 Hello and welcome to the Circular Metabolism Podcast. This podcast is hosted by the Chair of Circular Economy and Urban Metabolism held by Aristide de Tannassiades and Stefan Kanpermann at the Université Libre de Bruxelles. In this podcast, we talk with researchers, policymakers and different practitioners to unravel the complex aspects of what makes urban metabolism and economies more circular. This podcast is produced by the Chair of Circular Economy and Urban Metabolism at the Université Libre de Bruxelles held by Aristide de Tannassiades and Stefan Kanpermann. In this podcast, we discuss with researchers, administrators and practitioners to clarify the different aspects that make the economy and metabolism of our cities more circular. On this episode of the Circular Metabolism Podcast, we talk with Adrian Hale, the project coordinator of Cities of Making. This project is funded by the Joint Programming Initiative Urban Europe and explore what is the role of industries in cities and more specifically in Brussels, Rotterdam and London. With the advent of great technological innovations ranging from automation, 3D printing, internet of things etc etc, we discuss about what 21st century cities should be making. We also elaborate on what type of industries should come back in cities, where could they be located as well as who is likely to be employed in these new types of manufacturing activities. Finally, we explore the link between urban manufacturing and circular economy and how a productive city could tackle both social and environmental challenges. Enjoy this episode and don't forget to visit our website CircularMetabolism.com to find all of our activities and productions. So, Adrian, we'll start all over again, but welcome to this third episode of the podcast of the Chair of Circular Economy and Urban Metabolism. We've been talking with my co-chair, Stefan, about what is circular economy in cities, what does urban metabolism help us to do within this whole problematic and challenging question of circular economy in cities. We've talked briefly about the territorial aspect of circular economy and therefore who is making a circular economy, where do we make a circular economy in cities. You've been working on a project called Cities of Making, which I think addresses very well, or at least a big chunk of this question. So, I'm very glad that you're here and that you, with your many hats of designer, landscape architect, thinker, doer, content manager and all that, you address this question. And before you explain, I think what is Cities of Making and how can it help to this circular economy question, I'd also like to ask you how do you arrive to a project like this? What's the context behind wanting to do a study like this? What's the rationale behind it? Well, Cities of Making is focused around the question of what 21st century European cities should be making. And we arrived at that question based on a few issues and trends that we've seen. We have on the one hand, we have the whole question of reshoring and reindustrialization, which is raised from companies, organizations, regions, the European Commission that have said, we shouldn't be letting our industry be pushed off shore. In fact, we should be bringing it back because there's a lot of value in the process. You've got the question of new technology, which can be using materials more effectively, which is much smaller. It's quieter. It doesn't necessarily pollute. It can be put into offices, homes, shops. And so the technology has changed dramatically in the last, I would say, 30 years. On the one hand, on the other hand, there's also the constant threat to industrial land from cities because of the densification of cities, the repopulating of cities, that has essentially focused on industrial land to build housing, to build parks, to build shops and schools. And so businesses that are a little bit dirty, noisy, that are not necessarily in line with our 21st century concepts of urbanity are under threat because their value is not seen. So yeah, there's a range of different dynamics which have which are coming about, which have inspired this question about what cities should be making. That the project itself was developed with three case study cities, and those three case studies being Brussels and London and Rotterdam. Why have we chosen those cities? It's because they have changed dramatically over the last 60 years. All of these cities have been based on one type of industry or another. And so now we're seeing a dramatic change, and particularly a lot of the land connected to industry, which is still under threat. And the cities themselves are asking themselves why do we need to keep this and what value does this have for these cities? So we're hoping to get closer to answering that riddle. And then so each of these cities I guess were industrial at a certain point, and now we're at this tipping point of either we exterminate industry from our territory and give it to residential areas, or there is something else and we don't know what this something else is. But then let's think about it. And you mentioned these technologies. I can imagine these technologies are like CNC and then additive or printing or how you call them 3D printing and stuff like that. And these could upscale to bigger technological advancements like building houses or or building other materials in 3D and stuff like that. But is that the sole industry that cities need or what the industry will be? Because there is one thing about what's the most efficient for our lands and the less noisy and the less environmentally impactful. And there is another thing, what does reindustrializing cities mean? And what do cities need as an industrial pattern? You know, I mean, an industrial pattern could be whatever we can think of. It ranges so much. So are they specific industries that cities need? Or are they cities, certain manufacturing activities that cities are more likely to host? Have you thought of that? Yeah, absolutely. There's a wide spectrum of making and conditions for making, which we need to think about. You have the question of manufacturing activities that need the city. So the manufacturing activities which need to be close to clients or to a marketplace or to a source of materials or to a university because they're very high tech or to employees. So that's what manufacturing or industry needs from the city. Cities on the other hand also need industry and manufacturing. Why? Because they deal with waste. They provide the material for building buildings and infrastructure. They provide employment and a range of other things which cities very much depend on to adapt and to grow. So it comes from, of course, both directions. In terms of places and in terms of technology, evidently there are new and very interesting technologies which are emerging. I couldn't say that the position that we're at right now is absolutely revolutionary, but there are certainly a range of technologies on the horizon which are extremely promising. And yes, it's pushing towards more decentralized kind of manufacturing. But on the other hand, we're also looking at very high tech solutions that could be shared across at a city level by existing, by manufacturers. So the way that we see it, we see three particular trends. We see a trend which is heading towards high tech, automated automation, artificial intelligence. So industry 4.0 or something like that. Exactly. Internet of Things. We have another trend which is looking towards the metabolic dimension of the story. Of course, the circular economy story. It's about how we use materials more wisely, more effectively. We generate less waste. We get a better service out of the things that we produce so that cities can be more efficient in their energy use, efficient in the management of waste. And then you have the third dimension which is the social dimension which is very much about how people can be providing services, how industry can be providing skills, how the industrial process or the manufacturing process actually creates value added for the community. It could be anything from repairing things to producing and things from furniture to housing to sorting glass or whatever you like. But that we can see as being a social service for society where manufacturing benefits society and it's certainly connected with the circular economy story. So imagine, I'm trying to put this into words, but so who will be the person that works in this new urban manufacturing because is it the low skilled person like in the past? Is that the new urban industries that we're going to have? Is it the person that's super qualified coming from university and developing the how robots connect to each other? Is this urban industry the things that will automate so many things that finally urbanites will not work anymore and just enjoy their lives? I mean, I see that you have this social and people perspective, but so if we take this case of Brussels, which is a very fragmented population, so 20% of structural employment and a lot of highly educated people either for the services or because of the universities etc etc. So let's say that there is new urban industry in Brussels or I don't know how to call it, is it new urban industry or urban manufacturing? Who will work there? Is there a rule or could anyone work there? Industry has been seen as very useful for a range of different jobs and skills. On the one extreme, the very social extreme, you have industry manufacturing offering low skilled people a step into work in a sector where you can easily climb up the ladder or you can become more specialized. So that's a very important factor for cities to have such work, which is very important for the city. It allows people to then move into stable long-term reliable jobs that are suitable for people that are perhaps not so interested in the services economy. So that's the very social end of the spectrum. At the other end of the spectrum you have businesses which are certainly moving more into the high-tech world where there's much more automation. That is happening for two reasons, one because it's more cost-effective and you can create larger outputs. But it's also because a lot of businesses can't actually find the skilled labor to do it manually. So I have an example in Brussels, a tap company that makes very high-end taps. They can't find people that have the appropriate skills and there's not extremely complex skills. They can't find the suitable people to employ to manage their machines. So they're forced to invest more money in machines that can automate the process. It's not necessarily in their interest because machines they break down, they cost a lot of money, they become obsolete. But it's simply a staffing question and so you're seeing that machines are becoming a more reliable tool in the process. Yeah and to be honest manufacturing in Europe hasn't necessarily reduced significantly over the last few decades. What has reduced certainly has been the personnel. The outputs haven't necessarily reduced. So it's an interesting point to be thinking about. Yeah and what's this famous link with the circular economy? Because there are two ways of seeing it. I think there is the manufacturing, as you say, new processes of manufacturing can reduce the inputs, can optimize the process and therefore also reduce the outputs, make the ideal product let's say. So urban manufacturing could help us into that perhaps. But then there is also the the other end of the spectrum which is let's say the waste side of the spectrum which is remanufacturing or dismantling or perhaps recycling and all of that. I'm wondering you know in your mind what is more is there something more relevant for the circular economy or is that the only two cases where urban manufacturing can engage with circular economy are the others? I would say in terms of circular economy it's hard to distinguish manufacturing from the circular economy because at least urban manufacturing should have significant value for the city. If it doesn't have significant value then there is no point in keeping it in the city. An important point to remember is that if manufacturing is urban it generally also requires some kind of protection, some kind of finance, some kind of public support and so therefore the mere fact that that that does exist should mean as a basic criteria that the manufacturing should be a benefit to the city. So we have a very controversial question in in Brussels. We have a very large car manufacturer and they occupy an incredibly large site in the south of Brussels, employ a few thousand people but what that employment is is essentially assembly. Now the links between that manufacturer and the universities here in in Brussels are extremely loose and we don't see a very particular benefit for Brussels apart from some small employment likewise many of the employees some 90% apparently live outside of the region of Brussels and they travel into Brussels every single day. So there's a fundamental question there of whether this very large actor is actually providing benefit for the city and also the output which is being produced. My vehicle is not necessarily being used in Brussels or sold in Brussels so therefore we need to think whether that is of value. If this manufacturer was extremely connected with the universities and had R&D connected with the universities, if it was using materials which were sourced locally or involved some kind of production chain locally, if it involved training and educating personnel in Brussels which then could then connect with spin-offs into other kind of industries then you would say that that kind of industry is extremely valuable for the city and we should do everything we can. So that seems like a public industry if you will because I get what you mean and even before you started giving this example I was trying to think like does urban manufacturing is supposed to be private or public or is there a public version of it because what you seem to say is like because when we see the incinerator or you know recycling plants and things like that sometimes it's just you know public urban manufacturing because it's useful to the city because of the flows and all that. So in the case of, I guess you mean Audi right, but how do we, what's the control of the city to that? Does it not give a permit or how do we, how does a city, what type of authority does the city have into the implementation of new urban manufacturing activities? In the case of Audi it's a relatively special situation because it's a historical development it was formally I think Volkswagen and then before that it was another company. It's a special story but now we have a lot of friction between the local municipality and the factory where the mayor of that municipality feels that Audi is not necessarily the best neighbor to have and therefore is is becoming should we say less welcoming. Yeah we, the city, pragmatically he cannot kick them out right? No but he can certainly make it very uncomfortable for them to be there. Municipalities can make the relationship much stronger and then on the one hand provide the kind of training conditions and education conditions and links to local universities which are necessary for that business to evolve. But on the other hand can also create the conditions, the relationships with the neighbors, the infrastructure which this company depends on much more accessible and attractive. So yeah this is a fundamental question for public authorities is that urban manufacturing should be seen as a service to society because if it's not then what's the point in having it? It's not the right time, it's too expensive to have an industry within a city. There are much more effective ways of using land than having the industry in the city if it's not providing benefit. So yeah, there are certainly publicly funded and publicly owned forms of manufacturing. You could argue that the incinerator is one, you could argue that the wastewater treatment plant is another, you could argue that the waste sorting plants is another but it's at a certain point private businesses end up filling this kind of niche within the ecology of manufacturing simply because they're much more competitive, much more risk taking, much more prepared to push innovation and so therefore they're a much more appropriate partner to have. But of course you know that depends if we look back 100 years ago a lot of companies were nationalized and they worked extremely well. So yeah, whether it's public or private, I don't think it's so significant, I think it's a question of what is the benefit for society and how can we make that relationship between the making or the circular economy better, more embedded within that local context. And so I'm wondering because we talked about the territory slightly, right? I mean you said because of these new technologies you can have one in your office or in your basement. I'm always you know with this critical urban metabolism approach like what does it going to change in the flows, right? Into the share or the bulk of all of the flows we need elsewhere. Perhaps it's going to relocalize some of our externalities. So at least our external footprint is going to you know become smaller. But how do you see it? I mean do you think that each office in Brussels should be producing as well or how do we really affect you know the bigger scheme of things with urban manufacturing? And is it a thousand small or is it one big? Because this will impact very much the territory, right? I mean do we have one zone of industrial let's say in Buda? Do we just have new urban industries over there and that's it? Or is it everywhere spread around Brussels and we don't need specific territorial conditions for that? We don't need the Zemus, we don't need nothing of that because it's different. Do you have any thoughts on that? It's the most appropriate space for manufacturers will depend entirely on the type of manufacturing that they're focusing on. Some manufacturers need to be extremely close to highways or the canal because if not then they become far less competitive. Others are much more city focused and can be much closer to the city, have much smaller orders of materials and therefore for them it's much more important to have a public facade and be connected with the local with the community. So I think the most important thing for cities is not to say there should be one option or another it's simply to provide as many options as possible because that's how we're going to allow the ecosystem to evolve. When cities and we're seeing this particularly in London for example, where manufacturing has been focused much more on these industrial areas then a lot of makers have simply had to leave London because they just can't find the right space. So yeah, it depends entirely on the business. The biggest challenge though is to be able to have availability and a wide variety of options for when a business is ready to be able to move that they can easily move either upscale or downscale and that happens in both directions. It's important that if a business has reached its limit in one particular area that it's easy enough for that business to move to another site nearby where which means that it doesn't break its relationships with other businesses that it depends on nearby for instance and so the options are extremely important. We've seen a lot of businesses in Brussels simply leaving Brussels not because they don't want to be here in fact they really want to stay in Brussels a lot of a lot of businesses want to stay in Brussels because the identity of Brussels but they just can't find the appropriate space for that to happen. Businesses can't really move more than once within within a few decades it's just extremely expensive it creates an enormous extremely extremely damaging on their on their logistics. So yeah that's another issue why a lot of businesses are leaving town simply because they just can't find the right space. Should we push businesses to one spot? It just depends entirely on what you see as the most critical form of manufacturing you might say that only that form of manufacturing that you could stick into a shop front is is critical. If you want to see the full range of manufacturing as being important then you need to create space throughout the city within different kinds of environments those close to freeways those where you have an intensity of manufacturers those which are close to to a marketplace which are generally close in the city. So that's the that's the most challenging issue particularly when you have businesses that are under threat through land use change because a developer sees that it's much more useful in in building housing or or office space than to have a manufacturer. I think it's the closing remark and we might also be cut off but I'll just have to try to squeeze in again this metabolic thing I mean do you think that so we discussed with Stefan on the previous episode about how you know Brussels went from industry to tertiary and perhaps back to industry but the metabolism itself kept growing and kept becoming bigger. Can urban manufacturing also help us from an environmental point of view as well you think? Absolutely absolutely and this is I think the missing link between the concept and the political dimension of the circular economy and putting that into action.