1

Are Clusters Advancing Regional ‘Gentrification’?: A comparative analysis of

biotechnology clusters

Julie Porter, Centre for Advanced Studies, Cardiff University

Introduction
The concept of clusters is a worldwide phenomenon, similar to globalisation, that can
only be loosely defined, namely through its characteristics. Clusters can take many forms
and create complex business alliances, increasing competitiveness while employing
thousands of diverse people within a geographically proximate area, as in the case of
Cardiff, Wales; Washington DC; and Cambridge, UK. They have the ability to adapt
over time through innovative processes, to form Regional Innovation Systems (RIS) with
other firms or clusters, or to become stagnant in their progress and later dissipate. The
potential for progress is based on a combination of the ability of the cluster to
continuously attract innovative talent through features within a diverse social setting and
the ability of that talent, namely the ‘Creative Class’, to innovate (Florida, 2002). There
are numerous benefits to clusters for firms, SME’s, and consumers; however, these are
highly publicized while the potential negative side, regarding social issues, is rarely
highlighted.

How it contributes
While there is an extensive interest in the positive points to cluster creation, namely
increased innovation and market competitiveness, this paper focuses on the
inconsistencies within the field relating to the negative aspects of cluster formation on the
population of the area. Outside of specific theoretical critiques applied to current
clusters, there has not been a cross-national cluster comparison that highlights the
negative functions of clusters within their social setting. Due to the wide-ranging notions
of the concept of clusters, there are broad social implications pertaining to the people
who are native to the location where they form, the people who comprise the clusters
when different to the former, and the policies that enhance a cluster’s existence. The
chosen locations have various clusters operating in their area and range from up -
incoming smaller clusters to long-time successful areas of innovation and wealth creation
to give a comprehensive view of the subject.

Specification of Regions
Based on the inc reasing number of clusters and in the interest of examining these social
issues, three cited clusters, in various stages of development and growth will be analysed.
The first cluster to be examined is in Cardiff, Wales. In contrast to the other two it is the
newest, and least developed, cluster to emerge with 75% of it is based in the South Wales
area, centred in Cardiff, the capital city (Whatling 2003, 2005). Altho ugh the Cardiff
Bay area, only one mile from the city centre, is a blossoming New Media cluster, the
main innovatio n interest, for this paper, is the biotechnology cluster (Cooke, 2002). The
second cluster that will be reviewed is in Washington DC, and its surrounding
metropolitan area that extends into both Maryland and Virginia. On the surface,
Washington DC appears to be more of a political nightmare than an innovation milieu;
however, when looking at the military and private expenditure, coupled with its many
 2

universities, it possesses the ‘Triple – Helix’ for potential innovation (Etzkowitz &
Leydesdorff 1997, 2000). To maintain uniformity within this paper, the biotechnology
cluster of the Washington DC area will be critiqued. While being more advanced than
the Cardiff cluster, it is not as developed as the last location (EMBO, 2006). Cambridge,
England will be the cluster in review to complete the trilogy for this paper. Centred on
the Cambridge University campus and specialising in biotechnology, this cluster is
continuously being analysed due to its excellent growth rate and production capacity
(ERBI, 2005). Even though each example is in a different country, at a different stage of
development, they all possess the traits needed to form a strong cluster in their individual
domain, whether this setting is good for the social ties within society is left to be decided.

How it contributes
While all three of these areas have desirable traits that make them appealing to the
Creative Class- nightlife, cultural scene, diverse population- the purpose of this paper is
to apply the theoretical critiques which pose the negative aspects of clusters, to these
instances, to determine whether the theories are applicable to contemporary situations
(Florida, 2002). There may have been social problems within the areas in question prior
to the cluster-effect occurring. Nonetheless, this paper only seeks to identify those social
problems that are responses to cluster formation, namely issues of socio -economic
disparity and gentrification. This is not to say that these issues were not around prior to
the cluster forming; however, the paper relies on the hypothesis that cluster formation
advances the social problems, even if only a slight amount. These issues are often
categorised as race, class, or gender, all of which increases the divide.

Signposts
The remainder of the paper will now be explained. In the next section the social issues
that are being analyzed will be defined and explained. This will produce an overview of
where the regions being examined were prior to the rise of their respective clusters. It
will identify the various characteristics of cluster creation, both positive and negative,
that impact the social environment. This section will be followed by the case-by-case
analysis. This will provide an overview of the individual biotechnology clusters and the
aforementioned social issues into the designated locations to gauge the potential distress,
or lack thereof, resulting from cluster development. The comparison will be two- fold,
and multi-directional. Since these are not the only clusters that are products of
regeneration, or that produce such socio -economic disparity, other scenarios, and
potential solutions to this problem, will be cited. Due to the vastly different stages of
development between the Welsh cluster and the English cluster, the Cardiff example will
be compared with the Washington DC example and then both will be levied against the
Cambridge example. The multi-dimensional comparative aspect encompasses both the
clusters themselves, and the social issues. Next, an analysis of the situation,
demonstrating either a strong correlation or a weak correlation between cluster formation
and increased social stratification, will be completed. Lastly, the conclusion will wrap
everything together and provide an overview of t he paper.

Identification
The issue of gentrification and use gentrification in each of these areas was a growing
 3

concern prior to the rise of the clusters. ‘Gentrification’ will be used in the sense of a
displacement of people, usually lower-class, for a remodelling of the neighbourhood for
the upper- class (Treanor, 2004). This ‘remodelling’ is not necessarily carried out by the
upper-class; however, it is intended to meet the needs of the upper-class (Florida, 2002).
‘Use gentrification’ will be used as a displacement of people, as described above, for the
purpose of businesses. This applies mainly to the integration of businesses into the
neighbourhood, which is done to be closer to the potential customers. Although the
individual reasons are varied, some state that ‘one single factor can explain most
gentrification episodes: growing income inequality’ (Treanor, 2004, p. 11). For the
purposes of this paper, this statement should be lengthened to include ‘….or probable
future income inequality’. The current reasons for the regional remodelling are varied:
many incentives can be associated with the reshaping of the city’s structure to meet the
demands of prospective businesses or prospective buyers. All of these incentives are
relative to the creation of clusters, and potentially Regional Innovation Systems (RIS).
An area must be attractive, through strong university R&D programs, elite businesses, or
high amounts of venture capital, or become attractive, through regeneration efforts, the
creation of innovative products or the gathering of the creative class (Ketels 2003, Florida
2002). All of the places that will be examined- Cardiff, Washington DC, and Cambridge
– have occupants that fit this criteria and are now aiming at strengthening the ir numbers.
All three are growing in the high-tech field; however, Cardiff and Washington DC are
also excelling in the political and new media/creative industries sectors as well. Unlike
Cambridge, the biotechnology sector in these other cities is attempting to meet the
numbers of the other sectors. Unfortunately, no matter what the infiltrating sector is, this
can mean the displacement of people who can not afford the new attractive area. While
this may have been occurring for some time, the hypothesis is that the rise of clusters has
greatly advanced the displacement of the lower classes due to their inability to live in an
area that caters to those of an upper class.

Individual Cases
Less than two decades ago, Cardiff was one of the many formerly densely industrialized
cities in the UK that was forgotten about when industry activities moved to Asia
(Obenhaus, 2001). However, it subsequently gained prestige through its research
prowess in university and industry and its government initiatives for rapid modernization.
In the 1999 report for the UK Competitiveness Commission, Cardiff’s premier university,
Cardiff University, was cited as a leading biotechnology research university, based on
external funding, and several UK specialist biotechnology companies were identified as
occupying parts of the Cardiff area (See Figure 1). Since that report, two major US
biotechnology firms, the San Diego- based Gen-Probe and the Maryland- based Celera,
have either merged or branched out with companies based in Cardiff (Somers 2004,
WDA 2003). Consequently, in a 2004- 2005 map of biotechnology clusters on the global
scale, Cardiff has yet to receive a spot due to its relative underdeveloped status in the
biotechnology cluster field (Figure 2). Although the firms in the biotechnology cluster
are innovating in a range of specialities within the biotech field, they are all important
due to their ability to drive the cluster to success. Furthermore, there are varied reports
regarding the development of an operational biotech cluster, all depending on what the
criteria for a cluster is. The official numbers compiled by the Welsh International Trade
 4

Bureau state that as of early 2006 there were 56 member companies overall, employing
600 people, and a £144 million turnover (Whatling, 2006). These numbers are up,
name ly the revenue of the companie s, since the last report of this kind produced in late
2004 which noted 48 active companies having a turnover of £50 million (Whatling,
2003). For both cases approximately 75% of these active companies are located in
Cardiff (Whatling 2006, 2003).
With the sudden rise of these companies, as well as political administration positions and
New Media companies in the Cardiff Bay area, a problem arises regarding the issue of
space, ma inly the lack thereof in highly desirable areas. Keeping in mind the basic rules
of supply and demand, the solution to this increased demand is an increase in real estate
prices with the effect of an influx of middle class individuals. In most situations of this
kind the result is gentrification. Although gentrification and use gentrification have been
a growing phenomenon in the Cardiff area over the past five years, it will be the first area
examined due to its relatively underdeveloped biotechnology cluster. The brownfield
regeneration and the docklands project in the area surrounding Cardiff’s city centre,
namely the Cardiff Bay docklands and steel plants, has led to gentrification of the lower
and low- middle classes, gathering them in the Grangetown area, the middle ground
between the former and the latter (Treanor, 2004). Due to the increasing popularity of
the Cardiff area with New Media and biotechnology clusters, the manifest destiny is to
have businesses and luxury apartments connect the Cardiff city centre with the Cardiff
Bay area, making Grangetown obsolete. Correction, making the low and lower-middles
class people of Grangetown obsolete.
Looking past the harsh displacement issue, there are three other serious external problems
that gentrification produces. First, people often live relatively close to their jobs;
however, if they are displaced, the commute to work is farther which can have adverse
effects on both traffic patterns and, consequently, the environment (Treanor, 2004). The
issue of the environment is already a problem in the South Wales area. Due to its former
industrial nature, the environment already suffers without this added strain. Second,
unemployment will most likely increase in low-skilled or skilled labour professions
(EMBO, 2006). This is related to the displacement of factories to make way for luxury
apartments and the like. This situation has occurred in the Cardiff area, mainly the
docklands, for some time and it is continuing in the steel production area between the city
centre and the cultural centre, Cardiff Bay. In addition, some people may not be able to
afford the aforementioned commute and lose their jobs as a result. Lastly, there is the
issue of crime. Like many cities, the majority of crime occurs in certain pockets of the
Cardiff area. These pockets are strongly related to the nature of the population of the
areas and given the displacement, these pockets are more concentrated than ever
(Treanor, 2004). The majority of these problems are in their second wave; however,
some are only emerging now, for the first time. Either way, they are having a noticeable
impact on the structure of the city, the demographic layout, and the socio-economics of
city planning.
As mentioned, this is not a new phenomenon; rather, it is an on-going trend in formerly
industrialized regions. Even cities that are not renowned for their industrial activity:
where the city has a multi- faceted dynamic which may attract talented people and the
industry area is reserved to a specific section, are facing gentrification problems. This is
the scenario, which will be summarized next, in Washington DC.
 5

Washington DC is a commuter-city with a diverse socio -cultural, and socio - economic

infrastructure. For such a small city, it is socially distinct. The city is broken down into
four sections: the Northeast, the Northwest, the Southeast, and the Southwest. Within
these quadrants there are different areas that are considered to be gay- friendly, like
Dupont Circle which was mentioned in Florida’s ‘Gay Index’, or the Bohemian area
known as Adams Morgan, or the historically relevant, traditionally African-American,
area known as U-Street that is currently going through a regeneration, with the potential
for gentrification (Florida 2002, Cooke 2006). Consequently, for all of the bohemian
luxuries within these areas, there are also very conservative, ‘Yuppie’ areas within the
city, such as the Penn Quarter, surrounding the Capitol Building, Georgetown, on the
Potomac, Embassy Row which runs from suburbia into Georgetown, and the Federal
Triangle area, housing the major buildings of political interest. Based on these vast
differences, and the growing number of people working in the conservative areas to be
truly ‘at-home’ in the Bohemian areas, the native, lower- income residents are being
displaced by people who no longer want the long commute, and wish to reside in the art-
inspired area of the city. For the purposes of this paper, the Northwest quadrant will be
examined due to the majority of biotechnology companies within the District being
centred there (Figure 3). Furthermore, the DC metropolitan area, due to its size, is
surrounded by high-revenue, business centres in the West and North, namely the
bordering areas of Bethesda, Maryland –home of the National Institutes of Health- and
Arlington, Virginia- home of the Inova Research & Science Centre which will soon be
merging with a local university (Figure 3). With the creation of more jobs in
biotechnology, to add to the total biotechnology workforce enumerated at 30,500
employees throughout the private sector and public sector; tax incentives, including a
new federal flat tax for the District which would aid the wealthy and further hinder the
non-wealthy; and the desire to enjoy the environment of the workplace setting, more
people are choosing to move into the city as opposed to commute (Greater Washington
Initiative, 2004). Since the conservative areas are home to many high real-estate prices,
the potential buyers are branching out into the Southern parts of the quadrant and the
other areas renowned for sub-standard living (Figure 5). This influence is causing a
displacement of the original population in hopes of removing crime (DC was considered
the ‘murder capital of the nation’ in the early-1990’s and regained the title in 2002 after
several years of lowered murder rates) and inspiring new designs within the city
(Aravosis, 2003).
When examining the growing biotechnology cluster in DC and the surrounding areas, the
Anchor-Tenant concept, posited first by Feldman in relation to biotech industries in the
US, can easily be used to summarize the many clusters within the Washington DC ‘Triple
Helix’ of innovation-government, industry, and education (Feldman, as cited in Sable,
2005). Basically, the concept proposes that if there is one, lucrative, large company in an
area, ie the anchor-tenant, smaller companies, ie tenants, despite the potential for
outrageous real estate prices, will move to that area to attempt to receive a greater sale
volume. For the DC example, the anchor tenant is the White House because politically,
economically, and socially, it is the most powerful area in the region. When applying this
to the biotechnology cluster in the DC area, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with
a 2003 budget of $27.3 billion, is the anchor tenant due to its economic and structural ties
with the White House (Greater Washington Initiative, 2004). Looking past this analysis,
 6

DC is still developing its biotechnology field. According to a 2003 Brookings Institute

ranking of US biotechnology clusters, Washington DC was ranked 9th in national biotech
clusters (as cited in Rosen, 2003). In 2004, a similar ranking scheme was conducted by
the Milken Institute which listed Washington DC in 6th place (Milken Institute, 2004).
Furthermore, due to the defence budget and the need for protective measures in a WMD
age, biotechnology is at its forefront in DC, out of all of the East Coast regions (Greater
Washington Initiative, 2004). While the District and its surrounding areas keep
innovating and excelling in the biotechnology field, the native population of the area are
attempting to maintain their rights; however, with a new federal tax initiative, and
increasing real-estate prices, they are loosing their control.
Housing affordability is a priority with wavering amounts of support within the DC
government. Obviously, a diverse city cannot be composed of only the upper-echelons of
society, despite the fact that they might be racially mixed, of sexually- mixed. Diversity
also rests in economic differences, preferably not economic divide; therefore, housing
affordability is addressed in various forms of priority in Figure 4. Noticeably, the
aforementioned area of the Northwest quadrant that is considered to be ‘Yuppie-fied’
shares a border with the area where housing affordability is a priority. This quadrant was
chosen due to its biotechnology cluster significance and the upper- income sprawl
occurring in response to it, as illustrated in Figure 5. As mentioned, gentrification was
occurring prior to the arrival of the biotechnology industry in Washington DC.
The type of gentrification occurring in DC is different than the above -stated in relation to
Cardiff for one simple reason. The DC area is at a stage of development, both with the
cluster and the city, a few levels above the Cardiff area. Therefore, the DC metropolitan
area is already somewhat segregated; however, the typically low- income areas are now
being infiltrated by the upper-income people and businesses and the native population are
being driven out. In contrast, the Cardiff divide is still occurring. The area for the lower-
income people of society is shifting as the need for more space is rising. There is not one
set area to be infiltrated, rather, several small pockets of space. Simply stated, where DC
has an undesirable quadrant, Cardiff has an undesirable street. Nonetheless, similar
external problems that were identified as potential issues in Cardiff currently plague DC.
Despite the fact that DC is already a major commuter-city, which suffers from such
serious air pollution in the summer that many days are ‘code-red’ in which the elderly,
children, and asthma sufferers are told to stay indoors, this is getting worse (Baron,
2003). Car-pool incentives have been set up; however, gentrification will only add to this
problem. In addition, a mid-March 2006 study shows that unemployment has lowered,
but it still high (NBC4, 2006). Unfortunately, this can neither affirm nor negate the
acceleration of gentrification as a cause for unemployment. Consequently, crime rates
have decreased; however, they are always high given the national average and, due to the
displacement of the lower- income group, the crime may not be central to a particular
area, rather dispersed throughout the outskirts of the city (Baron, 2003). Although these
examples are different, they are similar in their desire to produce an innovative
biotechnology environment within their perimeter.
As mentioned earlier, this correlation between the biotechnology cluster and advanced
gentrification in these areas is loose. In addition, this is most likely not related to the
specific fact that the clusters are biotech. However, no matter how slight, there is an
advance in gentrification and use gentrification as a result of firm buildings, and areas to
 7

house employees, moving into an already densely populated area. As cited in these two
cities, there are many prospects for innovation, as well as for gentrification. In addition,
there are three solutions to this type of displacement that have been exercised in other
socially tense situations such as the above me ntioned. First, update and increase the
opportunities for potential native home owners who are long-time residents of the area,
especially if the area is a once distressed community, through mixed- income community
strategies (Pastor, 2005). This will anchor the people who would otherwise be displaced
through gentrification to the area. Although it would be more lucrative to sell, the
elderly, native population is more likely to remain in their homes. Second, utilize a
regional transportation system that is capable of prolonged use in both the private and
public sectors (ibid, 2005). Lastly, environmental targets could be installed for the
brownfield regeneration sites and other non-eco friendly zones (ibid, 2005). All of these
solutions combat either primary or secondary concerns regarding gentrification.
Nonetheless, this method of gentrification, and the strategies to help make the transition
less class-based, is not assigned solely to these countries.
This type of displacement is not confined to the US and UK, or to countries lacking in
welfare benefits. One study in the same area, consid ered regionally as the Randstad in
the Netherlands, focuses on the vast changes in the region since the privatization of
housing in the mid-1990’s (Sable, 2005). Prior to this time, the upper classes and lower
classes lived in unison working off of each other within the Dutch social market model.
However, this privatization, as well as the emerging biotechnology cluster, has advanced
the displacement in the area. More specifically, a separate study focusing on the former
coal and gas plants in Amsterdam, which is a section of the Randstad region, which are
now being dubbed brownfield gentrification sites, in order to pave the way for luxury
apartment complexes (Treanor, 2004). Although both examples are within the
Netherlands, they exemplify the emerging gentrification associated with the attempt to
make an area as appealing as possible for firms, SME’s, and talented individuals.
These examples of brownfield regeneration, docklands projects, and urban sprawl can all
lead to gentrification within the given areas. Next, an overview of the Cambridge, UK
biotechnology cluster will be completed to provide another angle on the gentrification
issue. This cluster is taken separately from the former two due to its structural
displacement methods.
The Cambridge biotech cluster is being looked at separately from the other two cities for
two reasons: it is the most highly developed biotech cluster of the three clusters chosen
and there is a different form of gentrification occurring. It is still gentrification and use
gentrification; however, it is not totally real estate or finance driven since it is based on
outdated planning methods (Koepp, 2003). Despite the variations between the examples,
the same basic economic results occur: a rise in demand, an increase in price, and a purge
of the 'native' population who is displaced by the highest bidder. In addition, along with
the various kinds of gentrification, social cleansing programs have been installed from
the government operated planning side (ibid, 2003). The original aim of the planning
layout was to keep the English countryside just that and not to have a population or
business explosion because a sharp increase in population could draw in the social
undesirables of society.
Due to this archaic method of planning, the growing amount of spin-off SME’s arising
from R&D entrepreneurs within the university framework is displacing the former
 8

residents. The planning layout is designed to restrain large firms from entering the area;
therefore, Cambridge’s biotechnology cluster has succeeded in its ability to keep its R&D
experts, and entrepreneurs, as opposed to attracting firms (ibid, 2003). If not physically
making the area unsuitable for daily life, then financially the real estate is too expensive
for private ownership. Furthermore, to demonstrate the rigid constructs within this local
planning institutes of the area regarding a change leading to development: ‘Cambridge’s
local political structure is deeply hostile to economic growth- a position from which it has
not budged in half a century’ (Koepp, 2003, p.83).
In spite of all of these planning problems, Cambridge is one of the top biotechnology
clusters in the world, and undoubtedly unrivalled in the UK (ERBI 2005, Cooke
2006(1)). Currently, in this cluster, 185 biotech companies operate, employing 20% of
the world’s Nobel Prize winners in chemistry and medicine (ibid 2005, 2006). The vast
majority of these companies are SME’s, started by entrepreneurs and employees of the
nearby university, employing less than 200 people each, specializing in various
disciplines within the wide field of biotechnology (Koepp 2003, ERBI 2005).
Nonetheless, as more innovative firms ‘make their mark’ within the biotechnology
cluster, they can displace inhabitants in their efforts to be closer to the other companies,
or they can even displace other, less prosperous, businesses. Either situation can warrant
the title gentrification; despite the fact that it is different than the previous two cases.

Comparison
The two cases of clusters in Cardiff and Washington DC are different than the Cambridge
case due to the structural lay-out, the other clusters operating in the area, and the vast
displacement in the former examples. As mentioned, the regional plan for Cambridge is
grossly outdated, and is considered the main inhibitor to diversity in the area, in both
population and types of business. In contrast, the clusters in Cardiff and DC are not
victims of inadequate planning, rather, in their respective capacities; they are
transitioning, at vario us rates, from an industrialized environment to a knowledge-based
economy environment. The talented members of society used to prefer to live in the
suburbs, or the outskirts of the city leaving the inner-city to the lower- income members;
however, due to the diverse setting, change in population dynamics, and geographic
proximity, city living is the current trend amongst the talented and creative class.
An excellent indicator for gentrification is the fluctuation of housing prices. The table
below is based on Halifax Bank research that examined the average price of houses in the
top 20 university towns in the UK from 1999-2003 and 2000-2005 (Halifax Bank 2003,
2005). Due to the biotech cluster of Cardiff being situated around the prestigious Cardiff
University, and the biotech cluster of Cambridge being situated around the prestigious
Cambridge University, this table can be applied to the university towns generally and the
biotech cluster specifically. Unfortunately, Halifax Bank does not perform the same
research for international affiliates; therefore, the information for Washington DC is
available later in this paper.
 9

Housing Price Fluctuations

250000
200000
Average Price 150000
of House 100000 Cambridge
50000 Cardiff

0
1999 2000 2003 2005
Year

Table generated from information compiled by HBOS Press, Halifax Bank 2003, 2005.

This table verifies the potential for gentrification due to the sharp increase, in both
university towns, in the price of houses; however, it does not clearly portray the
percentage of the increase. Cambridge housing prices were higher than Cardiff prices in
1999 and between 1999 and 2003, Cambridge housing prices increased by 87% while the
Cardiff prices increased by 75% (Halifax Bank, 2003). Nonetheless, between 2000 and
2005, Cardiff prices increased by 97% while Cambridge prices increased by 64%
(Halifax Bank, 2005). The refore, looking past the planning methods in these respective
towns, the gentrification of the Cardiff area is occurring at a faster rate than the
Cambridge area. Consequently, since early January of this year, the price of houses has
risen 3.4% in the Cambridge area while over the whole of 2005, the price of houses in
that area only increased by 4.1% (CEN News, 2006). Although there is no clear ‘winner’
in the race for high house prices, these statistics demonstrate the rising popularity of these
areas. Furthermore, with the integration of businesses and luxury apartments into these
areas, the ability for native inhabitants to relocate within the area is less likely than
perhaps 7 years ago. Due to the inability of the DC area to be included in the above
table, Figure 5 demonstrates the inflation of house prices in that area as well.
Independently, Figure 5 demonstrates that the lucrative Northwest quadrant of the city,
where the biotech cluster in DC, and branching off into Virginia and Maryland, is located
has reached its saturation point, either through population or high housing prices. Either
scenario makes the surrounding areas attractive to people who are willing to pay the high
median housing prices; thereby, forcing the original inhabitants further out of the area.
Ironically, the area in Figure 5, based on 2005 data, that shows the highest median
housing price increases over the past year is the same area that Figure 4, based on 2001
data, illustrated as the core of the housing affordability plan during that time. Obviously,
in the time between the production of these two maps, 2001-2005, the interests of the
Washington DC city structure have changed.
Although the increase in the average price rates listed as percentages above was
impressive, the Washington DC area is reported to have a 114% increase in average
home pric es between the 2000-2005 term (BWO, 2006). Looking solely at these
percentages, the cities, in ranking order of average house prices leading to advanced
gentrification: Was hington DC, Cardiff, Cambridge UK. Again, there are forces – other
clusters, government reserves, Greenfield projects- outside of the arrival of the biotech
cluster in each of these cities that further the displacement of the native inhabitants;
 10

however, a portion of this displacement is in response to the biotechnology firms and

employees.

Conclusion
Overall, it is difficult to prove a causal relationship solely between the biotechnology
clusters and the displacement of people in these locales. This is because of the other
factors that could attribute to the gentrification process, such as political tendencies, the
integration of other businesses, and the tax incentives associated with relocating.
Individually, gentrification and the increase of biotechnology clusters are occurring in
each of these locations, to varying degrees.
Although Cardiff is the most underdeveloped cluster of the three examples, it is the
location that will most likely have the highest gentrification rates, of the three, due to its
rising knowledge-base, its increasing cluster production, and the changing interests
within society. However, this cannot be solely linked to the biotechnology field since
there are blossoming clusters emerging in both New Media and political administration in
the area alongside biotechnology. Statistically, the aforementioned percentage of housing
price increase since the year 2000 proves this point. Coinciding with this, the
gentrification rates in Washington DC are rising in historically underprivileged, ‘bad’
areas of the city. This signals the growing number of people interested in the real estate
market of the District, no matter the history of the area, which will lead to the
displacement of the native inhabitants.
The biotechnology cluster in Cambridge is a completely different case. Due to the layout
of the area, the causal relationship between the biotech cluster and gentrification is
strongest in Cambridge due to the dynamism of the biotech cluster. Even though it is
continuously increasing its size through the number of innovative companies and creative
people it contains, it is the most developed of the three examples. These facts, coupled
with the archaic city planning structure, leads to the belief that the majority of
displacements has already occurred. Nonetheless, without dispute, the prices of housing
in the Cambridge area are high. This could lead to a second wave of gentrification, again
caused by the biotechnology cluster, with the displacement of people, and their homes, to
pave the way for more businesses. The situation presented is hypothetical, and without a
review of the city plans, perhaps impossible; however, it would be difficult to live in an
area that is centred around the biotechnology industry when one is not a part of it.
In summary, gentrification is occurring and biotechnology clusters are arising. Neither is
a static concept and both will re-shape the cities’ structures in which they occur.
Biotechnology clusters do affect gentrification based on the fact that a business and a
home cannot occupy one piece of land and businesses tend to have more money to buy-
out the inhabitants. In addition, the employees of these firms need comfortable living
spaces: enter luxury apartments, which can also not share the aforementioned one piece
of land. However, the numbers produced to demonstrate gentrification efforts occurring
in these individual cities can not be solely attributed to the biotechnology cluster.
Outside of an in-depth study, there would be no way to gauge the motives for leaving the
area by inhabitants or the offers made by biotechnology companies to the native people.
The city’s configuration will change whether biotechnology clusters arise or not;
however, the biotechnology clusters do make a difference.
 11

Figure 1
 12

http://www.dti.gov.uk/biotechclusters/chapt02.pdf
pg. 2
Taken from Chapter 2 of The UK Competitiveness Report commissioned by the UK
Ministry of Science, in 1999 which was adapted from Ernst & Young 1999.
 13

Figure 2

2006 European Molecular Biology Journal. Adapted from work originally completed by
William Hoffman at the University of Minnesota. The brown countries rank highly in the
Growth Competitiveness Index for 2004-2005 and the black circles represent biotech or
bioscie nce clusters.
 14

Figure 3

This map was originally produced by Koepp, 2003, for the Greater Washington Initiative
to highlight innovation areas within Washington DC and the surrounding areas. It can be
found at http://www.greaterwashington.org/business/biotech/biotech_cluster_map.htm
 15

Figure 4

DC gentrification map
http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/pdfs/equitable-development-report.pdf.
pg. 7
This map was created in 2002 by Mark Rubin, based on 2001 information, for the
policymakers on housing in the DC Agenda.
 16

Figure 5

DC Housing Price Map

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/realestate/features/2006/housingoutlook/maps/map_dc.html
This map was created in 2006, based on 2005 data compiled by the US Department of
Housing and Urban Development, by Nathaniel Vaughn Kelso for the Washington Post.
 17

Bibliography

Aravosis, J. 2003, DC is Again ‘Murder Capital’- new study shows, Accessed on April
13, 2006, Retrieved from
http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html.

Baron, D. 2003, Latest Plan to Clear DC Region’s Air Falls Short, Accessed on April 6,
2006, Retrieved from http://www.earthjustice.org/news/display.html?ID=607.

Business Week Online (BWO) 2006, How Strong is the Housing Market Where You
Live?, Accessed on April 14, 2006, Retrieved from
http://bwnt.businessweek.com/housing/2006/index.asp?sortCol=price_change&so
rtOrder=DESC&pageNum=1&resultNum=100.

Cambridge Evening News (CEN) 2006, Housing Prices up by 3.4%, Accessed on April
13, 2006, Retrieved from http://www.cambridge-
news.co.uk/news/region_wide/2006/04/07/63a19847-4333-4b.html.

Cooke, P. 2006, ‘The Creative Industries in Wales- and Their Discontents’, prepared for
the Gregynog Seminar on Promoting Welsh Creative Industries.

Cooke, P. 2006 (1), Global Bioregions: A comparative analysis of German and UK

Biotechnology Clusters, Accessed on April 12, 2006, Retrieved from
http://mail.google.com/mail/?view=att&disp=vah&attid=0.1&th=10a8dc90b9ebd
32f.

Cooke, P. 2002, Knowledge Economies, Clusters, Learning and Cooperative Advantage,

Routledge, London.

ERBI, 2005, Cambridge: About the cluster, Accessed on March 27, 2006, Retrieved from
http://www.erbi.co.uk/bfora/systems/xmlviewer/default.asp?arg...

Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. 2000, ‘The Dynamics of Innovation: From national

systems and ‘mode 2’ to a Triple Helix of university-industry- government
relations’, Research Policy, vol. 29, pp. 109-123.

Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. (eds.) 1997, Universities and the Global Knowledge
Economy. A Triple Helix of University-Industry-Government Relations, Pinter,
London.

European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO) 2006, ‘More than a Sum of Their
Parts?’, European Molecular Biology Organization Report, vol 7, no 2.

Florida, R. 2002, The Rise of the Creative Class, Basic Books, New York.

Greater Washington Initiative 2004, Regional Bioscience Industry: A capital of

 18

innovation and opportunity, Accessed on April 6, 2006, Retrieved from

http://www.greaterwashington.org/business/biotech/biotech_cluster_map.htm.

Halifax Bank, 2005, HBOS Press Release: University towns housing prices, Accessed on
April 14, 2006, Retrieved from
http://www.hbosplc.com/media/pressreleases/articles/halifax/2003-08-13-03.asp.

Halifax Bank 2003, HBOS Press Release: University towns housing prices, Accessed on
April 13, 2006, Retrieved from
http://www.hbosplc.com/media/pressreleases/articles/halifax/2003-08-13-03.asp.

Kelso, N.V. 2006, Housing Outlook 2006: The Washington Post, Accessed on April 04,
2006, Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
srv/realestate/features/2006/housingoutlook/maps/map_dc.html.

Ketels, C. 2003, ‘The Development of the cluster concept- present experiences and
further developments’, prepared for the NRW Conference, Duisburg, Germany
December 5, 2003.

Koepp, R. 2003, Milken Institute Review: ‘Clusters of Creativity’, Accessed on April 4,

2006, Retrieved from
http://www.milkeninstitute.org/publications/review/2003_3/65_84mr17.pdf.

Milken Institute 2004, What are America’s Top Biotech Centers? New Milken Institute
Study Shows which Metros Lead in Regional Race to Dominate this Key Industry,
Accessed on March 27, 2006, Retrieved from
http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/altavista/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news.ht
ml.

NBC 4 2006, Money: Vital signs for the week, Accessed on April 12, 2006, Retrieved
from http://www.nbc4.com/money/7803345/detail.html.

Obenhaus, W. 2001, Wales Current Economic Situation, Accessed on April 15, 2006,
Retrieved from http://www.wu-
wien.ac.at/wwwu/institute/english/samplepaper.pdf.

Pastor, M. 2005, Cohesion and Competitiveness: Business leadership for regional growth
and social equity, Accessed on April 5, 2006, Retrieved from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/53/0/35565593/pdf.

Rosen, M. 2003, The Making of Chicago as a Biotech Cluster, Accessed on March 27,
2006, Retrieved from http://wisetechnology.com/article.php?id=15.

Rubin, M. 2002, Housing Affordability Map: DC Agenda, Accessed on April 6, 2006,

Retrieved from http://www.neighborhoodinfodc.org/pdfs/equitable-development-
report.pdf.
 19

Sable, M. 2005, The Impact of the Dutch Biopharmaceutical Industry on Regional

Economic Development in the Randstad, Accessed on April 5, 2006, Retrieved
from http://www.ersa.org/ersaconfs/ersa05/papers/266.pdf.

Somers, T. 2004, Britain Offers S.D. Companies Capital Prospects, Accessed on April 6,
2006, Retrieved from
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/business/biotech/20040302-9999-
1b2biotech.h...

Treanor, P. 2004, Brownfield Gentrification in Amsterdam, Accessed on April 6, 2006,

Retrieved from
http://www.web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/gentrification.html.

UK Ministry of Science 1999, UK Competitiveness Report: Biotechnology Clusters,

Accessed on April 6, 2006, Retrieved from
http://www.dti.gov.uk/biotechclusters/chapt02.pdf.

Welsh Development Agency (WDA) 2003, Gene Park Creation, Accessed on April 6,
2006, Retrieved from http://www.walesgenepark.co.uk/.

Whatling, S. 2006, Biotechnology, International Business Wales, Cardiff, Wales.

Whatling, S. 2003, Biotechnology, Wales Trade International, Cardiff, Wales.