Estilos de afrontamiento al estrés

The research considered two outcomes, to further evaluate the success and impact of affordable work-spacepolicy.First,itconsideredwhetherornotschemes delivered throughaffordable workspacepolicy canbe considered to deliver ‘affordability’. Second, it con-sidered who is ultimately benefiting from affordable workspacepolicy.Thefinalsection(5.2.3)thenreflects

on these findings with reference to their impact on economic development.

5.2.1. Affordability

TheoverviewofcasestudiesinTable1showedthat there was a significant variation in the actual rent charged toend tenants, ranging from £10psf to over

£20psf. However, not all the schemes had been implementedandoccupied,andtheywereindifferent locations, built to different specifications, making it hard tocompareand drawconcrete conclusions.It is importanttonoteherethattheconceptofaffordability is relative, i.e. what is considered affordable to one businesswould not beaffordable toanother.Also, an

‘affordable’rentinahighvalueareamaybeconsidered affordableonlybecauseitischeaperthansimilarspaces inthesamearea.However,itmaystillcostmorethan comparablespacesinlow-valueareasletatmarketrent.

Another way to assess whether or not policy is delivering‘affordable’workspaceistocomparewhatis created in the new development with what was originallythere.ItwasshownintheWandsworthcase study that the redevelopment including affordable workspacedirectlydisplacedexistingtenantsbenefiting frommuchlowerrents,andthegoalofredevelopment wastoincreasethepotentialrentalincomestreamfrom the commercial element. In this case, a comparison couldbemadeastheoriginalbusinessvillagewasstill mostlyoccupiedatthe timeofthe fieldwork.Inother caseswheretheredevelopmenthadnotyetcommenced, itwasnotpossibletocomparesincetheexistingscheme was oftenvacantor partially vacant,with speculation that the landowners might have allowed the site to becomevacantorfallintodisrepairinordertoincrease their chances of securing planning permission for a change of use. In completed schemes, it was not possibletoobtaininformationontherentspaidinthe previous schemeonthesamesite.

Thisresearchhasenabledfurtherreflectiononthis questionbylookingattheperspectivesofthedelivery partners.Ithasshownthatneitherthedevelopernorthe workspace provider takes direct responsibility for ensuring an affordable outcome for tenants. The developersignsaS106contractwiththelocalauthority, whichstipulatestherateatwhichthespacecanbeletto athird party(usually) for afixedperiod of time.The developerhaslittleinterestinwhatischargedtotheend tenant.Itislefttotheworkspaceprovidertodecidetheir pricing strategy, as long as they can afford the rent agreed in the S106 agreement. There is therefore no controlovertheratechargedtotheendtenantanditis somewhat assumed that the workspace provider will

deliver ‘affordable’ workspace. There are problems withthismodel andtheseassumptions.

Developers are often reluctant to accept S106 contractsthat stipulate longlease termsfor affordable workspace.Inthiscase,affordabilitycanonlybesecured in the short-term and workspace providers often turn downopportunitiestoacquiresubsidisedworkspaceasit isnotalwaysfinanciallyviableforthemtoinvestinthe fit-outofworkspaceforthetermofashortlease.Itwas also revealed that there is potential for developers to exploit the concept of affordable workspace – which evokescreativityand an urban‘buzz’– formarketing purposeswithoutactuallydeliveringit.Acloseranalysis of workspace providers also revealed problems. First, thereisalackofunderstandingfromlocalauthoritiesof the on-coststhat fall toworkspace providers, tomake

‘shellandcore’spacefitforrental.Leasingthespacetoa workspaceproviderfor£1psfsoundsaffordable,butit mightnotbe,dependingontheadditionalcoststhatthey needtomeet.Second,workspaceprovidersareabroad category includingboth not-for-profitandcommercial workspace providers. They differ greatly in their interpretation of affordable workspace. Commercial providers interpret affordable workspace as ‘no frills’

flexible space with flexible leases. Even within the category of not-for-profit providers, there is much variation in definition, including ‘subsidised’, basic – or even small – workspace at the bottom end of the market, providing workspace in cheap locations, or simply ‘value for money’. In some cases, affordable workspaceisdiscussedmoreasthoughitwereatypology ofspacetargetedatcreativebusinessesthananythingto dowithcost.Althoughlocalauthoritiestendtoexpressa preference for not-for-profit workspace providers, the analysisshowsthatthey fallintotwobroadcategories, defined by their organisational model: those whose charitableaimsaretoprovideworkspaceascheaplyas possibleoratthebottomendofthemarketforcertain categoriesofbusinesses(orartists)deemedtobeinneed;

and those who recycle the profits from letting out workspaceatmoreorlesscommercialratestomeettheir othercharitableaims.Thesenot-for-profitproviderswho recycletheirprofitshavebeenshowntobehavemorelike commercialproviders,seekingmarketrentsbutclaiming toprovide affordability byoffering flexible space and lease terms, allowing businesses to enter the market easilyandadaptaccordingtotheirmeans.

5.2.2. Winnersandlosers

Highlandvaluesintheinnercityareonlyaproblem forbusinessesthathavelimitedpotentialtomaximise productivity;otherwisethebenefitsofagglomerationin

terms of increased productivity outweigh the costs.

Businessesthatarelimitedintheirpotentialtomaximise productivityincludestart-ups,low-valuemanufacturers, smallfamily-runretailandservicebusinesses,artists,and youngsmallbusinesseswhosevaluetotheeconomyhave notyetreachedtheirfullpotential.Ispolicybenefiting these businesses? The research has shown that the outcome of affordable workspace policy is mostly benefiting artists and higher-value creative industries thatareatleastintheirsecondstageofdevelopment.Itis notbenefitinglow-valuemanufacturersorsmall family-run retail and service businesses, nor is it generally benefitingstart-ups.

Afocusonthehigher-valuecreativeindustriesisan outcomeofthedeliveryofaffordableworkspacepolicy through partnerships between developers and work-space providers. Developers have an interest in choosing a workspace provider that targets the types oftenantsthatarelikelytocomplementtheimageofthe development, help market the residential component andbecompatiblewithhousingonanoperationalbasis.

They are therefore more likely to partner with a workspace provider that targets ‘clean and quiet’

creative industry tenants. Other types of workspace providers are unlikely to be preferred partners. It is thereforeonlyaverynarrowsectorofsmallbusinesses thatarebenefitingfromaffordableworkspacepolicies.

The lower-value, lower-skilled enterprises including manufacturing businesses are losing out, as well as voluntarysectororganisations;theyareeitherdisplaced directlyortheiraccommodationchoicesarebecoming evermorerestricted.Mixed-use schemeswith afford-able workspace are therefore resulting in rather homogenous developments, with a limited range of tenantsandtypesofuses.

Thefactthatpolicyisnotgenerallybenefiting start-upscanbe explainedby the businessmodelsof most workspace providers. Unlessa workspace provideris focusedspecificallyonstart-upsasaniche,thereisno incentive or requirement for them to cater for these businessesthat,bytheirnature,offeramuchlesssecure income stream. This is naturally the case for commercial workspace providers, but where not-for-profit workspace providers depend on income from rental of workspace to subsidise other charitable or socialenterpriseaims,theemphasisisunderstandably also on attracting financially secure tenants and maximisingthepossiblerentalincomefromthe asset.

Thefactthataffordableworkspacepolicyismostly benefitingartistsandhigher-value establishedcreative industries, rather than start-ups, low-value manufac-turersorsmallfamily-runretailandservicebusinesses,

has implications for its impacton economic develop-ment objectives,whichwill beconsidered inthenext section.

5.2.3. Implicationsforeconomicdevelopment The emergenceof affordableworkspacepoliciesin theUKtookplaceatatimewhentheimpactofpublic sector subsidy of managed workspaces on economic development wasbeingquestioned.Animportantaim ofthisresearchwasthereforetoestablishwhetherornot thisnewmodeofproductionofaffordableworkspaces through the planning system is delivering economic benefits.

First, the fact that affordable workspace policy is generally not benefiting start-ups has important implications foritspotentialcontributiontoeconomic growth, and specifically undermines its ability to promoteentrepreneurship,‘newideas’andinnovation.

Instead, providers of workspacefor businesses within affordable workspace schemes are targeting more established businesses in inner as well as central London,whichmeansthatpolicyisessentially‘luring’

tenants awayfrom moreestablished clusterswith the attraction ofcheaper rents.Thismaygenerategreater economic activity in the new location, but it will be

‘zero-sum’(seeCheshire&Gordon,1998)fromawider perspective, i.e. it is unlikely to result in economic growth at the regional, London scale. It may even undermine existing clusters that are still thriving naturally, potentially harming London’s broader strength asacreativeindustryhub.

Interventioninperipherallocationsmayalsonotbe sufficient to create the critical mass required to transform alocation or createa clusterthatwill have a natural life. Using affordable workspace policy to encourage the location of newbusinessesto onearea over another is a challenge. The necessary time lag between the formation and implementation of policy means that it struggles to keep up with the pace of reality,aproblemthatisexacerbatedwhendealingwith entrepreneursandcreativebusinessesthatbytheirvery natureseektobe‘aheadofthegame’.Italsoassumes thatthecostofworkspaceisakeyfactorinabusiness’

choice of location anddoes not take intoaccount the other ingredients that are needed in addition to the provisionofphysicalworkspacetoinfluencethegrowth of a cluster. In other words, it takes a ‘physical-determinist’approach toeconomic development.This research wasunable toinvestigatetheseissuesdueto theinfancyofthecasestudies–eventhosethathadbeen completedhadhadlittlechancetobecomeembeddedin thelocaleconomy.Giventhenatureofthecasestudies

as isolated schemes, they would only be acting as catalysts in the formation of new clusters, which by their naturewould taketime toestablish. Despite the unknown longer-termimpact ofaffordable workspace policies on clusters, the lack of benefits for start-ups means we can conclude thatthe impact of affordable workspacepoliciesoneconomicdevelopmentislimited and we can speculate thatit may infact be counter-productive.

Second,bysupportingmostlycreativeindustriesand generally the higher-value over the lower-value enter-prises, policy is not supporting greater economic diversity.Ratheritisresultinginanapproachof‘picking thewinners’onthebasisthatthecreativeindustriesare growing in importance to London’s economy (GLA, 2008).Indoingso,itprioritiseseconomicgrowthover economicprogressanddismissesthebenefitsthat lower-valuebusinessesbringtoaneconomyanditspeople.The fact that affordableworkspace policyisnot benefiting lower-value businesses means that it isnot helpingto prevent the loss of these uses, and the jobs that they provide.Onecouldarguethatmixeduseredevelopment ofemploymentlandishappeninganyway,andtheroleof affordableworkspacepolicyisthereforetoensurethat some of the commercial space that is re-provided is targetedatothersmallbusinessesorartists,ratherthan larger commercial occupiers, such as Tesco. This argumentmightholdifit werenotfor theevidencein this research that existing lower-value occupiers are beingdisplacedbycommercialworkspaceprovidersto makewayforhigher-valuecreativeindustrytenantsthat create greater revenue, and that affordable workspace policyisbeingusedasatooltoachievethis.Furthermore, thecreativeindustrysectordoesnotgeneratesignificant employment, particularly for unemployed residentsin themoredeprivedareasofLondon(Evans,2006,2009;

Hutton,2009;Pratt,2009).Thismeansthatthepolicyis not helpingtoprovideopportunities forresidents who facebarrierstoconventionalemployment.Finally,there istheriskthatartistsandcreativeindustrytenantswho occupy theseschemes will act as catalysts for further waves of gentrification (Indergaard, 2009;Kunzmann, 2004).Thusthepresenceofcreativesfacilitatedthrough affordableworkspace policy mayinfact speedup the processofdisplacementbyhigher-valueuses,ratherthan slow it down. Although this so-called industrial gentrification might be welcomed by proponents of economicgrowth,thedisplacementoflower-skilledwith higher-skilled jobs could have negative social conse-quences.

Thisapproachof‘pickingthewinners’isconsistent withthegeneraltrendineconomicdevelopmentpolicy

away from supporting inter-regional spatial equity towards increasing the competitiveness of already successfulcentres. It isan approach that needs tobe questionedinlightofthelate2000srecessionthathad itsrootsinthefailureofthefinancialsector,uponwhich Londonsoheavilyrelies.However,thereisevidencein the post recession era that the UK Government is continuingtopursuethisapproachratherthan promot-inggreatereconomicdiversity.Althoughthecoalition government has pledged to create a more balanced economywhereweare notso dependentonanarrow rangeof economicsectors, governmentsupportinthe form of subsidies and bank bailouts represents a continuedemphasisonthefinancialsectorandtheCity ofLondonastheeconomicpowerhouseoftheUK,from whicheconomicbenefitswilltrickledown(seeRaco&

Street,2011).Towhatextentconfidencewillcontinue tobe placed in the post-recessionera onthe creative industriesasadriverofeconomicgrowthinLondonand otherworldcitiesremains tobeseen.

In summary, policy is enjoying limited success in terms of the number of schemes completed and occupied as envisaged. Where policy does lead to tenantedschemes, theseare havinglimitedimpact on thegoalof economicdevelopment,eventhoughthere might be other positive aspects to the schemes and benefitsforworkspaceprovidersandtheirtenants.This underminesthejustificationforrequiringdevelopersto subsidiseworkspace,especiallyinthelightofevidence that developers are using the provision of affordable workspacetoexactconcessionsfrom localauthorities and negotiate lower S106 contributions elsewhere. It also questions more critically the broad trend in economic development approaches to focus on the collective provision of infrastructure and services in successful economic centres. Importantly, these approachestendtoignoretheissueofscale– thefact thatpoliciestendtooperateattheverylocallevel,ina contextwhereevenlocalauthoritieswithinacityactin competition.Thuswherepoliciesmightappeartohave a positive impact at the neighbourhood level, in fact their impact at the city scale is negligible or even counterproductive.Furthermore, a relentlessfocus on increasing competitiveness means that other social objectivesare ignored.