COMPACT CAMPUS

compacTUD Real Estate strategy for TU Delft Campus

Group 03

Yara Bergers Deanne Muisers Alexandra de la Vega

4475410 4653955 5223318

PREFACE

TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction

“I have always seen scarcity as a filter for arbitrariness” Aravena, 2018 This report aims to provide an accommodation strategy for Delft University of Technology. The strategy is designed after taking a look at the past and the future and at all the forces around TU Delft. This real estate strategy’s main aim is to add value to the organization by taking the current supply and making the most of it. This report is part of the Real Estate Management course of the MSc Management in the Built Environment at TU Delft.

We wish to thank Herman Vande Putte, Tuuli Jylhä, Cynthia Hou, Hilde Remoy, Ellen Geurts and Margharita Macia for your support in the realization of this assignment and a special acknowledgement to Dr. Dominik Brem for his contribution to this project in sharing very valuable insights about the real estate management practice in ETH Zurich.

Yara, Deanne & Alexandra January 31, 2021 Delft University of Technology

04

Part I - Definitions, history, and trends

06

Definitions History Trends and scenarios Interview 1

07 08 12 16

Part II - Current performance

18

Stakeholders Current demand Current supply (Mis) match Interview 2

19 20 24 26 28

Part III - Future strategy

30

Problematization Conceptual strategies Strategy choice Strategy proposal Strategy implementation Cash flow model Risk assessment Interview 3 Conclusion

34 36 39 40 44 48 49 50 53

References

56

INTRODUCTION In this report, a strategy for the real estate portfolio of Delft, University of Technology (TU Delft) is shown. The TU Delft was founded in 1842 and kept expanding and growing during the years (SteenhuisMeurs, 2018). Until now, the campus of the TU Delft has functioned well looking at aspects such as the amount and quality of green areas, the healthy environment, and the support that the real estate delivers to the level of education and research. However, this brings no certainty for the future (Haynes et al., 2017). To react to this uncertainty the strategy is based on history, trends, current demand and supply, possible future scenarios, future demands, and future challenges. The report will research the future strategy following the research question: “How can efficient use of space contribute to a more sustainable, accessible and livable TU Delft campus?”

The report is divided into 3 parts: Part I is about the definitions, history, and trends, looked at from different views: the corporate real estate asset management, organizations, universities and campuses, and the TU Delft.

Part II describes the current performance of the corporate real estate, focusing on the campus of the TU Delft. The supply and demand are researched and the (mis)matches are shown.

Part III is the base for the future strategy. The future bandwidths are researched and compared with 3 conceptual strategies.

From those strategies the aspects that align best with the core values are implemented in the future strategy: The CompacTUD strategy.

During this course, three interviews took place with Dr. Dominik Andreas, real estate manager at the ETH of Zurich. The input from these interviews is incorporated in this report.

To create a future strategy for the real estate portfolio of TU Delft, the demand and supply sides need to align. This alignment has to be achieved in the present, but also ready for the future. To create a strategy that is fit for this goal, the strategic alignment model of Henderson and Venkatraman (1989) is used. Figure 01 shows the model. This model is developed looking at 2 fundamental dimensions: the business side and the resource side. These 2 sides are analyzed by different levels: the strategic and the operational level. All the elements in this framework need to align and be linked to each other to create a future strategy for the real estate of the TU Delft.

BUSINESS

RESOURCE

STRATEGIC

Organiza�on strategy

Real estate strategy

OPERATIONAL

Organiza�on processes

Real estate processes

Strategic integration Strategic integra�on Functional integration Func�onal integra�on Cross domain alignment Cross domain allignment Figure 01: Strategic alignment model. (Source: authors, adapted from: Henderson & Venkatraman, 1989)

04

Source: TU Delft. (n.d.-c)

05

PART l

Definitions, History, and Trends

DEFINITIONS To provide a foundation for part l of this report, this paragraph will discuss the fundamental aspects in connection to corporate real estate management (CREM).

Corporate real estate management for universities and campuses A university in the Netherlands is an educational institution that provides science education to students and performs scientific research (TU Delft, n.d.; Wettenbank, 2015).

In the Netherlands, all fourteen universities have databases of all real estate projects (Den Heijer, 2007). Other universities in the country can use this as a reference when developing or renovating properties. Interviews with the CREM departments show that universities rather not rent properties because of the fluctuating number of students, lack of flexibility within faculties, and the constantly changing qualitative demand (Den Heijer, 2007).

Corporate real estate (CRE) and Corporate real estate management (CREM)

Introduction part I Part I of this report aims to take a dive into the definitions, history and trends around the CREM, the organizations and the Campus Universities with a special focus on the TU Delft Campus. After the identification of the most important trends, a scenario analysis is realized to identify some possible paths that the university can take in the future.

Properties can be categorized as corporate real estate (CRE) when they are used or owned as operational resources or fixed capital to support the organization (either private or public) to reach its goals, but are not included in the corporation’s core business (Glatte, 2013).

Corporate real estate management (CREM) is concerned with the establishment and maintenance of the most optimal match between the corporation’s business and its property portfolio strategy (Bon, 1992). Although CREM mainly focuses on the operation and utilization stages of the property, it is involved during the entire property cycle.

It concerns the planning and management of investments, construction, facilities, as well as financial planning and management during these activities.

Corporate real estate management for TU Delft

TU Delft stands for innovation and research, and its education is ranked high (TU Delft, 2020). The goal of the CRE team is to provide the right spaces for students, scientists, and staff to stimulate them to contribute maximally to this goal.

The CREM department is responsible for the management and development of real estate and land owned by the TU Delft. The department is divided into several teams focusing on different tasks, but working together to optimize the alignment of the TU Delft’s strategy and the CRE’s strategy.

Organizations

An organization can be defined as a group of people that are working together in an organized way, aiming to reach the same goal (Cambridge University Press, 2020).

Education: in the Netherlands, buildings and grounds for educational purposes were owned by the government until 1995 (Den Heijer, 2007). When the properties were transferred to the university itself, many buildings were in high need of renovations. This transfer also forced the organizations to increase the efficiency in the use of space.

The educational organizations now apply Corporate real estate management (CREM) to increase the value of the organization and the end-users (Beckers et al., 2015). The CREM team does so by implementing cost-controlling strategies, as well as adding value by supporting future developments, culture, user activities, and the increase of the user’s satisfaction. The corporate strategies of education develop rapidly, which means that in response, there is a need for the rapid evolution of the CRE strategy as well to keep these two strategies aligned.

Strategic and operational corporate real estate management

Corporate real estate is of great strategic importance for the organizations because it can increase the employee’s satisfaction regarding the office or workplace, and it has high potential to positively influence the business’ productivity, which might directly influence the productivity of a country as well (Haynes et al., 2017). Besides, CREM is often used to stimulate the growth of an organization.

Therefore, constant attention is needed to align the CREM strategy with the business’ strategy, and the main aim of adding value and optimizing performance.

06

07

HISTORY Organizations

Phase 2: Technical High School at the outskirts of the city (1895 - 1944) After the industrialization in 1900 more expension was required because of the great number of technicians that were needed (SteenhuisMeurs, 2018). In 1905 the name Technical High School Delft was given to the school and the last director changed into a rector magnificus. New buildings were bought and the Technical High School Delft started moving to the outskirts (Wippolder) of the city of Delft. Because of 2 government architects, the appearance of the buildings showed a coherent image with all the other education buildings in the Netherlands. This period ended chaotic, because of World War II.

Universities and Campuses

Industrialization The way organizations operate changed over the years.

Industrialization (around 1920) can be seen as the start of organizations as we know them nowadays (Grieves, 2000). Before that time the companies were smaller and therefore the organization was mainly done by the owners.

The organizations of the factories were mainly focused on producing the products in large factories and increasing the production process by letting the workers concentrate on one task. The approach was based on the operational approach of the ‘division of labor’ from Adam Smith’s, developed by Frederick Taylor (Haynes et al., 2017). The Hawthorne experiments showed that social factors around the work environment are also important considering productivity and the satisfaction of the workers (Haynes et al., 2017).

The universities in the Netherlands developed in 1960 because of the enormous growth of interests in studying (Gramsbergen et al., 2018). The Dutch government invested a lot of money in the construction of university buildings. Most of the existing stock of the universities were located in the city centers and shifted to the outlines of the cities when an extension was needed. The first ideas for universities were to create autonomous and individual places with only an educational function. This idea changed over the years and now a more integrated and social university and campus are wanted. The space where the buildings, functions, and activities of the university are located, is called the campus (Gramsbergen et al, 2018).

Not only the universities developed during the years but also the campuses: the alignment between education and the real estate of the university comes together on the campus.

1950 - 1980 This knowledge of the Hawthorne experiments was not implemented in the organizations in 1950. The organizations were hierarchical and the organizational structure was visible in the offices in the individual cellular offices (the higher the rank, the bigger the office). This encouraged individual private working and discouraged collaboration between team members.

Around 1960 the organizational structures started to shift to open-plan office environments. The importance of social elements described by Hawthorne was implemented in these open-plan environments by office landscapes (Haynes et al., 2017).

In 1980 the concept of commons and caves developed as a balance between the cellular and open-plan offices. The employee could give his/her preference to work privately or to collaborate with colleagues in a combi-office.

The difference compared to the business park A business park and a campus have similarities because they are both located near the city where several (office) buildings are located. The difference is that a business park mainly exists out of offices, where a campus mainly exists out of buildings with educational purposes. The combination between a campus and a business park can create a link between learning and reality: it can give an impulse to both. The TU Delft is locating a business park in the South part of the campus (Gramsbergen et al., 2018).

PHASE 1

Phase 3: The post-war university neighborhood (1945 - 1994) As soon as the war ended, the need for technical schooled people increased. All universities in the Netherlands wanted to expand, but Delft got priority from the government (SteenhuisMeurs, 2018). The university moved out of the buildings in the city center to the outskirts of the city, which became the new Technical High school area. Because of this growth, the responsibility for the buildings was transferred from the government to the universities. Collaboration between the government, municipality, and the Technical High school was a bit rough, but eventually, there was an extension plan in July 1948. Professors of the Technical High school helped design and manage the development of the plan. The plan showed a campus that provided mainly buildings for education and research (SteenhuisMeurs, 2018). There was criticism of the plan because of the mono-function of the area because this could lead to a ‘dead-area’.

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

TU Delft

As presented in figure 02, the development of the campus of Delft, University of Technology can be divided into five phases (SteenhuisMeurs, 2018): Period 1: Start in the city center (1842 - 1894) Period 2: Technical High School at the outskirts of the city (1895 - 1944) Period 3: The post-war university neighborhood (1945 - 1994) Period 4: Real estate property of the TU Delft (1995 - 2010) Period 5: From master plan to the building (2011- present day)

2000 - present The way organizations work now can be first seen in the way Handy saw organizations; the most valuable asset of an organization is its people (Haynes et al., 2017).

Organizations can work more flexibly because business depends on demand. This can be translated into ‘shamrock organizations’, in which there are three components: the core staff, a more flexible workforce, and contractual fringes.

Also, the development of information communication technology (ICT) has an increasing impact on the way organizations are structured. Employees are more flexible and independent for one location because of laptops and wireless technologies (Haynes et al., 2017). Therefore, the offices are not bound to a big building with enough space for a desk for every employee, but a smaller building with flexible and dynamic workspaces can fulfill the need. The organization of those offices becomes less hierarchical and shifts to a more team-based and collaborative system.

Phase 1: Start in the city center (1842 - 1894) In 1842 the Royal Academy was established as the precursor for Delft, University of Technology (SteenhuisMeurs, 2018).

It started with 4 educations with 48 students. The academy was led by a director who defined the way of teaching. The school was hierarchical and strongly dependent on the preferences of the higher-ranked persons. The academy was not a state institution, and therefore it needed to arrange its funds. This changed in 1864 and therefore the authoritarian system. Extension in the city center was needed and 2 new buildings in the city center (Oude Delft) were bought.

Phase 4: Real estate property of the TU Delft (1995 - 2010) In 1995 the university became the legal and economic owner of their real estate, which means that they could decide themselves what they wanted to do with the buildings (SteenhuisMeurs, 2018). The buildings were renovated to make them more professional. Also, a future vision was set up for the campus. More functions will be added to the campus, not only educational buildings. A division was made between the North, Middle, and the South part of the campus, which will all have different functions.

PHASE 4

Phase 5: From masterplan to the building (2011- present day) The plan evolved into a new campus vision where the focus is to create a living campus, with greenery, a park, and upgrading and adding the buildings and their functions (SteenhuisMeurs, 2018). The plan from 1997 with the division of the North, Middle, and the South part of the campus is under construction now.

PHASE 5

Figure 02: Timeline development campus TU Delft. (Source: authors, adapted from: Delft Technische Hoogeschool, n.d.; Gramsbergen et al., 2018; Tu Delft, 2018)

08

09

TIMELINE Figure 03 gives an overview of the important moments in time looking at society, organizations, research&education, TU Delft, campuses, CREAM, and Architecture&Urbanism. The events that occurred don’t stand on their own but are influenced or influence other subjects. For example, the way offices and real estate are used shifted from cellular offices in 1950 to open space plans, influenced by how organizations were structured. Hierarchical structures shifted to a more people vision structure in the early 20th century. And how these buildings looked, was influenced by the architecture and urbanism developments (Haynes et al., 2017).

Society

Organisations

1900 For all children between six and twelve years old, school was compulsory

TU Delft

1842 The Royal Academy

1200

CREAM

1950 Taylorism

Early 20th century Number of office workers started to increase Early 20th century Administration work in massproduction

Research & Education

Campus U

1960-1970 Funds for unemployment, elderly, and healthcare

1919 Voting rights for women

1600

1937 Education in being safe around traffic

1905 The name became Technical High School Delft Expansion to outs-

1950 Attention to: development of the individual, social involvement, and moral responsibilities

Arch & Urb

1945-1955 Representative work palaces

1986 Laws for student grants were implemented

1950 historical inner-city location

1920 Bauhaus

1927 International style

2015 Abolishment of student grants

1970-1980 main roads location

1955-1965 Glass boxes and Cell offices

1950 Brutalism 1940 New Tows URB

After 1970 The university and campus were not only focussed on the education itself, but the university needed to show their expertise on the campus: image.

1970 More functions were added to the university buildings and surroundings: the need for campuses were growing.

1960 business park location

1960 Postmodernism

1965-1975 Office gardens and large structures

1990 New Urbanism

1965-1975 Office gardens and large structures

2020 Digitalization of education

2011 Masterplan for the campus is being realised

2000

1925 Art Deco

Figure 03: Timeline regarding the history of society, architecture & urbanism, organizations, CREAM, research and education, University’s campusses, and the TU Delft. (Source: authors)

10

2003 Redevelopment of division of high school levels

1995 The university became legal and economic owner of their real

1960 Universities were growing because of great interests.

Universities needed to expand to the outskirts of the cities

1915 Modernism

1968 Division of high school into three levels

1990 Business process re-engineering cell phones, laptops, etc.

1950

Early 20th century More universities started to develop in the Netherlands

1850-1945 White collar factories

1980 The emerge of personal computers

1948 Expansion plan Need for technical people was big after WWII

1900

1800

1960 Communication from supervisor-employee to employee- employee.

2020

2010 Business parks and campuses are combined (TU Delft) to link education to offices and business.

1985-1995 1970-1980 Corporate identity main roads location and office districts 1975-1985 Human and flexible (rental) offices

1990 office park location

1995 Shroter leases

2000 1990 Station Freehold location 25 years lease

2005 Sustainable arch

1960 Reaction against modernism URB

11

2015 Co-working space 1995-2015 Flexible and virtual offices

TRENDS AND DRIVERS The next step of this report is to explore relevant drivers and key trends within the corporate real estate asset management, university’s campusses, and the TU Delft Campus. First, this report will discuss the trends that are currently driving real estate and the practice of corporate real estate (CRE). Secondly, this report will aim to explore some trends within university’s campusses. Thirdly, some trends within the accommodation at TU Delft Campus will be discussed.

Real Estate

In real estate, technology is having a big impact in the way buildings are monitored and used. For example, through the implementation of buildings systems that monitor the performance of the building (Haynes et al., 2017).

Normally when designing a building, we would think about light bulbs and doors, now sometimes we talk about voice controlled lighting, door entry systems, etc. Smart building technologies are totally changing the future of real estate.

Also, digitalization is playing a big role in redefining real estate and its definition as a physical environment is becoming a thing of the past. Nowadays, users have higher expectations on how they engage with digital surroundings (Real estate predictions 2021, 2021).

the alignment of CREAM with sustainability and corporate social responsibility (CSR) issues. This component also seeks to improve productivity and control costs.

Sustainability is a credential sought by the “best employees” and has proved to increase employee wellness. Beyond the idea of reducing resources and costs, organizations are increasingly required to comply with certain standards.

An example of these standards is Corporate social responsibility (CSR), which is becoming an environmental normal business and can be described as those activities that a business needs to undertake to achieve social benefit (Haynes et al., 2017).

environment. As stated by Lancrin (2004), technology is a facilitator for the circulation of knowledge and information.

Therefore, the study environment can take multiple new forms, and, according to Arup (2018), users who have the freedom to choose when, where, and how to work have shown higher levels of satisfaction, performance, and innovation. Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) is an example of an innovative model of education that TU Delft is implementing nowadays. This education model has open access via the web and provides an interactive platform that aims to build community between professors and students.

University Campus

“We are looking at what is required as well as what is not necessary” (TU Delft, 2020).

For universities to prosper, they have to be flexible and agile to adapt to the continuous changes around them. Change management is a trend that supports organizations to be prepared for continuous changes that are driven by new technologies, competition, crises, or any other external and internal factors they may face. According to Arup (2018), an increasingly diverse body of students and teachers will have different expectations for their experiences on the campus and their educational path. Therefore, universities need to constantly engage with the users and their evolving expectations. For example, according to Lancrin (2004), in the coming years more elderly people will enroll for nonprofessional motives. Therefore, universities will need to become more learner and demand-oriented, providing short courses, and distance or e-learning. Nowadays, the idea of creating a “smart campus” is more accepted by the universities. This, as a result of the increasing use of the campus and the pressure on resources (e.g. human resource, financial) (TU Delft, 2020).

Corporate Real Estate Management (CREM)

According to Haynes et al. (2017), organizations tend to reduce floor working areas and increase densities to decrease expenditures. However, this can have negative outcomes for the organization. Therefore, there is a need for a better understanding of the “people” component within corporate real estate.

People are the most valuable assets of organizations.

Therefore, there is a significant interest in attracting and inspiring people within an organization. As a result, a major trend in corporate real estate is the emergence of new working practices. According to Haynes et al. (2017), people can be more dynamic when working both within an office environment and away from the office environment.

An example of this trend is activity-based working (ABW), a workplace concept that allows every office occupier to choose where and how they prefer to work according to each particular working activity. Activity-based working has proven to bring benefits both for the employee and for the employer. Some examples of benefits for the employee (user) include interaction and collaboration with others and an increase in productivity when matching a particular work to a more adequate workstation. On the other hand, the main benefit that ABW brings to the employer (organization) is that fewer office spaces are required, which, in turn, lead to cost savings as well as attraction and retention of employees (Haynes et al., 2017).

Nowadays, the idea that facilities need to adapt to the future needs of the users is growing. According to Haynes et al. (2017), aging buildings is a trend that is about the need for the buildings’ maintenance or their entire replacement. Therefore, when a building reaches the end of its useful life, decisions regarding repair, reuse, or replacement need to be made by the facility management professionals. As stated by Arup (2018), design strategies should consider the complete lifecycle of buildings.

For example, considering prefabricated and modular elements, as part of services or partitions, can allow for easy reconfiguration of the buildings and their interior spaces. Another alternative would be to design buildings that can be easily deconstructed, encouraging the reuse and recycling of those materials and components until the end of their lifecycle.

of the students’ population, from 17,000 students in 2010 to approximately 22,000 students in 2016 (TU Delft, 2018).

Looking at the history and trends in CREAM, it is shown that this is influenced by other factors. Also, the trends that occurred in history give no certainty in the future.

Therefore, the planning for the future can be very complex.

The creation of possible future scenarios may help to manage this uncertainty. A tool for the development of these scenarios is scenario planning described by Arkesteijn et al. (2018), which looks at the steerability, predictability, and impact. Before this scenario planning is performed, the future trends are derived from literature research, lectures given during the course, and brainstorming with the project group. The trends are shown in table 01. These trends can be clustered into clusters. These 6 clusters are used in the scenario planning steerability matrix, shown in figure 04.

Scenario Planning - Steerability

According to Arup (2018), new and diverse learning methods, together to decrease public costs in education within Europe and the US, and reduce the environmental impact (through the reduction of energy waste, and underutilization) are the main drivers for the redefinition of the spatial requirements for campus buildings.

Figure 04 shows the scenario matrix for the steerability and impact based on Arkesteijn et al., (2018). The 6 clusters are placed in this matrix and the goal is to find the clusters that have the most impact on the real estate and are the least steerable. Therefore, the three clusters, self-sufficiency, digitalization, and economic growth, in the right bottom square are placed into a predictability matrix (figure 05).

TU Delft is changing the way on how it makes use of the buildings and aims to integrate different functions in one space if it is possible (TU Delft, 2020). Nowadays, less space is being required for traditional lectures due to the development of technology, which means the study is no longer restricted to the campus environment. For these reasons and the others stated above, TU Delft Campus is making more effective use of every square meter and also, adapting the buildings that exceed the basic requirements.

For example, designing spaces that can be easily adapted to satisfy the different functions and changing demands of the users. Some benefits that bring the joint of space include stimulation of cooperation, ensuring more effective use of space, and also, are easier to maintain (TU Delft, 2020). An important trend in recent years is the continuous growth

Self-sufficiency

TRENDS

1. Rise of indivudialism 2. Resistance to traveling and transport 3. Circulair city 4. Producing your own energy Globalisation 5. Rise of internationlisation 6. More competitive world because of access to more knowledge 7. More collaborations between universities Change of lifestyle 8. Less cars, different ways of transport 9. more interest in technical studies 10. Rise of 1 person housholds 11. More will to be educated, also on older ages 12. Space reduction, more aware of the impact on the environment 13. Change of diets

HIGH STEERABILITY Digitalization

1. Self-sufficiency 2. Globalisation 3. Change of lifestyle 4. Digitalization 5. Economic growth 6. Resource scarcity

14. More education online

3.

15. Less space needed on campus 16. Working from home becomes the standard 17. More need for interaction with people in free time

6.

18. Virtualization

HIGH iMPACT

LOW IMPACT

Economic growth 19. Economic crisis due to pandamic 18. Less money for education

TU Delft

This idea of providing flexible and dynamic work styles is driven by the need to attract the most qualified staff, as well as highly motivated and talented students while also reducing costs (as less space is needed within a University).

New technologies are changing the nature of how we work, study, and live. Specifically for TU Delft, technology

As stated by Haynes et al. (2017) nowadays, organizations are becoming increasingly aware of their “green credentials” as this can be added to their unique selling point. According to the 10P model proposed by Haynes et al. (2017), the “planet” component of the model relates to

12

19. Larger financial pressure 20. More money to spend for TU because of savings due the pandamic

4.

1.

2.

5.

Resource scarcity 21. More interest in local based resourches 22. Increase of product price because of scarcity

LOW STEERABILITY

Figure 04: Steerability - Impact matrix. (Source: authors, adapted from: Arkesteijn et al., 2018)

13

Table 01: Trends. (Source: authors)

Scenario Planning - Predictability

practice like surgery it will be also transmitted thanks to new electronic devices (e.g. online) (Lancrin, 2004). On the other hand only a few collaboration activities will take place at the Campus.

Figure 05 shows the predictability matrix based on Arkesteijn et al., (2018). The goal of this matrix is to find the 2 clusters that have the highest impact on the real estate of the campus and which are the least predictable. The 2 clusters are 1. self-sufficiency and 4. digitalization.

HIGH PREDICTABILITY

HIGH IMPACT 5.

1.

In this scenario the university becomes more compact and only keeps the essential accommodation for its demand. Most parts of the university portfolio turn to lease procurement and the existing buildings that become vacant become part of the city of Delft. Therefore, in this scenario the city of Delft overtakes the campus area which results in the merge between campus and city with no clear boundaries between each other. The buildings that the university keeps are implemented with smart technologies which increases the security and sustainability credentials of the facilities.

Ecological Campus

Scenario 02 - HIGH DIGITALIZATION - TOTAL SELF SUFFICIENCY In this scenario, the university provides a blended education. However, the majority of the education aims to take place online. This makes education provided by the TU Delft available for students living all around the world. However, there will be a student and researcher community on campus.

4.

Figure 05: Predictability - Impact matrix. (Source: authors, adapted from: LOW PREDICTABILITY Arkesteijn et al., 2018)

Scenarios

In this case the university makes a special effort to improve the study and workplace experience and finally provide the students and researchers everything they need.

Buildings that become vacant because of the digitalization of education, will be transformed into housing or other facilities. The campus will provide enough housing options, research facilities, educational buildings, and buildings that provide facilities for relaxation and socializing. Educational buildings will mainly focus on the physical collaboration between students. Although all of these buildings will remain on campus, offices are not needed any longer.

Because of the digitalized contact possibilities, work will take place from home.

The 2 clusters, self-sufficiency and digitalization, are placed into a matrix. The matrix is built up using the two extremes of the two scenarios: high en low digitalization and high en low self-sufficiency (figure 06).

Online Campus

Scenario 01 - HIGH DIGITALIZATION - NO SELF SUFFICIENCY In this scenario the university provides more distance learning and e-learning. Therefore, the demand for work spaces decreases considerably since students will study more at home or somewhere else than the Campus. In the case of professional education that needs some hand-on

TREND CLUSTER - DIGITALIZATION HIGH

SCENARIO 2 - ECOLOGICAL CAMPUS

SCENARIO 1 - ONLINE CAMPUS

TREND CLUSTER - SELF-SUFFICIENCY LOW

TREND CLUSTER - SELF-SUFFICIENCY HIGH

SCENARIO 3 - BASIC CAMPUS

Figure 06: Extreme scenarios matrix. (Source: authors)

Source: Unstudio (2018

Basic Campus

Living Campus

Scenario 03 - LOW DIGITALIZATION - NO SELF SUFFICIENCY In the scenario the “basic campus” the majority of the education will be physical and therefore will take place on the campus. The campus will be fully focussed on this education and research and will work together with the city of Delft. Therefore, the links between the city and campus needs to be upgraded, looking at public transport and walking and cycling routes. Additionally, the whole campus needs to be upgraded to align with the sustainability aspects. The buildings that are currently there, need to be renovated with solar panels, producing heath and being own efficient. The new buildings that will be built, need to be even more innovative than the renovated buildings. For example, with the implementation of smart technologies.

Scenario 04 - LOW DIGITALIZATION - TOTAL SELF SUFFICIENCY In this scenario, online education will be provided very limited and most education will take place physically on campus. Due to this demand of space, the amount of buildings with an educational purpose will have to increase to keep up with the growing student numbers. After deciding if new buildings are constructed, renovation / replace/replacement decisions will be made about most aging buildings within the campus (Haynes et al., 2017).

Besides, the campus will be transformed into a living campus that will provide housing for all students and researchers, as well as a good mix of facilities. To be able to deliver enough supply, many buildings need to be added to the campus that serve as student housing, research facilities, educational facilities, offices, or other facilities that will accommodate relaxation options on campus. Also the use of ‘vertical farming’, where food is produced in an efficient and space saving way, will be added to the campus to provide food for everyone. All facilities will be open during the weekend as well to make the campus feel alive every day. To enhance this, the campus will be accessible by public transport during the evening and weekend as well.

Let the campus buildings align with the research and education that takes place: invest in the image of sustainability. This creates the willingness of the environment to work together, looking at the housing of students in the city and the attractiveness for the city of Delft with a great hotspot for education. By including the city of Delft with housing and leisure, the stores and housing will also profit from the image and grow of the university and campus.

Because the use of the campus will be fully focused on education and research, the other buildings (south part) can be sold to other parties. The campus can be more compact and feels like a community that is fully focussed on learning, with no other distractions.

SCENARIO 4 - LIVING CAMPUS

TREND CLUSTER - DIGITALIZATION LOW

14

15

SUMMARY PART I

INTERVIEW l Interview with Dr. Dominik Brem. Head of unit Building technology, Sustainability and Concepts at the ETH of Zurich.

pillars. Campus means that you not only learn about it but also show it to the rest of the world. Founding body of sustainability discussions, so they are trying to implement it. Lab buildings are hard to make sustainable, because of the need for a lot of cooling and heating.

The focus has to be on life cycle thinking. This is not in everybody’s mind yet: investment cost.

Historical buildings: heritage protection is also part of sustainable portfolio management. It is a challenge: you have to look at the buildings individually. Find optimal solutions. Look at the demands and make them fit the supply. Make the buildings work again efficiently.

For the development of new buildings is the flexibility of the key. The research will change over the years.

Dominik is responsible for the strategy for infrastructure projects and sustainability at ETH Zurich University. The real estate team consists of 10 people with all different backgrounds, so not all are specialists in real estate. This provides insides from different fields and backgrounds.

The ETH Zurich is a technical university and the RE provides all the buildings for the university.

The university has 190 buildings with a net usual area of 497000 m2. The university consists of 2 parts: the historical campus in the city center of Zurich and the campus on the outskirts of the city center (2,5 km away).

The sizes of both campuses are the same. There are also more campuses spread in Switzerland and Singapore.

The goal of the portfolio manager is to develop the portfolio and increase the size to adapt to the needs of the academics. In the current situation, the campus in the city center can be renovated but not expanded. On the campus, in the outskirts of the city, there is space to put new buildings. Sister companies/universities have their portfolio management.

Besides the infrastructure, Dominic is also responsible for the sustainability strategy and campus: relies on

For the future of ETH Zurich, the expectation is growth.

Only known growing from the last 10 years. The development and building of the new buildings: they are too slow, running out of space. The next 10 Years will have 50% more students expected. Lecture halls and everything is needed. New fields of research with new infrastructure. The long term vision of the real estate of the university has not changed due to COVID-19. The digitalization only began sooner, so for the short term strategy, there are changes needed to adapt everything to the demand.

“Keep the positive “what matters most”, avoid the negative (waste of energy, costs, space) of each model” A.C. den Heijer

Definitions, History, and Trends The previous chapter provided insights about the forces that can influence our strategy after the definition and identification of history and trends for the CREM, organizations and Campus Universities. A first step into the strategy design was achieved through the application of the scenario analysis by Arkesteijn, et al. (2018), which resulted in 4 possible scenarios for the campus university of the future.

Source: ETH Zurich. (n.d.-a)

16

18 17

PART ll

“Keep the positive “what matters most”, avoid the negative (waste of energy, costs, space) of each model” A.C. den Heijer

Current Performance

STAKEHOLDERS The TU Delft is an important part of the city of Delft. The growth and functioning of the campus are therefore also important for the city. Different people and organizations are indirectly or directly affected by the TU Delft. To get a view of these players, the stakeholders are identified by using the Henderson & Venkatraman (1989) model (figure 07). A difference is made between the business and organizational sides and the different levels; strategic and operational.

Business

Introduction part II In part II of this report, the current performance of the assets of the campus of the TU Delft is examined. It is important to gain knowledge about this performance because underperforming assets are wasteful and costly (Haynes et al., 2017). The data about the performance needs to be collected before it can be compared with the expectations of the real estate. First, the (key) stakeholders will be identified using the Henderson & Venkatraman (1989) model. The stakeholders are placed in the power and interest matrix of Winch (2010) to identify the key players. Then the current demand and supply are researched using four main values: sustainability, accessibility, space utilization, and livability. Through the Key Performance Indicators, the main values are more explained. After this, the (mis)match between the demand and supply side is shown for the assets of the campus of the TU Delft.

Operational level

Strategic level

INTERNAL

CRE EXTERNAL

Board of TU Delft Faculty Dean and Board

INTERNAL

INTERNAL

Government Municipality of Delft Ministry of Education Partner Universitie Dutch technical universities

Real estate department TU Delft Asset management

EXTERNAL

INTERNAL

Visitors Companies on business park Municipality of Delft Neighbours Partner universities Digital work environment Alumni

Dream teams Students Researchers Professors Study associations Academic staff Administration

EXTERNAL

X sport facilities International office Supervision staff Maintanance staff Library

Municipality of Delft Province of South Holland Investors Housing coorperations

EXTERNAL Architects Contractors Companies in the faculties Suppliers (catering) Student housing cooperations Supervision staff municipality

Figure 07: TU Delft campus stakeholder identifaction. (Source: authors, adapted from: Henderson & Venkatraman, 1989)

The demand (goals) of the stakeholders Different stakeholders have different goals and needs. By using the interest and power matrix (figure 08) the key players are identified (Winch, 2010). These players have the biggest influence and interest in creating the future strategy of the TU Delft.

These players are shown in the top right corner of the figure below.

HIGH POWER

KEEP SATISFIED

KEY PLAYER

HIGH Board of TU Delft National policy makers outside TU Delft

Students Academic staff

Local policy makers outside TU Delft

Real Estate department TU Delft

HIGH

Companies

HIGH INTEREST

LOW INTEREST

Investors

Partner Universities Educational Institutions External Facilities Study associations/ dream teams

Contractors

Housing cooperations Staff Internal Facilities Neighbours Visitors

MINIMUM EFFORT

LOW POWER

KEEP INFORMED

Figure 08: Power - Interest matrix TU Delft campus stakeholders. (Source: authors, adapted from: Winch, 2010)

18

19

CURRENT DEMAND TU Delft aims to keep up with the constantly increasing number of students (University of Technology, 2020). All these students need space to study and to be educated.

Apart from real estate, they also need staff to educate them.

However, the number of students has been increasing at a higher pace than the number of staff. The aim here is to improve the student-staff ratio. This results in a real estate demand again because staff need space as well in order to do their jobs.

of Technology, 2020), meaning that the occupancy rate should increase. According to (TU Delft, 2020) between 70% and 80% would be a good frequency of occupancy rate. Looking at a longer perspective, the aim is to repel the older and not necessary buildings, in order to replace them with new buildings (Delft University of Technology, 2020). Buildings should be minimally specified to be able to react to different variations and developments (Sennett, 2018). Therefore, flexibility within these new buildings is of high importance.

Space Utilization

Livability

General

The university aims by providing the right type of real estate, to enhance the development and skills of the students (Delft University of Technology, 2020). The campus supports education, research and innovation. However, it should also function as a lively heart that encourages social activities. This results in the demand for more high-quality facilities that support this aim.

The university’s aims are to support the every year’s increasing student numbers (Delft University of Technology, 2020). The student numbers increase faster than the slow developing built environment can keep up with. This results in the demand of being more effective and efficient regarding the use of the existing space that the current portfolio provides on campus (Delft University

Accessibility

Sustainability

The university aims to stimulate employees, researchers and students to use sustainable transport options to and on campus instead of the car (Delft University of Technology, 2020). Besides, there is the demand for a car-free campus and replacing the currently spread-out parking places by compact ones located on the outside ring of the campus.

Apart from the car, there is the demand for the tram that connects to the central station of Delft, to stimulate the use of public transport instead of the car.

One main demand for the campus is to become circular and CO2 neutral (University of Technology, 2020). However, the most important demand is to renovate all the older buildings to be able to meet the sustainability requirements that are defined by law. For example, all offices need to have a minimum energy label of C by 2023 (Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland, 2021).

The current demands, categorized on the four main values have been determined for every group of stakeholders (table 02). These demands have then been sumarized (table 03).

“We face social challenges, some more urgent than others. It is up to our future generation of engineers to make the world a safer, more sustainable, and better place.“ - Tim van der Hagen, Rector Magnificus TU Delft

Table 02: Current demand and current real estate demand per stakeholder group. (Source: authors)

20

21

CURRENT DEMAND VALUES SPACE UTILIZATION

LIVABILITY

ACCESSIBILITY

VARIABLES/KPI

CURRENT DEMAND

Occupancy rate of study spaces (%)

Be more efficient

Occupancy rate of educational spaces (%)

Be more efficient

Student satisfaction

Minimum of 4/5

Ratio between the functions of buildings on the campus

Investing in public areas for meetings and private spaces for concentration.

Average commuting distance

Short commuting distance

Set up facilities to support the Number of student housing units development of student accommodation on campus on campus Commute time from north to south of the campus

Improve the commute time between the north and the south of the campus, and between the station ''Delft Campus'' and the campus

Energy use (heat + electricity)

100 kWh/m2 by 2030

Electricity consumed vs produced Energy neutral campus by 2030

SUSTAINABILITY

GENERAL

CO2 emission vs removal

CO2 neutral campus by 2030

Ratio train/car/bike/walking to and on campus

100% sustainable transport options on campus

Maintenance costs

€25/m²

Number of parking lots

Strong decrease, goal is to avoid cars on campus in the future

Number of students

Slight increase every year

Student - staff ratio

15 to 1

Number of researchers

Slight increase every year

Table 03: Summary current demand. (Source: authors)

22

Source: Unstudio (2018 -2019)

23

CURRENT CURRENTSUPPLY SUPPLY General

to Delft University of Technology (2020), TU Delft has developed a large research portfolio that includes the entire range of engineering sciences, and it is divided among 40 departments and 8 faculties that support the university’s primary tasks (academic research, teaching, knowledge transfer (valorization). Figure 09 shows the current TU Delft buildings supply.

The campus splits into three main areas. According to Arkesteijn (2013), firstly, DUT North (old campus, now mainly residential, and incubator functions), Secondly, DUT central which is around 75% of the total floor area (mainly education and research facilities), and thirdly, DUT south (university-related businesses). TU Delft currently owns and maintains 60 buildings, and it is characterized by green areas with neoclassical, post-modern, and contemporary structures (TU Delft, n.d.-d.). According

Space Utilization

TU Delft is the largest University in the Netherlands with approximately 25,000 students and 6,000 staff. (Delft University of Technology, 2020). According to Arkesteijn (2013) In 2007, TU Delft Campus had around 162 hectares of land, 499,000 m2 gross floor area of buildings, and 2,800 parking spaces.

BK

21

UB

22

Livability

The actual situation of the Campus is that in education spaces is used 65% of the available time, however the occupancy is rather low 44%, which means that the number of students that are on average in a lecture hall, project room, etc. is relatively low compared to the capacity of the space. (TU Delft, 2020) Talking about student places, we can see that self study places are used quite well (60%-80% occupied), these places are the ones in which you can study long periods of time, but for touch down and informal places they aren’t use well at all (10%-20 occupied) these are the places more suitable for shorter studying or meeting in groups. This is where the improvement can be made.

The actual situation of the Campus is that in education spaces is used 65% of the available time, however the occupancy is rather low 44%, which means that the number of students that are on average in a lecture hall, project room, etc. is relatively low compared to the capacity of the space. (TU Delft, 2020)

renovation 08

Space Utilization

Currently, the university provides a stimulating and safe environment in which students can live, work and live (Delft University of Technology, 2020). The university is currently working on the upgrade of the facade and of classrooms of CEG, these changes have a positive impact in the livability by the improvement of the thermal control temperature within the facilities. However, the fragmentation of the campus in three parts negatively influences the livability in the campus during nights and weekends.

Accessibility

TU Delft is accessible by several transportation forms that include: bicycle, public transport, and car. The campus provides an extensive network of cycle paths, bicycle parking areas, and several bicycle reparation spots. As well, several busses go from the campus to the main station.

The institution is currently promoting modes of transport different from cars (e.g. e-bike, folding electric scooter). As an alternative solution, TU Delft is promoting work from home (Delft University of Technology, 2020). However, within the campus the larger walking distance is around 30 min from north to south.

renovation

TNW

23

CiTG

Y: 1945 A: 47,186.76 sqm MC: € 97.17/sqm

Y: 1997 A: 15,068.62 sqm MC: € 37.49/sqm

Y: 2003 A: 43,103.81 sqm MC: € 39.30/sqm

Y: 1975 A: 66,600.27 sqm MC: € 56.94/sqm

S: 19% T: 36% M: 0%

S: % T: % M: %

S: 46% T: 38% M: 20%

S: 81% T: 38% M: 10%

LEGEND

Sustainability

TU BUILDINGS OTHER BUILDINGS TU ROUNDWAY

P

21

P 08

P

B

B

P

B

23

22

B

34 31

B

B

P 32

P

PARKING

B

BUSSTOP BUS TRACK

B

P

B

P

P

P

36

B

58

37

P

north

YEAR CONSTRUCTED

A:

TOTAL AREA

MC:

P

61

Y:

P

MAINTENANCE COST/SQM

S:

% STUDY PLACES FOR SILENCE

T:

% STUDY PLACES FOR TOUCHDOWN

T:

% STUDY PLACES FOR MEETING

Currently, a large proportion of the TU Delft campus buildings date back to the second half of the twentieth century and some are in bad contusion state. The bad conditions of these building results is, high maintenance cost, energy cost and high impact CO2. Therefore, the institution is working on the renovation of those buildings and also in new buildings that satisfy the strictest sustainable requirements to meet the social objective of a circular economy (Delft University of Technology, 2020).

For example, the Pulse teaching building is the first energy-neutral building on campus.

In terms of mobility, the university supports existing mobility plans such as the e-bike project and proposes new initiatives, such as incentivizing travelling by train instead of by flight for long-distance study or work travels.

The current supply has been summarized in table 04.

31

TBM

32

IO

34

3ME

36

EWI

37

X

61

LR

58

TNWZ

Y: 1998 A: 12,427.60sqm MC: € 42.02/sqm

Y: 1955 A: 35,423.93 sqm MC: € 33.48/sqm

Y: 1955 A: 46,175.41 sqm MC: € 48.94/sqm

Y: A: MC:

Y: 1959-1997 A: 13,816.77 sqm MC: € 39.74-47.94/sqm

Y: 1970 A: 21,088.19 sqm MC: € 41.78/sqm

Y: 2015 A: 31,980.89 sqm MC: N/A

S: 62% T: 0% M: 0%

S: 30% T: 20% M: 35%

S: 54% T: 27% M: 00%

S: 74% T: 48% M: 13%

S: % T: % M: %

S: 0% T: 18% M: 13%

S: 0% T: 37% M: 45%

renovation

renovation

Figure 09: TU Delft campus supply. (Source: authors)

24

25

CURRENT (MIS)MATCH

CURRENT (MIS)MATCH

The current supply has been summarized in table 041.

VALUES SPACE UTILIZATION

LIVABILITY

ACCESSIBILITY

Table 05 shows an evaluation of the current demand and supply based on the key performance indicators. Each KPI was compared which results in a match or mismatch. This resulted in mostly mismatches between the current demand and current supply.

VARIABLES/KPI

CURRENT SUPPLY

Occupancy rate of study spaces (%)

Long stay -59% /short stay - 32% / meetings - 20%

Occupancy rate of educational spaces (%)

Lecture halls - 44% / Classrooms - 44% /PC - 43%

Student satisfaction

Score: 3,95/5

Ratio between the functions of buildings on the campus

Education 69% - residential 2% - sports 2% - unspecified 5% - meeting 5% -light industrial 9%

Average commuting distance

15,6 km

Number of student housing units 3.228 on campus Commute time from north to By foot - 30 min, bike - 11min, bus - 10 south of the campus min Energy use (heat + electricity)

GENERAL

SPACE UTILIZATION

LIVABILITY

ACCESSIBILITY

200 kWh/m

Electricity consumed vs produced 145 kWh/m2 vs 1-2%

SUSTAINABILITY

VALUES

CO2 emission vs removal

47.975 tCO2 - eq vs -0.5%

Ratio train/car/bike/walking to and on campus

Train 14% /car 32%/bike 44% /walking 2%/other 8%

Maintenance costs

€34/m²

Number of parking lots

2.800 parking spaces

Number of students

25.200

Student - staff ratio

19 to 1

Number of researchers

2.082

SUSTAINABILITY

GENERAL

VARIABLES/KPI

CURRENT CRE OBJECTIVES

(MIS)MATCH

Occupancy rate of study spaces (%)

Be more efficient

Long stay -59% /short stay - 32% Too low / meetings - 20%

Occupancy rate of educational spaces (%)

Be more efficient

Lecture halls - 44% / Classrooms Too low - 44% /PC - 43%

Student satisfaction

Minimum of 4/5

Score: 3,95/5

Ratio between the functions of buildings on the campus

Education 69% - residential 2% Investing in public areas for meetings sports 2% - unspecified 5% Not in balance and private spaces for concentration. meeting 5% -light industrial 9%

Average commuting distance

Short commuting distance

Set up facilities to support the Number of student housing units development of student on campus accommodation on campus

Match

15,6 km

Match

3.228

Too low

Commute time from north to south of the campus

Improve the commute time between the north and the south of the By foot - 30 min, bike - 11min, campus, and between the station bus - 10 min ''Delft Campus'' and the campus

Too long

Energy use (heat + electricity)

100 kWh/m2 by 2030

200 kWh/m

Too high

Electricity consumed vs produced Energy neutral campus by 2030

145 kWh/m2 vs 1-2%

Too low

CO2 emission vs removal

CO2 neutral campus by 2030

47.975 tCO2 - eq vs -0.5%

Too low

Ratio train/car/bike/walking to and on campus

100% sustainable transport options on campus

Train 14% /car 32%/bike 44% /walking 2%/other 8%

Too low

Maintenance costs

€25/m²

€34/m²

Too high

Number of parking lots

Strong decrease, goal is to avoid cars 2.800 parking spaces on campus in the future

Too high

Number of students

Slight increase every year

25.200

Match

Student - staff ratio

15 to 1

19 to 1

Too high

Number of researchers

Slight increase every year

2.082

Match

Table 05: (Mis)match current demand and current supply. (Source: authors)

Table 04: Summary current supply. (Source: authors)

1) data is retrieved from: The annual report 2019 TU Delft & TU Delft CRE building data.

26

CURRENT SUPPLY

27

SUMMARY PART ll

INTERVIEW ll The buildings that are being used by ETH Zurich are owned by the government. The most important measurement for the Real Estate department is the occupancy of the portfolio: how much space is used and the amount of available space they still have. They have a database that includes all rooms and their use which is continuously updated. However, much of the data is based on for example the number of enrollments. They started to use sensors but these are not implemented everywhere yet. The performance measurements are reported to the government every year. They also perform condition measurements to find out whether the property is in good shape or not.

The monitored data is used as a basis for the strategy for the next 5-10 years. Decisions on investments are also based on the data. Besides, the strategy of the university is also important to the strategy on the RE of the university.

ETH Zurich builds and renovates all the ETH Zurich properties in the name of the government. They do not use that standard Real Estate KPI’s, but do use the following: 1.

2.

3.

Researchers have high and specific requirements regarding the quality of labs.

Data such as energy efficiency has changed due to COVID-19, other day-to-day data has not changed that much, except for the use of lecture halls which have dramatically dropped. COVID-19 has boosted the virtual education environment, but the RE team of ETH expects that after COVID-19, physical education will come back to some degree, but not the way it was before. So they will have to adjust the lecture halls to that.

Their strategy is to share the most costly research equipment. This factor has a great influence on decisions regarding the location of new buildings. They rather build a lab near a hospital than on the campus itself, because researchers have to be close to the hospitals and doctors. However, this does make things more complicated because now they build outside the campus as well, but these facilities are too expensive to not use them most efficiently.

This strategy also provides the RE team with conflicts. For example, low noise labs. If they are built on the campus site, the lab would be very accessible, but they need to invest more to absorb external influences on the lab.

They could also be built in the middle of nowhere where there are no external influences, but the accessibility is much lower.

% free space Environmental + energy efficiency KPIs Quality of the space.

“Keep the positive “what matters most”, avoid the negative (waste of energy, costs, space) of each model” A.C. den Heijer

Current Performance The previous chapter analyzed the current performance of TU Delft Campus. This was achieved through a performance measurement of the organization. Performance measurement brings a better understanding of the opportunities, risks and threats within an organization and its real estate portfolio and gives advice regarding strategic choices to the organizations based on real estate actions.

(Haynes et al. 2017) First, the process consisted of the identification of key stakeholders for the development of the strategy and the identification of their current demands based on the strategic alignment model Henderson and Venkatraman (1993). These were translated into variables/KPI that could be measured against the current supply. Secondly, the identification of the current supply of the campus was made. Finally, a comparison was made to identify the matches and mismatches for each of the variables.

Source: ETH Zurich. (n.d.-c)

28

18 17 29

PART lll

Future Strategy

Introduction part III In part lll of this report, the future strategy for the campus of TU Delft is developed.

Real estate can be described as slow, expensive, and inflexible. On the contrary, the organization aims to move fast, this generates certain tension in what we can do and what we should do. Therefore, sometimes it seems that in the future, the alignment between demand and supply might become under pressure and consequently this gap might widen (TU Delft, 2020). This is illustrated in figure 10 When designing a strategy for real estate it is important to understand a strategy more than a plan, not only a frozen image, where a lot of intentions will be dropped, new ones will emerge, and therefore a strategy needs to be prepared for (almost) anything (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985).

Source: TU Delft. (n.d.-a)

scenarios impact future demand and supply

demand of user

the possible future alignment is a deliberate choice of strategy designers

delivered by portfolio

t2

t1

time Figure 10: Divergence between demand and supply. (Source: authors, adapted from: Vande Putte, 2020)

30

Source: TU Delft. (n.d.-a)

31

FUTURE DEMAND BANDWIDTH In order to design the most appropriate strategy, three different strategies will be assessed against the scenarios developed in Part I. These scenarios were developed based on the defined trends and through the scenario analysis of Arkesteijn et al., (2018).

Considering that any scenario could be real, it was decided to select the two future demand extremes from the four scenarios and deliberately chose the gap the strategy aims to respond to, this led to problematization (table 06). The selected gap is called the future bandwidth demand that the intended strategy aims to comply with (TU Delft, 2020).

VALUES

VARIABLES/KPI

CURRENT CRE DEMAND

FUTURE DEMAND FUTURE DEMAND FUTURE DEMAND SCENARIO FUTURE DEMAND SCENARIO SCENARIO 1 HIGH SCENARIO 4 LOW 2 HIGH DIGITALIZATION - 3 LOW DIGITALIZATION - NO DIGITALIZATION - TOTAL DIGITALIZATION - NO SELF TOTAL SELF SUFFICIENCY SELF SUFFICIENCY SUFFICIENCY SELF SUFFICIENCY

NAME

SPACE UTILIZATION

ONLINE CAMPUS

ACCESSIBILITY

LIVING CAMPUS

be more efficient

long stay -70% /short stay - 70% / meetings - 70%

long stay -70% /short stay - 70% / meetings - 70%

long stay -70% /short stay - 70% / meetings - 70%

long stay -70% /short stay - 70% / meetings - 70%

long stay -70% /short stay 70% / meetings - 70%

Occupancy rate of educational spaces (%)

be more efficient

High efficiency in use of the few educational spaces

high efficiency in use of educational spaces

high efficiency in use of educational spaces

high efficiency in use of educational spaces

high efficiency in use of educational spaces

Minimum of 4/5

Minimum of 4/5

Minimum of 4/5

Minimum of 4/5

Minimum of 4/5

Equally divided

Equally divided, only offices excluded

More buildings with educational purpose

More buildings with educational purpose

equally divided to more educational purpose buildings

Average commuting distance

almost no commuting distance living on campus

Average commuting distance

almost no commuting distance living on campus

No commuting - average commuting distance

Low - should be able to accommodate just a few students

High - should be able to accommodate all national students

Low - students are divided all over the different cities in the neighbourhood

High - should be able to accommodate all national and international students

Low -High

Increase student satisfaction Investing in public Ratio between the areas for meetings and functions of buildings on private spaces for the campus concentration.

Average commuting Short commuting distance distance set up facilities to support the development of Number of student housing units on campus student accommodation on campus

Commute time from north to south of the campus

Energy use (heat + electricity) Electricity consumed vs produced

SUSTAINABILITY

BASIC CAMPUS

Occupancy rate of study spaces (%)

Student satisfaction

LIVABILITY

ECOLOGICAL CAMPUS

FUTURE DEMAND BANDWIDTH

Improve the commute time between the north and the south of Distance bigger, time shorter (max Distance bigger, time shorter (max 15 the campus, and Distance big, 25 minute walk 25 minutes walk) minutes walk) between the station ''Delft Campus'' and the campus

Distance bigger, time shorter (max Distance between 15 and 25 20 minutes walk) min

100 kWh/m2 by 2030

Energy neutral campus by 2030 CO2 neutral campus by CO2 emission vs removal 2030 Ratio 100% sustainable train/car/bike/walking to transport options on and on campus campus

100 -150 kWh/m2 by 2025 2050 Energy neutral campus by 2025 -2030

100 kWh/m2 by 2030

100 kWh/m2 by 2025

150 kWh/m2 by 2050

100 kWh/m2 by 2030

Energy neutral campus

Energy neutral campus by 2025

Energy neutral campus by 2050

Energy neutral campus

7,000 tCO2

CO2 neutral campus

15,000 tCO2

CO2 neutral campus

CO2 neutral by 2025-2030

100% sustainable transport on campus

100% sustainable transport on campus

100% sustainable transport on campus

100% sustainable transport on campus

100% sustainable transport on campus

Maintenance costs

€25/m²

€30/m²

€35/m²

€30/m²

€40/m²

€30/m²

Number of parking lots

strong decrease, goal is to avoid cars on campus in the future

minimal

minimal

minimal, but enough for teachers/students who live far away minimal (and no easy access to train)

minimal

Table 06: Future demand bandwidth. (Source: authors)

32

33

PROBLEMATIZATION Until now, the campus has functioned well when looking at aspects such as the amount and quality of green areas, the healthy environment, and the support that the real estate delivers to the level of education and research.

However, various challenges have been identified after the evaluation of the future demand bandwidth based on the possible scenarios described in Part I. This problematization is described based on the four selected values (figure 12).

Accessibility

First, we observed that the campus is split in three different parts (north, middle and south) this creates a feeling of a fragmented campus and the idea that there are missing parts to bring these separated pieces together (figure 11). These separations, plus the long shape of the campus generate a long commuting time by foot from the north to the south part of the campus (around 30 min). Additionally, the campus does not provide a sustainable transport solution neither for the central station as for the campus station. Also, the absence of public transport to and on campus during the weekend has a negative influence on the livability of the campus. Finally, the campus does not provide enough and well distributed parking spaces for bikes.

Space utilization

One of the main issues in the near future regarding real estate will be the scarcity of materials and space. To address this aspect, the university needs to be more efficient in the use of available space on campus and the density of existing buildings needs to be increased. The actual situation of the Campus is that education spaces are used 65% of the available time, however, the occupancy is rather low 44% (TU Delft, 2020). This means that the number of students that are on average in a lecture hall, project room, etc. is relatively low compared to the capacity of the space. On the other hand, self study places are used quite well (60%80% occupied), which generates a demand for quiet/long stay study places within the campus.

DISPERSED AND FRAGMENTED CAMPUS + SCARCITY OF SPACE IN THE FUTURE

TU DELFT CHALLENGES

MISSING PART

Additionally, around 33.000 m² of the EWI faculty is vacant, this could be translated into low efficiency and flexibility of the use of space. There is a need for more efficient use of space and flexible spaces that can meet the demand of most users. Additionally, there are areas in the Campus that can be described as not dense enough, specially around the X building and the sports area.

MISSING PART

Figure 11: Fragmented campus. (Source: authors)

NO SHARED BUILDINGS

To start with, a look was taken into the university’s financials.

According to Delft University of Technology (2020), the increasing number of students and the need for realestate innovation continue to add financial pressure to the University. However, based on figure 13, TU Delft does not expect any risk in the short term. As the liquidity position is sufficiently stable. This surplus of liquidity is necessary to finance the urgent, future expenditures in real estate strategy, innovation in education, and research (Delft University of Technology, 2020)

Livability

The current situation on the campus is that the main part of the building stock has the function of education, research or office. Therefore, the activities on campus all occur during the day when people are working or studying.

In the evening the campus is almost empty because there are not many buildings with functions for leisure or living.

The buildings that are there with another function than education, research or office, are not close to each other.

For example the facility X, for sports and cultural activities, is situated in the south part of the campus.

Therefore, the decision is not to sell any buildings to liquidate capital because of the current liquidity of the university.

LOW OCCUPANCY RATE

NO LIVABLE CAMPUS

Figure 12: Problematization. (Source: authors)

The problem statement for each of the values leads us to the following research question:

Sustainability

As stated in the annual report of 2019, 60% of the current stock is of very poor quality. This substantially increases the maintenance costs and demands for great renovations within the next ten years (Delft University of Technology, 2020). This is also not in line with the image of TU Delft that is known for sustainability and innovation. It also applies to the energy provision to the portfolio of the university which is not sustainable enough yet. Additionally, there are too many cars on campus which is stimulated by the great amount of parking spaces on and around campus.

How can efficient use of space contribute to a more sustainable, accessible and livable TU Delft campus?

Figure 13: Liquidity TU Delft (Source: authors, adapted from: Delft, University of Technology, 2020)

34

35

CONCEPTUAL STRATEGIES In order to solve the stated problem, three conceptual strategies have been developed using different approaches and focussing on different values. Next, each strategy is briefly explained and drawn.

of innovative solutions by sharing knowledge.

By integrating the city feeling into the campus, this strategy aims to increase the livability. The hubs will be dynamic 24/7 because of all the different facilities that are provided.

URBAN HUBS

In this strategy, faculties will no longer have their own building but will share spaces within the hubs. As a result, this strategy responds to the problem that currently faculties at the TU Delft do not share spaces and have a very territorial use of space which affects the livability within the campus.

A large proportion of the TU Delft campus buildings is outdated and does not provide the required quality of educational and sustainable spaces. In this strategy, the university only keeps the essential buildings for its accommodation (based on the location, monumental status and performance) and leases the rest of the buildings out using short term lease formats. The flexibility of this type of contract gives the university the opportunity to stop leasing out buildings relatively fast to expand in the future. Therefore, this strategy can characterize as a strongly incremental strategy (O’Mara, 1999).

The buildings and open spaces within the hubs are better suited for people. For example, through open and transparent facades that stimulate the interaction between the indoor and the outdoor and finally increase the human experience. Also, by the creation of these spaces, it enables all generations and people with different personalities and culture to interact more efficiently, and productively (Haynes et al., 2017).

An overview of this strategy is given in figure 14

Organically, after part of the campus portfolio is leased out, the “urban hubs” are created. These small communities are composed of student housing, leisure, education, research, and business. The objective is that through the implementation of mix-use buildings, each community provides all facilities in one place and supports the creation

TU Delft only keeps the essencial accomodation and as an owner, leases part of its accomodation for students housing and companies.

Breakdown of small communities (hubs) that are composed of academies (education and research), the city and business. The objective of this integration is to support the creation of innovative solutions by sharing knowledge.

The accommodation is redesigned according to five standardized typologies of spaces that support all the activities within the campus.

Supports the interaction between the different hubs by providing shared public spaces.

Figure 14: Urban hubs strategy. (Source: authors)

MAIN ENTRANCE

Up in the North, the Education Cluster is located.

Different faculties share facilities to increase the occupancy rate.

The Research Cluster contains all research facilites that are needed.

old campus boundaries

This Cluster contains all student housing and relaxation facilities. This will also be the heart of the campus where everyone will gather during lunch breaks and which will be alive during the evenings and weekends as well.

The new business park where innovation is implemented and students can do internships to see the practical side of what they are studying instead of only seeing the theoretical side.

Figure 15: Functional clusters strategy. (Source: authors)

FUNCTIONAL CLUSTERS

South from that cluster is the research cluster where all research facilities are provided for all researchers. Same as for the education cluster, this will be an activity-based workplace. Because all facilities are so close to each other, researchers can easily move from one workspace to another when they start doing a different activity.

This strategy proposal is mainly focussed on the efficient use of space. Therefore, the main action is clustering all buildings based on the facilities that they provide (figure 15). The total area of the campus will be reduced to make transport by foot or bike between the different clusters more attractive. In the north of the campus, a cluster will be formed consisting of all buildings that provide educational facilities. The buildings are not assigned to a specific faculty, in contrast, they share all facilities, and will provide an activity-based workplace. The mixed-use buildings are highly flexible. During exam weeks, the lecture halls will provide study spaces, right after exam weeks, study spaces will be used as meeting rooms for group projects. The occupancy rate will highly increase by making sure that the buildings provide the right space at the right time, and making them easily accessible to all users.

The last cluster is the business cluster where all companies are located. Same as for the research cluster, this area will not be used during the evening and the weekends and is therefore located in the very south of the campus.

The cluster that provides student housing and leisure is located south of the education cluster. These two clusters are the only two that will also be used during the evening and weekends and are located next to each other to make sure that this part of the campus will stay lively all the time. The leisure part of this cluster provides all cafés where people from all over the campus will gather during lunchtime to take a break. This is the living heart of the campus.

STATION TU CAMPUS

36

37

STRATEGY CHOICE JUNGLE HEART

All facilities will be brought together through the integration of mixed-use high rise buildings, while the existing buildings remain preserved. Student housing is one of the main purposes that need to be developed in this strategy. This provides the availability for students to live on campus and have direct access to all the facilities that the campus has to offer.

The jungle heart aims to make the campus more compact providing a variety of all functions including student housing, leisure, education, research and business mixed throughout the campus (figure 16). The campus will be pushed towards and concentrated in the north part of the current campus because of the historical value the buildings there have to its users. The buildings remaining in the middle and south part of the campus will be leased out.

As a response to the lack of a “heart” within the campus, this strategy proposed a new building on the intersection of Mekelweg and Christiaan Huygensweg. This building provides space for leisure activities and exhibitions which are facilitated through glazed galleries. Through the implementation of transparent facades this building aims to bring together the public, students and the staff in one place and facilitate social interaction among them.

The high density of all buildings will increase the accessibility to all available facilities on campus to all its users: students, researchers and staff. The campus itself is also easily accessible because it is situated near the city center, and public transport from and to the campus will be provided during weekdays, evenings and weekends. Therefore, the amount of cars can be reduced to a minimum which also contributes to a more sustainable campus.

The two tables show the comparison of the 3 conceptual strategies with the future bandwidth. The orange squares in table 07 show the best combination of the different strategies based on the KPI’s. In table 08, the KPI aspects are being ranked per strategy on which one fits best with the future demand bandwidth. . By avoiding the aspects that score the lowest (1), the best implementation for the campus is chosen. From this information, a new strategy proposal is made that includes these knowledge.

VALUES

SPACE UTILIZATION

LIVABILITY

ACCESSIBILITY

The buildings in the South will be leased out to other interesting companies that align with the image and brand of the TU Delft

All the different functions on the campus are clustered in the hart of the campus.

Student housing, education, research, business and leisure is mixed.

SUSTAINABILITY

VARIABLES/KPI

BANDWIDTH FUTURE DEMAND

STRATEGY 1 Urban hubs

Functional clusters

STRATEGY 2

STRATEGY 3 Jungle heart

Occupancy rate of study spaces (%)

long stay -70% /short stay 70% / meetings - 70%

50%

65%

80%

Occupancy rate of educational spaces (%)

high efficiency in use of educational spaces

50%

80%

65%

Student satisfaction

Minimum of 4/5

4/5

4/5

4/5

equally divided

unequally divided

almost equally divided

no commuting distance

minimal commuting distance

low commuting distance

high

high

medium

Investing in public areas for Ratio between the functions meetings and private spaces of buildings on the campus for concentration.

Average commuting distance

No commuting - average commuting distance

Number of student housing units on campus

Low -High

Commute time from north to south of the campus

Time between 15 and 25 min

20 minutes

15 minutes

10 minutes

Energy use (heat + electricity)

100 -150 kWh/m2 by 2025 2030

180kWh/m²

120 kWh/m²

150 kWh/m²

Electricity consumed vs produced

Energy providing campus by 2025 -2030

very high chance of being energy providing

high chance of being energy providing

low chance of being energy providing

CO2 emission vs removal

0-15,000 tCO2

high chance of being carbon neutral

very high chance of being carbon neutral

low chance of being carbon neutral

80%

60%

100%

Ratio train/car/bike/walking 100% sustainable transport on campus to and on campus Maintenance costs

€25/m²

€25/m²

€35/m²

€30/m²

Number of parking lots

minimal

minimal

low

very minimal

Table 07: Implemented factors from the three conceptual strategies into the final strategy. (Source: authors) VALUES

SPACE UTILIZATION

old campus boundaries

LIVABILITY

The campus will be compact, so the distance is short to walk from one part to another. No cars are needed.

ACCESSIBILITY

Figure 16: Jungle heart strategy. (Source: authors)

SUSTAINABILITY

VARIABLES/KPI

BANDWIDTH STRATEGY 1 urban huts FUTURE DEMAND

clusters

STRATEGY 3 jungle

Occupancy rate of study spaces (%)

long stay -70% /short stay 70% / meetings - 70%

1

2

3

Occupancy rate of educational spaces (%)

high efficiency in use of educational spaces

1

3

2

Student satisfaction

Minimum of 4/5

2

2

2

Investing in public areas for Ratio between the functions meetings and private spaces of buildings on the campus for concentration.

3

2

1

Average commuting distance No commuting - average commuting distance

3

2

1

Number of student housing units on campus

Low -High

2

2

1

Commute time from north to south of the campus

Time between 15 and 25 min

1

2

3

Energy use (heat + electricity) Electricity consumed vs produced

100 -150 kWh/m2 by 2025 2030 Energy providing campus by 2025 -2030

1

3

2

3

2

1

CO2 emission vs removal

0-15,000 tCO2

2

3

1

Ratio train/car/bike/walking 100% sustainable transport on to and on campus campus

2

1

3

Maintenance costs

€25/m²

3

1

2

Number of parking lots

minimal

2

1

3

26

26

25

Total amount of points

Table 08: Ranking of the KPI aspects per strategy. (Source: authors)

38

STRATEGY 2

39

STRATEGY STRATEGYPROPOSAL PROPOSAL CompacTUD campus can be described as a resource-based strategy because it takes what already is on Campus and tries to make the most of it in a unique and different way (Hamel & Prahalad, 1996; TU Delft, 2020). Additionally, it includes the ideas of scarcity by attending to the core problems and trying to leave the superfluous behind (Aravena, 2018). This strategy chooses to make the campus more compact and more dense toward the north part of the campus, as this area is richer in buildings with a historical value (figure 17).

campus more dense and compact.

Sustainability

Accessibility

To improve the accessibility to the campus, sustainable public transport will be available 24/7 to and from the campus, both from the central station and the campus station. The campus will be unified again, and be made more compact to decrease the commute time on campus when there is the need to go from one facility to another. While the majority of parking spaces are being removed, more bike racks will be provided and distributed throughout the campus to make it more attractive to go by bike and foot.

By developing the model of a compact campus, all the values in the strategy can be integrated. A compact campus implies higher densities and mix used facilities which results in more efficient use of space. Close proximity of a variety of facilities means more opportunities for spontaneous social interactions and sharing knowledge.

Also, the commuting times between buildings significantly decreases. Additionally, by analyzing what we need vs what we have and including the high levels of digitalization that are leading the way of the universities, we choose to shrink the campus and therefore, have a less negative impact on the environment.

CompacTUD responds to each of the values stated in Part II of this report in a different way:

also be provided with techniques to generate sustainable energy to make the campus eventually energy providing.

To improve the sustainability and air quality of the campus, the majority of parking spaces will be removed to stimulate other, sustainable ways of transport.

Within this strategy, several efforts will be made to increase the level of sustainability of the portfolio as well as the campus in general. The first problem to be tackled is the sustainability of the existing stock which needs a substantial upgrade. This will also cause a decrease in the maintenance costs. During this upgrade, the buildings will

CONNECT CAMPUS REDESIGN OF MEKELPARK open and closed spaces

NEW STUDENTS HOUSING from parking to housing

NEW ECHO

JUNGLE HEART

HUB 02

HUB 06 NEW ECHO

Space Utilization

HUB 05

In order to prepare for scarcity of space, this strategy aims to make a more efficient use of the space of the current campus by decreasing the size and increasing the density of the campus. Most buildings and land in the south part of the campus will be leased in a short term format, which allows the university to have the stock available in case of future expansions. Additionally, this strategy aims to make a better use of spaces through more dense and mixed use buildings. This will be achieved by the introduction of “small communities” or hubs that will provide flexible workplaces that can be adapted to support different activities. Additionally, smart tools, such as an optimization space platform will be implemented to help the users to find workplaces.

ENTRANCE

HUB 04

HUB 03

Livability

To increase the livability on the campus, different aspects are taken into account in the strategy. To attract more people to the campus also in the evenings, more functions are added besides buildings with the purposes of education, research or offices. This is tackled while redesigning the Mekelpark; different open and closed spaces will be added to this green space. Cafés, bars, and sports facilities will be linked to the Mekelpark. This Mekelpark will connect the whole campus and come together in one center: the heart of the campus. In the heart will be a space for leisure, theater, education and living for all students to create a space where things are happening day and night. Also, the empty unused spaces will get a new function by making the

ENTRANCE TRAM LINE IS EXPANDED towards campus and central stations

NEW STUDENTS HOUSING from parking to housing

DIGITAL CENTER

Figure 17: CompacTUD campus strategy proposal. (Source: authors)

40

41

NO SHARED BUILDINGS

Human scale: the buildings and open spaces within the hubs will be better suited for people. For example, through open and transparent facades that stimulate the interaction within the indoor and the outdoor and finally increase the human experience. The allowed height of each building will be determined according to its location. For example, the closer the building to the green and open area the more restrictions on height there will be in order to increase the connection with ground level (Gehl, 2013).

According to O’Mara (1999), this strategy can be defined as a value-based strategy where the campus seeks to represent a collaborative and integrated environment.

CHALLENGE

LOW OCCUPANCY RATE

CHALLENGE

CompacTUD will be further explained through three implementations that will take place at different levels:

Urban Level

In order to create a campus that is efficient in use and space, the size of the campus will be reduced. The south part of the campus will be repelled and the north and middle part will be densified to create a compact campus.

To make the campus of the TU Delft more accessible, the connection with the train stations Delft Central and Delft Campus will be upgraded. The Delft Campus station is being developed on the west side of the campus, so to create a connection with this station the tram line and the Mekelpark will be expanded to the west. The tram line will continue its way over the campus towards the north part and will end at the Central station of Delft. This tram connection will be available 24/7. The upgrade of public CHALLENGE SOLUTION transport makes it possible that the main part of the campus will be car-free. With the removal of cars on the campus site, the safety and accessibility for slow traffic will increase. Also, on the campus the connection between the north and south part will be upgraded by creating the Green River (figure 18). To do this, the Mekelpark will be transformed and the slow traffic lanes will be implemented throughout the whole Green River. The Green River connects the edges of the campus to meet in the living heart. The living heart will become the center of the DISPERSEDwhere AND FRAGMENTED CAMPUS DENSIFY campus, people can+ meet and stay during the day SCARCITY OF SPACE IN THE FUTURE and night, regardless of their field of study.

CHALLENGE

NO LIVABLE CAMPUS

Building level

In order to improve the livability and collaboration within the campus. The campus will be arranged in six collective huts that will be composed of education, research, business, housing and leisure figure 20). According to Liza Meijer (2020) from Leiden University, there will not be segregation between research and education in the future of the universities. The hubs will be composed of mixed use buildings, which facilities aim to support different activities (figure 19).

Our objective is that every hub should comply with the characteristics: DISPERSEDfollowing AND FRAGMENTED CAMPUS + DENSIFY SCARCITY OF SPACE IN THE FUTURE Balance use ratio: a balance ratio between its different functions (education, research, business, housing and leisure) CHALLENGE SOLUTION HUB 01

OPTIMIZATION SPACE APP

This app will provide an overview of all facilities per room, it will show students where they need to go to find a study space, study groups can make a reservation for a meeting room, and professors can reserve lecture halls.

This will increase the occupancy rate. Offices, study spaces and labs will be designed around the concept of activitybased workplace, meaning that the workplace’s design will support a specific activity (Haynes et al., 2017). Students, employees and researchers can then choose the right workspace based on the type of activity.

Not only for new buildings but also for the existing buildings, the aim is to create multifunctional spaces. Flexible spaces need to be allocated to the right user, providing the right facilities for a certain type of event. For example, a lecture can be used to provide education during the day, and can be used as a theater or cinema during the evenings and weekends to provide leisure.

To enhance the optimal use of space and increase the occupancy rate, a certain type of management en planning is required. Effective space management will minimize costs and optimize the use of the university’s portfolio (Abdullah et al., 2015). An app will be provided to students, researchers and employees to be able to see which rooms are available on campus (figure 21).

Source: MVRDV. (2021)

HUB 02

HUB 03 HUB 04

HUB 05 HUB 06

Figure 19: Urban Hubs in the compacTUD campus strategy. (Source: authors)

NO LIVABLE GREEN RIVERdemolition + HEART OF THE Upgrade of CAMPUS facilities: Each hub aims to keep to CAMPUS a minimum and focus on the renovation of the facilities.

SOLUTION

CHALLENGE

NO SHARED BUILDINGS

GREEN RIVER + HEART OF THE CAMPUS

Figure 18: The challenge and solution on urban level. (Source: authors) CHALLENGE

SOLUTION

SOLUTION

Figure 21: The challenge and solution on space level. (Source: authors)

Space level

Source: Singapore Institute of Technology, JTC. (n.d.)

COLLECTIVE HUBS

SOLUTION

Reflection on strategy Developing a good strategy is not easy. Mintzberg (1987), distinguishes five different types of strategies referred to as the 5Ps: plan, pattern, position, perspective and ploy. CompacTUD can be defined as a ploy strategy, a change of manoeuvre that contributes to the livability, accessibility and sustainability of the Campus through a better use of the internal resources. This is achieved through the 3 main strategies stated above.

COLLECTIVE HUBS

Figure 20: The challenge and solution of building level. (Source: authors)

SOLUTION

42

CHALLENGE

SOLUTION

43

STRATEGY STRATEGYPROPOSAL IMPLEMENTATION The strategy implementation is perhaps the most difficult part of the process Haynes et al. (2017). This is significantly difficult because it requires an important shift in culture and adapting new study work practices that can be resisted by the users of the Campus. The implementation of the strategy will be divided into four different phases each having a unique focus.

Phase 1: 2024-2029

In 2024 the implementation of the new strategy will start on the urban scale by transforming the Mekelpark into the Green River and expanding the green flow to the north part of the campus. A connection is made with the faculty of Architecture and the new digital center, from which the (partly) renovation and construction starts in 2024. This digital center is a mixed-use, non-faculty related study place. The building will have a flexible lay-out and provides different kinds of (digital and virtual) workspaces based on the concept of activity-based workplaces (Haynes et al., 2017). There will also be space for the Dreamteams in this digital center, because the Dreamhall will be demolished in 2026. This demolition will create space for the Green river to flow underneath Civil Engineering. Besides the Dreamhall, a part of the applied sciences faculty will also be demolished. This intervention provides space for the development of the living heart of the campus. The different tributaries of the Green river from all sides of the campus come together in this living heart.

Because of the development of the Green River, fewer cars are needed and allowed on the campus. Less parking space is needed, so in 2028 two parking spaces will be transformed into student housing in collaboration with an investor, developer, and student housing associations.

During phase 1, the renovation of the existing stock that started in phase 0, will be continued. Figure 22 shows the actions taken in phase 1.

Phase 0: 2021-2023

Before the real implementation of the strategy can take place, a transition phase is needed where the ongoing construction on campus is being finalized. Currently, the Echo building is being developed. This energy-producing building will be a place for all students from different faculties. The layout of the building is flexible and offers different kinds of teaching rooms, and study spaces for group- and individual work (TU Delft, n.d.-a). At the moment also a parking building, named P-sports, is realized providing space for 830 cars. The building is energy neutral, modular and provides boxes in the green facades for birds to nest in (TU Delft, n.d.-b).

As mentioned in the Annual report of 2019, renovations on 60% of the current portfolio will be executed during the next decade (Delft University of Technology, 2020). These renovations will start in 2021.

the Dreamhall, will be transformed into a new pavilion to upgrade the Green River.

The buildings in the south part of the campus can be leased out to companies starting in 2029. The campus will move more to the North and will become more compact and dense.

Figure 23 shows the actions taken in phase 2.

Phase 2: 2030-2038

In phase 1 the preparation of the living heart of the campus was made by demolishing a part of Applied sciences. In 2030 the creation of the living heart continues through the construction of the new mixed-use central building.

This building will be built in the middle of the cross-section of the Green River. The building will consist of different passages to keep the connection with the different areas on the ground level. The space in the building will have different functions, for example during the day it is a lecture hall, and during the evenings and weekends it can be a theater or cinema.

On the west side of the campus a new non-faculty related study building will be built, starting in 2030. This building will have a flexible floor space for activity based working.

The connection with the train station Delft central and Delft campus is upgraded by finishing the tramline in 2034.

Also, the Green River is extended to connect the west part of the campus and the bridge over the Schie is created to upgrade the slow traffic route to the Delft campus station.

In 2033 the transformation of the building EWI will start. A new building is added to EWI to make shifting of faculties possible. The faculties of Aerospace engineering and TNW South will merge with the Electro faculty. This building will generate energy not only for that building but can also provide energy for the labs in other parts of the campus.

In 2036, the green space created in phase 1 by demolishing

Source: Jardin. (n.d.)

PHASE 01 LEGEND DEMOLISH

PHASE 02 LEGEND

RENOVATE

DEMOLISH

NEW BUILDING

RENOVATE

GREEN INTERVENTION

NEW BUILDING GREEN INTERVENTION

LEASE OUT

Renova�on BK

LEASE OUT

Demolishing le� part of Applied sciences

New buiding Parking lot to housing

Demolishing DreamHall

Green pavillion

A�er Drem Hall demoli�on

New building

PUSH!

Short term lease out buildings and land

PUSH!

PUSH!

PUSH! PUSH! PUSH!

New building Digital center

Renova�on EWI

Tramline project is concluded

Green River Flows to the north part of the campus

integra�on of relocated facul�es

PULL!

PULL!

Figure 22: Phase 1 of the compacTUD campus strategy. (Source: authors)

44

New building

Flexible work space

Bridge

Increase connec�on west

Figure 23: Phase 2 of the compacTUD campus strategy. (Source: authors)

45

Relocate buildings

RENOVATE NEW BUILDING GREEN INTERVENTION LEASE OUT

Phase 3: 2039-2045

In phase 3 the last buildings in the south part of the campus will be repelled and leased out to companies. Also the north part of the campus will be made more dense. This creates a dense and compact campus. Because the campus becomes denser, more parking space will be transformed in 2039 into student housing to use space efficiently and discourage the use of cars on campus. This transformation will be done in collaboration with an investor, developer, and student housing associations. This addition of student

PHASE 03 LEGEND DEMOLISH RENOVATE NEW BUILDING

housing will increase the livability in the east south part of the campus. Also, a new non-faculty regulated study building is added to the campus in 2042. This will provide enough flexible study spaces for students and is multi functional because of the flexible floor plan of the building.

Figure 24 shows the actions taken in phase 3.

GREEN INTERVENTION Phase 0

Phase 1

LEASE OUT MEASURES APPLIED

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

New study building

New building -

Figure 24: Phase 3 of the compacTUD campus strategy. (Source: authors)

Demolish

parking lot to housing

South part of the Campus is leased out Green river Transform EWI Parking spaces to housing

Phase 0

MEASURES APPLIED

2021

2022

Phase 1

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

Phase 2

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

Timeline

Phase 3

2035

2036

2037

2038

2039

2040

2041

2042

2043

Parkingintroducing space P-Sports each phase, a timeline has been developed After to show all the activities to be done within each of the four Upgradingfor existing phases theportfolio implementation of the strategy. Figure 25 shows the level of the activity (e.g. urban, buildings and Improve connection space) and its approximate duration. between train stations

2044

New study building Demolish

Urban level

South part of the Campus is leased out

Building level

Green river

Space level

Transform EWI Parking spaces to housing Parking space P-Sports Upgrading existing portfolio Improve connection between train stations

Figure 25: Timeline of the execution of the compacTUD campus strategy. (Source: authors) Urban level Building level Space level

46

47

20

CASH FLOW MODEL

RISK ASSESSMENT

This cash flow model projects the costs and income regarding real estate2 (table 09). Within the first ten years of this strategy, 60% of the portfolio has to be severely renovated to improve the quality and sustainability of the real estate, for which the university has to invest M€650 (Delft University of Technology, 2020). This can be performed by using the liquidity that the university has built up over the past years. For the past years, the university has spent around M€2503 per three years on real estate. In the beginning, the budget in the cash flow model is a bit higher because of the renovations and investments executed in that period. After that, the number of investments decrease and the university can start building up its liquidity again to prepare for future investments.

PHASE 0

When updating the existing stock, the maintenance costs decrease. However, due to some new developments being added to the portfolio, the maintenance costs will increase.

Real Estate is a huge cost item on an organization’s cash flow for which real estate is not its main business. This cash flow model only includes the real estate related costs en income. This also shows in the net property cash flow results.

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

2024-2026

2027-2029

Operating expenses Maintenance and operation

-90

-93

-96

-99

-101

-102

-104

-104

Total operating expenses

-90

-93

-96

-99

-101

-102

-104

-104

Capital income Leasing out South part of the Campus

16

48

48

Total capital income

16

48

48

Phase 0

2030-2032 2033-2035 2036-2038 2039-2041 2042-2044

Amount in M€

Capital expenses Construction Study Building Green River + Heart of the Campus Upgrading existing portfolio Transformation EWI Demolitions

-200

-12 -24 -150

-10 -190

-24 -17 -110

-4

-80

Phase 1

-27

-44

by having the possible solutions resolving these risks ready, this strategy is prepared for events that might slow it down or hold it back.

POSSIBLE RISKS

PHASE 3

2021-2023

Period

Table 10 shows an assessment of possible risks that might occur during the different phases of the compacTUD strategy. There are far more risks being mentioned but these are some that are important to mention. However,

Nuisance due to construction activities

Communication, align construction activities along the educational schedule

Delays due to CO-VID 19 measures

take this risk into account when developing the schedule for construction

More maintenance due to vacant buildings because of COVID-19 measures

Use the vacant buildings as flexible as possible (e.g. study spaces)

2021 new government reduce cost for universities

Accept, the probability is low. Due to the increasing need for technical students, the government is more likely to increase the amount of cost for the university

Nuisance due to construction activities

Communication, align construction activities along the educational schedule

The number of students increases considerably the following years

Establish a maximum of people that can join the university each year. Improve digital education system. Establishing flexible and short term lease contracts for the buildings in the south, so the campus can expand again in the future.

The number of students decreases considerably the following years

Provide more flexible buildings that can be rented out in a short terms lease format if they are not needed

resistance to relocating faculties

Collaboration and involvement of the stakeholders

resistance to sharing facilities

Collaboration and involvement of the stakeholders

no interest in buildings that are available for lease

Provide flexible lease options to possible tenants

-54

Total capital expenses

-200

-190

-200

-151

-80

-98

0

-27

Net property cash flow

-290

-283

-296

-250

-181

-184

-56

-83

Table 09: Cashflow model based on real estate related costs and income. (Source: authors)

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Engage stakeholders in the early phases of the Inhabitants do not agree with increasing project and take their demand into the height of some buildings. consideration.

Phase 2

2) Some actions included in the strategy, such as the student housing is not financed by the university but by investors, and therefore not included in the cash flow model.

3) Based on the annual report of TU Delft. 2019

48

Phase 3

Nuisance due to construction activities

Communication, align construction activities along the educational schedule

changing sustainability requirements

When renovating, upgrade the sustainability aspects better than required at that moment

Not being able to find investors for student housing, or to collaborate with student housing associations

Early involvement of student housing associations, assure investors high occupancy rate

Nuisance due to construction activities

Communication, align construction activities along the educational schedule

Table 10: Cashflow model based on real estate related costs and income. (Source: authors)

49

SUMMARY PART lll

INTERVIEW lll In the last interview, Dominik for the ETH Zurich University gave insight into their design process for the real estate strategies.

of putting a new building we rent? In the case of the substrategies, scenarios were implemented to give priority to certain projects depending on the future goals.

Last year was the first attempt from ETH Zurich to develop a real estate strategy for the campus. For its development, they started from the top: developing a vision (closely linked to academia and to the university), followed by a mission and finally the strategic principles.

Very important is that this is the main strategy and from these some sub-strategies derived which are in current development. The strategic principles and their measurable activities are in constant and close monitoring.

During the development of the strategy, they should be a close link to academia, research, and education. They should tell what they need. However, this is difficult because often they do not know what they need for the next year but not what they will need in the next 10 years which is a real problem as new buildings are very time-consuming and expensive. If researchers do not tell what they need this is not easy. (Dominik, 2020) This strategy was developed in a more independent way (not in collaboration with the users). Therefore, they redevelop the campus areas by adding more flexible buildings, in order to fulfill most needs from research and education. However, the collaboration process is important and this is the reason why they are looking for alternatives to involve the research department. For example, talking about the research department, they want to have some representatives form part of a board to develop ideas and give advice. Because now, most of the development of the strategy was made by the real estate department. So they are looking forward to involving more academia in the strategy design process.

Real Estate ETH Zurich Vision Real estate creates an inspiring environment for ETH Zurich now and in the future.

The design process of this strategy involved a long process as this was the first strategy developed. The process consisted in the following steps: The first step → bringing together what was available (e.g. minor strategies, facilities management strategies) and identifying the boundary conditions (e.g. legislation, authorities) this is done to know what you have, what you have to comply with, and if there are any gaps.

(Dominik, 2020) The second step → develops a vision, mission, strategic principles, and sub-strategies.

It can be said that the strategy for the university is in alignment with the real estate strategy, as they are a close interaction and try to influence one another constantly (constant feedback). For example, from the real state strategy to the university strategy = to bring ideas more down to earth and show how they can be implemented.

The deployment of scenarios for the strategy design was visible not at the high levels of the design process but at lower levels. For example, what would happen if instead

“Keep the positive “what matters most”, avoid the negative (waste of energy, costs, space) of each model” A.C. den Heijer

Future Strategy The previous chapter developed the future strategy for the TU Delft Campus: compacTUD. This was achieved, first, through the identification of the problem, followed by the design of 3 different strategies that could respond to the stated challenges for the university. After the assessment of the 3 proposals, the compacTUD strategy was developed which was based on reducing the campus area (figure 26). Finally, this chapter developed a strategy implementation that consisted in phasing, cash flow and risks assessment for the proposed strategy.

CHALLENGE

SOLUTION

CHALLENGE

SOLUTION

DISPERSED AND FRAGMENTED CAMPUS + SCARCITY OF SPACE IN THE FUTURE

Dispersed and fragmented campus + scarcity of space in the future CHALLENGE

DENSIFY

Density SOLUTION

Figure 26: Main strategy of the compacTUD master plan. (Source: authors)

Source: ETH Zurich. (n.d.-b) NO LIVABLE CAMPUS

50

17 18 51

GREEN RIVER + HEART OF THE CAMPUS

CONCLUSION This report provides a future strategy for the real estate portfolio for the campus of Delft, University of Technology.

In this strategy the challenges of the future demand are tackled in order to keep the university focused on its main purpose: providing education and performing scientific research on a high level. The real estate of the TU Delft is a huge cost item on the organization’s cash flow, and it can highly influence the core operations of the organization.

Therefore, it is of great importance to align the real estate strategy in a most optimal way with the organization’s strategy.

The aspects from each strategy option that were most compliant with the current demand were integrated into the final strategy.

The final strategy is called CompacTUD, and as the name suggests the main focus is the development of a compact campus. This choice is based on analyzing the demand vs the supply, and including the high levels of digitalization that are leading the way of the universities. All the values in the strategy can be integrated because a compact campus implies higher densities and mixed-use buildings which results in a more efficient use of space. Close proximity of a variety of facilities means more opportunities for spontaneous social interactions and sharing knowledge.

Also, the commuting times between buildings significantly decreases and because of the public transport cars on the campus will be redundant.

To identify the stakeholders and their demands the strategic alignment model of Henderson and Venkatraman (1989) is used (figure x.x). The current demand was compared to the current supply to identify the mismatches and analyze the current performance. These demands formed the basis for the four values that the final strategy is built on: space utilization, livability, accessibility, and sustainability. These values were integrated in an incremental strategy that reacts on the future scarcity of resources.

The CompacTUD strategy can be described as a resourcebased strategy because it takes what is already there and tries to make the most of it in a unique and different way.

Additionally, it includes the ideas of scarcity by attending the core problems and trying to leave the superfluous behind (Aravena, 2018).

Until now, the campus of the TU Delft has functioned well looking at aspects such as the amount and quality of green areas, the healthy environment, and the support that the real estate delivers to the level of education and research. However, this brings no certainty for the future.

The comparison of the current supply of the campus and the variables/KPIs linked to the four values, was made to identify (mis)matches. These mismatches show that there is a gap between the possible future scenarios and the future bandwidth demand. This gap shows the challenges that have to be addressed. The main problems, described based on the four selected values, are:

The main actions that the final strategy proposes in order to make the campus more compact, are: (1) Creating a Green River with a living heart, (2) Implementing mixed-use buildings (hubs) and flexibility within buildings, and (3) Activity based workspaces with smart apps to increase occupancy rate.

By implementing these actions, the CompacTUD strategy contributes to a TU Delft campus that is sustainable, accessible, livable and efficient in the use of space.

The campus is fragmented into 3 parts; the north, the middle and the south part.

The commuting time on campus from north to south is too long (30 minutes).

No liveliness on campus in evenings and weekends.

The occupancy rate of the spaces in the buildings is too low.

The main part of the building stock of the campus has a mono-function (education, research and office buildings).

From the current building stock, 60% is of poor quality and is not in alignment with the sustainability requirements.

A strategy for real estate is more than a plan, it is not only a frozen image, but a lot of intentions will be dropped, new ones will emerge, and therefore the strategy has to integrate some flexibility (Mintzberg & Waters, 1985).

For example the amount of digitalization, use of new technology, the degree face-to-face education on campus, and the amount of students can’t be predicted. By renting out the south part with short lease contracts, the strategy allows the campus to expand again if the future demands change.

The identification of the challenges that TU Delft faces, leads us to the following research question, the research question for this report is the following:

Limitations to this proposal are that strategy mainly focuses on demands from the TU Delft and the students. Also, in the implementation plan of the strategy, the influence on and from the surrounding neighborhoods in the city are not fully taken into account. Besides these limitations, it is a recommendation to research the demands from other stakeholders and the influence on and from the neighborhood in more detail.

“How can efficient use of space contribute to a more sustainable, accessible and livable TU Delft campus?”

In order to create a strategy that will tackle the problems, three different approaches were used to develop three different strategies, each focussing on a different value.

Source: TU Delft. (n.d.-b)

52

53

“We are a service provider, and we provide the infrastructure for the users, the people” Dominik Brem, 2020 ETH Zurich

54

55

REFERENCES - LITERATURE Abdullah, S., H.M., Sipan, I., Deakin, M., & Abdullah, M. N. (2015). Space utilisation: interpreting the result. Jurnal Teknologi, 77(30), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.11113/jt.v77.6868

Predictions 2021. (2021, January 29). Real Estate Predictions 2021. Deloitte. https://www2.deloitte.com/nl/nl/pages/real-estate/ articles/real-estate-predictions.html

Aravena, A. (2018). To design is to prefer. Interview by Marc-Christoph Wagner (transcript)

O’Mara, M. A. (1999). Strategy and place: managing corporate real estate and facilities for competitive advantage. New York, NY: Free Press

Arup (2018). Campus of the Future. London. June 2018. Driversofchange.com Arkesteijn, M (2013). The power of pluralism for urban strategies. Cities Volume 31, April 2013, Pages 328-336. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.cities.2012.10.001 Arkesteijn, M.H., Jylha, T.E.J. and Kohler, A. (2018). Scenario planning: How to make a scenario cross. Retrieved from https://brightspace.tudelft.nl/d2l/le/content/278632/viewContent/2017848/View Beckers, R., Voordt, T. van der, & Dewulf, G. (2015). Aligning corporate real estate with the corporate strategies of higher education institutions. Facilities, 33(13/14), 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/f-04-2014-0035

Rijksdienst voor Ondernemend Nederland. (2021, January 25). Energielabel C kantoren | RVO.nl | Rijksdienst. https://www.rvo. nl/onderwerpen/duurzaam-ondernemen/gebouwen/wetten-en-regels/bestaande-bouw/energielabel-c-kantoren Sennett, R. (2019). Building and Dwelling (1st ed.). Penguin Books.

SteenhuisMeurs. (2018, June). Cultuurhistorisch onderzoek TU Delft (No. 378). https://campusdevelopment.tudelft.nl/wpcontent/uploads/2018/10/Cultuurhistorisch-onderzoek-TU-Delft_def.pdf Lancrin, S. (2004) Building futures scenarios for universities and higher education (Excerpt)

Bon, R. (1992). Corporate Real Estate Management. Facilities, 1o(12), 13–17. https://www-emerald-com.tudelft.idm.oclc.org/ insight/content/doi/10.1108/EUM0000000002218/full/pdf?title=corporate-real-estate-management

TU Delft. (2020). About Campus and Real Estate. Campus Development - TU Delft. https://campusdevelopment.tudelft.nl/en/ about-cre/

Brem, D. (2021, January 25). Personal communication. [Personal interview].

TU Delft. (n.d. -a). Echo. Campus Development - TU Delft. Retrieved 21 January 2021, from https://campusdevelopment.tudelft. nl/en/project/echo-2/

Cambridge University Press. (2020). Organization. In Cambridge Dictionary. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ organization de Waal, I. M. (2018). Het gebouwenpaspoort. Een onderzoek naar de juridische mogelijkheden om op nationaal niveau een gebouwenpaspoort verplicht te stellen en de vormgeving van een potentiële nieuwe regeling. Universiteit Utrecht. https:// milieurecht-site.e-captain.nl/bestanden/i-m-de-waal-het-gebouwenpaspoort.pdf

TU Delft. (n.d.-b). Parking at P-Sports. Campus Development - TU Delft. Retrieved 22 January 2021, from https:// campusdevelopment.tudelft.nl/en/project/parking-at-p-sports/ TU Delft. (n.d. -c). Wat is het verschil tussen hbo en wo? https://www.tudelft.nl/onderwijs/voorlichting-en-ervaren/wat-is-hetverschil-tussen-hbo-en-wo/

Delft University of Technology. (2020). TU Delft annual report 2019. https://d2k0ddhflgrk1i.cloudfront.net/TUDelft/Over_TU_ Delft/Feiten_Cijfers/jaarverslagen/jaarverslag-2019-EN.pdf

TU Delft (2021). Week 4 - Vande Putte, H. (2020-12-03) Performance - Zoom recording. Retrieved from https://brightspace. tudelft.nl/d2l/le/content/278632/viewContent/2029528/View

Gehl, J. (2013). Cities for People (2nd None ed.). Amsterdam University Press.

TU Delft (2021).Week 6 - Blom, T. (2020-12-16) TU Delft Carbon Roadmap. Retrieved from https://brightspace.tudelft.nl/d2l/le/ content/278632/viewContent/2038486/View

Glatte, T. (2013). The Importance of Corporate Real Estate Management in Overall Corporate Strategies. CoreNet Global, 1–4.

Gramsbergen, E. ea (2018) About Dutch campuses.

TU Delft (2021). Week 7 - Valks, B. & Blokland, E. (2021-01-06) Management of education spaces. Retrieved from https:// brightspace.tudelft.nl/d2l/le/content/278632/viewContent/2045043/View

Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C. (1996), Competing for the Future, Harvard Business School Press, Paperback edition, Boston (Massachusetts).

TU Delft (2021). Week 8 - Vande Putte, H. (2021-01-13) Strategy. Retrieved from https://brightspace.tudelft.nl/d2l/le/ content/278632/viewContent/2049687/View

Haynes, B., Nunnington, N., & Eccles, T. (2017). Corporate Real Estate Asset Management (second edition). Routledge.

TU Delft (2021). Week 9 - Vande Putte, H. (2021-01-20) Last lecture (slides). Retrieved from https://brightspace.tudelft.nl/d2l/le/ content/278632/viewContent/2054821/View

Heijer, A. C. den (2007). Universiteitsvastgoed in Nederland, voorraadniveau: analyse van 14 universiteiten. Universiteitsvastgoed in Nederland, resultaten analyse 14 universiteiten. Delft, tu Delft, Faculteit Bouwkunde, Real Estate & Housing.

Henderson, J. C., & Venkatraman, N. (1989). Strategic alignment: a framework for strategic information technology management.

Cambridge, Mass. Center for Information Systems Research, Sloan School of Management, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Grieves, J. (2000). Introduction. The origins of organizational development. Journal of Management Development 19(5):345-447.

DOI: 10.1108/02621710010371865

Wettenbank. (2015). wetten.nl - Regeling - Wet op het hoger onderwijs en wetenschappelijk onderzoek - BWBR0005682.

Overheid.nl. https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0005682/2015-01-01 Winch, G. M. (2010). Managing Construction Projects; An information Processing Approach. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

Meijer, L (2020) Personal communication [group interview]

Zwart, J. van der, Voordt, D. J. M. van der, & Arkesteijn, M. H. (2009). Ways to study corporate real estate management in healthcare: An analytical framework. In Kagioglou, M., & Barlow, J. (Eds.), Improving health care infrastructures through innovation. Conference Proceedings HaCIRIC 2009, Health and Care Infrastructure Research and Innovation Centre (pp. 1-9).

Brighton: HaCIRIRC.

Mintzberg, H & Waters, J. (1985). Of Strategies, Deliberate and Emergent. Strategic Management Journal, Vol. 6, No. 3 (1985), pp. 257-272 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2486186

Zwart, J. van der, & Voordt, T. J. M. van der (2015). Adding Value by Hospital Real Estate. HERD: Health Environments Research & Design Journal, 9(2), 52–68. https://doi.org/10.1177/1937586715592649

Mintzberg, H. (1987). The Strategy Concept I: Five Ps for Strategy. California Management Review, 30(1), 11-24. doi: https://doi. org/10.2307/41165263

56

57

REFERENCES - IMAGES Delft Technische Hoogeschool. (n.d.). [Photo]. Achter de Gevels Delft. https://www.achterdegevelsvandelft.nl/huizen/Oude%20 Delft%2095_files/Oude%20Delft%2095_7.jpg ETH Zurich. (n.d.-a). HIB Building – Arch Tec Lab: the most recently completed ETH Zurich construction [Image]. Real Estate Management - Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich. https://ethz.ch/en/the-eth-zurich/organisation/departments/ immobilien.html ETH Zurich. (n.d.-b). Hönggerberg campus [Image]. Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich. https://ethz.ch/en/campus/ access/hoenggerberg.html ETH Zurich. (n.d.-c). Zentrum campus [Image]. Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zürich. https://ethz.ch/en/campus/access/ zentrum.html Gramsbergen, E., Abrahamse, J. E., Adriaansens, G., Bonfanti, E., Colenbrander, B., Diesfeldt, O., Kaan, K., Milani, S., & Pané, I. (2018). OverHolland 18/19 (Vol. 18/19). Vantilt.

Jardin. (n.d.). [Image]. Jardin Wonen Op IJburg. https://woneninjardin.nl/wp-content/uploads/Verkoopbrochure-Jardinaugustus-2020.pdf MVRDV.(2018). The NEXT ITMO. https://www.mvrdv.nl/projects/386/the-next-itmo Singapore Institute of Technology, JTC. (n.d.). Artist’s impression of SIT’s new Punggol campus [Illustration]. Business Times. https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/government-economy/singapore-institute-of-technology-to-move-to-new-campus-inpunggol TU Delft. (n.d.-a). Echo. Campus Development - TU Delft. Retrieved 21 January 2021, from https://campusdevelopment.tudelft. nl/en/project/echo-2/ TU Delft. (n.d.-b). Library [Image]. TU Delft. https://www.tudelft.nl/onderwijs/opleidingen/masters/mot/msc-management-oftechnology/studying-at-tu-delft/ TU Delft. (n.d.-c). Mekelpark [Image]. TU Delft. https://www.tudelft.nl/onderwijs/opleidingen/masters/mot/msc-managementof-technology/studying-at-tu-delft/ TU Delft. (2018, February). Plattegrond TU Delft [Illustration]. https://d1rkab7tlqy5f1.cloudfront.net/Library/Over%20de%20 Library/Plattegrond_TUDelft.pdf Unstudio (2018) Future Campus, University College Dublin https://www.unstudio.com/en/page/11737/future-campusuniversity-college-dublin Unstudio (2018 -2019) Business School for the Creative Industries. https://www.unstudio.com/en/page/11718/business-schoolfor-the-creative-industries

58

59