USC Real Estate Development | Data Analytics

Case Study · Adaptive Reuse & Life Sciences

Case Study · Chilly-Mazarin, France

Cite Vivante: turning a legacy pharma campus into a life-science district

A redevelopment concept for the former Sanofi R&D site, positioned as a mixed-use life-science campus with residential and amenity phases.

Read the case Jump to proof

Site

Former Sanofi R&D

Chilly-Mazarin, Essonne

Traded scale

1,076,400 SF

Arizona / Angelo Gordon acquisition

Use mix

Lab · Housing · Amenity

Phased mixed-use campus

My role

Investment case

Research, positioning, IC narrative

§01 — Problem

A single-tenant research campus with no single-tenant future

Pharma consolidation has been steadily stranding purpose-built R&D campuses across Europe. Sanofi's footprint rationalization left Chilly-Mazarin without an obvious next single tenant — the buildings are specialized, the lease structure that once anchored the site is gone, and the surrounding Essonne market has no comparable life-science occupier waiting to backfill 1M+ square feet at once.

The question I set out to answer was not whether the buildings could be reused. It was whether an institutional investor could underwrite a phased, mixed-use repositioning — and what evidence would move an investment committee.

My thesis: the site can evolve from a legacy pharma campus into a sponsor-validated innovation district tied to the Paris-Saclay corridor.

Constraints in play

Specialized lab shells — wet-lab infrastructure that doesn't convert cleanly to office or residential without significant capex.

Low site coverage — a research-campus footprint built for buffer and parking, not the density a mixed-use district needs.

Brownfield remediation — decades of pharmaceutical R&D use carry environmental diligence and remediation timelines that gate any phase 1 delivery.

Housing pressure in Essonne — real regional demand for residential, but a for-sale/for-rent mix that has to compete with the lab use case for the same land.

French capital markets repricing — higher rates and cautious sponsors made any story reliant on a single speculative use case a hard sell.

§02 — Approach

Build the argument from third-party evidence, not assertion

An investment committee doesn't underwrite a repositioning on conviction alone. I built the case in four layers, each one designed to answer a specific objection before it got asked.

01 · Demand

Demand

Quantified Paris-region lab and life-science space demand against CBRE and Newmark market data to show the use case wasn't hypothetical.

02 · Planning

Planning

Cross-referenced Institut Paris Region planning documents to confirm zoning intent and public appetite for the Saclay corridor's innovation-district strategy.

03 · Precedent

Precedent

Selected four French adaptive-reuse comps to pattern-match phasing, positioning, and sponsor behavior against sites that made the same jump.

04 · Narrative

Narrative

Synthesized demand, planning, and precedent into an IC-ready narrative — the evidence chain, not just the concept.

§03 — The Case

A precedent framework built to answer the committee's objections

Each comp was chosen to prove one specific piece of the thesis — not as generic adaptive-reuse examples, but as targeted evidence for a specific underwriting question.

Precedent

Type

What it proves

Biocitech

Pharma site to biotech park

Proves the cluster approach — a single-tenant pharma campus can be repositioned around a life-science tenant cluster rather than one anchor.

Hôtel-Dieu

Institutional adaptive reuse

Proves mixed-use credibility — an institutional-scale building can carry housing, amenity, and commercial uses under one redevelopment umbrella.

AgroParisTech

Research campus repositioning

Proves the Saclay corridor draws institutional capital toward research-campus repositionings specifically, not just generic office-to-anything conversions.

Lyon Confluence

Brownfield district, phased

Proves housing-first phasing — a brownfield district can sequence residential delivery ahead of commercial buildout without losing sponsor confidence.

Cite Vivante site plan showing phased development zones

Positioning logic

Lab anchor — retain and re-lease the highest-value wet-lab shells first, anchoring the district's life-science identity before other uses arrive.

Residential early phases — sequence housing into the earliest phases to generate cash flow and de-risk the capital stack ahead of full lab lease-up.

Ground-floor amenity — activate ground-floor retail and amenity space to make the district legible as a place, not just a leasing program.

§04 — Outcome

The market validated the thesis on the same site

Acquisition

1,076,400 SF

Arizona / Angelo Gordon acquired the site

Phase “The Boost”

344,400 SF

First delivery phase

Phase “The Mix”

161,500 SF

Mixed-use phase

No live operating results yet. Proof comes from market validation, sponsor activity, and comparable redevelopment precedent — a real sponsor traded the same site at the scale my case argued for, and structured it around the same phased, mixed-use logic.

What I took from it

Sourcing

Reading brokerage research and public planning documents against each other surfaces gaps that neither source admits on its own.

Framework

Choosing comps that each answer a specific objection is more persuasive than a longer list of loosely related precedents.

Phasing

Treating use mix as a capital-sequencing decision, not just a program mix, changes which uses go first and why.

Delivery

Writing analysis that survives an IC room means every claim needs a source an investment committee would trust on its own.

Want the full deck?

Happy to walk through the underwriting, the precedent research, and how the thesis held up against the actual sale.

Email me More projects