Orum, A.M. and Artioli, F. (2022) - Real Estate Development.

10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0258, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0258 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [23/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Real Estate Development the world, real estate development is also
often an informal process, that is disjointed
FRANCESCA ARTIOLI from formal property rights or that relies on
Université Paris-Est, France
informal actors and exchanges. Both property
developments and markets can sideline reg-
A multifaceted process that structures cities ulations. Finally, development processes are
Real estate development is a multifaceted strongly political. By being visible, tangible,
process that creates or transforms the built and affecting the material contours of every-
environment. The term encompasses a day life, it sometimes becomes a highly salient
broad range of activities that range from issue in the political realm. Here, develop-
the purchase of unbuilt land and the sale ment projects can be both flagship initiatives
of redevelopment parcels, to the demolition in policy agendas and highly contested
of buildings that have lost their previous matters crystallizing opposition from both
functions (such as industrial brownfields), institutional and grassroots organizations.
to the renovation of existing constructions. Real estate development structures cities.
The built environment that results from these One can think about urban change as the out-
processes varies in its size, function, location, come of the ongoing dynamic of investment
and shape. and disinvestment of capital into the built
As a process, real estate development environment, as much as through the social
requires a variety of resources – land, finan- and political meanings that are allocated to
cial capital, knowledge, time, organizational these changes. This is even more relevant
skills – and it involves a plurality of actors, when considering the current magnitude
both individuals and organizations. It is often and pace of the world urbanization process.
dependent on the possession of the land In addition, global urbanization brings to
on which buildings are constructed. Classi- the fore the extent of both the historical and
cally, on the supply side of the development the geographical variations in real estate
process, one can think about the owners of development processes. Real estate markets
the land, the developers who acquire it and show substantial differences from one local-
manage the processes, the building firms, the ity/country to another, and the same is true
designers, the architects, the bank, but also for the role of the public sector in regulating
the planning authorities on whom the build- or directly intervening in the production of
ing permits depend. On the demand side, the built environment. Apparently similar
there are the occupiers, the investors, and the transformations of the built environment are
new landowners. In addition, processes of often the outcome of highly diverse economic,
real estate development are tied to wider regu- political, and social configurations.
latory frameworks that are defined at various Real estate development is finally a chal-
levels of government (city, regional, national, lenging topic for social scientists. First, it lies
supranational) and that set the spatial rules, at the heart of the conundrum of state–market
the construction requirements, the public relations. Over the last three centuries, trad-
limitations to property rights and the health, ing of real estate has become a recognized
safety, and risk regulations. However, across and legally protected component of capitalist
The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies. Edited by Anthony Orum.
© 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2019 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
DOI: 10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0258
10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0258, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0258 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [23/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
2 REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
societies; though the state plays relevant and SCHOLARLY APPROACHES TO REAL
multiple roles in real estate development. ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
Land uses, land rights, and land values also
carry deep implications in terms of inequali- Real estate development cannot be recog-
ties and economic, social, and environmental nized as a cohesive field of study, but is rather
justice. Second, real estate development tem- an object around which different disciplines
poralities are puzzling. The built environment engage into a debate. At the end of the 1980s,
appears as one of the most stable and fixed Michael Ball argued that the built environ-
dimensions of the city. Urban landscapes are ment was a neglected question in urban
complex stratifications of past property devel- studies, where it was usually considered as
opments, which in turn have had long-term the “passive backdrop” of social struggles
effects on the social and spatial organization and economic processes (Ball 1986). After
of the city. However, real estate development almost three decades, it is possible to argue
that this gap has been partially reduced, as
is also a quite unstable and volatile process, as
scholars have paid increased attention to the
the property sector is characterized by cycles
material transformation of the urban space.
and crises. It is no coincidence that vibrant
However, real estate development remains
waves of analysis of real estate development
an inherently interdisciplinary object of
processes have emerged during the booms
research – economists, planners, geogra-
and the subsequent slumps of the 1980s and
phers, sociologists, and political scientists
the 2000s. The scholarly interest in this issue
engage with it. These multiple streams of real
has accompanied the phases of turmoil and
estate debate produce both interdisciplinary
disruption. Third, the ongoing process of
exchanges and agreements, but also leave
both economic and cultural globalization
empirical blind spots. Indeed, when studying
calls for international comparisons. Com- real estate development, scholars from dif-
parative studies have strengthened in this ferent disciplines do not necessarily raise the
field. On the one hand, they shed light on same questions, nor adopt the same analytical
the distinctive institutional, economic, and focus or the same methods.
political configurations that underpin real Scholarly approaches to real estate develop-
estate development processes across coun- ment have distinguished between equilibrium
tries. On the other hand, they also work to models, event sequence models, agency mod-
improve our understanding of the patterns els, structural models, and institutional
of circulation and of interdependence across models (Healey 1991). Different epistemo-
countries (of actors, resources, models), that logical traditions that have nourished the
might produce international convergence. debate can also be flagged: neoclassical eco-
The following sections offer, in the first nomics, Marxism, institutional approaches,
place, an overview of the main scholarly and studies of urban projects and planning.
approaches to the study of real estate devel- If the boundaries between these groups are
opment. Then the entry focuses on the variety sometimes blurred, they also vary in their
of real estate developments, intended as the underlying assumptions about the func-
singular configurations of state–market rela- tioning of real estate markets, the actors’
tions that organize the production of the built motivations and rationalities, the relative
environment. It finally identifies some major autonomy of the state from the economy,
debates about the nature of current changes and the relation between socioeconomic
in the development process. structures and individual agency.
REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT 3
In the first place, real estate markets are after World War II is seen as offering a new
well-known objects in neoclassical eco- opportunity for capital switch, as it moved
nomics. Here, property development is the working class away from the city centers
conceived and analyzed as being the output where anticapitalistic ideas concentrated, and
of market exchanges in a capitalist system. created a system structurally oriented toward
The real estate market is constituted by the individual consumption (Harvey 1985).
interaction of buyers and sellers, where This approach has been mainly criticized
assets and property rights are exchanged by those scholars arguing that the built
for money. Because these exchanges occur environment is not only functional to the
in different places and in relation to dif- first circuit of capital but has in fact its own
ferent kinds of property, researchers study dynamic. The latter is shaped by the actors
the different categories of property mar- involved in the provision of the built envi-
kets and their corresponding functioning. ronment and by the economic interrelations
They explain, among others, the dynamic between them. More generally, all the criti-
of differential price formation in real estate cisms addressed to both the neoclassical and
markets, the spatial dynamics of the mar- the Marxist approaches bring forward the
kets, and the nature of real estate cycles political and the social dimensions of real
in relation with broader economic cycles. estate development. In this respect, one of
This approach relies on the conventional
the most widespread approaches that has
assumptions that the actors involved in the
been affirmed during the last two decades
processes aim to maximize their utility, that
is the institutional approach (Guy and Hen-
they have perfect knowledge, and that both
neberry 2000). Here the authors start from
their preferences and decision techniques are
the sociological “embeddedness” of economic
rational.
activities in the broader sets of ongoing social
Marxist urban literature has also analyzed
relations or rely on institutional economics.
the place of real estate development in the
Collectively, these works reject the under-
overall process of capitalist accumulation.
Here, the provision of the built environment standing of property development as being
is considered as it offers an opportunity the result of the market logic of the “highest
of investment for capital, that is periodi- and best use” of resources. They consider
cally short of markets. In fact, at the heart markets as social constructions and their
of the process of production of the built intent is to analyze the social relations that
environment lies the switch of the surplus organize the production and the transforma-
of capital from the productive sphere (the tion of the built environment. They therefore
primary circuit of capital) to real estate (the focus on institutions, which are intended
secondary circuit of capital). This capital here as both the formal and informal rules
switch is not only functional but also geo- that organize actors’ behaviors in real estate
graphical, as uneven development allows for development, produce shared expectations,
the constant process of disinvestment and and reduce uncertainty in market exchanges.
reinvestment. Furthermore, the production They also consider that actors engage in the
of the built environment contributes to the transformation of the built environment not
reproduction of the labor force, mainly by only as value maximizers, but in the light of
providing housing and consumption goods. their particular and multiple ways of seeing
For instance, following this perspective, these assets, of their beliefs and understand-
the suburbanization processes of the USA ing. When defining their strategies, actors’
knowledge and rationality are considered as activity. It depends on the local, regional,
bounded. or national contexts. From place to place,
Despite lacking a unifying label and despite there is a great diversity in the possible con-
its partial overlapping with the previous one, figurations of both public intervention and
a last kind of approach can be identified. market relations. Indeed, for instance, private
Its main defining feature is that these works
sector initiatives can be rare or nonexistent
do not take market processes as the starting
in depressed real estate markets. Sometimes,
point, but rather the study of projects and
planning. In comparison with the previous even in a same locality, a quite active market
approach, they focus on developments from can exist for certain types of property while
the perspective of planning practices and being fragile for others. In addition, while
policies. Some authors also explicitly bring real estate development appears to be orga-
politics back into the analysis and focus nized by market forces, it is in fact also
on power relations in policies but also on shaped by public policies at different levels
the electoral logics that underpin certain of government. These rules that regulate
projects. As these works recast real estate actors’ behaviors are highly differentiated
development within the broader local politi-
from one place to another. They are rooted
cal context, they are also more interested in
in the place-specific historical developments
social and political conflict. They study how
property development often goes with the of both the real estate industry and planning
dispossession of land and resources of exist- policies. The effectiveness of these rules also
ing localized groups, they question how it varies, as noncompliance can be high from
transforms the social composition of a neigh- private actors but also from public actors.
borhood (gentrification), and they analyze In addition, beyond the intimacy of the
the dynamics and the effects of contentious relationship between urban development
politics around real estate projects. and market (formal and informal), the latter
However, as a final remark in this overview, is not the unique way through which real
it should also be noted that the literature is estate development takes place. In former
marked by a division between scholars of
communist states, for instance, there was no
“formal” real estate development and schol-
market for land, which had officially no other
ars of “informal” land and real estate markets.
This goes with a geographical division of value than of use.
the area of interests (roughly speaking, the In a nutshell, there are “varieties of real
Global South and the Global North), and a estate development” – intended as the varie-
relative isolation of the theoretical references. gated configurations of state–market relations
in real estate development. That is why a sig-
VARIETIES OF REAL ESTATE nificant share of the literature is concerned
DEVELOPMENT with shedding light on the arrangement
of supply and demand (and of actors and
Property development relies on the specific institutions) that explains both the process
quality of a site, which is used to create devel- and its outcome in a given place and time.
opment opportunities, to create, then extract, To give a glimpse of this huge literature, two
value, and to respond to specific uses and
complementary strategies can be followed.
needs. It is hence, by definition, a localized
The features and the mutual roles of public reduction of inequalities or the mitigation
interventions and market actors of spatial segregation. This variety of public
The first strategy consists of the study of the intervention in property development can
also be found in the direct provision of pub-
main features and roles of both the public
lic goods – with, for instance, tremendous
sector and the property industry. Let’s con-
differences across countries in the public
sider public interventions. As they attempt
provision of housing – or in the extent to
to organize the spatial development patterns
which the state and other public bodies own
of a given place, land-use regulations and
and control land property in order to regu-
planning shape property development activi-
late market values and/or to provide public
ties and real estate markets. Planning policies
services.
and planners are actively involved in the pro-
Given the fact that real estate development
duction of property markets. They influence
lies at the intersection of public intervention
what gets built where, how, and by whom.
and market, the study of the property devel-
Building limits prevent individual owners
opment industry is the necessary counterpart
from realizing maximum returns on their
of the analysis of planning policies. It is worth
property. At the same time, however, they
mentioning that this industry has been more
contribute to create the value of the property
studied by economists and property experts,
that exists. Hence these policies, affecting while geographers, sociologists, and histo-
the amount of property in a region and its rians have more rarely scrutinized its actors
spatial distribution, in turn affect patterns of and functioning. The property development
property value across local land and property industry is not homogeneous. It is com-
markets (Healey 1994). In her work about posed of landowners, investors, developers,
London and New York, for instance, Susan designers, architects, builders, mediators, and
Fainstein has shown that “pro-growth” gov- consultants. It is a collection of actors, with
ernments that loosened planning restrictions different interests, that collectively supply
in the 1980s contributed to overbuilding dwellings, commercial, and industrial prop-
and hence to the succeeding slump in the erties, and hence shape the built environment
property sector (Fainstein 1994). and the urban landscape. They vary from
Planning policies, that contribute to shape place to place, but also accordingly with the
real estate markets and property develop- different segments of the market (commer-
ment, also vary from place to place. Some cial and residential, different property types).
authors identify as different “planning cul- Beyond developers and construction firms,
tures” the different “ways, both formal, who constitute the most intuitive actors to
and informal, that spatial planning. … is think about, financial institutions also play
conceived, institutionalized, and enacted” a crucial role in the development process.
(Friedmann 2005, 366n20). Indeed, concep- Indeed, banks, life insurance, and pension
tions of the role of planning vis-à-vis the real funds hold property in their portfolios, and
estate market range from the provision of their investment strategies can affect both the
basic regulatory frameworks though which pace and patterns of real estate development.
market actors can operate, to balancing Some features of this industry can be
the contrasting interests of different social pointed out. It is interesting to underline
and economic groups, to a more extensive that it is historically a local industry (Char-
view of public intervention that seeks to ney 2012). It was often constituted as a
achieve broader societal goals such as the moderate-sized industry with widespread
small-scale subcontracting. Indeed, in order both value and rent. They entail winners
to identify development opportunities and to and losers. Hence, they do not necessary
realize them, there is need of a quite precise proceed smoothly; relations can be harsh
knowledge of the locality. Such knowledge is and characterized by significant struggles.
usually held by those firms that are the most Second, relations that organize real estate
embedded in the local social and economic development can be relatively stable in time,
networks, and it is constructed over time. This with a specific set of actors being involved
local character of the industry also comes in local property development in the long
from its dependence on the public sector, run. Third, the study of a place-specific set of
for regulation, provision of infrastructure, or relations raises the issue of the understanding
procurement, and which advantaged those of its linkages to the wider political economy.
firms with long-standing relations with the These linkages function in both directions.
public sector. However, neither demand for The economic, social, and political relations
nor supply of property is necessarily only in localized property development are struc-
driven by local factors. Recently, research has tured by wider dynamics. At the same time,
pointed out that property development has a specific real estate development can alter
turned into a less local business, in which broader institutional configurations by being
both the demand and the supply come from the place where new political and economic
outside the local area (see below). Finally, the arrangements between the actors involved
activities of the real estate industry are char- are tried out, and then diffused.
acterized by cyclical behavior, that is, roughly To address these puzzles, research has
speaking, due to the time lapse between proposed a number of middle-range theo-
the detection of a demand and the deliv- ries about the relations between public and
ery of built products (Barras 2009). During private, the stability of these relations over
booms, property actors are less risk-averse time, and their links to the broader polit-
and stretch their activities toward new places ical economy. In property studies, one of
and assets, while their behavior is more con- the most widespread theory studies is the
servative during a recession. As a result, the “structure of building provision” theory (Ball
transformation of the built environment does 1986). Following Michael Ball, the creation
not follow a regular trajectory, but proceeds and use of built structures involve a par-
through leaps in both its temporality and ticular set of social agents that are defined
spatial scope. by their economic relations to the physical
process of provision. Each historical set of
Middle-range theories for place-specific social agents can be defined as a structure
property relations
of building provision. For instance, both the
The second and complementary way of deal- yields and the cycles of office development
ing with property development consists of are shaped by the substantial involvement
analyzing the various modes of relations of specific actors such as pension funds and
between public and private actors – intended insurance companies, who are investors and
as the processes whereby parties exchange owners in this market. The analytical focus
resources, reach agreements, and solve is hence put on the economic interrelations
conflicts. First, as they require knowledge, between the actors involved in the produc-
skills, and significant resources, relations tion, exchange, distribution, and use of the
in property development are structured by built environment. Despite its main focus on
power balances. They unevenly distribute economic relations, the structure of building
provision identifies many different linkages marginal in Marxist-inspired “growth coali-

with the wider social environment: (a) functions” theory. Tenants of “urban regimes”
tional, such as for instance the usefulness of take into account a wider range of actors than
a specific kind of real estate investment for the economic interests, and they consider
a given financial institution; (b) historical,
issues related to political competition. They
which refers to the inertia created by the
focus on the relations between governmental
fixity of real estate investment; (c) political,
as economic relations between actors are also and nongovernmental actors in cities, in
shaped by political struggles. For instance, order to identify stable ruling coalitions.
research using this theoretical framework The relations between private and public
has explained the commercial real estate actors in real estate development are there-
boom in the 1980s in Auckland by consid- fore to be understood in relation to the
ering the existing structures of commercial ruling regime – intended as an informal yet
property provision and their transformation relatively stable group with access to insti-
due to the political re-regulation of the New tutional resources that enable it to have a
Zealand economy. The latter has led to the
sustained role in making governing decisions
emergence of a new sociofinancial milieu
in the city. Because these theories origi-
dominated by a small number of companies
seeking short-term returns, and who have nated in the USA, their applicability outside
replaced the previously incumbent institu- this country has been strongly questioned.
tional investors that had more long-term Indeed, city development in several other
expectations. countries (first the European ones from
While the theory of the structure of build- where the critique originated) is structured
ing provisions is rooted in institutional by both a greater role of the public sector
economics, other middle-range theories and a greater influence from upper levels of
come from urban political economy and government than in the USA. More generally,
political science. These theories directly
these theories overlook the linkages between
embed real estate development into the local-
local coalitions/regimes and the broader
ized relations between the economic actors
and the local political elites. The first, the political economy. In reaction to these points,
“urban growth coalition” theory (Logan and a third theoretical proposal is the “bargaining
Molotch 1987), has been elaborated in the contexts” theory, whose aim is to explain
analysis of US cities, whose development changes in cities not only as a consequence of
was explained by private–public coalitions change in regime, but also as a consequence of
formed by property owners and developers, changes in the wider political and economic
local government officials, and benefiting structures (Kantor, Savitch, and Haddock
from the support of the local media. In this 1997). Hence, the bargaining between the
theory, at the basis of the explanation of the
private and public actors is structurally influ-
transformation of the built environment lies
enced by democratic conditions and popular
the political action from the private sector
and the stabilized relations the latter has pressures and market conditions in terms of
with local public officials. The second, the the city’s attractiveness for investments and
“urban regime” theory (Stone 1989) assigns intergovernmental systems of relations (fiscal
a greater role to politics, which is rather policies, planning policies).
WHEN THE GLOBAL MEETS public officials’ attitudes toward increased

THE LOCAL: WHAT CHANGES urban entrepreneurialism – where urban
IN POLITICS, CAPITAL, AND URBAN policy goals mainly revolve around the issue
FORM of anchoring mobile capital and enhancing
the capacity to extract value from urban
Both the above-mentioned studies of prop- sites. Even assuming more diverse rationales
erty industry and planning policies, on the of urban political action, these projects are
one hand, and of place-specific public–private a key arena of negotiation between capital
arrangements, on the other hand, raise ques- and cities, and more precisely between local
tions about change. Indeed, local and global socioeconomic demands and politics and
conditions evolve, and this affects real estate increasingly financialized investment capitals.
development processes. Therefore, this last Second, scholarly production has shown
section briefly points out some dimensions of the increasing diffusion of public–private
change that have been tackled by research and development partnership since the late
which remain open objects of inquiry. They 1980s. The trend was observed in the UK,
can be thought to affect the global political where it took place in the broader context of
economy as much as the localized patterns of the liberalization reforms promoted by the
negotiations in real estate development. Such Thatcher government. Partnership with the
works also shed light on the relation between private sector has come to be seen not only
capital restructuring and the production of as vital to ensure urban regeneration, but
the built environment, on the shift from state also to provide classical public goods. Indeed,
to markets, and on international convergence public–private partnership increasingly
as the result of globalization of culture and delivers several kinds of public structures and
the economy. spaces whose provision used to be based on
First, observers have pointed out the public commission and financing. More gen-
diffusion of large-scale urban develop- erally, new public–private arrangements in
ment projects, which have proliferated in property development have become a promi-
metropolises and, in a few decades, have nent component of urban policy. According
become almost taken for granted. Large to this policy rationale, the local public sector
property-led regeneration schemes have should attract the private investment neces-
invested in downtown vacant areas produced sary for the provision of new property, which
by the transformation of urban economies, will in turn support economic development.
and then outer areas targeted as hotspots for This has translated into a variety of new pol-
the development of the city. These property icy practices, ranging from the reduction of
developments rely on the clustering of both planning regulations and restrictions, to the
capital investment and political action in lim- creation of semi-autonomous governmen-
ited and specific urban areas, around which tal bodies (such as the urban development
new forms of public–private partnership have corporations in the UK) that take responsi-
been devised. Both their design and the defi- bility for the redevelopment of specific urban
nition of the mix of activities to be developed areas beyond “normal” planning, and that
often displays standardized features across are meant to attract private investments to
countries. Large-scale developments have these areas. Hence, planning legitimacy and
been interpreted as one of the major manifes- practice have evolved. In particular, in West-
tations of neoliberalization of urban policies. ern countries, planning has been the object
Critical studies have seen a shift in local of criticism against its bureaucratic features
and its limitation to property development. the provision of the built environment. Here,
In this context, land-use planning methods some authors have illustrated the proactive
have been sidelined by new spatial planning role of local authorities in attracting financial
approaches, whose distinctive features are a capital through the construction of invest-
focus on long-term strategic visions rather ment instruments that make the assets legible
than on regulatory structures, the integra- for investors. Others have shown that the
tion into the plan across a range of sectoral transformation of investment capital in the
activity, and a more direct engagement with real estate sector has reduced the ability of
private stakeholders. local authorities to implement agendas that
Third, urban and property scholars have diverge from the expectations of financial
demonstrated a double process of both glob- investors. Conversely, others have pointed
alization and financialization of capital in out that when the global capital has encoun-
real estate development. The globalizing tered local politics and local lands – on
dimension of real estate capital was empha- which it had limited control – its strategies
sized after the property development cycle have also been shaped by local institutional
of the 1980s, when it was shown that major configurations.
world cities experienced the cycle in similar To conclude, real estate development is a
ways. Indeed, both values and temporali- multifaceted process that structures urban-
ties of development of some areas of these ization and whose provision operates through
cities appeared to be increasingly discon- complex state–market relations. Literature
nected from the situations of their national on real estate development is rich, though
economies and to be part of an international without being a unique and cohesive field.
property market which has contributed to Current dynamics – the ongoing shift from
inflate office provision. Since these early public to market regulation, the upscaling of
studies, and nourished by the 2008 crises, real estate actors and capital, the tremendous
researchers have pointed out several dimen- path of global urbanization – call for further
sions of the globalization of real estate research. There is room and need for compar-
development: (a) the internationalization of ative research that keeps on challenging the
the real estate industry, where firms operat- varieties of local configuration, their linkages
ing in both services (consultancy, brokerage, to global processes, and the interplay between
management, leasing) and core develop- formal and informal relations in real estate
ment and construction have expanded their development.
activities across countries; (b) the growing
integration of financial and real estate mar- SEE ALSO: City Builders; Glurbanization;
kets, which is the process through which Growth Machine Politics; Housing; Informal
assets are converted into new investment Land Markets; Land Markets; Postindustrial
products for dispersed financial investors. Economy; Property Rights; Public–Private
Indeed, the expansion and re-regulation of Partnership; Spatial Planning Systems; Urban
financial markets have entailed the conver- Landscape/Urban Form; Urban Megaprojects;
Urban Regime Theory; Urban Renewal
sion of fixed, localized, and idiosyncratic
assets (the built environment) into fluid
commodities that can be exchanged on the REFERENCES
financial markets; (c) the new multifaceted Ball, M. 1986. “The Built Environment and the
processes through which financialized and Urban Question.” Environment and Planning D:
global capital interplay with local politics in Society and Space, 4(4): 447–464.
Barras, R. 2009. Building Cycles: Growth and Insta- Stone, C. N. 1989. Regime Politics: Governing
bility. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell. Atlanta, 1946–1988. Lawrence: University Press
Charney, I. 2012. “The Real Estate Develop- of Kansas.
ment Industry.” In The Oxford Handbook of
Urban Planning, edited by R. Crane and R. FURTHER READING
Weber, 722–738. Oxford: Oxford University
Press. Aalbers, M. B. 2012. Subprime Cities: The Politi-
Fainstein, S. S. 1994. The City Builders: Prop- cal Economy of Mortgage Markets. Oxford: Wiley
erty Development in New York and London, Blackwell.
1980–2000. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Allmendinger, P., and G. Haughton. 2010. “Spa-
Friedmann, J. 2005. “Planning Cultures in Transi- tial Planning, Devolution, and New Planning
tion.” In Comparative Planning Cultures, edited Spaces.” Environment and Planning C: Govern-
by B. Sanyal, 29–44. London: Routledge. ment and Policy, 28(5): 803–818.
Guy, S., and J. Henneberry. 2000. “Under- Birch, E. L., S. M. Wachter, and S. Chattaraj. 2016.
standing Urban Development Processes: Slums: How Informal Real Estate Markets Work.
Integrating the Economic and the Social in Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Property Research.” Urban Studies, 37(13): Guy, S., and J. Henneberry. 2008. Development and
2399–2416. Developers: Perspectives on Property. Oxford:
Harvey, D. 1985. The Urbanization of Capital: Stud- Blackwell.
ies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urban- Sanyal, B. 2005. Comparative Planning Cultures.
ization. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univer- London: Routledge.
sity Press. Swyngedouw, E., F. Moulaert, and A. Rodriguez.
Healey, P. 1991. “Models of the Development Pro- 2002. “Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe:
cess: A Review.” Journal of Property Research, Large-Scale Urban Development Projects
8(3): 219–238. and the New Urban Policy.” Antipode, 34(3):
Healey, P. 1994. “Urban Policy and Property 542–577.
Development: The Institutional Relations of Weber, R. 2002. “Extracting Value from the
Real-Estate Development in an Old Industrial City: Neoliberalism and Urban Redevelop-
Region.” Environment and Planning A, 26(2): ment.” Antipode, 34(3), 519–540.
177–198. Wood, A. 2004. “The Scalar Transformation of the
Kantor, P., H. V. Savitch, and S. V. Haddock. US Commercial Property-Development Indus-
1997. “The Political Economy of Urban Regimes try: A Cautionary Note on the Limits of Global-
A Comparative Perspective.” Urban Affairs ization.” Economic Geography, 80(2), 119–140.
Review, 32(3): 348–377. Wu, F. 2001. “Real Estate Development and the
Logan, J. R., and H. L. Molotch. 1987. Urban For- Transformation of Urban Space in China’s Tran-
tunes: The Political Economy of Place. Berkeley: sitional Economy, with Special Reference to
University of California Press. Shanghai.” In The New Chinese City, edited by
J. R. Logan, 153–166. Oxford: Blackwell.

Orum, A.M. and Artioli, F. (2022) - Real Estate Development.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Orum, A.M. and Artioli, F. (2022) - Real Estate Development.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0258, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/9781118568446.eurs0258 by Consorci De Serveis Universitaris De Catalunya, Wiley Online Library on [23/12/2022].

provision identifies many different linkages marginal in Marxist-inspired “growth coali-

WHEN THE GLOBAL MEETS public officials’ attitudes toward increased

You might also like