The evaluation report compares three options:
- Chemistry and physics establish activities in Science Village and move there
- Kemicentrum is renovated and expanded, and the physicists move in there to be with the chemists
- The Departments of Physics and Chemistry and their staff remain in their current premises, which are being refurbished.
Estimated SEK 95 million more per year
The rent level for option 1, i.e. establishing the activity in Science Village, is indicated in the report as 100 per cent. The rent level for option 2 is estimated to be just over half, 57 per cent, of option 1.
The difference in monetary terms between options 1 and 2 is estimated at SEK 95 million per year.
The rent level for option 3 is estimated at 66 per cent of the costs for option 1. The fact that option 3 is more expensive than having the physicists move in with the chemists in a newly renovated and expanded Kemicentrum is due to the larger total floor space.
The cost calculations are estimates based on a number of assumptions, including the need for premises.
The carbon footprint differs a lot
In the case of the Faculty of Science, the Board has decided that rent expenditure is not to exceed 17 per cent of turnover. Turnover is just over SEK 1 billion and rent expenditure is currently between 13 and 14 per cent of that amount.
At the Faculty of Engineering (LTH), there is no corresponding decision on rent expenditure in relation to turnover.
In addition to the amount of the rent expenditure, the carbon footprint may influence which option is ultimately chosen. Constructing a new building in Science Village is the ‘most expensive in terms of climate impact’, while staying in the current, albeit in that case renovated, premises on Sölvegatan is the ‘cheapest in terms of climate impact’. But there is not much difference between options 2 and 3 above. The carbon footprint of both options is estimated to be around one-third of the calculated carbon dioxide emissions as a result of constructing a new building and establishing the activity in Science Village.
"A long and complicated process"
Per Persson, Dean of the Faculty of Science, says that the project group has done a very comprehensive and impressive job, but that there is now a certain amount of investigation fatigue.
“This is quite natural. It’s a long and complicated process leading to the next level of decision-making. The aim is to take a policy decision this December. Hopefully, we and LTH can then decide at about the same time what we think the next step in the process should look like.”
All options offer opportunities
Annika Mårtensson, Assistant Dean at LTH with responsibility for campus development, also expects a policy decision.
“I don’t see it as impossible that the decision could mean, for example, that we go ahead and explore two of these three options in more depth.”
All three options offer opportunities to develop the activities, while the cooperation between physics and chemistry is facilitated in particular by the two options that bring the activities closer together (options 1 and 2 above).
Students must be involved
Annika Mårtensson emphasises the importance of constantly involving students and education in the process and thinking about creating the best possible conditions for students.
“It’s easy to get caught up in the research issue, but it’s really important that we get the education side right. There is potential for this with all three options.”
The pro-vice chancellor Per Mickwitz:
“The conditions for future research and education are most important”
The options compared in the report and described in the adjacent article imply different conditions for the future of research and education. It is important to emphasise this perspective, according to Per Mickwitz, the pro vice-chancellor responsible for research, sustainability and campus development.
“I think the really major effects of all the options have to do with the research and education opportunities they facilitate. It is essential that the organisations discuss this rather than just costs and square meterage,” he writes in an email to LUM.
What do you think about the major differences in rental expenditure for the three options described in the evaluation report?
“The differences in rental expenditure are undeniably large. In the future, various organisations at Lund University will be prepared to pay more in rent, but only if they see that this provides better conditions for research and development.”
What are your thoughts on the fact that the annual rent for an establishment in Science Village is estimated to be SEK 95 million higher than co-locating physics and chemistry in the renovated and expanded Kemicentrum?
“Lund University has already established itself in Science Village and will establish further activities in the area. The different options will now be discussed by the organisations and then we will see where we end up.”
What are your reflections on the differences in climate impact when the report compares an establishment in Science Village with the two options that involve staying on Sölvegatan?
“The Science Village area will be expanded and activities will continue on Sölvegatan going forward. Therefore, the difference in the impact on the climate as a result of construction in Lund will not be so great regardless of the size of Lund University’s establishment in Science Village. But the climate impact will be distributed differently among the various stakeholders and the University’s climate impact will increase according to the amount of new construction undertaken.”
