Industrial districts and creative production

When people think about why they love their city, urban industrial districts are probably the last thing that comes to mind. Yet, these spaces play an integral (albeit hidden) role in sustaining creative and engaging places. In particular, urban industrial districts nurture local businesses that provide fulfilling employment opportunities, create innovative new products, and support many of the city’s most revered cultural events and institutions [1].

Despite their significance, central industrial areas across developed cities have been steadily gentrifying as a result of zoning changes and real estate investment [2]. In Melbourne, over 2,423 hectares have been re-zoned since 2000 [3], with sites in Fisherman’s Bend, Preston East, and Kensington slated for high-profile urban renewal [4]. Similarly, the New South Wales government is currently pursuing the re-zoning of a 20km corridor as part of the Sydnenham-Bankstown renewal project to facilitate transit-oriented development [5].

This poses particular challenges for businesses that operate across the spectrum of the arts, creative industries, and urban manufacturing. A host of small enterprises, ranging from set builders and prop makers supplying performing arts institutions to clothing manufacturers that subcontract their services to designers, rely on central industrial land with access to like-minded producers, clients, and flexible workspaces [6]. These “cultural manufacturers” design and make locally-distinct products, employ local workers, and source local materials [7]. However, due to up-zoning and real estate pressures, many of these businesses have been displaced while others have had to adapt to rapidly changing urban environments.

In recognition of the significant loss of employment land and the uneven effects of consumption-oriented regeneration strategies, some cities are beginning to re-think their position on industrial policy and land use. US cities including Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco have successfully maintained protective industrial zoning that preserves and supports a range of production activities by prohibiting competing uses like residential development [8]. Boston and San Francisco have even enacted alternative zoning strategies to facilitate the development of higher-density, modern production space [9]. These cities recognise that old land use classifications and industrial property development models are often no longer appropriate to serve the needs of contemporary production.

Yet, Australian cities are behind the curve. Our research documents how small-scale urban manufacturing and cultural production is adapting to changing urban conditions in Brunswick, an inner suburb of Melbourne known for its longstanding industrial heritage and ongoing economic and demographic change. We suggest how these adaptations might be incorporated into land use and planning strategies that produce more equitable and creative places with industrial space at their centre.

Creative adaptation to industrial gentrification in Brunswick, Melbourne

Like most of Melbourne’s old industrial inner-ring, Brunswick’s factories were built for small businesses that required access to markets and train lines [10]. This pre-war industrial built environment remains an important feature for contemporary cultural manufacturers despite Australia’s overall de-industrialisation.

In the face of economic and demographic changes, the municipal authority Moreland City Council has faced considerable pressure to re-zone industrial land for medium density residential and mixed uses [11]. However, unlike some other inner-urban industrial districts such as Melbourne’s Docklands, Brunswick’s land use changes have been incremental, providing space for new and existing industrial businesses to change and adapt (see Figure 1) [12].

Given the increasingly limited amount of production space in Brunswick, cultural manufactures have had to be agile and resourceful in finding and using workspaces. We documented these strategies through 15 interviews with cultural manufacturers in Brunswick’s gentrifying industrial district.

TRANSITIONAL SPACES

A common strategy is to take up short-term leases in transitional spaces slated for development by property owners or where development has been delayed due to uncertain market conditions. As a result, cultural manufacturers secure favourable leases that allowed them to build their businesses, albeit under uncertain conditions. “When we moved in, the real estate agent was like, "probably 12 months and they're going to develop it” … That was six years ago…” (Tim, furniture maker/set builder, 2019).

SHARED SPACES

Another common approach is to share space. Some cultural manufacturers move into established subdivided warehouses, renting a pod from the property manager. Others rent space themselves and then sublease a portion to another business with the aim of maintaining “workshop industrial space in the city” for “tenants of varying degrees of professionalism and economic and creative pursuit” (John, metalworker, 2019). Still others establish cooperatives and divide responsibilities for administering, maintaining and paying for the space.

Beyond cost savings, shared spaces increase the availability of space and the diversity of industrial activity. This is particularly important for production activities regularly excluded from other arts and creative spaces:

“It was difficult to find any existing spaces because they were mostly tailored to either more design-office co-working type environments or more fine arts like painting, maybe a little bit of sculpture, but nothing that could be too messy or noisy. And they were very small spaces and quite expensive…So we put together a cooperative to set up a creative space... (Tim, furniture maker/set builder, 2019).

Shared spaces enable “collective self-help and self-organisation” by pooling knowledge, networks and resources [13]. Where tenants work in the same field or produce similar products, shared spaces serve as key sites for expanding networks and collaborating: “This space is really good for creating that community because their networks become your networks. Everyone is always introducing each other when there's visits.” (Simone, leather maker, 2020). They also allow tenants to co-fund and co-maintain expensive equipment beyond the capacity of individual businesses.

MULTI-PURPOSE SPACES

This may involve downscaling and consolidating equipment so that different functions – producing, retailing, educating, and/or living – can all be accommodated in the one building—

We put more studios in and have designed the space so that everything's on wheels. Things can move around and all the equipment can be moved so that we can still run workshops. We also have social events, seminars, lectures. Everything can be moved out of the way and we can do projecting on the walls. (Anna, Jeweller, 2018)

—or easily moved between spaces—

“It’s all modular so we can take it storage and tool racks with us” (Ben, furniture maker, 2019)

“I seem to have everything on wheels … Everything I’ve purchased, I’ve at least in the back of my mind considered how easy it would be to move again” (Tim, furniture maker/set builder, 2019).

Indeed, the reality of industrial gentrification and business growth forces producers to be constantly on the move between inner city spaces—

“We started in Fallon Street Brunswick, actually just a stone's throw away in a 250 square meter workshop. We stayed there from 2004 to 2007 and then moved to Colebrook Street Brunswick to one of the old wheat stores there in that blue stone building across from the rail line. We were there up until the end of 2017. And then we've been here since. We needed more space. We've had fairly rapid growth over the last three years…Originally, there was two of us. Since it's ramped up here, there's about 20 of us.” (Osman, set builder, 2019).

Industrial gentrification is still a threat

While cultural manufacturers have adopted these innovative responses to increasing rents and fewer locational alternatives, industrial gentrification creates serious challenges that require policy intervention. Ongoing re-zoning, warehouse conversions, and property speculation create immediate costs of moving, but also longer-term risks that limit personal and financial investment in manufacturing businesses. For many industries with slim profit margins and infrastructure-heavy mediums like ceramics, metalwork and jewellery enamelling, temporary space adds additional cost and complexity to production that threatens businesses’ long-run viability. Furthermore, interviewees reported slow, labour-intensive processes of developing skills and local knowledge communities that are fundamentally at odds with the rapidity of urban change in central industrial districts. The displacement or closure of local businesses has a compounding effect as personal and professional networks are disrupted and production becomes a marginal presence in inner- and middle-ring areas.

Can we do better?

Urban industrial districts sustain a host of creative industries and urban manufacturing activities, providing vital space to share knowledge and resources needed to cope in a costly and uncertain environment. These businesses contribute to a unique sense of place by producing and employing locally and serving pivotal back-end functions for our cities’ global business and cultural activities.

To ensure that industrial districts can continue to serve these functions, policymakers have a variety of “use” (i.e. permitted land uses) and “process” rules (i.e. the procedure for developers to convert industrial land) at their disposal [14]. A number of US cities have experimented with one or both of these avenues. For instance, Chicago, Portland, and San Francisco have implemented stringent land use restrictions in their zoning codes, establishing “industrial sanctuaries” that protect prioritise production activities and prohibit incompatible residential and commercial uses [15]. In addition, Chicago has also enacted comprehensive processes requiring its Zoning Board to assess the potential impact of re-zonings on existing producers, as well as the area’s property prices and job profile [16].

While stemming the loss of prime industrial land is an important first step, local governments must also explore ways of updating land use classifications to better reflect the needs of newer types of urban manufacturing and creative producers. As our research shows, some cultural manufacturers offer hybrid services that sit uncomfortably with existing classifications and do not necessarily require isolation from residential and commercial development as industry of old. Cities must consider alternative zoning categories and building typologies that support more intensive industrial development alongside other uses. San Francisco has been proactive in this space, developing new zoning variances and incentives aimed at leveraging real estate demand to increase the supply of modern, higher-density industrial space [17]. In 2014, the City amended its protective “Production, Distribution and Repair” zoning to allow office construction larger than 20,000 square feet on underutilised land in central areas, provided at least 33 percent of the gross square footage is dedicated to new production space [18]. Comparable initiatives are also emerging in Melbourne with the new Commercial 3 Zone, but the allowance for residential development may continue to price out industrial activity.

These alternative zoning initiatives hold promise for more equitable and diverse forms of “mixed use” developments that build upon the resourcefulness and adaptation of urban manufacturers and cultural producers. In central areas where shared, multi-functional, and transitional spaces are common, policymakers might look to establish higher-density business incubators with communal workshop and retail space. In New York [19] and San Francisco [20], such spaces are developed and managed by not-for-profit intermediaries, allowing tenants to dedicate more time to production and business development rather than retail, property management, and the like. In addition, urban industrial spaces could serve as centrally-located sites for training and education, given that most manufacturing is now small-scale with a limited capacity to train apprentices. [21]. This would provide opportunities for people to up-skill, but it would also institutionalise a second income stream for cultural manufacturers.

As our research shows, urban manufacturers and cultural producers have been agile and resourceful in finding and using workspaces. Furthermore, leading cities have been proactive in developing land use strategies that build on this resourcefulness. While these initiatives are still very new, they hold potential for more equitable and creative places with industrial space at their centre.