Comparing the relational work of developers

Abstract

In downtown Johannesburg, daring entrepreneurs have found that they can profitably reintroduce previously abandoned high-rise buildings back into the market by converting them into working-class rental accommodation (Mosselson, 2019). New markets have also been 'discovered' on the city's periphery where owners of historically agricultural land supply entry-level detached housing to first-time black homeowners (Butcher, 2019). In the north east of the city, a Shanghai-based firm-attempting to diversify away from the flagging Chinese property market-bought an undeveloped site and planned to build a 'new city' for middle-class residents and commerce (Ballard and Harrison, 2019). Meanwhile, city authorities have worked to attract affordable housing developers into transit-oriented corridors in central parts of the city (Todes and Robinson, 2019). A core commitment of the post-apartheid state has been the transformation of South African cities away from their segregated histories (e.g. RSA, 2012, 2016). Yet after a quarter of a century of democracy, many officials are exasperated over the persistence of segregated urban forms. As Harrison and Todes (2015) note, spatial transformation cannot be decreed through policy but must rather reckon with the ongoing production of postapartheid urban space, not least by individual residents and the private sector. In South Africa's largest conurbation, in which Johannesburg is embedded, the number of residential buildings of all sizes and types has increased by 60 per cent, from 2.1m in 2001 to 3.4m in 2016 (Hamann, 2018), and commercial buildings have increased by 30 per cent over the

Governing investors and developers: Analysing the role of risk allocation in urban development

“…This article offers three main conclusions. Firstly, it demonstrates the importance of opening the black box of the private sector (see Campbell et al, 2014) to reveal not just the multiplicity of developers captured within narratives of 'the private sector' (see Ballard and Butcher, 2020), but how these categories of developer relate to other types of professionals in the built environment. In this regard, it adds to existing understandings of the project ecology approach (see Henneberry and Parris, 2013) employed by researchers to show the wide range of expertise required to bring forward a site (Robin, 2018).…”

“…This power imbalance is further exacerbated by the revolving door of governance, where actors involved in regulation later move to private companies (Robin, 2018). Moreover, these interactions are often very local (Robinson and Attuyer, 2021), with distinct geographies that emerge during negotiations (Ferm and Raco, 2020) (Ballard and Butcher, 2020;Charney, 2007) as well as broader types of professionals that surround them and aid in the development process. This work has highlighted what Henneberry and Parris (2013) term the 'ecology' that develops during a project, where developers work (to varying degrees of closeness) with different forms of consultants.…”

21st‐century transnational real estate development: What, where, who, how and why?

“…While evidence from a range of geographic contexts suggests the ongoing privatization of urban planning and development practices2 (e.g., Kipfer & Keil, 2002; Mouton & Shatkin, 2020; Murray, 2015), myriad studies also assert the proactive role of state actors in either proposing or jointly instigating real estate development projects (Aalbers, 2020; Ballard & Butcher, 2020; Gillespie, 2020; Kennedy & Sood, 2016; Raco, 2013). Debates on the exact scalar roles, responsibilities and hierarchies behind urban entrepreneurial practices are still ongoing (Oosterlynck et al., 2019).…”

“…Although the developer's exact role differs from project to project, they are usually responsible for overseeing the project and allocating tasks to third‐party actors, such as the GIC, as well as local contractors (Ballard & Butcher, 2020; Percival & Waley, 2012). In addition, they sometimes actively help in arranging additional foreign investment (e.g., Moser et al., 2015).…”

“…Van Leynseele and Bontje (2019) also argue that such theories do not fully apply since transnational developers are always confronted with unruly contextual realities in the places in which they decide to invest. It thus seems likely that there are frequently ‘more‐than‐accumulation imperatives' on behalf of them, similar to developers operating in a domestic context (see Ballard & Butcher, 2020). Therefore, it is important to note that the geographies behind GREFDI can and should intellectually be separated from FDI in an existing property, which often takes place on behalf of HNWIs or institutional investors such as pension funds (e.g., Fernandez et al., 2016).…”