3. Private Developers: The Wolf of our Streets

Welcome back, dear readers, to our ongoing exploration of gentrification and its many faces. In our previous posts, we delved into the emergence of gentrification from the marriage of rapid urbanization and the dominant neoliberal ideology. Today, we tread further down this contentious path by spotlighting the pivotal role of private developers and how they have convinced local governments into endorsing gentrification under the guise of affordable housing provision.

As we've meticulously uncovered in our previous discussions, the amalgamation of rapid urbanization and the ubiquitous presence of neoliberalism has set the stage for the global gentrification phenomenon (Hamnett, 2003). This conjunction has not merely been a coincidence but rather a potent catalyst for the transformation of our urban centers. in the book chapter "Tenurial Transformation and the Flat Break-up Market in London: The British Condo Experience" the authors, Hamnett and Randolph, shed light on the consequences of private landlordism and the role of mortgage finance in shaping the urban landscape. The influence of private developers in shaping housing markets aligns with our discussion on the sway these entities hold in the context of gentrification.

The precipitous global urbanization wave has ushered in a housing crisis of staggering proportions. Local governments worldwide are grappling with the herculean task of providing affordable housing for their ever-expanding urban populations. The relentless pace of urbanization has outpaced the ability to formulate economically viable solutions and secure the necessary funding for housing initiatives (Muller, 2004). Consequently, this has given rise to an insatiable demand for housing, one that frequently surpasses the available supply.

The book chapter, "Alternatives to Orthodoxy," serves as a foundation for our exploration of how governments grapple with the housing crisis. It invites readers to ponder alternative approaches to the prevailing neoliberal orthodoxy, prompting critical examination of the motives behind the collaborations between local governments and private developers.

Figure 1: Drawing of a harmless Sheep with the shadow of its own predator, a wolf. Used to enhance the analogy made in the title of this article regarding the intentions of Private Developers in public development projects.

(retrieved from: https://tinyurl.com/4283yjaa)

The influence of neoliberalism in this context is undeniable. This prevailing ideology has ushered in an era of fervent private development, where profit margins reign supreme (Carpenter & Lees, 1995). Property development companies, armed with substantial financial resources, continue to leverage their power to sway local government housing departments. In some instances, they have (for the lack of a better word) coerced them into permitting blatant cases of gentrification by pledging to include affordable housing units within their opulent projects (Nachmany & Hananel, 2022).

This brings us to the heart of the matter. Neoliberalism, in its pursuit of unbridled market forces, compels local governments to bend to the will of private developers eager to construct luxury housing for the highest bidder (Billand, 1993). Governments, faced with limited funding or a lack of alternative solutions, find themselves at a crossroads. They must choose between forging open collaborations with private developers in public-private partnerships or indirectly enacting policies that mandate the integration of affordable housing units within these upscale developments (Mukhija, 2004).

in the chapter "The Political and Social Construction of Revitalized Neighborhoods: Society Hill, Philadelphia, and False Creek, Vancouver", Cybriwsky, Ley, and Western explore the political and social construction of revitalized neighborhoods. Our discussion parallels their exploration of the political context and social planning involved in such transformations, raising questions about the authenticity of commitments to affordable housing within gentrified landscapes.

The repercussions of this dynamic are manifold. On the one hand, it appears as a pragmatic solution to address the housing crisis, while on the other, it raises questions about the sincerity of the commitment to affordable housing within these gentrified landscapes. Is the promise of affordable housing a genuine endeavor to mitigate the adverse effects of rapid urbanisation, or does it merely serve as a veneer to legitimize the profit-driven objectives of private developers?

To satisfy any curious readers looking to read more on this topic, here is the reference list:

Smith, N. and Williams, P. eds., 2013. Gentrification of the City. Routledge.

Ademiluyi, I.A. and Raji, B.A. (2008). Public and private developers as agents in urban housing delivery in Sub-Saharan Africa: The situation in Lagos State. Humanity & Social Sciences Journal, 3(2), 143-150.

Mukhija, V. (2004). The contradictions in enabling private developers of affordable housing: A cautionary case from Ahmedabad, India. Urban Studies, 41(11), 2231-2244.

Nachmany, H. and Hananel, R. (2022). The Fourth Generation: Urban renewal policies in the service of private developers. Habitat International, 125, p.102580.

Billand, C.J. (1993). Private sector participation in land development: Guidelines for increasing cooperation between local government and private developers. Habitat International, 17(2), 53-62.

Hamnett, C. (2003). Gentrification and the middle-class remaking of inner London, 1961-2001. Urban studies, 40(12), 2401-2426.

Atkinson, R. (2000). The hidden costs of gentrification: Displacement in central London. Journal of housing and the built environment, 15, 307-326.

Butler, T. (2003). Living in the bubble: gentrification and its 'others' in North London. Urban studies, 40(12), 2469-2486.

Carpenter, J. and Lees, L. (1995). Gentrification in New York, London and Paris: an international comparison. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 19, 286-286.