This paper contributes to existing research on the relational work of real estate developers to demonstrate how internal corporate complexities create opaqueness in governance settings and limit potential community engagement. This work is particularly pertinent at a time when there is renewed interest in the private sector, yet very little analysis that begins from the perspective of the developer. Drawing on the example of London’s Silvertown, this paper shows how the strategies of development organizations evident in existing research, including their work with the public sector, communities and experts, require multiple levels of internal coordination. I argue that because of these sub-centres of power, developers are able to maintain a more deeply entrenched centrality in urban governance.
AalbersM (2015)
The Great Moderation, the Great Excess and the global housing crisis.International Journal of Housing Policy15(1): 43–60.
2.
AalbersM (2017)
The variegated financialization of housing. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research41(4): 542–554.
3.
AdamsDCroudaceRTiesdellS (2012)
Exploring the ‘notional property developer’ as a policy construct.Urban Studies49(12): 2577–2596.
4.
Adams D and Tiesdell S (2013) Shaping Places: Urban Planning, Design and Development. London: Routledge.
5.
AkersJ (2015)
Emerging market city.Environment and Planning A47(9): 1842–1858.
6.
AllmendingerPHaughtonG (2012)
Post-political spatial planning in England: A crisis of consensus?Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers37(1): 89–103.
7.
ArnsteinS (1969)
A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Planning Association35(4): 216–224.
8.
AttuyerKLudovicHAntoineG (2012) ‘Turning pumpkins into carriages’: Sustainable urban development and the financialization of ‘green’ commercial real estate in France. Articulo -- Journal of Urban Research (9). Available at: http://journals.openedition.org/articulo/2155 (accessed 27 June 2019).
Bitterer N and Heeg S (2012) Implementing transparency in an Eastern European office market: Preparing Warsaw for global investments. Articulo -- Journal of Urban Research (9). Available at: http://journals.openedition.org/articulo/2139 (accessed 24 June 2019).
11.
BrillF (2018) Playing the game: An international comparison of real estate developers in Modderfontein Johannesburg and London’s Royal Docks. Geoforum. Epub ahead of print 5 June 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.05.015.
12.
BrillFRobinE (2019) The risky business of real estate. Urban Geography. DOI: 10.1080/02723638.2019.1637211
13.
Brownill S and Carpenter J (2007) Participation and Planning: Dichotomies, Rationalities and Strategies for Power. The Town Planning Review 78(4): 401--428.
14.
BrownillSCarpenterJ (2009)
Governance and ‘integrated’ planning: The case of sustainable communities in the Thames Gateway, England.Urban Studies46(2): 251–274.
15.
CahillH (2016) Silvertown development in London’s Royal Docks gets planning permission. CityAM, 24 October.
16.
CampbellHTaitMWatkinsC (2013)
Is there space for better planning in a neoliberal world? Implications for planning practice and theory.Journal of Planning Education and Research34(1): 45–59.
17.
CharneyI (2007)
The politics of design: Architecture, tall buildings and the skyline of central London.Area39(2): 195–205.
18.
ChristophersB (2014)
Performative world‐making of economic models, UK case.International Journal of Urban Regional Research38: 79–97.
19.
CliffordB (2016)
‘Clock-watching and box-ticking’: British local authority planners, professionalism and performance targets.Planning Practice & Research31(4): 383–401.
20.
CoaffeeJHealeyP (2003)
‘My Voice: My Place’: Tracking transformations in urban governance.Urban Studies40(10): 1979–1999.
21.
CoiacettoE (2001)
Diversity in real estate developer behaviour: A case for research.Urban Policy and Research19(1): 43–59.
22.
CoiacettoE (2007)
The role of the development industry in shaping urban social space: A conceptual model.Geographical Research,
45: 340–347.
23.
CorpatauxJCrevoisierOTheurillatT (2009)
The expansion of the finance industry and its impact on the economy: A territorial approach based on Swiss pension funds.Economic Geography85(3): 313–334.
24.
CoxK (2017)
Revisiting the ‘city as growth machine’.Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society10(3): 391–405.
25.
CrosbyNHenneberryJ (2016)
Financialisation, the valuation of investment property and the urban built environment in the UK.Urban Studies53(7): 1424–1441.
26.
DavidL (2012) The social construction of real estate market risk. The case of a financial investments cluster in Mexico City. Articulo: Journal of Urban Research 9. DOI: 10.4000/articulo.2163.
27.
DavidLHalbertL (2014)
Finance capital, actor–network theory and the struggle over calculative agencies in the business property markets of Mexico City Metropolitan Region.Regional Studies48(3): 516–529.
28.
De MagalhãesCS (2001)
International property consultants and the transformation of local markets.Journal of Property Research18(2): 99–121.
29.
DomaradzkaA (2019) The un-equal playground: Developers and urban activists struggling for the right to the city. Geoforum. Epub ahead of print 16 February 2019. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.01.013.
30.
DowdingKDunleaveyPKingD, et al. (1999)
Regime politics in London local government.Urban Affairs Review34(4): 515–545.
31.
DumanAHancoxDJamesM, et al. (2018) Songs of Regeneration: Sound of Investment and Loss from East London.
London:
Penguin Books.
32.
ElkinS (1987) City and Regime in the American Republic.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
33.
FainsteinS (2001) The City Builders: Property Development in New York and London, 1980–2000, 2nd edn.
Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas.
34.
FernandezRHofmanAAalbersM (2016)
London and New York as a safe deposit box for the transnational wealth elite.Environment and Planning A48(12): 2443–2461.
35.
FieldsD (2017)
Unwilling subjects of financialization.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research41(4): 588–603.
GevaYRosenG (2018)
The regeneration deal: Developers, homeowners and new competencies in the development process.Geoforum96: 10–20.
38.
GothamK (2009)
Creating liquidity out of spatial fixity: The secondary circuit of capital and the subprime mortgage crisis.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research33(2): 355–371.
39.
GuironnetAAttuyerK, andHalbertL (2016)
Building cities on financial assets: The financialisation of property markets and its implications for city governments in the Paris city-region.Urban Studies53(7): 1442–1464.
40.
HalbertLAttuyerK (2016)
Introduction: The financialisation of urban production. Conditions, mediations and transformations.Urban Studies53(7): 1347–1361.
41.
HalbertLRouanetH (2014)
Filtering risk away: Global finance capital, transcalar territorial networks and the (un)making of city-regions: An analysis of business property development in Bangalore, India.Regional Studies48(3): 471–484.
42.
HalbertLSanfeliciD (2016)
Financial markets, developers and the geographies of housing in Brazil: A supply-side account.Urban Studies53(7): 1465–1485.
43.
HarveyD (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change.
Oxford:
Blackwell.
44.
HealeyP (1998)
Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society.The Town Planning Review69(1): 1–21.
45.
HenneberryJParrisS (2013)
The embedded developer: Using project ecologies to analyse local property development networks.Town Planning Review84(2): 227–249.
46.
HM Treasury (2015) Fixing the Foundations: Creating a More Prosperous Nation.
London:
HM Treasury.
47.
HofmanAAalbersM (2019)
A finance- and real estate-driven regime in the United Kingdom.Geoforum100: 89–100.
48.
HolmanN (2007)
Following the signs: Applying urban regime analysis to a UK case study.Journal of Urban Affairs29(5): 435–453.
49.
HydeZ (2018) Giving back to get ahead: Philanthropy as a developer strategy of accumulation in public–private social housing. Geoforum, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.07.005
50.
ImrieR (2009) ʻAn exemplar for a sustainable world city’: progressive urban change and the redevelopment of King’s Cross. In: ImrieRLeesLRacoM (eds) Regenerating London: Governance, Sustainability and Community in a Global City.
Abingdon:
Routledge, pp.93–111.
51.
James M (2018) Authoritarian populism | Populist authoritarianism. In: Regeneration Songs: Sounds of Investment and Loss in East London. London: Repeater Books, pp. 291--306.
52.
LeffersD (2017) Real estate developers’ influence of land use legislation in the Toronto region: An institutionalist investigation of developers, land conflict and property law. Urban Studies. Epub ahead of print 9 November 2017. DOI: 10.1177/0042098017736426.
53.
LoganJRMolotchHL (1987) Urban Fortunes.
Berkeley:
University of California Press.
54.
MooreSRacoMCliffordB (2018)
The 2012 Olympic Learning Legacy Agenda: The intentionalities of mobility for a new London model.Urban Geography39(2): 214–235.
55.
MossbergerKStokerG (2001)
The evolution of urban regime theory: The challenge of conceptualization.Urban Affairs Review36(6): 810–835.
56.
NortheyJ (2015)
A very public (and private) affair. The Estates Gazette,
50.
57.
PetermanW (2000) Neighbourhood Planning and Community Based Development: Potentials and Limits of Grassroots Actions.
London:
SAGE.
58.
RacoM (2014)
Delivering flagship projects in an era of regulatory capitalism: State‐led privatization and the London Olympics 2012.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(1): 176–197.
59.
RacoMStreetEFreire-TrigoS (2016)
The new localism, anti-political development machines, and the role of planning consultants: Lessons from London’s South Bank.Territory, Politics, Governance4(2): 216–240.
60.
RobinE (2018) Performing real estate value(s): Real estate developers, systems of expertise and the production of space. Geoforum. Epub ahead of print 1 June 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.05.006.
61.
RolnikR (2013)
Debates and developments. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research37: 1058–1066.
62.
RosenG (2017)
Toronto’s condo-builders: Development approaches and spatial preferences.Urban Geography38(4): 606–625.
63.
RouanetHHalbertL (2016)
Leveraging finance capital: Urban change and self-empowerment of real estate developers in India.Urban Studies53(7): 1401–1423.
64.
RoyA (2009)
Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization.Planning Theory8(1): 76–87.
65.
SagoeC (2018)
Technologies of mobilising consensus: The politics of producing affordable housing plans for the London Legacy Development Corporation’s planning boundary.Planning Theory & Practice19(3): 327–344.
66.
SearleL (2014)
Conflict and commensuration: Contested market making in India’s private real estate development sector.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(1): 60–78.
67.
ShatkinG (2008)
The city and the bottom line: Urban megaprojects and the privatization of planning in Southeast Asia.Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space40(2): 383–401.
68.
ShatkinG (2011) Planning Privatopolis: Representation and contestation in the development of urban integrated mega‐projects. In: Roy A and Ong A (eds) Worlding Cities. New York: Wiley, doi:10.1002/9781444346800.ch3.
69.
ShatkinG (2014)
Contesting visions of the Indian city.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38: 1–13.
70.
StoneC (1989) Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, 1946–1988.
Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas.
71.
TheurillatTCrevoisierO (2013)
Sustainability and the anchoring of capital: Negotiations surrounding two major urban projects in Switzerland.Regional Studies48(3): 501–515.
72.
TiesdellSAllmendingerP (2005) Planning tools and markets: Towards an extended conceptualisation. In: AdamsDWatkinsCWhiteM (eds) Planning, Public Policy and Property Markets.
Oxford:
Blackwell, pp.56–76.
73.
van LoonJ (2016)
Patient versus impatient capital: The (non-)financialization of real estate developers in the Low Countries.Socio-Economic Review14(4): 709–728.
74.
WardCSwyngedouwE (2018)
Neoliberalisation from the ground up: Insurgent capital, regional struggle, and the assetisation of land.Antipode50: 1077–1097.
75.
WeberR (2010)
Selling city futures: The financialization of urban redevelopment policy.Economic Geography86(3): 251–274.
76.
WeberR (2015) From Boom to Bubble: How Finance Built the New Chicago.
Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
77.
WeinsteinL (2014) ‘
One‐man handled’: Fragmented power and political entrepreneurship in globalizing Mumbai.International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(1): 14–35.
78.
WijburgG (2019)
Reasserting state power by remaking markets? The introduction of real estate investment trusts in France and its implications for state–finance relations in the Greater Paris region. Geoforum100: 209–219.
79.
Wood A (2004) The Scalar Transformation of the U.S. Commercial Property-Development Industry: A Cautionary Note on the Limits of Globalization. Economic Geography 80(2): 119--140.
