The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects on the Urban Context: Are Pole Areas Gaining?

Mariotti, Ilaria; Akhavan, Mina; Matteo, Dante Di

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-63443-8_10

Cited by 12 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although coworking is mainly an urban phenomenon, the last few years have seen a flouring of CSs in peripheral areas (Capdevila 2021). Different factors can explain this widespread of CSs in rural areas (Mariotti et al 2021). On the one hand, CSs may operate in rural areas as well as in urban areas because the geography of creative industries is more complex than the simple concentric circle (Felton et al 2010).…”

Section: Third-places and Local Development Policies: Promises And Pi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…But the literature exploring the "indirect" effects of CSs on the local environment is still scant (Leducq, Ananian 2019), especially in rural areas (Knapp, Sawy 2021, Mariotti et al 2021. The main studies have shown that CSs can have positive effects on rural areas, in different countries and regions.…”

Section: Third-places and Local Development Policies: Promises And Pi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Remote and connected

Flipo

Lejoux

Ovtracht

2022

REGION

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Originally associated to big cities' centres, coworking spaces and «third-places» have been blooming in rural regions and small towns over the past five years. The development of those places has been critically supported by local and national authorities, with a growing interest from rural localities. Indeed, those places are supposed to provide answers to numerous contemporary territorial challenges, and to tackle several dimensions or rural vulnerability. They are supposed to enhance sustainability by reducing the need to commute and car-dependence, by bringing both workplaces and services closer from home. They are also mobilised to tackle the issue of the digital gap between centres and peripheries, providing digital infrastructures and hardware. Finally, they are supposed to reduce territorial inequalities by strenghtening rural entrepreneurship, safeguarding local jobs, facilitating professional retraining and attract new residents by providing an easier access to telework. Conducted between 2018 and 2020 in the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region, our study provides some elements to evaluate the effects of those places on territorial vulnerability and marginality. Based on the study of 17 coworking spaces situated in rural areas, their funders’ trajectories and their users’ profiles, we discuss the motives and the expected returns of those places, and their actual potentialities and limits. We first present the definitions of coworking spaces and third-places, the origin of their recent spread in the rural areas and the main features of their geographical locations. Then, we present the rationales behind the creation and attendance to those places, by analysing funders and users’ trajectories and motives. We then present the potentialities and limits of third-places on territorial vulnerability. In the discussion, we interrogate the notion of marginality at the light of those places, that can be defined essentially as spatial and social networks. Indeed, our study enlights the diversity of lifestyles in the rural areas. Coworkers display particular spatial anchorages, with local resources being valued, though combined with forms of plural and multilocalized belongings. Their relationship with the margin is chosen, controlled and reversible, sometimes even yearned for. Their connectedness is not so much defined by where they live rather than by who they know, embodying the predominantly social dimension of marginality.

show abstract

Section: Third-places and Local Development Policies: Promises And Pi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Third-places and Local Development Policies: Promises And Pi...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Remote and connected

Flipo

Lejoux

Ovtracht

2022

REGION

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst the overall concept is not new, this alternative approach gained traction as an aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Baum, 2017). Scholars tend to focus on the motives and preferences of flexible space users (Seo et al, 2017;Weijs-Perr ee et al, 2019), coworking typologies (Spinuzzi, 2012;Bilandzic and Foth, 2013;Kojo and Nenonen, 2016;Ivaldi, 2017) and the role FWs play in local economic development (Jamal, 2018;Lorne, 2019;Mariotti et al, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, 2017; Weijs-Perrée et al. , 2019), co-working typologies (Spinuzzi, 2012; Bilandzic and Foth, 2013; Kojo and Nenonen, 2016; Ivaldi, 2017) and the role FWs play in local economic development (Jamal, 2018; Lorne, 2019; Mariotti et al. , 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible workspace providers as tenants: an analysis of the rental prices in the London market

Silva

Liu

Hutchison

2022

JPIF

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeThe covenant strength of flexible workspace (FW) providers as tenants is debatable. There is the argument that providers are risky mainly due to the very nature of their business which consists of volatile revenue streams obtained from subletting the space in membership format, paying little attention to covenants. On the other hand, there is also the argument that the presence of a provider can add vibrancy and diversity to a building whilst also offering an additional amenity to existing tenants through overflow space, making FW providers desirable. This paper aims to explore this ambiguity by comparing rents paid by FW providers and other tenants within the same building in London over the period 2011 to 2021.Design/methodology/approachUsing a dataset of 1,042 leases in London over the period of 2011–2021 which was extracted from CoStar, the rent conditions of FW providers and their peers within the same building were analysed employing a hedonic pricing model.FindingsThe results of the analysis suggest that FW providers have a negative and statistically significant effect on the effective rent in comparison to other tenants within the same building over the analysed period.Practical implicationsThis analysis has the potential to identify how FW providers are perceived in the market and offers both academics and practitioners valuable insights.Originality/valueThe relationship between landlords and FW providers as tenants does not have a major coverage in the literature.

show abstract

“…While the overall concept is not new, this alternative approach gained traction as an aftermath of the Great Financial Crisis (GFC) (Baum, 2017). Scholars tend to focus on the motives and preferences of flexible space users (Seo et al, 2017;Weijs-Perrée et al, 2019), coworking typologies (Spinuzzi, 2012;Bilandzic and Foth, 2013;Kojo and Nenonen, 2016;Ivaldi, 2017), and the role FWs play in local economic development (Jamal, 2018;Lorne, 2019;Mariotti, Akhavan and Matteo, 2021).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexible Workspace Providers as Tenants - An Analysis of the Rental Prices in the London Market

Antunes¹

2021

28th Annual European Real Estate Society Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose -The covenant strength of flexible workspace (FW) providers as tenants is debatable.There is the argument that providers are risky mainly due to the very nature of their business which consists of volatile revenue streams obtained from subletting the space in membership format, paying little attention to covenants. On the other hand, there is also the argument that the presence of a provider can add vibrancy and diversity to a building, while also offering an additional amenity to existing tenants through overflow space, making flexible workspace providers desirable. This paper aims to explore this ambiguity by comparing rents paid by flexible workspace providers and other tenants within the same building in London over the period 2011 to 2021.Design/methodology/approach -Using a dataset of 1,042 leases in London over the period of 2011 to 2021 extracted from CoStar, the rent conditions of FW providers and their peers within the same building were analysed employing a hedonic pricing model.Findings -The results of the analysis suggest that FW providers have a negative and statistically significant effect on the effective rent in comparison to other tenants within the same building over the analysed period.Originality -The relationship between landlords and FW providers as tenants does not have a major coverage in the literature. This analysis has the potential to identify how providers are perceived in the market and offers both academics and practitioners valuable insights.

show abstract

The Geography of Coworking Spaces and the Effects on the Urban Context: Are Pole Areas Gaining?

Cited by 12 publications

References 41 publications

Remote and connected

Remote and connected

Flexible workspace providers as tenants: an analysis of the rental prices in the London market

Flexible Workspace Providers as Tenants - An Analysis of the Rental Prices in the London Market

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About