Planning Theory special issue: values in property development

UGoveRN is organising a special issue in the journal Planning Theory with the title “Tomorrow’s planning: Harnessing value from today’s property investment and development”. The special issue editors are Tuna Tasan-Kok, Sara Özogul and Martijn Dröes.

Different conceptualizations, measures, and approaches to value are present across a wide range of planning literature. Some focus on developing approaches to social values (Berke 2002; Reiner 2016; Rutten & Gelissen, 2010), while others focus on economic (Quigley & Raphael, 2005; Sohn et al., 2012), transformative (Song, 2015; Othengrafen & Levin-Keitel 2019), spatial values (Ives et al., 2018.), etc. of urban planning principles, norms, or regulations (Smolka & Amborski 2000; Savini, 2019). Elsewhere, real estate scholars, traditionally rooted in economic traditions and theory, generally work to formalize and employ financial measures of value (Koster & Van Ommeren, 2019; Watson et al. 2016; de Vries & Voß 2018) or focus on expanding traditional valuation assumptions (Eppli, 1993; Michl et al., 2016) or appraisal methods (Geltner et al., 2020; Giudice & Paola, 2018).

In order to bridge these fields, this special issue aims to bridge and critically interrogate different conceptualizations of, approaches to, and measures of value within real estate and planning literature. We aim to solicit theoretically-motivated interdisciplinary submissions that advance understandings of value within the fields of planning, real estate, economics, geography, or urban scholarship. A multifaceted approach to analyzing value is pivotal as cities currently face environmental, social, and economic difficulties. More traditional interpretations of values in urban development are economic.

However, planning literature has shown that values created by urban development projects are also spatial, symbolic, and change over time. Values play a pivotal role in steering planning and urban development processes as they are embedded in institutions that shape planning norms and actions (Savini, 2018; Healey & Barrett, 1999). The symbolic connectivity (Madanipour, 2010) between the complex network of actors involved in urban development influences the value-creation process. Furthermore, as interpretations of value over time have altered, the value of real estate has altered both socially and economically (Adams & Tiesdell, 2012).

In urban development, public and private market actors realize the importance of assessing the environmental, social, and governance factors in urban developments, thus weighing their impacts. For instance, the increasing importance of sustainability standards and value-creation mechanisms within the real estate industry often goes unrealized by public institutions. Not all spatial and social values created by urban developments are captured. Such values are usually project-specific and difficult to capture and measure as it remains locked within project boundaries and exclusively benefits direct users, tenants and owners. Furthermore, existing tools that extract value from urban developments and transform them for the benefit
of the urban society are primarily through public (e.g., land value capture mechanisms) and private (e.g., ESG) instruments, which have their limitations and inconsistencies. Therefore, alternative approaches to conceptualize and measure value are needed.

In the past decades planning scholarship continues to challenge the norms of planning practice. Planners are faced with the paradox of economic growth and their social responsibility (Winkler, 2012), and the fundamental value of planning and the role of planners is questioned (Campbell & Marshall, 2000). Furthermore, planning has transformed into a practice that can easily accommodate private sector-led urban development. This in turn has led to fragmented urban development processes and outcomes, and a shift in accountability between public and private actors (Tasan-Kok et al., 2019). Much of the existing planning scholarship has focused on the negative impact of changing planning processes, missing the opportunity in leveraging new, innovative mechanisms with the capacity to contribute to more sustainable urban development. More importantly, identifying alternative conceptual and practical avenues for planners and planning (Campbell, Tait, & Watkins, 2014) have also been missed.