Bio market

A look at other biotech parks

Kristen Lombardi

Worcester Business Development Corporation -- owner of Biotech Park -- has hired consultants from Kendall Strategies, in Cambridge, as part of its recent effort to re-examine the biotechnology vision in Worcester.

Working with the Massachusetts Biotechnology Research Institute and several companies involved in the park, WBDC executives aim to tackle the question of Worcester's ability to sustain biotechnology. Consultants are expected to release a report in September that looks at what contributes to Massachusetts Biotechnology Research Park's success, evaluates the city's market, and suggests how WBDC may spark lagging activity in biotechnology.

To do so, says Kendall consultant Susan Baumgarten, the report will compare statistics from major biotech parks across the nation.

"The parks [in the report] are considered best by leaders in the field," she says, adding that Biotech Park is unique when compared with parks across the country. "It's like comparing apples and oranges. Each biotech park is very different. Worcester [Biotech Park] is unlike others in that it's marketing for Worcester only. Most parks are marketing for their states or counties" -- and have government money behind them, she adds.

Biotech Park also represents one of the only industrial parks that caters solely to the field and its start-up companies. Most biotech centers are housed in massive complexes with high-tech companies, service corporations, and so on. Biotech Park, says Baumgarten, represents one of the oldest biotech parks in the country.

While the Kendall report will prove more thorough in detail, the following is a superficial effort to compare Biotech Park with those industry giants identified by Kendall consultants:

* Massachusetts Biotechnology Research Park has 800,000 square feet of land developed for "biotechnology firms and academic research programs in biomedicine," states the Directory of Biotechnology Centers 1997. Biotech Park projects further development at three million square feet. About 13 companies now reside in One, Three, and Four Biotech (the buildings WBDC owns). And WBDC gets all funding from tenant rents and property-management fees. No fiscal 1997 budget was reported.

* North Carolina Biotechnology Center is a non-profit organization (much like MBRI) that rents space in Research Triangle Park -- a massive industrial park with biotech and computer companies that measures about eight miles long and two miles wide. It now boasts 50 tenants, among them IBM and Nortell Company. The Biotech Center at Research Park is funded mainly by the state and reported a $12 million fiscal 1997 budget.

* Virginia Biotechnology Research Park is far from reaching its projected development of 1.5 million square feet of office and laboratory space on 34 acres in downtown Richmond, representing more than $250 million in investment and initiatives. The park first emerged four years ago through a partnership of university, government, and industry leaders. According to the park's web page (http://www.vabiotech.com), VBRP has already recruited about 20 companies.

* The Technology Innovation Center/Oakdale Research Park, in Iowa, aims to provide services and facilities for businesses in "biotechnology and pharmaceutical development." Oakdale Research Park offers 173 acres of office and lab space (soon to expand to 198 acres) near the University of Iowa campus. It also affords biotech companies connections with university faculty. The center hasn't released its FY '97 budget, but reports receiving 100 percent of funding from the state.

Aside from above parks, say insiders, the Kendall report most likely will consider initiatives by the state of Maryland, considered one of the more aggressive states in recruiting biotechnology. That state boasts 10 biotech centers -- ranging from marine biotech to agricultural biotech to bioprocessing -- that industry insiders regard as successful. Four of the 10 centers reported FY '97 budgets totaling $112 million in funding. The state provides roughly 60 percent of all biotech funding, followed by local and federal governments.

It becomes apparent, says Baumgarten, that many of the Biotech Park's competitors have financial backing from states or counties that offer companies favorable tax incentives for locating operations there. This alone seems to place Worcester's biotech effort at a measurable disadvantage from its competitors.

-- KL

BACK

Kristen Lombardi can be reached at klombardi[a]phx.com.