Spatial interventions as planning tools for knowledge-based development in the Netherlands

Regional economics have traditionally emphasised the importance of clusters of (high‐tech) industries and research institutions, whose proximity would generate (technological) innovation, the most important element for economic growth and competition. Science parks and high‐tech spaces have been among the most popular tools to promote the formation of these clusters, followed by business incubators, innovation centres, academic transfer centres, supportive networks, and many other schemes to promote local entrepreneurship and to attract global firms to their localities. But moving from mass‐production into tailor made production – from an industrial into a knowledge urban economy – has increased the significance of symbolic values. Cities and regions are now trying to transform their production structures towards knowledge‐intensive and creative design industries. Consequently, innovation and creativity have become important activities of, not only high‐ technology sectors, but of a broad range of industries. As such, they have become crucial resources for local urban development. These changes have produced an important shift in the field of regional economics, in which a ‘cultural‐economic’ paradigm (Amin and Thrift, 2007) has become popular. This cultural turn has led to a renewed attention to places. According to its assumptions, the quality of a place – which includes amenities like urban atmosphere, culture and leisure venues, and ‘third places’– has become an important economic asset in its role to attract talented people to cities (Florida, 2002). Many cities worldwide have developed policies to nurture local creativity and to attract creative workers. In the Netherlands, many cities have embraced the cultural economic paradigm in their search for local creativity and innovation. But empirical studies show that despite their discourse on creativity, most local policies still tend to engage in a business‐oriented perspective, which is easier to implement in practice (Kooijman and Romein, 2007). How are spatial planners translating the strategic requirements of the knowledge‐based economy into spatial interventions? Which specific spatial planning tools are they implementing to deal with the new conditions? The present study presents how two important knowledge cities of the Netherlands – Eindhoven and Delft, seat of the two technical universities of the country – are dealing with the new conditions and requirements of the knowledge economy. Strijp‐S, in Eindhoven, and TIC (Technological Innovation Campus) Delft share the ambition to improve the international position of these cities in the knowledge‐based economy, but are being implemented with very different approaches, priorities and goals. The analysis of these two cases will be useful to discuss important