Mina Akhavan (p), Ilaria Mariotti, Mina Di Marino, Seyed Hossein Chavoshi

Over the last decade, we are witnessing a worldwide spread of coworking practices and the emergence of alternative workplaces, such as coworking spaces (CS). In the literature, CS are regarded as “serendipity accelerators” designed to host creative people, and entrepreneurs who endeavour to break isolation and to find a convivial environment favouring the development of collaborative communities, which may lead to an increase in informal exchange, collaboration and interaction with others, knowledge transfer, and business opportunities. Mainly located in large urban areas where there is a concentration of skilled labour force, knowledge and innovation – and the so-called ‘creative class’– CS may encourage individual/team creativity and innovation by providing business infrastructures as well as the opportunity for collaboration and social interaction. Within this context, this contribution – which is part of the ongoing COSTAction project: (CA18214, ‘The geography of new working spaces and impact on the periphery’ (2019-2023)– seeks a twofold aim: (i) to provide an overview of the rather young and fast-growing literature on this topic, with a focus on CS typologies and location factors (ii) to present and discuss some outcomes of an empirical study conducted on the two cities of Milan and Oslo by an interdisciplinary team of scholars (in urban and regional economics, urban and regional planning and geoscience) from Politecnico di Milano and -Norwegian University of Life Sciences. The two cases are compared regarding their typologies (public vs private, startup vs real estate business model, etc.), and also their location patters (central vs peripheral areas). Although this phenomenon is proliferating in these cities, it has not yet been acknowledged by policymakers and city planners, and the findings of this study may however provide some inputs for future visions and policy frameworks of such new workplaces.

Christine Liefooghe (p)

Rural and peripheral areas have experienced different economic change since 1960s, so knowledge and creative economy is the more recent challenge to deal with. Collaborative practices are not new but coworking is a new way of collaboration in shared workplaces. The question is to know if these new way of collaborative practices and if these workspaces are able to initiate a territorial economic resilience. In the framework of different regional or national projects in France, our research meets the question of third places (coworking, Fablab or cultural activities) and their role in the resilience of peripheral areas. In this paper, we propose to analyse the case of the Médoc area, located between the Atlantic Ocean, the Landes forest and the Gironde estuary. Historically, the Médoc was a rich area but nowadays, this is a deprived area with a lot of unemployment, poverty and deprived little cities. The metropolitan area of Bordeaux is in extension but the Médoc region area does not benefit from this demographic growth. Very recently, coworking spaces appeared in some little cities of the Médoc. So, this deprived area is an interesting case study to analyze the emergence of new working spaces in a rural periphery of a regional metropole. From social entrepreneurship to regional or national policies, what is the origin of these third places ? What is the role of digital technologies in the choice of some knowledge workers that leave Bordeaux in a return migration or as new inhabitants attracted by a better life in a rural area and not far from the sea ? Is there any impact on the urban regeneration of the little cities and their economic development ? Our analytical approach focuses on building entrepreneurship ecosystem as a multiplier effect generating new knowledge communities. The creation and networking of coworking spaces is one part of third places dynamics and their role in the resilience of the Médoc area.
Methods and Data: Apart from an inventory of the academic literature, the methodology of this research is based on two types of informations: 1) qualitative interviews in coworking spaces and with policy makers in the Médoc area and in Bordeaux, in the Peri#work project (ANR); 2) the analysis of documents about public policies in favor of third places or rural areas in France. We also exploit the results of previous research programmes we conducted in other regions in France about third places.

Federica Rossi (p), Ilaria Mariotti , Mina Akhavan

With a rising globalization of the economy and society, the ICT revolution, the current economic downturn, the new industrial revolution and the makers’ movement, working is becoming less dependent on distance, location and time. These are some of the reasons that have fostered the development and diffusion of new working spaces like coworking spaces (CS). Although this is a new phenomenon, scholars from varied disciplines – geography, sociology, urban planning, business, management, etc.- are showing interest in studying different aspects related to their spatial characteristics, socio-economics patterns, and effects on the urban context. Contributing to the existing literature, this paper aims at exploring the location determinants of coworking spaces, an issue that has been neglected by the literature. By focusing on the 549 CS located in Italy at the year 2018, the paper aims to investigate the location factors pulling the coworking and the attractiveness of large cities as well as of peripheral and inner areas. The results of the descriptive statistics and the econometric analysis (a Zero-Inflated Negative Binomial model is estimated) confirm that this is mainly an urban phenomenon, since CS are knowledge intensive places for creative people. Specifically, the municipalities showing higher innovation and entrepreneurial vivacity, as for example capital cities of metropolitan areas, are privileged locations. Besides, it is discussed whether coworking spaces may contribute in fostering the development of peripheral and Inner Areas in Italy.

Ilaria Mariotti (p), Pavel Bednar (p), Lukas Danko, Federica Maria Rossi, Irene Manzini-Ceinar

Currently, cultural and creative industries (hereinafter, CCI) are considered as driver for socioeconomic growth, with an employment of 7.7 million people and revenues roughly 540 billion EUR (EY, 2015). The notion of CCI was firstly developed by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (1998) as a novelty concept based on individual creativity, skills and talent. Furthermore, the concept is considered a driver for job creation, mainly due to the exploitation of intellectual capital (Florida, 2014). Development of digital media raised awareness of the CCI as they are being linked with wider processes and sectors outside creative. Therefore, they occur in traditional sectors with the use of the ICT. Support for CCI is a part of the Europe 2020 strategy and other policies that are focused on small and medium enterprises. Besides, these industries extended their role in national economies within the rise of digital age. Indeed, most workers in new working spaces like coworking spaces (hereinafter, CS) belong to the CCI. A recent study on CS in Italy has underlined that about 75% of the coworkers (those working in a CS) are specialised in the creative sectors. Similarly, Impact Hub Global reports stress the predominance of the CCI. Within this context, the present paper aims to explore whether CS in three global cities – London, Milan, and Prague prefer to co-locate in CCI agglomerations and whether similarities and differences arise. Data come from the national statistical offices and concern the NACEs belonging to CCIs. They are collected at micro-level as address to be treated as point data. Data about the CS in the three cities have been developed by the authors within the CA18214 project “The Geography of New Working Spaces and the Impact on the Periphery”. Exploratory spatial data analysis applying colocation techniques are developed to investigate the phenomenon. When analysing location patterns of CCI, although the results highlight the predominant role of urban cores of the three cities, also indicate important specificities in terms of core-periphery distribution of CCI. The paper is structured into six main sections. The Introduction is followed by a literature review on the definition and location patterns of CCI and CS. Data and methodology are presented in section three. The subsequent section is dedicated to descriptive statistics, geo-referenced mapping and colocation analysis between CCI and CS using both global and local version of the colocation quotient. Conclusions and further research questions follow.

Mina Akhavan (p), Ilaria Mariotti (p), Dante Di Matteo

This paper aims to explore the ‘indirect’ effects of new emerging workplaces, specifically coworking spaces (CS), on the urban context, disentangling between pole and non-pole municipalities in Italy, as defined by the National Strategy for the Inner Areas. This focus will allow to understand whether and how CS, which is mainly an urban phenomenon, might be beneficial also to non-pole areas by promoting: entrepreneurial milieu, knowledge creation by retaining knowledge workers and the creative class, social inclusion and spatial regeneration.
Although the phenomenon of CS is becoming attractive to scholars, the ‘indirect’ effects of the diffusion of CS in contemporary cities is a rather neglected issue in the literature. Such effects are concerned about the ability that these workplaces may or may not have to positively affect the urban context in which they are located; in terms of community building (not just within the workspaces), improvement of surrounding public spaces, urban regeneration, but also alternative energy use patterns both at home and associated with travel/transportation, as well as future urban design and planning approaches. The empirical analysis is based on an online survey addressed to coworkers (CW) of the 549 CS located in Italy (as of January 2018). Three quarters of the 326 respondents have declared a positive impact of their workplace/CS on the local urban context, and the propensity score matching technique (counterfactual) underlined that differences arise according to the CS location (poles vs. non-pole areas). Through conducting descriptive statistics and propensity score matching technique (counterfactual), it results that according to the CW’s perception, CS located in non-pole areas exhibit a higher impact on the urban environment than those located in a “pole” municipality.