Speakers
Description
Suburban densification represents a particular type of densification for transforming areas between the inner-core and rural periphery. It consists of many different types of small-scale development activity, including infill construction on empty/redundant/repurposed plots, conversion of former commercial premises and subdivision of dwellings. While densification efforts in general have increased as a response to severe housing shortages and urban growth strategies that prevent urban sprawl. Suburban areas with low residential densities can offer considerable development opportunities due to the large number of undeveloped and underdeveloped sites whilst being readily accessible and already provided with services, thus facilitating integrated, sustainable urban living.
In both England and Germany, suburban densification has been mostly driven by smaller, regionals developers and investors, so called SME (small to medium sized enterprise) developers, due to the usually smaller size of developments. SME developers face multiple inter-related challenges in suburban densification efforts, from navigating complex property markets to managing regulatory frameworks/ procedures and contending with local constraints to ultimately achieve a financial return. Despite their importance to urban development, little is known about strategies SME developers deploy in navigating this complex web.
Our paper illuminates the strategies SME developers are using to pursue suburban densification in Liverpool and Dortmund by identifying how developer actors shape and are shaped by institutionalised development processes. We do this by examining how multiple underlying contextual structures and the individual agency of the SME developer result in outcomes in both our case studies. Using an analytical framework which identifies patterns between (1) context, (2) mechanism and (3) outcome, we recount how SME developers advance their strategies within an institutional context and why this leads to different outcomes in the built environment of suburban areas in each city. This study draws on the testimony of 12 SME developers who are practicing in Liverpool and Dortmund. The case-study comparison finds that (1) SME developers in both countries face substantial barriers to suburban densification, shaped by regulatory frameworks, economic conditions and site limitations. While (2) the mechanisms they employ to navigate the contexts demonstrate adaptability, innovation and networking, these strategies often (3) result in fragmented, low-risk development rather than transformative suburban densification efforts. So, when it comes to suburban densification, SME developers in both England and Germany choose the path of least resistance. Despite the shared similarities in the challenges they face, mechanisms they employ and outcomes they achieve, the differences in planning systems, economic contexts and developer strategies reveal distinctive behaviours. Our insights on SME developers' behaviour will help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of future effort in suburban densification.
References
Dembski, S., Hartmann, T., Hengstermann, A. & Dunning, R. (2020) Enhancing understanding of strategies of land policy for urban densification, Town Planning Review, 91(3): pp.209-216.
Smith M. (2018) Revisiting implementation theory; an interdisciplinary comparison between urban planning and healthcare implementation research, Environment & Planning C: Politics and Space, 36(5), pp.877–896.
Dunning, R., Hickman, H. and While, A., 2020. Planning control and the politics of soft densification. Town Planning Review, 91(3), pp.305-324.
| Keywords | Suburban densification; developers; housing development; |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | No |
