the realization process is much

3. Urban colleges are good environments for outgoing students

harsher. It may take decades for the new suburban campuses

who like to explore and interact with all different types of

to enjoy a relatively mature urban setting as that of the urban colleges. This is especially true for those public-initiated,

Yawei Chen Yawei is assistant professor at the TU Delft for the section of Real Estate. She is specialized in managing large-scale urban development processes.

BOSS Magazine 57

massively-invested in suburban campuses completed in a rush. As I have observed in the many campus towns in China in the last fifteen years, staff and students suffer daily from problems like incomplete labs and education buildings, poor public transportation, limited access to the library, hospital and other urban facilities, insufficient shops and retail for social activities, and even an unsafe rural environment.

than one campus outside of the city centre garage was hardly a central location). The students working on the Nuna Solar Car will practically live in their workplace hangar, where the team is working on the car 24/7. Rewriting a civil rights act and organising student debates asks for quality teachers and rooms, but does it need to take place in the city centre? Getting international diplomats, lawyers and CEO’s to visit a university campus to

against

AGAINST Imagine you are an engineering and design student working on the Nuna Solar Car, and that your task is to decrease the friction found in the front wheel section of the car. There is only one month left before the World Solar Challenge, and you and the rest of the team will have to do a lot of redesigning and testing for the front end of the vehicle. Where would you sleep that month?

talk about the student’s work is much easier than Now imagine you are a philosophy and international law

asking them all to go to several inner city locations. And finally,

student, and you are working on rewriting a civil rights act of

the art student may find her school and exhibition space

an African country. A special unit of the UN has asked your

somewhere central, but not her own studio. Artists like the

university to organize student debates with legal experts and

periphery, where they enjoy cheap space and an edgy urban

institutes specialising in African culture and politics. To what

environment.

kind of places and buildings would this project take you? And finally, you are an arts student working on a graduation project that blends sports media with street art. You compiled a portfolio and need a place to exhibit your work to your teachers and others. Where will you find the right space? It may generally be true that inner city locations for universities

“Faculties spread through a city centre are no better than those on a peripheral campus. Florida himself would probably say that what matters is interaction”

outperform peripheral campuses when it comes to their ‘quality of place’. Scholars as well as policy makers and university

Faculties spread through a city centre are no better than those

managers will cite Richard Florida and argue that quality of

on a peripheral campus. Florida himself would probably say

place is vital to attract young talent. The so-called creative

that what matters is interaction: between different types of

class likes a vibrant, dense and busy urban atmosphere. The

people, students and teachers, academics and professionals,

point: companies and universities follow talent into the city—

schools and employers, and between the university and

e.g. Google into NYC’s Chelsea, and Cornell onto Roosevelt

society at large. If a faculty’s built environment facilitates this

Island—or they strengthen their position if they are already

interaction, and if it provides a place for the great variety of

there. Moving to the outer rims of the urban fabric may cut

activities students deploy, that faculty’s location will be a great

some costs, but declining numbers of top students(or talented

success.

employees) will be inevitable, no matter how much universities invest in first-class architecture (such as MIT’s Stata Center designed by Frank Gehry). If the work of Florida teaches us anything, it is that young people with great knowledge and ideas are the fruit and fibre of urban economies. And they demand affordable, accessible, culturally diverse, and socially energetic spaces where they can live, study, work, and create. Or so they claim. In practice, not every student is fond of bustling city streets and modern inner city architecture. And not every study program or start-up finds its most suitable

Tom Daamen Tom is researcher, advisor and lecturer in strategic urban planning & real estate development. He is specialised in the management of urban development projects.

habitat in a dense and vibrant environment (Steve Jobs’ September 2016

Campus development as catalyst for innovation and urban transformations Flavia Curvelo Magdaniel Technology campuses are catalysts for innovation in cities and regions. We developed this thesis by studying two cases from an exploration of 39 campuses worldwide. These are the High Tech Campus Eindhoven in Brainport Eindhoven region (HTCE) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology campus in Cambridge-Boston area (MITC) (See Figure 1). This article summarises the findings of five-years doctoral research on the relationship between innovation and the built environment at the urban level. The research focused on the development of technology campuses. This term entails a variety of urban areas developed to accommodate technology-driven research activities intended to stimulate innovation. Empirical findings from an exploratory survey of 39 campuses across developed regions revealed that universities, high-tech companies and governments have been developing these areas since the late 1940s (See Figure 2). Their emergence as deliberated resources to stimulate innovation coincides with key periods of technological advancements in industrialised countries â&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e. the post-war period, the ICT revolution and the digital and information age. Ever since, the number and variety of technology campuses has been increasing. Science parks (Link & Scott, 2003), Technopoles (Castells & Hall, 1994), knowledge hot-spots (Van Winden, 2011), hightech campuses (Hoeger & Christiaanse, 2007; Huang, 2013), knowledge locations (Carvalho, 2013), business & science campus (Den Heijer, 2011) and Innovation districts (Katz & Wagner, 2014) are, among others, the different labels used to address these areas. Since the late Figure 1: Aerial view of the two campuses studied. Left: HTCE Right: MITC

BOSS Magazine 57

1980s, these developments have been gaining popularity with the adoption of the knowledge-based economy, the collaboration between industry and universities making the accommodation of research activities an important target to invest in physical infrastructure and urban development. Technology campuses are interesting subjects of study from a management perspective because they are not just the corporate resources of random organisations. They often accommodate anchor technology-driven organisations as main users â&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e. R&D multinationals or universities of technology. These organisations provide cities with the most valuable resource in the knowledge-based economy: highly educated people. Technology campuses can be seen as urban resources since they are portfolios occupying large urban areas and accommodating particular organisations tied to their hosting cities/regions by a common history of socioeconomic developments.

This research sees technology campuses as resources to stimulate innovation as a goal of multiple organisationsâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; i.e. universities of technology, R&D firms and municipalities. Although these organisations invest millions of euros in developing campuses, it is uncertain whether this strategy works to stimulate innovation. Developing campuses takes time and the demands of these organisations change along with the context in which they operate. Besides, innovation is not an easy concept to measure because of the different views organisations have on this goal. In this context, the managers of newly developed- and existent campuses have the opportunity and pressure to steer these resources to effectively support this goal. Unfortunately, there has been limited research on campus development from the CREM perspective leaving CRE managers with limited information to explain how they can do this. In helping them, we asked: How does the built environment stimulate innovation in technology campuses? Campus development facilitates inputconditions for innovation Campus development is considered a catalyst for innovation. This is demonstrated by real estate decisions and interventions that have facilitated five interdependent conditions for innovation in particular contexts (See Figure 3). In this model, innovation is understood as a learning process involving the creation, diffusion and application of knowledge to develop new and improved technologies. The social dimension of these related processes, performed by highly educated people, gives relevance to the end-users when explaining the relationship between innovation and the built environment. This model elaborates on five propositions

Figure 2: Timeline of technology campuses developed from the late 1940s

by which the built environment facilitates the conditions for innovation and their particular functions in such process: 1. Location decisions and area development facilitate the longterm concentration of innovative organisations in cities and regions, which functions as the primal

sources of knowledge. 2. Interventions enabling the transformation of the built environment at area and building levels facilitate the climate for adaptation along changing technological trajectories over time, which functions as the initial state that makes innovation a prerequisite for growth. September June 2016

Figure 3: Modelling the relationship between innovation and the built environment

3. Large-scale real estate interventions facilitate the synergy among organisational spheres in the Triple Helix, which functions as the activation energy allowing innovators to initiate and continue their processes. 4. Location decisions and interventions supporting the image and accessibility facilitate the distinctiveness of the innovation area, which functions as the geographical surface enabling innovators to access their knowledge networks for their processes. 5. Real estate interventions enabling access to amenities increase the diversity of people & functions, which works as the invisible force increasing the chances for innovators in an area to meet and encounter.

Flavia Curvelo Magdaniel Flavia is an architect designer and researcher in the field of Real Estate Management. She is also a PhD candidate in the department of MBE at the TU Delft.

BOSS Magazine 57

We conclude that the location decisions of particular organisations to concentrate their activities in certain places have determined where innovation takes place. That is the case of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge and Royal Philips in Eindhoven. Over the years, the accommodation of the research activities of these organisations has co-evolved with particular socio-economic processes in their hosting cities/regions creating unique conditions for innovation. For instance, Cambridge and Eindhoven experienced severe declines of their economies, which enforced their respective institutions to take different revitalisation measures in different periods that coincides with periods of technological advancements. These cities sorted out their economic crisis by pulling together the functional advantage of housing these organisations. Their presence can be considered as a primal condition enabling the coexistence of the other four conditions for innovation. Similarly, we acknowledge the following interventions facilitating conditions for innovation at the area level: â&#x20AC;˘ Transforming areas through urban renewal and redevelopment; â&#x20AC;˘ Building, adapting and re-using flexible facilities;

• Implementing the shared use of facilities accommodating different functions and users; • Developing physical infrastructure enabling access to amenities and connection between functions; • Developing representative facilities and area concepts that support the image. Last, we outline that the facilitating role of these interventions is shaped by the particular location characteristics in which each campus has developed. Our research distinguishes five types of location characteristics across the initial 39 campuses explored (See Figure 4). The cases we studied show that campuses located either in the periphery or in the inner-city have both the potential to facilitate the conditions for innovation in cities/regions by adapting their real estate interventions to their respective location decisions. The need for a balanced physical and functional integration between the campuses and their respective contexts is essential. Information to support campus decision-makers We structured and converted these empirical findings into information available to decision makers involved in campus development. The so-called ‘campus decision maker toolbox’ provides instruments that can guide planners, designers and managers during different stages of campus development. The tool for planners comprises campus models to frame the campus vision during the initiation of the campus based on location characteristics. These models are the ‘Tech-park’ and the ‘Tech-district’ comprising the different locations characteristics of existing campuses. These two models exhibit distinct connectivity features and planning frames that should be considered by campus and city planners. The tool for designers consists of alternatives to enhance the campus brief during the preparation of the campus. We suggest different alternatives of shared facilities, flexible facilities and physical connectors according to each campus model. Designers should consider crucial determinants when shaping the physical campus for innovation regarding (1) the amount, use and distribution

of shared facilities, (2) the shape and structure of flexible facilities, and (3) the configuration and distribution of physical connectors.

“The so-called ‘campus decision maker toolbox’ provides instruments that can guide planners, designers and managers during different stages of campus development” Finally, the tool for managers contains an information map to steer the campus strategy during the use of the campus. This tool displays a path linking organisation performance and real estate through four hierarchical levels - i.e. organisational strategy, real estate strategy, real estate decisions and real estate interventions. This tool makes explicit three important attributes of stimulating innovation as a real estate strategy, which are useful to managers in aligning real estate strategy with organisational strategy: • Stimulating innovation is a versatile real estate strategy because it contributes to organisational performance by means of competitive advantage, which is a common performance criteria among universities of technology, R&D companies and municipal/regional governments. • Stimulating innovation is an interdependent real estate strategy because its impact on organisational performance relies in the combined effect of two other strategies – i.e. Improving image and Increasing user satisfaction. • Stimulating innovation is an intermediary strategic level to guide real estate decisions and interventions targeted to attract and retain high skilled people. This information can help decision makers to steer such resources towards strategic decisions and interventions that, under certain conditions, facilitate innovation as a learning process. Campus development as agent in the urban transformation Our insights can be further explored empirically and in different domains to scale up the study of campuses September 2016

Figure 4: Five types of location characteristics in existing technology campuses

BOSS Magazine 57

as geographical nodes in collaborative knowledge networks. The contemporary view of knowledge as the driver of the current economies has strengthened the position of skilled people as the most valuable assets of the future cities. Different organisations are collectively using the political ‘innovation discourse’ that lies at competitiveness when transforming urban areas towards more attractive, inclusive, sustainable and well-connected cities. Different local actors are collectively working on adapting and re-using the heritage and industrial infrastructure in abandoned or vacant urban areas to accommodate offices and housing tailored to the flexible demands of students and young entrepreneurs. Implementing this has required political, planning and design interventions. Simultaneously, these areas can function as laboratories for testing new green technologies both at building and area level using citizens’ feedback. The role of the public space gains momentum by adding to the urban biodiversity, creating civic places around public amenities, and strengthening walkability and transit-oriented development.

References Carvalho, L. (2013). Knowledge Locations in Cities. emergence and development dynamics. (Doctor), Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam. Castells, M., & Hall, P. (1994). Technopoles of the World. London Routledge. Cooke, P., & Leydesdorff, L. (2006). Regional development in the knowledge-based economy: The construction of advantage. The journal of technology Transfer, 31(1), 5-15. Den Heijer, A. (2011). Managing the university campus. Information to support real estate decisions. Delft: Eburon. Hoeger, K., & Christiaanse, K. (2007). Campus and the City - Urban Design for the Knowledge Society (K. Hoeger & K. Christiaanse Eds.). Zürich: gta Verlag.

“Different local actors are collectively working on adapting and re-using the heritage and industrial infrastructure in abandoned or vacant urban areas to accommodate offices and housing tailored to the flexible demands of students and young entrepreneurs. Many university- and corporate campuses around the world have already started these types of interventions reaching a level of organisational and spatial integration required to address the urbanisation challenges of future cities. Cities can be envisioned by using campuses as test beds to involve, engage and empower citizens through the urban transformation. This thesis anticipates the future campuses and cities as the co-evolution of not only institutions and technology but also people.

Huang, W.-J. (2013). Spatial Planning and High-tech Development A comparative study of Eindhoven city-region, the Netherlands and Hsinchu City-region, Taiwan. (PhD), Delft University of Technology. Katz, B., & Wagner, J. (2014). The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America Metropolitan Policy Program. Washington: Brookings. Link, A. N., & Scott, J. T. (2003). U.S. science parks: the diffusion of an innovation and its effects on the academic missions of universities. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 21. Van Winden, W. (2011). Creating Knowledge hotspots in the city: a handbook. Practical guidelines for developing campuses, sciences quarters, creative districts and other knowledge hotspots Handbook. Urban IQ. Amsterdam. Retrieved from http://urbact. eu/uploads/tx_projectsresultsdocuments/_lhmd_ redis_brosch_web_01.pdf

September 2016

Unibail-Rodamco is the leading listed real estate company in Europe and the third-largest in the world. Listed on the Paris stock exchange since 1972, today the Group owns an exceptional portfolio of prime commercial properties, to the value of €39.3 billion as at June 30, 2016 located in the largest most prosperous cities across Continental Europe. Unibail-Rodamco’s operations are deliberately focused on large shopping centres in major European cities, the most prestigious office buildings in the heart and West of Paris and major convention and exhibition venues in and around Paris. However, Unibail-Rodamco’s strategy goes deeper than the selection of prime assets. The Group chose to vertically integrate the entire chain of value creation in real estate. The combination of its three

activities of development, investment and management, enriches the Group with unrivalled market knowledge and reactivity. This expertise enables Unibail-Rodamco to prosper in markets that are cyclical in nature and allows the Group to continue its investment programs in the heart of economic downturns. Joining Unibail-Rodamco means joining a team of highly committed people who are driven by excellence. You will immediately be entrusted with exciting responsibilities and gain access to fulfilling career opportunities in a range of countries and functions. The Group’s training and management policies will provide you with the confidence and experience you need to take sound decisions in complex situations involving major assets and large investment costs.

Mall of the Netherlands With the renovation and extension of the existing Leidsenhage shopping center a unique shopping center is created for the first time in The Netherlands. Leidsenhage is currently being transformed into ‘Mall of the Netherlands’ and will get a complete new identity. The Mall is expected to be completed in the beginning of 2019.

BOSS Magazine 57

Mall of Scandinavia Mall of Scandinavia is a shopping mall located in Stockholm, Sweden and features 224 stores. It was inaugurated on November 12, 2015 and after 8 months the Mall of Scandinavia reached the 10 million visits mark!

At Unibail-Rodamco, you can help to shape the future of cities while building an exciting and rewarding career with a company that promotes excellence and diversity. In return for your commitment, leadership and creativity, Unibail-Rodamco is dedicated to supporting you and helping you become one of tomorrowâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s leaders. Through the European Graduate Programme you can discover the diversity of Unibail-Rodamco business and approach to commercial real estate operations, acquire the fundamentals of the business, build a network and prepare your future career! This programme is structured as follows: 1-year rotation program, 2 different countries, 3 assignments of 4 months in different departments within the Group. Interested? Please contact us!

Website http://www.unibail-rodamco.com EGP-program http://www.unibail-rodamco.com/W/do/centre/ european-graduate-programme Application EGP careers-netherlands@unibail-rodamco.com

September 2016

Façade Leasing Juan Azcarate-Aguerre A circular business model based on multifunctional Façades as performance delivering tools could increase the rate and depth of building renovations, accelerate the market uptake of new building technologies, and optimize the reuse and recycling of components and materials within the construction industry. Sustainability and Circularity Until recent years, the general strategy to improve sustainability in construction had been to gradually reduce the resource consumption of buildings primarily through the use of better insulation and more efficient building systems. While these measures have had a positive effect, and can lead to constructions which consume up to 90% less energy during operation, it also presents considerable drawbacks. For one, its ultimate goal is a reduction, rather than elimination, of resource consumption and disposal; the path to achieve this sometimes implies a more intensive use of certain materials with a high embodied energy of their own such as insulation or triple glazing, or relies on advanced technologies which require rare elements to facilitate their built-in intelligence. This in turn leads to solutions whose economic and environmental payback is sometimes difficult to determine. Even more important, this strategy does not set any rules for the End-of-Service treatment of materials indeed called End-of-Life instead by the aforementioned school. Meaning this now larger mass of even more valuable materials is still disposed of as usual after a short service life of a few decades.

“The principle of circular economic development is to preserve components and materials within closed loops (...) while maximizing the conserved value for any particular component” 20

BOSS Magazine 57

The principle of circular economic development is to preserve components and materials within closed loops of either biological or technical nutrients, while maximizing the conserved value for any particular component. For example, reusing a ventilation fan as a manufactured element through cleaning and refurbishment retains a higher value and takes wider advantage of its embodied energy; a large portion of which would be lost if the parts of the fan where to be broken down into raw materials and used as input at the base of the production chain.

“The transition towards this new way for working, however, requires an extensive reorganization of incentives and responsibilities across all stakeholders in the construction value chain” A circular building is not seen as a cradle-to-grave project, in which materials come in at the start, are used for a limited amount of time, and are turned into waste or recycled into raw elements at the end, but as an ongoing process in which building components are constantly replaced with new and more efficient ones, while the old ones are broken down into spare parts which can be reused to produce the following technological generation. The transition towards this new way for working, however, requires an extensive reorganization of incentives and responsibilities across all stakeholders in the construction value chain. University campuses and their renovation challenges Accelerating the rate and depth of energy renovations in buildings is one of the biggest challenges of our industry. It is a well-known figure that, in order to reach emission reduction targets set for years 2020 and 2050, this rate must be increased from its present 1% per year, to at least 3% per year. At the same time, the quality and integrity of such renovations must radically improve,

as in many cases these projects are undertaken only in specific parts of the building, or attempt to achieve simply the minimum recommended improvement, without a holistic view of the construction as a dynamic and integrated system. This challenge is particularly present in the case of European university campuses and buildings. To use the Dutch example, nearly 60% of buildings in 14 universities studied date from before the 1980’s, and a vast majority of these were built during the post-war decades when materials were scarce and building quality was far from its best. This means that the end of the original servicelife of most of their Façade and building systems is either quickly approaching or already well overdue. At the same time, defining a strategy to expand or renovate buildings in a university campus is no easy task as technical requirements in facilities, trends in academic topics, and student enrolment are all highly significant variables which are sensitive to radical changes within short periods of time. Furthermore, the need to stay at the cutting-edge of competition means universities have to constantly evaluate what they invest their resources on. A deep renovation of their building portfolio would therefore come at the cost of hiring new professors or improving labs and other facilities, assets which could be more strategically valuable to the institution.

“Defining a strategy to expand or renovate buildings in a university campus is no easy task as technical requirements in facilities, trends in academic topics, and student enrolment are all highly significant variables which are sensitive to radical changes within short periods of time” Innovation in technology and processes come together into one integral solution Façade leasing as a combined strategy relies on recent

innovation on two fields: On one hand, technological innovation in the form of multifunctional Façades results in building envelopes which have the potential of delivering an ongoing indoor comfort service. This can be done through the use of decentralized, Façadeintegrated building support systems which replace the traditional installations running through the ceilings and hallways of traditional constructions. The current range of such decentralized technologies has expanded to include a wide spectrum of energy generating technologies, air-handling systems, electric and communication infrastructure, and even advanced profit-generating elements such as media screens or air-filtering solutions such as green Façades. The placement of all these components on the exterior layer of the building does not only facilitate their maintenance and replacement, it also enhances the capacity of the Façade to not simply protect the indoor spaces from the weather, but actively generate the energy required to control and monitor the indoor comfort conditions which it also provides. On the other hand, innovation in business and management practices, which includes new methods of financing, contracting and operating these new and highly complex building systems, could finally facilitate the complex transition required throughout the entire building process: From the initial design and engineering of components which can be easily maintained and replaced, through a high-quality production based on durability instead of initial cost, and especially during operation and reprocessing through a closer, ongoing collaboration between the suppliers of building technologies and the clients and users whose spaces are conditioned by such systems.

Juan Azcarate-Aguerre Juan is a researcher at the AE+T department, in collaboration with MBE. He focuses on the relationship between building technologies, management and business development.

September 2016

Façade Leasing pilot project at TU Delft’s Building 36 (EWI). Inauguration scheduled September 2016

The University as a Living Lab – The TU Delft pilot project More than probably any other user and operator of commercial real estate, universities tend to have a longterm commitment and attachment to their locations and their campus, while the size of such campuses also provides an economy of scale which is difficult to replicate. More significant still, they have a social responsibility to lead the way towards better and more efficient practices. These and many other factors makes them the ideal testing ground for new methods of construction, organization and collaboration. In September 2016 a consortium of companies ranging from component suppliers to Façade fabricators will install a pilot project temporarily replacing a section of the Façade on the low-rise building of the Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Sciences at TU Delft, commonly known as the EWI building. This pilot project will demonstrate the state-of22

BOSS Magazine 57

the-art in Façade-integrated technologies, and will act as an anchor point and conversation starter to further develop the complex system of contracts, financing structures and operational services required to make of the Façade Leasing project a feasible and implementable proposition.

“In September 2016 a consortium of companies ranging from component suppliers to Façade fabricators will install a pilot project temporarily replacing a section of the Façade on the lowrise EWI building” This solution does not specifically seek to address the particular complexities of the EWI building’s future, but instead uses the building’s representative quality as an

icon of modernist architecture which as mentioned will soon be reaching technical obsolescence to show that the degree of standardization and modularity in such constructions make them the ideal target market to develop this new business model. The shared benefits of performance contracts and the evolution of “Soft Estate” Performance contracts, in other words the shift from an economic system based on the sale of products to one based on the provision of services, can play a determinant role in the economic and environmental feasibility of both future new constructions and renovations. By outsourcing the management and upgrade of technological systems to the suppliers responsible for developing them, we can achieve a faster market uptake of new and more efficient systems, while reducing the initial investment requirements of developers and building owners. Circular industrial loops are also facilitated, as suppliers who retain the ownership of their products have a significant incentive to extract maximum value from them as they reach the end of their service-life.

centre less on the material aspects of one technology over another, and would instead assign value to the efficiency of their life-long strategic operation including maintenance services and technological update. This would in turn economically justify the use of buildings as material banks, make suppliers responsible for and interested in the long-term efficiency and reusability of their products, and set the path towards a better, more resource-efficient future. References Baines, T., & Lightfoot, H. (2013). Made to serve : how manufacturers can compete through servitization and product service systems. Chichester, West Sussex, United Kingdom: Wiley. Den Heijer, A. C. (2011). Managing the University Campus: Information to support real estate decisions. Eburon Uitgeverij BV. Klein, T. (2013), Integral Facade Construction- towards a new product architecture for curtain walls, Dissertation, Delft Technical University, Delft 2013.

“With time, we envision an industry lead by the development of what we call “Soft Estate”: a series of ongoing contracts, maintenance services and other processes which constantly vitalize and optimize the otherwise static physical shell of a building” With time, we envision an industry lead by the development of what we call “Soft Estate”. Just as hardware refers to the physical components which make up a system, while software allows this system to operate and provide the necessary functions, Soft Estate refers to a series of ongoing contracts, maintenance services and other processes which constantly vitalize and optimize the otherwise static physical shell of a building. Transactions across the value chain would therefore September 2016

TU Delft Mekelpark (source: Mecanoo)

The development of Dutch university campuses Alexandra den Heijer, interviewed by Britt van der Zandt Alexandra den Heijer MSc PhD is an associate professor in Real Estate Management and specialises in university campuses and buildings, conducting research in collaboration with and co-financed by campus managers of all the Dutch universities. She has written about managing university campuses for more than ten years: about the university and campus of the future, trends and changing concepts at international universities, and generating collective managing information for campus strategies and decisions. Her current research project explores (management of) the European campus - in an academic network - to support European decision makers. When the theme for Magazine #57 was determined, it was a logical step to contact Alexandra for an interview. Therefore, Britt van der Zandt, editor of BOSS Magazine met Alexandra on the 29th of June 2016 and asked her some questions about the development of Dutch university campuses. To start, Alexandra elaborated on the development of the university campus during the last 20 years. When her book was published in 2011, the book already covered the previous ten years. Of course, for a few decades already. digitalization and globalisation were coming up. 20 years 24

BOSS Magazine 57

ago, people thought that we wouldnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t need bricks in the future anymore and that campuses therefore would get smaller. But Alexandra did not fully agree on that, and she came up with three possible scenarios for the development of university campuses. These were (1) going back to tradition by focussing on giving students and employees an own workplace, (2) being more networked by creating more flexible workplaces and shared space, or (3) being more virtual. Back then, most people thought that the last scenario would become reality because the 21st century would be all about flexibility and virtual environments. Since every resource

would become digital, campuses would become digital as well and would need less square meters.

“We acknowledge that campuses are not just about sharing knowledge with people you know, but also about the coincidences on campus. A campus should generate the possibility to find things that you would not search for” During the last months, for her current research, Alexandra went back to all the universities she talked to for her PhD and she focused on the developments of the last 5 to 10 years. She states that it is remarkable that nowadays a lot of universities are going back more to their traditional model. Of course many developments have been made to make campuses more virtual and to enable virtual learning, but at the same time a lot of universities focus on creating a community again and on creating physical places. Saying if we lose the people on campus, we lose the very basis of what a university is meant for. Therefore, they went back to why campuses are there. We acknowledge that campuses are not just about sharing knowledge with people you know, but also about the coincidences on campus. A campus should generate the possibility to find things that you would not search for. This can be noticed at our own university as well: the TU Delft actually gave back more space to students and they cherish the fact that people are at the campus instead of home or elsewhere. As a result of these developments, there are some large differences between campuses 20 years ago and campuses now. For example the brief for a new university building has changed considerably. 20 years ago the brief for a new building focused on how many lecture halls, offices, classrooms and how much space was going to be created. The goal was to make the building as efficient as possible, by putting names to every place so each place was determined for a specific group of students. Also, 20 years ago the amount of circulation space needed to

be limited because it was considered a waste of money. Currently, it is actually the other way around: there are no names on doors and we consider circulation space as a value itself. The interaction space is part of the brief for a campus now. So the large amount of ‘in-between space’, both within buildings and between buildings, has been made functional and more flexible. A difficulty herein is that there is a thin line between standardization and things being anonymous. A way to be flexible while still having character needs to be found. Besides, if you look at the numbers 20 years ago and now, campuses are much more space efficient at present. Because of the limited amount of money, campuses have to be creative and have to intensify use. This intensified use is not only efficient, but it also feels better when the campus is crowded. When you look at the university website you will always see vibrant and lively environments, however if you visit the campus a week after the finals it will be empty. So sometimes space is not as intensively used, and therefore a plan is needed to make sure that there is enough activity at the campus. So, for the future there is a trend that universities feel more responsible for accommodating students on campus again. Universities want to make sure that a lot of people have a study place, but by allocating this in a smart way instead of by supplying as much as possible. A kind of new thing on campuses is using your smartphone to find a space that is available (empty or booked but not used). So more space is made accessible for students again, and smart tools are being used to visualise that. This is what Bart Valks is writing about, who also wrote an article for this magazine.

Alexandra den Heijer Alexandra is associate professor in Real Estate Management and is specialised in university campuses and buildings. She is the author of the book ‘Managing the university campus’.

September 2016

Another trend on campuses is to make better use of everything in between buildings. Of course you cannot sit outside all the time, but these places are not meant as full time work places and they turn out to function well. 20 years ago we planned all the formal spaces, and now we plan the informal spaces instead. Since nowadays people are working anywhere, it has become increasingly important to create traditional ways to support people. Therefore both virtual connections and physical meetings are very important, and both need to be accommodated. Thus, we need less but better space. Of course these developments have some consequences for the TU Delft as well, and they need to steer on the appearing trends. For example the TU Delft knows that they need to be more flexible in allocating space to people. Besides, they know that people need a home base, so when you’re studying architecture, the faculty of architecture needs to feel like your home base. Again, accommodating both is important: students should be able to study anywhere, but this should not replace their home base. Right now, the TU Delft tries to find the middle ground in accommodating people but not making them too territorial, because that will cost a lot of money. Dutch campuses differ from other European campuses in the density on campus and the willingness to share. When Alexandra visited campuses in other countries for her research, people told here that Dutch people are used to having a densely populated country and are used to interaction. As a result, Dutch people are more willing to share space. Besides, foreign people told her that the Dutch are more tolerant, for example in using corridors for all kinds of things. Because we allow more things in the public area and we are not too strict with the rules, our buildings can be more alive. This also contributes to the ‘feeling of home’ at the buildings. Combining and bending the rules a bit to create nice and inspiring places is actually a typical Dutch thing. Foreign visitors frequently comment on the way Dutch planners, architects and managers create this with a small amount of money. They come up with many cheap, small, and nice solutions that create a lot of quality.

BOSS Magazine 57

Compared to other Dutch campuses, the TU Delft has a very large campus. Many universities have a city campus and a campus outside the city, but Delft combines those This combination is a good thing, but of course the distance between north and south part of the campus is challenging. Where the north part of the campus has the unique character of being very close to the city centre, the south part has the unique character of feeling in a land far away and both parts are completely different communities. Some students have never even visited the south part of the campus. Therefore, Alexandra states that it is a challenge to design and manage those parts in way that the campus is still connected.

To create a connection between North and South, our campus invested a lot of money and energy in the ‘in-between space’ on campus during the last decades: the green Mekelpark” To create this connection, our campus invested a lot of money and energy in the ‘in-between space’ on campus during the last decades. For example the Mekelpark that used to be all parking spaces now has a centre and an exhibition space, and feels like one area. This is an example of how Delft not only focuses on the individual buildings on campus but on everything in between as well. The TU Delft really focuses on making sure people are there and meet each other. It seems obvious that people come at the campus every day and meet, but it’s not. In the past 20 years people have become more international. As a result people are all over the world and have many other things to do and other places to visit. To keep students and academics at the campus is a challenge, and that is really something that has changed during the last 20 years. We need to get people together, that is why many universities explicitly say ‘Let’s make sure people stay, let’s make the campus more like home, let’s make it a fun, inspiring and good place to be’.

SHAPE YOUR FUTURE

Savills Property starts with people

savills.nl/carriere September 2016

T he Indian University Campus: Proudly Decadent Comparing the system of a university campus in India with one in the Netherlands or elsewhere in Europe is really a comparison of apples with oranges. Basic parameters of comparisons are different in both the countries, and so is the whole perspective on education.

has seen university campuses across India decaying. However, the grit and determination of Indian students neutralises such a problem. While in the TU Delft, from my experience, students expect much more from the university campus in terms of facilities and quality. Such a difference is of course related to the general cultural differences between the two countries.

My home university, the Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University (GGSIPU), is one of the largest universities in New Delhi. The first level of comparison between TU Delft and GGSIPU is at the level of physical and spatial arrangement. While the TU Delft is an open campus and an inherent part of the city, the GGSIPU is a closed campus. This lends more security and clear cut demarcation of ownership. For a highly bureaucratic country like India, such closed systems are easier to manage and control. It also goes with the highly centralised form of decision making in the country. This system however does dissuade any outside connection with the city of Delhi. The quality of buildings is where the difference really stands out. Bureaucracy, corruption and general apathy

Cultural differences also render a difference in how the relationships between the campus and its users is. A country like India, with a high level of social and economic hierarchies, has a centralised decision making system. Here, students, who are the main stakeholders of the university, are not part of the development process. This also disengages the students with the university. On the other level, at the TU Delft, hierarchies are flatter and an active participation of students is seen across the developments in the university.

Karan Gupta Karan studied Management in the Built Environment at the TU Delft between September 2014 and July 2016. Now he moved back to India to apply his studies in practice.

BOSS Magazine 57

In conclusion the Indian university campus is declining and decaying into oblivion. What is encouraging and worth mentioning is that such barriers make the Indian student much more resilient and hardy to the external environment. We in India have learnt to work and flourish despite the plethora of problems and barriers that confront us. The same goes for the relationship between the Indian student and the Indian campus. Despite the odds, the students flourish and prosper, in a highly motivating and challenging academic environment. Thus is quite correct to observe that Indian campuses are decadent, but we are still proud of these institutions.

Student Housing on Campus Jessica de Boer In 2008 Delft University of Technology had a total of 15,166 students. The number was expected to rise to about 20,000 students in total in 2015, which turned out to be 20,980. All of these students need to have suitable housing at an acceptable distance from the university. And the number of students is even expected to rise to about 22,500 in 2018! New student housing, preferable on or not far from the campus, is necessary to accommodate all these students. I started my Bachelor studies in 2010, a year in which the amount of students rose enormously. The one thing I kept hearing at that time is that there was a huge shortage of student housing. Luckily for me, as a freshmen girl, it was still quite doable to find a suitable house. For the freshmen guys this was much harder. Being a master student now, I can imagine it was even harder for new master/international students to find a room because of the specific wishes one might have for the type of house and the amount of roommates. In 2010 the numbers show that there was a shortage of 5000 (!) student houses. As a reaction to this, the ‘2200 houses’ plan was introduced by the municipality. In the period of 2011-2014 the ambition was to start the building process of 2200 new student houses. A problem was that the minimum size of an independent student house (studio) was 24 m2. As a result of this, and the restrictions concerning the rent related to the properties of the house, student housing was too expensive to build which was not attractive to developers. By lowering the minimum size of an independent student house to 18 m2 it became a lot more appealing to develop student housing. Another suggestion made by STIP (the student party) was to not oblige developers to build parking places when this is not necessary for the students. The purpose of all of these measures was to get the development of student housing in Delft going again.

As we speak, not all of the aspired 2200 houses are built yet. But there is a lot going on, both on and near the campus! A new student apartment building was developed at the Balthasar van der Polweg; new developments are going on at the Stieltjesweg; De Vries van Heijst Plantsoen at the Michiel de Ruijterweg was transformed to student housing and a new building was added; Mijnbouwplein now provides beautiful rooms for students and at Kanaalweg 3 a renovation will provide 47 PHD apartments.

“Still this is not enough… There was a shortage of 5000 student houses in 2010, and not all of the aspired 2200 houses are built yet at this moment. The shortage is still huge and perhaps even rising. So, how should we deal with this?” Still this is not enough… There was a shortage of 5000 student houses in 2010, and not all of the aspired 2200 houses are built yet at this moment. The shortage is still huge and perhaps even rising. So, how should we deal with this? Should developing student housing be made even more attractive? Or should the university be more active in providing student housing on the campus, like dorm rooms for the freshmen students?

Jessica de Boer Jessica is a student and started the master track Management in the Built Environment in September 2014. She was also a member of the SHS Delft board. AES Fotografie >>

September 2016

Singapore versus Delft Corina Regales During the fall semester of last year I was fortunate enough to attend the National University of Singapore (NUS) for my elective courses in the Master track. As I had never been to Asia before, doing an exchange in Singapore sounded like a good idea. I knew little about the university and the country, so my expectations were also low. As it turned out, I was very pleasantly surprised! As a student I visited several university campuses in Europe, whether on summer courses or just visiting friends, and I have always thought that the Delft campus was the nicest; until NUS. What a world of difference between these two campuses! Throughout the semester I discovered how the facilities, campus population, and atmosphere of the NUS differed from Delft. During my exchange I resided at the Prince George’s Park Residences (PGPR), an on-campus apartment complex consisting of 30 apartment blocks which house about 3,000 students and teachers. It had a mini-market which was open seven days a week where you could purchase all the essentials from groceries, to bed sheets, to text books. It also had two food courts with stalls ranging from Vietnamese, Thai, Chinese, Japanese and up to ‘Western’. These were also open throughout the day and they served breakfast, lunch, and dinner here. Coffee, tea and delicious fruit juices could also be bought here and you would pay roughly 5 Sing dollars, or about 3 euros for an entire meal. The food courts mostly closed around 8 pm, but if you were still hungry you could go to the restaurant or snack bar which were also part of the residential complex and these stayed open until 1 am. Besides these great food options, the complex also offered basketball, tennis courts, gym, common rooms for studying, tv lounges, laundry rooms, and outdoor BBQ or meeting spots. All this was just in the complex where I was residing. PGPR and Utown were the two biggest student complexes on campus. The rest of the campus had even more. Each faculty had its own food court often accompanied by a Starbucks (there was one that was even open 24/7), a McDonald’s, a 30

BOSS Magazine 57

“The campus seems to be built on a 24/7 concept as there are always people around and there is always something to experience”

7-Eleven, a Subway, and/or other restaurants and food shops. Even more sports facilities were also spread around campus with more gyms, courts for volleyball, tennis and basketball, fields for soccer and track, swimming pools and rock climbing walls. University museums, libraries, alumni club house, National University Hospital, start-up offices, karaoke pub, snooker café and countless common student rooms where you could study, meet or something else, make up the additional amenities on the NUS campus. Another great facility was the Kent Ridge MRT station on campus, which easily connected you to city centre and the rest of Singapore. This campus station was also part of a mini shopping mall where you could not only get even more food, but also clothing stores, book stores, hairdressers and such were available. Altogether, this vast array of facilities available on campus made it possible to not even leave the campus for an entire week if necessary; which was handy during the exam period. The campus was like a small city itself, everything you needed could be found there. With so many faculties and facilities on campus. A free shuttle bus service was offered on the campus too. Everyone could take a shuttle bus to another faculty or the station without any hassle. These shuttle buses made it easy to get around and also ride around in the weekends. Not many students biked since the weather was hot and the campus a bit hilly. The population on campus also contributed to the citylike ambience. Besides local students and a large number of international students, teachers, staff and visitors were present as well. Teachers and staff lived with their family in the same complexes as students. Visitors in the area were often passing by for a quick lunch at one of the food courts. This creates a mixed and global campus society which was nice because you could easily interact with different people. That English is a national language also contributes to the experience, especially for exchange students, because you can understand everything and everyone. Similar to the U.S., NUS has halls where students live. These halls are vibrant and students are continuously on campus as that is where they reside. Another funny difference was that students

often walked around with t-shirts with the names of their faculties, sports team, or residence hall on it; proud to show to which group they belong. This also has more similarities with the U.S., where students wear hoodies or caps from their universities. The numerous faculties, the scale, and the students living on campus create a lively and active campus lifestyle. The campus seems to be built on a 24/7 concept as there are always people around and there is always something to experience. Many students’ clubs train outdoors or give free shows for anyone passing by. Throughout the semester many campus events were also organized and there are enough places to study, meet with friends or to just sit and relax and the events are actively promoted by the campus Facebook page. Moreover, the environment has lots of greenery and water, and due to the strict rules and cameras, safety and cleanliness levels are high. Climate also plays a role because a lot of activities could be planned outside and in general people were just more often outdoors. Yet, this also brings me to another noteworthy aspect; even during the rainy season you can easily go around the entire campus without needing an umbrella because all the bus stops, hallways and buildings on the campus were connected to each other and offered cover from the rain. Currently, the NUS is ranked the #1 university in Asia and the campus is truly one of the greatest-lah!

Corina Regales Corina is a student and started the master track Management in the Built Environment in September 2014. She followed elective courses in Singapore as a part of the master’s program. September 2016

Study place preferences: quiet please! Theo van der Voordt Attractive and appropriate study places can contribute to students’ learning performance and show to have an impact on where to study. But what does ‘attractive’ and ‘appropriate’ mean? Recent PhD research sheds more light on what students want. 13 May, 2008: Black Tuesday! Due to a short circuit in one of our coffee machines the old faculty building at Berlagestraat 1 completely burnt down. Maybe it is no coincidence that in Spain, Greece and other countries Tuesday the 13th is the unlucky day. This disaster caused heavy emotions among staff, students and alumni. Apart from having lost important information and personal belongings, the former faculty building was connected with many memories and beloved as an icon of Functionalism, designed by Van den Broek and Bakema. From the first day on, the faculty and the TUD community showed to be extremely resilient. One day later Dirk Jan van den Berg, then chair of the TU Delft Executive Board, presented what to do in a fully occupied Auditorium of the TU Delft. The next Monday our education restarted in huge tents at the BK Camping, opposite to the former spot. And in September 2008 our first year students entered the renovated BK City building at Julianalaan 134. A good example of high speed accommodation management! The former faculty building at Berlageweg 1, before and after the fire.

BOSS Magazine 57

After the fire, Wytze Patijn, at that time the dean of our faculty, took the opportunity to realise his dream: creating a vibrant faculty building where staff and students can easily meet in rather open environments and ‘public’ spaces such as huge atria, an Espresso bar, and an easy-to-access canteen in the former boiler house. It was also the start of introducing so-called activity-based workplaces. Staff members no longer have a personal desk but share a variety of workplaces in their departmental domain and can also use work places elsewhere in the building. A first evaluation showed that most staff members like the current BK City building very much. However, a number of staff people complained about a lack of privacy, lack of concentration due to distraction by colleagues and phone calls, and a shortage of storage space (Gordievsky et al., 2010). These findings were confirmed in a graduation study by Van Akkeren (Van Akkeren et al., 2010) and a survey by Leesman (Bentinck and De Jong, 2012). Student preferences In all three Bk City Post-Occupancy Evaluations, students were not asked about their opinion and experiences. To my knowledge, this never happened at our faculty so far. This is remarkable, because a nice, attractive and appropriate study environment may influence students choice where to study (Price et al., 2003; Matzdorf and Greenwood, 2015). A recent PhD study by Beckers

Left: BK City, Espresso bar: a popular place to meet and greet and for learning activities Right: BK City, West Glasshouse: an open area to work on scalemodels

(2016) presents interesting research findings about what students from Universities of Applied Sciences want. Based on a survey among students of the Han University of Applied Sciences (N = 687, response rate = 71%) it was found that most of them agree with the statements “Learning spaces are important” and “Learning spaces influence the results of my tests” (average scores of 3.67 and 3.71 on a 5-point scale, from 1 = fully disagree to 5 = fully agree) (Beckers et al., 2016a). This perceived impact on study performance has hardly been tested empirically by sound research (Fisher, 2001). In the same survey, Beckers also asked the students about the preferred social and physical characteristics of study places for individual learning and collaborative learning, what they like and what they find important.

“For individual concentrated study activities students prefer to study at home or at quiet learning spaces within university buildings offering the possibility to retreat” For individual concentrated study activities students prefer to study at home (quiet, free to listen to own music) or at quiet learning spaces within university buildings offering the possibility to retreat. Quiet public areas rank a little lower but are also well appreciated. Students don’t prefer busy, open spaces, neither in the university building, nor in public areas. For collaborative study activities with peers, students favour quiet, closed

learning spaces at the university as well. All other learning space are less or much less preferred for collaborative study activities. No clear relationships were found with gender, age, study year and living situation. Students who find privacy important perceive interaction as a little less important than the average score, whereas students who find interaction and autonomy important also rank comfort somewhat higher on perceived importance than the average student. The four factors regarding the physical dimension - perceived importance of comfort, aesthetics, ICT and layout - were all significantly correlated. Apparently, students who find one of these four characteristics more important than other students also value the other three characteristics above average. This might indicate that these students are more aware of (the impact of) the physical environment. The perceived relevance of comfort and the preference for closed learning spaces showed a notable significant correlation, too. Apparently, closed spaces are experienced more comfortable than open spaces. Overall, students show to highly favour quiet places above busy places, both for individual and for collaborative learning activities. Because privacy is not ranked very high on level of importance, the main reason for this preference seems to be a functional one: in a quiet environment students perform better. Actual behaviour: choice of study places In a separate study, Beckers (2016) asked 52 business management students to keep a diary of their study September 2016

activities for one week and to record what they are doing, where these study activities are conducted, and why there. The diary format is shown in the figure on the right. The 52 students reported 1836 learning activities and 2200 reasons to motivate their choice where to study. Independent study activities showed to be conducted mainly at home (59% of the time) or in public spaces such as on the way to school or home or in a restaurant/ café (31%). Autonomous working on assignments outside lessons occurred most frequently at home as well (64% of the time). Collaborative learning activities outside lessons in open areas occurred mainly in open areas at school (58%) or at project rooms at school (27%), whereas social student activities were conducted everywhere, in particular in open areas (28%), outdoor spaces on the campus (18%) and public spaces outside the school (23%). In total, 14% of all learning activities were conducted in public spaces outside the school building. The main reasons to study at home are vicinity (no need to travel), comfort, and personal control e.g. the freedom to combine learning activities with other activities. The main reasons to study at school are scheduled study activities at a particular place and social interaction, whereas when students choose public spaces an important reason is its vicinity. Remarkably, quite often no specific reason was mentioned here (46% of these place/motivation combinations). First year students choose open learning spaces more often than second and third year students. Additional interviews showed that overall functionality and suitability seem to overrule other motives such as socialising. A simple thing such as the availability of electrical power outlets for a laptop

Theo van der Voordt Theo van der Voordt is emeritus associate professor of Corporate Real Estate Management at the Department of Management in the Built Environment, Faculty of Architecture TU Delft.

BOSS Magazine 57

can make the difference between yes or no choosing a particular study place. The growing use of open areas is reflected in floorplans of recently built school buildings. A comparative floorplan analysis of an education building built in 1998 with three education buildings built in 2010-2011 showed that the percentage of classroom space dropped from 71% in the building from 1998 to 50-62% in the newer buildings, whereas the informal learning settings increased from 1% in the older building to between 4-23% in the other three buildings (Beckers et al., 2015).

“The findings show that apart from good teachers, teaching methods and teaching tools, the location and design of study places do matter as well. Based on Beckers (2016) one might conclude that the main issue is to provide sufficient quiet places” So what? The findings show that apart from good teachers, teaching methods and teaching tools, the location and design of study places do matter as well. Based on Beckers (2016) one might conclude that the main issue is to provide sufficient quiet places. However, walking around and watching many students that seem to feel pretty comfortable in more busy places, this conclusion would be too simple. Price at al. (2003) concluded that though quiet places are one of the most relevant study facilities of universities, opportunities for learning in entrance areas and corridors are important as well. In a study among 1,457 students in Norway it was found that the social areas contributed most to the overall student’s learning space satisfaction (Sanberg Hanssen and Solvoll (2015). According to Higgins et al. (2005) catering areas in university buildings are also important for student’s learning activities. Probably part of the time social motives – liking to gather with peers, enjoying a lively atmosphere - prevail over functional drivers. In the current experience economy (Pine and Gilmoure,

Diary format including what, where and why (Beckers et al., 2016b)

1999), having nice experiences is a key condition for a positive appraisal of a product or service. It may be concluded that in addition to (scheduled) class rooms it is important to provide both quiet informal study places for individuals and small groups and more lively places to combine learning with socialising and having fun.

The most important challenge is to find the right balance between efficiency, effectiveness and experience value, and to quantify the need for different places. Involving both students, policy makers, real estate and facility managers and financial controllers in decision-making may be helpful in finding just the thing all of us want: the egg of Columbus.

References Theo van der Voordt 1/2 Beckers, R. (2016) A learning space odyssey. Exploring the alignment of learning space in universities of applied sciences with the developments in higher education learning and teaching. PhD thesis TU Twente. Beckers, R., Van der Voordt, T. and Dewulf, G. (2016a), Learning space preferences of higher education students. Building and Environment, 104, 243-252. Beckers, R., Van der Voordt, T. and Dewulf, G. (2016b), Why do they study there? Diary research into studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; learning space choices in higher education. Higher Education Research & Development. Vol. 35 no. 1, pp. 142-157. Beckers, Ronald, Van der Voordt, Theo & Dewulf, Geert (2015), A conceptual framework to identify spatial

implications of new ways of learning in higher education. Facilities 33 no. Â˝, 2-19. Bentinck, S.A. and de Jong, P. (2012) Evaluatie werkomgeving. Lunch presentation Real Estate & Housing. Delft: Faculty of Architecture. Not published. Fisher, K. (2001) Building Better Outcomes: The Impact of School Infrastructure on Student Outcomes and Behaviour. Schooling issues Digest. Canberra: Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs. Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K. Woolner, P. & McCaughey, C. (2005) The impact of school environments: A literature review. University of Newcastle: The Center for Learning and Teaching, School of Education, Communication and Language Science. Continue on next page >> September 2016

References Theo van der Voordt 2/2 Gorgievski, M.J., van der Voordt, T.J.M., van Herpen, S.G.A., & van Akkeren, S. (2010) After the fire. New ways of working in an academic setting. Facilities 28(3/4), 206-224. Matzdorf, F. & Greenwood, J. (2015) Student choice, league tables and university facilities. In: People make Facilities Management. EuroFM research papers Advancing Knowledge in FM. Proceedings of the 14th EuroFM Research Symposium, EFMC, Glasgow, June 2015. Pine, J. & Gilmoure, J. (1999) The experience economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Price, L., Matzdorf, F., Smith, L. & Agahi, H. (2003), The impact of facilities on student choice of university. Facilities 21(10), 212-222. Sandberg Hanssen, T.E. & Solvoll, G. (2015) The importance of university facilities for student satisfaction at a Norwegian University. Facilities 33(13/14), 744-759. Van Akkeren, S., Van der Voordt, T. & Gorgievski, M. (2010) Flexwerken in een academische omgeving. In: Kooyman, W. (red) Facility Management Jaarboek 2010. Nieuwegein: Arko Uitgeverij, pp 38-43.

ivbnA5liggend2016_Opmaak 1 01-02-16 10:29 Pagina 1

• Altera Vastgoed • Amvest • APG Asset Management • a.s.r. vastgoed vermogensbeheer • AXA Real Estate Investment Managers • Blue Sky Group • Bouwfonds Investment Management • Bouwinvest REIM • CBRE Global Investors (NL) • Dela Vastgoed • Delta Lloyd Vastgoed • FGH Bank • Klépierre • MN • NEWOMIJ • NSI • NS Stations • PGGM • Q-Park • Redevco Nederland • Schiphol Real Estate • SPF Beheer • Stienstra Beleggingen • Syntrus Achmea Real Estate & Finance • Timeos • Unibail - Rodamco • Valad • Vesteda • Wereldhave • Wonam

BOSS Magazine 57

De Vereniging van Institutionele Beleggers in Vastgoed, Nederland (IVBN) behartigt de gezamenlijke belangen van grote pensioenfondsen, verzekeringsmaatschappijen, vermogensbeheerders en (al dan niet beursgenoteerde) vastgoedfondsen. Per 1 januari 2016 telt IVBN 30 leden. Gezamenlijk vertegenwoordigen de leden ruim 50 miljard euro aan Nederlands onroerend goed en nog eens circa 50 miljard euro in het buitenland. De bij IVBN aangesloten organisaties beleggen - zowel direct als indirect - voornamelijk in woningen, kantoren en winkelcentra/ winkels. Voor meer informatie inzake de verschillende thema’s en publicaties, zie de website.

De IVBN Scriptieprijs Deze jaarlijkse stimuleringsprijs is door IVBN in het leven geroepen in het kader van de verdere professionalisering van de vastgoedbeleggingssector. De prijs wordt uitgereikt aan de als beste beoordeelde afstudeerscriptie. De winnaar ontvangt een geldbedrag, evenals de betrokken opleiding. Meer informatie IVBN Scriptieprijs op www.ivbn.nl.

‘Huize Middenburg’ Westeinde 28 Postbus 620 2270 AP Voorburg

Tel. 070 - 300 03 71 Fax 070 - 369 43 79 info@ivbn.nl www.ivbn.nl

SCRIPTIEPRIJS

2016

Smart tools on campus Bart Valks Not only in real estate, but across all subjects automation is a hot topic anno 2016. Ask a random student or colleague at the TU Delft about their thoughts on automation, and you are likely to get a wide variety of examples – the quantum computer, self-driving cars or the advances in robotics, to name a few. The expected arrival of these technologies is not only exciting – what happens once we start using them on a daily basis and how they will impact our lives and environments is almost just as exciting. The example of the smartphone illustrates such a development. In ten years’ time, a lot has changed – both in small and large things. The amount of data we send and receive on a daily basis has increased exponentially. Nowadays, there are software developers that make a living based on the development of apps. When we travel by car, we can adjust our journey based on real-time traffic updates and select which parking garage to go to, based on availability of parking spaces. Customer service is becoming much more transparent and interactive, with companies such as KLM and NS responding to Facebook messages within hours. In the built environment, the question is not only how new technologies will impact our buildings, but also how existing ones can be used better. Wi-Fi infrastructure is just one example of the increasing automation present in contemporary buildings. A typical office building includes automated systems for lighting, ventilation, heating, building access, sunblinds, etc. These systems are based on different types of sensors, which are used to determine the appropriate action to take. These sensors might be able to do more than just turn lights on and off, or adjust the room temperature – they can also be used to determine how many people were in a room and when.

TU Delft, Pulse – Impression Source: Ector Hoogstad Architects

For both owner-occupiers and tenants, these sensors provide an enormous opportunity. Information about the frequency and occupancy of spaces can serve multiple purposes: it can help users navigate their way through buildings (e.g. airports, shopping malls) or find free work spaces, it can help real estate managers make decisions about their real estate portfolios, and it can help save energy. In the past few years, multiple companies have started to focus their efforts on making buildings smarter by developing ‘smart tools’. In this research project, ‘smart tools’ is a term used to distinguish products or services that collect (real-time) information about space use in order to improve the current space use, and to improve decision-making about future space use. Universities and smart tools An especially interesting and complex case in this respect is the case of universities. In the Netherlands the universities are owners of large real estate portfolios. A large part of these portfolios consists of ageing buildings, both technically and functionally: these buildings require major reinvestment. Most universities are now in the implementation phase of their estate strategies, involving new-build, renovation, demolition and divestment. However, the continuous growth of students is putting these real estate strategies under pressure: will there be enough space on campus for each user? And during renovations, is it still possible that lecture halls and office spaces are temporarily unavailable?

September 2016

PC Availability – Tilburg University Source: Tilburg University

At the same time there is a shared presumption that space on campus can be used better. Users often experience having to look for a free meeting room or lecture hall, with many of them being booked but not used: why is it not possible to provide this information online somewhere? Real estate managers experience the same frustration, and wonder: once new buildings are realised according to the same space standards, will they be used just as inefficiently and ineffectively as the current ones? The smart tools on campus project seeks to find solutions to this paradox. Examples of smart tools Currently, most of the universities in the Netherlands have implemented tools that display the location and availability of study places with PC’s across campus. The ICT department is able to determine whether a student is logged in or not for each individual PC on the network. The information is displayed in different ways: per building, per room or even per work station. However, the space use is changing at most universities, since much more students study on their laptop, and the universities are reducing the amount of PC’s on campus as a result. Another tool that most universities use is a tool that students and/or employees can use to book free spaces. At the TU Delft this is done by using ‘Mapiq’, a tool in which

Bart Valks Bart is a MBE graduate and has been doing research on the topic smart campuses since October 2015 as part of the campus research team.

BOSS Magazine 57

students can reserve a project room for group work. At most other universities this is done by using Web Room Booking. The amount of days that a booking can be made in advance is something that varies. In general the rule is the longer in advance a booking can be made, the more control the facility management department has. Aside from the smart tools showing the amount of free PC places and self-booking tools, there are quite a few developments going on at a few different Dutch universities. At one university, a system that determines the frequency and occupancy of each lecture hall in the university’s educational buildings, based on the position of smartphones within the Wi-Fi network has recently been implemented. Because this information is linked to the timetable, it is possible to know for each course how many times the course was scheduled but did not take place (a no-show) and how much students attended compared to the scheduled estimate. Furthermore, a few universities have started to make small lecture halls and meeting rooms bookable by students for group work. All of these developments are ongoing and are being implemented and further developed right now. The universities can also learn quite a lot from what is happening in other places. For instance Cambridge University is using a website called ‘Spacefinder’, on which students can find a room in which to study – not based on information about availability, but based on the characteristics of the room and their own preferences. Other examples of tools include an app piloted by NS, an app/system which is just being implemented at Avans and a BIM platform by Root B.V., which serves as a basic model in which all relevant building information can be projected. The insights from the market provide valuable insights, not just about the tools themselves but also how universities can enrich their existing tools by adding functionalities.

Mapiq - TU Delft – Source: Mapiq, Blinq Systems Inc.

Spacefinder – Cambridge University Source: Cambridge University.

Finding the right solution The problem of selecting the appropriate smart tool is more difficult than it seems. First of all, universities have lots of different space types – lecture halls, study places, laboratories, offices, meeting rooms, restaurants, etc. These spaces vary from publically accessible to private, and are used by students, guests or teachers, or a combination. Also the way these spaces are used is changing. Secondly, there are multiple suppliers in the market, from different areas of expertise – some are experts with one type of sensor, whilst other parties have their expertise on FMIS systems or even app building, and new solutions emerge at a rapid pace. Thirdly, there are a lot of different parameters to consider when selecting a certain sensor: ranging from the accuracy of the sensor to the robustness of the system, or privacy issues, some of which change as the sensor develops further. And finally, there is the issue of costs and benefits:

information regarding costs is usually quite case-specific, whilst the smart tools have often not been implemented long enough to evaluate whether the perceived benefits have been achieved. These factors combined make it nearly impossible to find a long-term, one-size-fits-all solution. This is already evident in the variability of solutions at the Dutch universities, and the deliberate strategy of some universities to experiment with different suppliers on different problems and/or on parts of the campus. As long as the development of different smart tools in this area moves at such a fast pace, it is important to monitor carefully how space use at universities is changing and how smart tools can help to support that change, whilst at the same time keeping track of the progress that the universities and other end users are making with both their existing and new solutions. September 2016

YES!Delft Alexander Naorniakowski Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Steve Jobs. Entrepreneurs in the technology sector have captured the imagination of a whole generation. They serve as role models for those who want to make a difference in the world. Today, students and alumni of the TU Delft are developing new businesses at YES!Delft. Incubators and startups In contrast to the before mentioned entrepreneurs, the tech-entrepreneur of today has the possibility to join one of various institutions and programs aimed at helping him to succeed. Gone are the days of working from parent’s basements and rented garages. So-called incubators offer young businesses workspace, coaching and a network of professionals and investors. We call new businesses that are launching novel products “startups”. Origin of YES!Delft Interestingly, a decade ago at the TU Delft, startups were not even remotely as popular as they are today. That changed when the university chose to expand her core tasks of education and research. Valorization, the act of giving (market) value to knowledge, was added. In short, newly developed technologies at the TU Delft had to result in business spin-offs that would be developed locally. Tech-incubator YES!Delft was founded in 2005 as a result of this ambition. Originally located at the Rotterdamseweg, the incubator quickly expanded beyond its original capacity due to high demand. YES!Delft relocated to her current location at the Molengraaffsingel in 2010. There, more than 60 startups could be hosted. And although applying is open to all, to this day, the majority of entrepreneurs are TU Delft alumni. A key player in the region The current location of YES!Delft is not chosen coincidentally. It is part of the 240.000 m2 terrain known as sciencepark Technopolis. This business area is an initiative of, amongst others, the TU Delft and the municipality of Delft. The vision for the development 40

BOSS Magazine 57

of the region mentions that it is of great importance to attract high-profile research & development companies to settle here. Some even refer to the area as Delft’s envisioned Silicon Valley. Within that initiative, YES!Delft leads the way. Among the companies that have been founded at YES!Delft are Ampelmann, Senz, and Epyon. However, the relation between YES!Delft, the TU Delft and the municipality goes beyond the exposure created by her spin-offs. Some companies have sold their products locally, as portrayed by the following examples. At the TU Delft, startup AnsDelft provides new ways of grading tests that reduce workloads for teaching staff and improve the learning process of students by providing feedback on their performance. FeedbackFruits offers an interactive, online learning tool that helps students and teachers to communicate effectively. Furthermore, structural engineering startup MOCS has provided the municipality with unique bridges, built from composites, that outperform their wooden and metal counterparts when it comes to maintenance costs. Future With startups being more popular than ever before, YES!Delft does not need to fear a shortage of potential entrepreneurs. To cater the needs of the increasing number of companies, a new facility was opened this year: YES!Delft Labs. The building offers, besides office space, laboratories suited for research in biotechnology. A branch that is yet to be represented in the YES!Delft portfolio. However, investing in the future goes beyond building facilities. Since 2009, YES!Delft Students, the student organization within YES!Delft, works at bringing the incubator closer to the students on campus. By organizing events such as lectures and symposia, students are being inspired to become entrepreneurs themselves. Business-themed courses for students from all faculties are given in cooperation with the TU Delft to educate a new breed of tech-entrepreneurs. Thus, making them ready to become the next generation of technology game changers.

BOSS Study Trip 2016 Sarah Heemskerk On the 3rd of July, the BOSS Study trip began and it was a very special one, since we visited three instead of two cities: London, Vancouver and San Francisco. Twenty students joined the trip and were accompanied by the professors Peter de Jong and Erwin Heurkens. Before and during the trip we worked on two research themes: urban redevelopment and housing affordability. We focussed on these two themes while visiting the three cities, which gave very interesting results. It started with two nights in London, where all students shared one dorm room, which of course immediately improved the group bonding. In London we visited Kings Cross as well as two companies: Bouygues and Savills. The site visits were very interesting, and at Savills we discussed the possible results from the Brexit, which just got the majority of the votes before we left for the study trip. All in all, London has a very unique real estate market, as we had expected beforehand. We saw some urban area developments, mostly just outside the city centre, but since the real estate prices are sky-high in London, even the houses in the outskirts would not be classified as affordable. Next stop was Vancouver, where we stayed for one week. The program started with a bike tour, guided by two hollanders who live there, which gave a good overview of the city centre of Vancouver. The next day we visited the University of British Columbia, where we got a tour through three of the most interesting buildings regarding sustainability. Furthermore we visited a lot of companies, that all gave us an insight in the two research themes from their perspective. Especially the housing affordability proved to be a point of discussion, since a lot of Asian buyers are investing in real estate in Vancouver, which results in a fast price increase. It depends on the perspective whether this is seen as a problem or not. Another interesting part of the program in Vancouver was the tour by Trevor Boddy, a good friend of our

professor John Heintz. The enthusiastic Trevor gave us a tour through Olympic Village and Granville, which gave us more insight in the real estate from the architectural point of view. Just like London, Vancouver has a real estate market with extreme high prices. However, the most interesting thing is that the real estate sector is actually the most important sector in Vancouver, so the prices are high because of a stable real estate market rather than the existence of important companies for example. The last destination of the trip was San Francisco, again a city with sky-high real estate prices. In San Francisco we had a warm welcome at the Dutch consulate, where we had a beautiful view over the city. Again we did a biking tour, which was a little bit more tough because of the hills the city is built on. We visited a lot of companies and municipal institutions in the city centre, but also went to the Oracle campus in Silicon Valley. This cluster of high-tech companies has an enormous influence on the real estate market of San Francisco. So in contrast to Vancouver, the existence of these companies is the biggest driver for the increase in real estate prices. However, it is clear that all three cities that we have visited face difficulties with realizing affordable housing. All in all it has been an amazing trip, during which we learned a lot, but mostly had a great time with each other. A big thanks to Lisa, Wouter, Tine, Hans and Liesbeth for organizing the trip!

Sarah Heemskerk Sarah is a student and started the master track Management in the Built Environment in September 2014. She is also a member of the BOSS Board â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;15-â&#x20AC;&#x2122;16.

September 2016

1. A newly established business 2. Group of university departments concerned with a major division of knowledge 3. Organization operated by students at a university, whose membership typically cosists only of students and/or alumni 4. Person who has successfully completed a course of study or training 5. Teacher or scholar in a university or other institute of higher education 6. Large bedroom for a number of people in a school or institution

7. Period in which students from a university study abroad at one of their institutionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s partner institution 8. The period of the year during which students attend school or university 9. Undergraduate academic degree awarded by colleges and universities upon completion of a course of study lasting three to seven years 10. Grant or payment made to support a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s education, awarded on the basis of academic or other achievement. 11. Optional course of study

Solutions can be found at boss tudelft.nl

12. The subjects comprising a course of study in a school or college 13. Class at university in which a topic is discussed by a teacher and a small group of students 14. Former pupil or student of a university 15. Park in between the TU Delft campus 16. Large building or hall used for public gatherings, typically speeches or stage performances 17. Person who directs and oversees the work of a postgraduate research student