Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Real estate market dynamics are increasingly taking the center stage of planning scholarship.This shift is driven, among other factors, by unprecedented and global-scale investments in built environments (Robinson et al., 2020), the influence of financial means and actors on urban governance (Aalbers, 2020), and a strong focus on housing crises in academic and policy imaginations (Brill & Raco, 2021).Despite this newfound attention, planning scholarship often does not fully integrate insights from disciplines like real estate studies and as such has faced criticism, such as a limited empirical foundation in understanding real estate processes (Crosby & Henneberry, 2016), a lack of differentiation between various types of developers (Ballard & Butcher, 2019) and investors ( € Ozo gul & Tas ¸an-Kok, 2020), and an oversimplified perspective on investment decisions made by private sector actors (Raco et al., 2019).This Interface aims to shed light on the challenges of integrating insights from real estate studies into planning scholarship, to dispute the prevalent black-and-white perspective regarding private sector engagement in urban development (Campbell et al., 2013).There is growing acknowledgement that market-oriented planning in many contexts demands a deeper understanding of real estate instruments and logics (Ferm & Raco, 2020), and that market dependency challenges the future of the planning profession (Wargent & Tas ¸an-Kok, 2020).In this Interface, we argue that a more profound understanding of the interrelationships between planning and real estate dynamics necessitates challenging and dismantling disciplinary boundaries in the established literature.By doing so, deeper knowledge can be achieved, leading to more insightful conclusions and constructive policy recommendations.A distinguishing aspect of this Interface is that the individual contributors are early career researchers.This group of scholars is identified as grappling with the challenge of "trying to step into the shoes of established planners while also finding exciting new ideas to help spatial planning evolve" (Haselsberger, 2017, p. 317).Challenges of interdisciplinary planning and real INTERFACEestate research span from allegations of being uncritical and pro-market to more technical hurdles involving the integration of various epistemological principles and methodologies.However, it is our firm belief that much of the pioneering work and boundary-pushing in this field is accomplished by early career researchers, driven by their pursuit of fresh insights and novel solutions with an open-minded and experimental approach.There is certainly a body of foundational and pioneering planning scholarship upon which many researchers continue to construct their work.For instance, Healey and Barrett (1990) championed the inclusion of real estate literature to understand better the behavior and strategies of actors in property development processes, while Adams and Tiesdell (2010) argued for a symbiotic rather than a dichotomous relationship between planners and the property industry.These perspectives are more important than ever amid shifting circumstances and power dynamics due to the neoliberalization and financialization of urban development.Neoliberal planning agendas are omnipresent and on the minds of many early career planning researchers, but instead of becoming disillusioned, contributors in this Interface aim to address them headon by creating insightful perspectives that can bring about meaningful change.The authors of the pieces which make up this Interface all have a PhD or postdoctoral research project in the field of planning studies and integrating real estate studies into their work.These contributions are bookended by reflections from more established scholars.There is just one exception with Tunbosun Oyedokun, who is embedded in real estate and shares his personal experience of integrating planning insights into real estate studies instead of the other way around.His fascinating account of the methodological issues of integrating qualitative insights from urban planning into real estate scholarship kicks off the discussion.It shows that many of the challenges are not planning-specific, but that improved integration through truly interdisciplinary research has the potential to benefit both planning and real estate studies.This is followed by reflections on the different 'worlds,' normative realms, and bodies of knowledge inherent in planning and real estate studies.Yinnon Geva elucidates the challenges associated with questions and dilemmas arising from his work on the property industrya realm seemingly conflicting with engaged scholarship aimed at dismantling neoliberal planning practicesand outlines how he resolved this conflict.Following this, Mariam Hussain delves deeper into the challenge of combining planning and real estate studies when examining mixed-use urban development, recounting her personal journey from planning education to real estate practice and ultimately interdisciplinary planning and real estate research.She emphasizes the significance of integrating market and economic analysis in planning studies to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the involved actors in the neoliberalized real estate development landscape.Next, Monica Lopez Franco reflects on her experience accessing both real estate literature and data to comprehend intricate planning processes and their outcomes in the field of urban conservation in Mexico.She asserts that the complexity of urban processes cannot be grasped without understanding the interplay between urban planning and real estate forces.Federico Camerin picks up this issue by presenting a case for the relevance of real estate literature and direct engagement with real estate actors to dissect complex redevelopment processes of abandoned public-owned land in Italy through public-private partnerships.Martyna Joanna Surma continues the discussion by recalling her journey of realizing the need for primary data for her research on post-Covid workplaces in the UK, and the importance of investigating real estate industry metrics in a planning context.A key message emphasized in these contributions is that a complete understanding of planning and related cases is not possible without taking into account real estate market dynamics.
Özogul et al. (Thu,) studied this question.