Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Geoforum journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geoforum Urban green grabbing: Residential real estate developers discourse and practice in gentrifying Global North neighborhoods Melissa García-Lamarca a, b, f, *, Isabelle Anguelovski a, b, c, f, Helen V.S. Cole a, b, f, James J. T. Connolly b, d, Carmen Pérez-del-Pulgar b, e, Galia Shokry a, b, f, Margarita Triguero-Mas a, b, f, g a Institut de Ciència i Tecnologia Ambientals (ICTA), Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain b Barcelona Lab for Urban Environmental Justice and Sustainability, Barcelona, Spain c ICREA, Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats, Barcelona, Spain d School of Community and Regional Planning, University of British Colombia, Vancouver, Canada e Department Environmental Policy, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ), Germany f Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute (IMIM), Barcelona, Spain g Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: In the movement towards building greener and more sustainable cities, real estate developers are increasingly Real estate developers embracing not only green building construction but broader strategies and action related to urban greening. To Urban greening date, their motivations and role in this broader urban greening dynamic remains underexplored, yet essential to Rent extraction dissect how greening is sustained and real estate development legitimized in revitalizing neighborhoods. With an Value Green grabbing eye to better understand green urban capitalist development processes underway amidst financialized nature and Gentrification urban growth, and the equity impacts they entail, we explore residential real estate developers urban greening discourses and practices. Through a novel dataset of 42 interviews with private and non-profit residential real estate developers in 15 mid-sized American, Western European and Canadian cities, we uncover three differ­ entiated but interconnected discourses around (i) financial benefits, (ii) consumer- or investor-driven demand and (iii) social dimensions behind developers’ interest in urban greening. We argue that developers embark on urban green grabbing through “green” discursive and material value appropriation and rent extraction strategies. Urban green grabbing is conceptually useful in depicting who benefits and how/when developers extract additional rent, surplus value, social capital and/or prestige from locating new residential projects adjacent to new or up-and-coming green amenities. Our work contributes to debates about urban greening’s perceived position as a value-producing and rent-extracting good from both a political economy and political ecology perspective. 1. Introduction greenways and green streets, or large-scale parks — contributes to build a green urban brand (García-Lamarca et al., 2021) and acts as a pivot for In the past decade, research on real estate development and greening urban green development (Argüelles et al., 2021; Immergluck, 2009; has boomed. Quantitative econometric studies on the topic abound, Triguero-Mas et al., 2021). New environmental amenities become part focusing on green building characteristics and consumer choice (Qian of neighborhood marketing and renewal (Krueger and Gibbs, 2007; et al., 2013; Sah et al., 2013; Zhang et al., 2018) and on property value Tretter, 2013) as they elicit hopes of economic growth and deepened gains from green projects (Immergluck and Balan, 2018; Conway et al., investment (Dooling, 2009; Quastel, 2009). In other words, urban 2010; Czembrowski and Kronenberg, 2016). Geographers, planners and greening often forms part of a new form of growth machine supported by political ecologists have also started to examine the intersection be­ planners and elected officials (DuPuis and Greenberg, 2019; Gould and tween urban development, greening and economic growth. Community Lewis, 2018; Loughran, 2014). A range of financial strategies have activists and researchers argue that urban greening — rail-to-trail parks, furthermore been mobilized to fund urban greening (Bigger and Mill­ cleaned-up waterfronts with green promenades, canal remediation, ington, 2019; Castree and Christophers, 2015; Loftus and March 2016; * Corresponding author at: C/ Doctor Aiguader 88, office 117, 08003 Barcelona, Spain. E-mail address: Melissa.GarciaLamarca@uab.cat (M. García-Lamarca). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2021.11.016 Received 16 June 2021; Received in revised form 6 November 2021; Accepted 15 November 2021 Available online 25 November 2021 0016-7185/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 Jones et al., 2020), often helping legitimize early investment and “risky” through the urban green grabbing lens. Finally, we conclude the paper financing in previously disinvested neighborhoods and thereby paving with brief reflections on the contribution of our conceptualization, how the way for large-scale urban transformations and new real estate pro­ urban green grabbing dynamics can be addressed now, as well as further jects that benefit some residents over others (Anguelovski et al., 2021). considerations and research gaps. Within this expansive literature, research critically assessing the role of urban greening in relation to real estate developers’ discourses and 2. Urban greening in real estate development: (green) value, strategies is absent. We believe this is a particularly important question rent and urban inequality due to the role that real estate developers play in shaping cities and materializing the increasingly predominant resilient green city ortho­ As climate change and ecological disaster loom large, cities have doxy (Connolly, 2019). It furthermore has critical implications for been designated as the key sites for climate mitigation, adaptation and questions of equity and justice in urban environments, because the resilience-building (Bulkeley and Castán Broto, 2013). The ever more monetization and financialization of greening creates speculation and consolidated green resilient urban planning orthodoxy (Connolly, 2019) rent capture for a few (Anguelovski et al., 2019a), challenging the is bolstered by the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals and regional growing imaginary that green is universally “good” (Angelo, 2021). The and local greening plans. An increasing number of real estate de­ concentration of investment and profit in the hands of high-end de­ velopers, often attracted by “green” profit margins, are also picking it up velopers, investors and wealthy residents usually occurs at the expense through more sustainable building practices and locating projects in of historically marginalized groups (Heynen et al., 2006, Byrne, 2012, recently greened, or greening, neighborhoods (Gould and Lewis, 2017). Anguelovski et al., 2018). While existing work related to green gentri­ Indeed, many real estate players increasingly push (certified) green fication points to the influx of new (luxury) developments near green properties as an investment that is inherently more valuable, or that will amenities (Dooling, 2009, Checker, 2011), the only qualitative study even “grow” in value in the future (Chegut et al., 2014; Knuth, 2016; considering residential real estate developers and greening focuses on a Nelson and Rakau, 2010). wealthy (white) suburban neighborhood near New York City (Beuschel Yet real estate developers’ broader visions of and strategies for and Rudel, 2010). A critical gap thus exists in our understanding of how making this future green city a reality and selling it is an underexplored real estate developers relate, respond to and even attempt to shape topic. Various facets of the real estate development industry writ large urban greening more broadly and in a wider variety of geographies. have been explored (Harvey, 1982; Healey, 1994; Coiacetto, 2009; Drawing from interviews with 42 residential real estate developers Fainstein, 1994; Guy and Henneberry, 2000), as has real estate devel­ active in 15 cities in the US, Western Europe and Canada, our paper oper behavior (Antwi and Henneberry, 1995; Coiacetto, 2001). More begins to address this gap, towards helping to identify how developers recent critical research has considered real estate development in rela­ understand the supposed social and economic “added value” derived tion to finance capital, value and rent extraction (Butcher, 2020; Flynn, from green interventions (Angelo, 2021; Knuth, 2016). We ask: How are 2016; Guironnet et al., 2016; Halbert and Rouanet, 2013; Rouanet and residential real estate developers in gentrifying neighborhoods in the Halbert, 2016; Searle, 2014; Weber, 2015). The latter three concepts are urban Global North mobilizing urban greening? What are developers’ insightful when analyzing developers’ discourses and uses of urban “greening” discourses, uses and imaginaries? While differentiating be­ greening not only because of their prominent role in capitalist urban tween private and non-profit developers, we argue that both exhibit development processes but also because of the way finance capital is urban green grabbing through rent extraction and value appropriation mobilized and (green) rent and (surplus) value are captured by private strategies rooted in discourses we uncover of urban green-related (i) developers in particular, processes which often deepen existing urban financial benefits, (ii) consumer and investor demand and (iii) aspira­ inequalities (Anguelovski et al., 2018). tional, apolitical ideas of socio-environmental good. Developers’ actions ripple throughout urban space. They transform Inspired by Fairhead et al.’s (2012) conceptualization of green urbanization patterns, local urban development politics and sometimes grabbing —defined as the appropriation of land and resources for even manipulate/manage dissent as they channel finance capital and environmental ends— and building from research considering land investment into the built urban environment (Brill, 2018; Halbert and grabbing in urban contexts (Feola et al. 2019; Hettiarachchi et al., 2019; Rouanet, 2013; Guironnet et al., 2016; Leffers and Wekerle, 2020; Safransky, 2017; Steel et al., 2017; Zoomers et al., 2017), we further Rouanet and Halbert, 2016). In this process, space is made for capital, theorize urban green grabbing as has been called for by recent scholar­ the latter understood as value in motion, and this value in turn becomes ship (Anguelovski et al., 2019a). Our analysis shows that urban green internationally legible—especially from/in the Global South—as Ller­ grabbing illustrates how and for whom residential real estate developers ena Searle (2014) underlines. Robin’s (2018) research in London sug­ appropriate additional surplus value, extract rent, social capital and/or gests that the type of urbanity created by developers is the concrete prestige through locating developments adjacent to new urban greening materialization of profitability goals, what she calls real estate value(s). projects. Here, playing part in building a green and sustainable city is Real estate developers in the UK context furthermore often profit from embedded in housing development discourse and practice. We unpack regeneration, extracting rent and evading affordable housing re­ developers’ strategies of urban green grabbing and their insertion into quirements (Flynn, 2016). Rent-maximizing strategies are pursued by broader circuits of green capitalism (Prudham, 2009; Wallis, 2009) to­ greenfield affordable housing developers in Johannesburg through wards seizing green rent gaps. In doing so we seek to make a broader seizing differential rents from land made cheap from the city’s racialized contribution to the role that greening plays in urban development development patterns and accruing monopoly rents thanks to developer through the financialization of nature (Brand and Wissen 2014, Ouma power (Butcher, 2020). In the rent creation process, the role of financial et al., 2018; Sullivan, 2013) and the financialization of urban growth institutions is key in order to ensure an operation’s financial feasibility (Weber, 2002, 2015; Rutland, 2010), from the perspective of residential and security while undermining the rights of working-class and racial­ real estate developers. We thus aim to deepen reflections on (urban) ized property owners. In Washington, DC, for example, a project like the greening, real estate development, value and rent (Andreucci et al., 11th Street Bridge Park is only able to move forward thanks to the 2017; Knuth, 2016; Ward and Aalbers, 2016; Weber, 2015) from both a financial support of global banks who also further legitimize the project political economy and political ecology perspective. (Anguelovski et al., 2021). The paper unfolds in the following five sections. Section two unpacks While it is unsurprising that profit-making and rent-maximization urban greening and real estate development considering processes of, strategies are core drivers especially for private real estate developers, and inequalities generated through, (green) value and rent relation­ what Robin (2018) calls real estate value(s) deserve deeper consider­ ships. Section three explains our methodology, while the following de­ ation. Real estate value(s) are built relationally. In other words, de­ tails our empirical findings. In section five we analyze our findings velopers not only produce urban space and make space for capital, but 2 M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 also engage in social forms of production because their development Byrne, 2012; Anguelovski et al., 2018). The power exerted through the interests and actions are shaped through relations with the state, in­ rent relation harkens the term value grabbing (Andreucci et al., 2017), a vestors, consumers and civil society more broadly (Ballard and Butcher, concept that politicizes rent as a taken-for-granted payment and high­ 2020; Leffers and Wekerle, 2020) and their associated discourses and lights the possibilities of transforming social relations underlying the practices. As public officials, urban planners and environmental non­ distribution of surplus value. profits increasingly push the green city agenda, more explicitly articu­ Finally, outside but directly related to questions of unequal distri­ lated socio-ecological forms of production increasingly characterize real butions of (green) value and rent, the not-at-all new process of appro­ estate developers as more extensive/intensive forms of urban greening priating nature gained a new lexicon a decade ago through the make new markets, and forms of profit, possible, especially in the interrelated concepts of land grabbing (Borras et al., 2012) and green context of green capitalism (Prudham, 2009; Sullivan, 2013). This grabbing (Fairhead et al., 2012). Both refer to a diversity of actors and process arguably affects real estate value(s) at multiple levels. It can be power relations driving large-scale land deals. Land grabbing occurs for seen materially through studies showing that green buildings can be commercial food or energy crop-oriented agriculture or resource profitable over their entire life span (Zhang et al., 2018) or that green seizure, while green grabbing captures land in the name of the envi­ Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITs) have a higher return on assets ronment (e.g. conservation or climate mitigation). Both concepts than their “less green” peers (Sah et al., 2013) —and in turn developer emphasize how grabs materialize control and consolidate the position of and investor desire to pursue these promising profit-making avenues. wealthy landowners, large corporations, the state, international Such findings have serious implications for urban (in)equality because agencies and benefits for large-scale capital, while the poor and as residential green building programs are becoming mandatory in some marginalized are often (violently) dispossessed of their land and liveli­ municipalities (Aroul and Hansz, 2012), studies have found that green hoods and/or incorporated as workers on seized land (Li, 2018; buildings and neighborhood certification can have a gentrification effect Rocheleau, 2015; Borras et al., 2012). In this process, unexpected socio- (Bouzarovski et al., 2018; Chegut et al., 2014; Benson and Bereitschaft, spatial impacts and conflicts sometimes emerge in local social relations 2020, Rice et al., 2020). and through the (re)creation of new hierarchies (Chettri, 2020). How does “green” value relate to such real estate value(s)? While While the bulk of the literature on land and green grabbing considers value theory has been long and heatedly debated, discussions have rural areas appropriated mostly for energy-related projects in the Global resurged about the relation between value and nature in the context of South, explorations of peri-urban and urban land grabbing have emerged growing environmental degradation and climate catastrophe. Recent in recent years across a variety of geographies (Feola et al. 2019; Het­ critical explorations (Christophers, 2018; Kallis and Swyngedouw, 2018; tiarachchi et al., 2019; Safransky, 2017; Steel et al., 2017; Zoomers Kay and Kenney-Lazar, 2017; Robertson and Wainwright, 2013; Walker, et al., 2017). Critically, much of this literature illustrates how different 2017) agree that while socially necessary labor time is what creates governance processes and actors can kickstart urban capital accumula­ value, absolutely fundamental in this process, as Marx underlined long tion, socio-spatial inequality and gentrification dynamics in urban land ago, is the intimate interrelation between labor and nature. Capital­ grabs (Steel et al., 2017). For example, in Colombo, Sri Lanka, where in —understood as value in motion—in essence appropriates nature. the neo-liberal era the city’s extensive wetlands became an urban real “Capital robs the fertility of the soil and power of the worker,” as Giorgos estate market commodity, real estate developers, urban development Kallis and Erik Swyngedouw (2018: 41) note. In this line of thought, agencies, local and international capital and the urban upper-middle nature is free of charge, the worker is paid (as little as possible) for their class benefited from grabbing wetlands and turning them into real es­ labor power, and all surplus value produced by both nature and labor tate, parks and canals, while poor and marginalized urban populations goes to the capitalist—who in turn continuously seeks to maximize suffered eviction, dispossession and environmental hazard (Hettiar­ surplus value. In this way, value, relationally created, emerges from the achchi et al., 2019). In Detroit, “vacancy maps” have been used by metabolic relationship between capitalist societies and the biophysical planners, officials and private developers to designate parts of the city as world (Heynen et al., 2006). And as Cindi Katz (1998) and Neil Smith a blank slate, where developers and entrepreneurs are welcomed to (2007) stated, under capitalism, and arguably even more so under green embark on productive green ventures and create new “value” (Safran­ capitalism, nature is an accumulation strategy. sky, 2014). In the real estate development and urban greening rela­ Similar to value theory, land rent—closely related to (green) value in tionship we are considering in this paper, land is not always physically the context of real estate development—has a protracted legacy of fierce seized or developed through the unequal enforcement of land use reg­ intellectual debate between and among Marxist- and neoclassical- ulations (as it is often in the Global South, see Anguelovski et al., 2019b), inspired thinkers. As land has increasingly become a financial asset in but such conceptualizations can certainly help us think through the re­ recent decades, rent has become a pressing concept to unpack in order to lationships and processes in question. better understand how investment moves through land in the finance- (Green) value, rent, grabbing: how can these concepts help us un­ real estate relationship (Haila, 1988; Harvey, 1982; Guironnet et al., derstand how residential real estate developers in gentrifying urban 2016; Purcell et al., 2020; Swyngedouw, 2019; Ward and Aalbers, areas in the Global North mobilize urban greening, as well as their 2016). While value is created in the development process through the discourses and imaginaries? Before articulating our results and analysis, productive relationship between labor, nature and capital, as explained we turn to explain our methodology. previously, rent exists solely as a payment made to landowners for the use of land and related—yet abstracted—investment flows. In broad 3. Methodology brush strokes, monopoly rent arises due to a unique or non-substitutable feature of the land and the very existence of the rentier class, and dif­ Our paper was built from the analysis of qualitative data systemati­ ferential rent is generated by the increased productivity resulting from a cally collected as part of a European Research Council-funded project specific feature of land or investment upon it (Ward and Aalbers, 2016). which analyzed the social impact of urban green amenities and their For example, Sian Butcher (2020) points out how residential real estate relationship with green gentrification. Fieldwork was conducted be­ developers in Johannesburg appropriated differential rent through tween 2018 and 2020 in 24 mid-sized cities (between 500,000 and 1.5 controlling “land made cheap through racialized regimes of value and million residents) in Western Europe, Canada and the United States, waste” (p.355), while monopoly rents were obtained through specific with cities representing a diversity of development pathways (i.e. in­ articulations of developer power. Residential developments located dustrial and post-industrial, economically growing or shrinking; adjacent to newly greened urban areas can arguably increase both mo­ compact or sprawling). After a comprehensive review of grey literature, nopoly and differential rents, which can then be seized by developers, media articles, analyses of real estate and demographic change, together investors and homebuyers through green rent gaps (Heynen et al., 2006; with local expert input, we selected one or two gentrifying 3 M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 neighborhoods as our focus for qualitative field work in each city. community activism affect development decisions. All data was fully According to the parent project inclusion criteria, focus neighbor­ coded through an initial round of thematic coding in Nvivo, identifying hoods were experiencing or threatened by gentrification processes all interview materials related to real estate development, investment linked with urban renewal or revitalization, high-end and luxury (re) and greening in all cities. In a second stage, all authors who conducted developments, retail changes and socio-demographic changes marked interviews with developers completed a table created by the lead author by the arrival of socially privileged residents and increased real estate specifying the type of developer, their scale of operation, how they used prices. Some of those changes were taking place in post-industrial or mobilized a greening discourse, other relevant points and specific neighborhoods with large amounts of cleaned-up or/and regenerated quotations of interest. A grounded theory approach was then taken, land (i.e., Amsterdam, Glasgow, San Francisco) while others were grouping together responses to identify specific discourses and imagi­ located in more consolidated areas (i.e., Cleveland, Montreal, Wash­ naries around greening. In some cases original interview transcripts ington). We verified these trends with quantitative data analysis were revisited manually to cite exemplary statements made by wherein gentrification was measured through a neighborhood-scale developers. index of multiple social and real estate indicators. All neighborhoods In addition to primary data, we collected relevant secondary data to had also been or were about to be the site of different types of greening complement our analysis of urban development changes in each projects, including new or rebuilt parks, gardens, greenways, commu­ neighborhood from 1990 to present, as this date signals the rise of the nity gardens, waterfronts, canals and/or riverways. All our cases were urban sustainability agenda more broadly (Beatley, 2011). Secondary furthermore situated in marginalized neighborhoods, that is, places data included documents and fact sheets, reports, or policy documents which had historically suffered from under-investment and abandon­ from a variety of local organizations and city planning documents out­ ment, and where historically marginalized groups—working class and lining greening and/or redevelopment projects and investments in each racialized people—were and are often still stigmatized. Each case rep­ city. We also used developers’ websites to obtain specific data on rental resented a unique urban history, specific gentrification dynamics and costs and apartment size. Data from these sources was used to triangu­ redevelopment projects, reflecting diverse relations between greening late and verify the accounts of interviewees, and to identify additional and development. development information, dates of relevant events or results of unpub­ lished studies which respondents mentioned. 3.1. Study sample, data collection, and analysis We now turn to our empirical material to respond to our research questions: How do residential real estate developers in gentrifying All case sites, field data collection and analysis followed a similar neighborhoods in the Global North mobilize urban greening? What are protocol. We pretested, modified and selected a final set of questions and developers’ “greening” discourses, uses and imaginaries? probes for a semi-structured interview guide based on the overall aim of the larger study, from which this sub-study draws. Overall, all re­ 4. Financial value, consumer demand, social good: developer searchers spent approximately one month conducting intensive and discourses on urban greening targeted fieldwork in each neighborhood/city, after recruiting a di­ versity of participants representing real estate developers, community Three broad themes emerged from our interviews with residential activists and city employees to maximize the heterogeneity of perspec­ real estate developers as they discussed urban greening in relation to tives on the topics of interest. their development visions and strategies. The first, and most prevalent, Within this broader research design, for this paper we conducted was the financial dimension of greening. This was discussed in terms of specific interviews with 42 residential real estate developers active in 15 the value urban greening is perceived to have or create and its value as a cities in the US (nine cities, 27 interviews), Western Europe (five cities, development incentive. The second theme was consumer- or investor- 11 interviews) and Canada (one city, four interviews).1 Our study is driven demand for green development, a particularly prevalent unique in its international and broad-scale approach and for our ability discourse among private niche market or luxury developers at all scales to access a diversity of developers across cities. Amidst the wealth of of operation. Here, developers depicted themselves as responding to data at hand, we decided to focus exclusively on residential real estate consumer or investor desire and discussed greening as increasing the developers due to their underexplored visions for and material role in attractiveness to and consumer acceptance of new, and especially manifesting the green city and contribution to neighborhood change. denser, development. The social and health dimensions of urban Urban housing provision—and especially its quality, location and the greening was the third dimension of developers’ discourses. In this case, amenities to which it gives access—has profound implications for the greening was discussed in an aspirational and utopic light, as a luxury affordability and accessibility of urban life especially for working-class wellness good, as part of developers’ DNA or—as underlined especially and racialized residents. While we of course recognize that real estate by non-profit real estate developers—a social benefit for residents’ developers exist and act relationally (Robin, 2018; Ballard and Butcher, health and well-being. These themes are detailed in the subsequent three 2020; Leffers and Wekerle, 2020), we believe that focusing in greater sections, followed by an analysis and conceptual exploration of all depth on this actor in different urban contexts can bring valuable in­ dimensions. sights to their urban greening vision and action. We contacted residential developers we identified as critical in 4.1. The “value” of greening: profit-making, seduction, development neighborhood real estate change. By critical, we mean that they played a incentive central role in each place because of their influence, scope and visibility. The developers we interviewed operate internationally, nationally, Around one quarter of all developers we interviewed underlined, in a regionally and locally and in both private (32 interviews) and non-profit variety of different ways, that urban greening either “has” or “creates” (ten interviews) sectors. Interviews lasted from 45 to 75 min, with economic value. These developers were mostly private, operating from questions focusing on the developers’ general priorities, the motivations local to international scales. Several developers openly celebrated the for those priorities, the extent to which greening and affordability play a increased property values that urban greening brings (Heckert and part in their work, partnerships and how greening, city policy and Mennis, 2012; Beuschel and Rudel, 2010). For example, in relation to converting an abandoned rail bed into a greenway, a local private Boston developer stated that “there’s no question, I believe that it should 1 US cities included Atlanta, Austin, Boston, Cleveland, Dallas, Oakland, be increasing property values just by the basic fact that it’s converting Portland, Seattle and Washington DC, European cities were Amsterdam, Bristol, something that is probably very negative to something that is very Dublin, Glasgow and Lyon and the Canadian city was Montreal. positive.” Similarly, several developers emphasized that parks, green 4 M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 spaces or blue spaces add value to homes, improving design and per­ decontamination, to give a few examples (see Anguelovski et al., 2022; formance and helping communities become more vibrant—that is, Connolly, 2022; Cole and Immergluck, 2022; Pérez-del-Pulgar, 2022)— attracting further waves of developers and gentrifiers. Private de­ are thus seen to guarantee further profit, the granting of new loans velopers active in Washington DC, Atlanta, Cleveland and Dallas directly and/or the attraction of more investment to expand future real estate stated that locating residential housing near greening projects is a development. benefit for profit-making because it improves the aesthetics and Despite the costs of greening weighing heavily on virtually all de­ attractiveness of their development. Reflecting how greening forms part velopers we interviewed, another prominent discourse was the use of of a broader process of neighborhood beautification, especially so in urban greening in marketing and branding. This might be through a post-industrial areas, a global developer active in Atlanta told us how neighborhood official greening strategy that private developers actively “we made the decision to make the BeltLine our front door.” In part this use to help market their projects (Dublin), a specific urban green feature was influenced by their past experience working near the High Line in (a cleaned-up waterfront and improved park with new amenities) that New York City and the president and CEO in particular’s “very clear attracts potential high-end homeowners (Cleveland and San Francisco), vision of what the BeltLine was going to be and how we wanted to or greening as part of a narrative about a neighborhood’s transformation interact with it”. Benefits for profit-making were often reflected in the and resilience that “seduces” real estate agents and homebuyers (Boston price tag of new developments: controlling for size, a rental apartment in and Washington DC). A non-profit affordable housing developer in this new development costed 66% more per month than the average Cleveland and private developers in Washington DC also pointed out rental apartment in Atlanta and 57% more in East Boston in May 2021.2 that urban greening helps them gain credibility in the eyes of banks and In terms of buying housing, a new greened condo in Montreal’s Sud- other lenders. In some American cities like Austin and Oakland, non- Ouest borough was 67% more expensive than the average condo in profit housing developers told us that they did urban greening to the city in May 2021, where 40% of households are already excluded obtain state grants, increase their competitiveness for federal funds and because affording an average condo requires a minimum annual access local project-based incentives. In other words, while they might household income of $69,459.3 “believe” in urban greening for a variety of reasons, non-profit de­ In addition, private developers in Glasgow and Montreal pointed out velopers were obliged by policy frameworks to undertake it. how greening provides a positive return for investors, legitimizes Finally, a handful of developers pointed to the function of urban development, and in some ways lowers risk. In Montreal, a sustainable greening as a financial incentive and spur for real estate development, build-to-rent building with its own self-marketed “restorative green especially in marginal neighborhoods with a history of extreme envi­ space” and location a few hundred meters away from the remediated ronmental problems and/or a small quantity of existing green space. Lachine Canal was portrayed as a “good feather in the cap” of Toronto- Indeed, a local Boston-based private developer and a national private based pension fund investors. In this light, the words of a private na­ developer active in the same city stressed that residential development tional green rental property developer active in Boston—“when you sell would not have begun without previous waterfront remediation and the asset, you’re talking about substantial value here”—reiterate green amenity development. Greening gives some guarantee that it is Knuth’s (2016) findings about how green certification is seen to make environmentally, and economically, “safe” to build residential devel­ buildings more intrinsically valuable. Critically, this is even true in places opment, symbolizing that a new green frontier of development is ready like Boston and Austin where, due to public legislation obliging private to be pushed, and thus allowing investments to multiply over time and developers to either contribute financially to green space creation or space in the broader neighborhood. It is the first move “needed” to spur ensure publicly-accessible green amenities, developers still see a green new projects – often high-end/luxury privately-led developments (and rent gap opportunity to be exploited due to the attractiveness of urban thus increased developer profit). greening. In Washington DC, urban greening through the 11th Street Bridge Park project demonstrates that the long-segregated and -aban­ 4.2. A response to buyers and investors: greening as demand-driven and to doned neighborhood of Anacostia is “ripe for development,” according address density to a local private developer. It provides evidence that broader change is coming and that a first, “riskier” investment move (through the The second main theme, communicated especially by private de­ announcement, design, and financing of the bridge park) has already velopers, was that green development responds to consumer, investor been made. Such urban greening interventions—especially large-scale and/or broader market demand. We heard how the buyer drives private ones like DC’s 11th Street Bridge Park, San Francisco’s Blue developers’ decisions in Amsterdam, Austin, Boston, Cleveland, Glas­ Greenway, the Atlanta BeltLine or Amsterdam Noord’s port gow, Montreal and Oakland, with projects said to respond to “people’s wants for a lower carbon future” (Glasgow) or to residents’ desire for sustainable mobility options like bicycle lanes or walking paths 2 (Cleveland). Through residential developments nested in newly reme­ A two-bedroom rental apartment (1,000 square feet) at Ponce City Market diated and/or greened neighborhoods, homebuyers were said to be able starts at around $2,600 per month, while the average rental price in Atlanta is $1,527 per month (975 square feet).Data sources: https://www.apartments. to “own a piece of the waterfront” according to a private global devel­ com/flats-at-ponce-city-market-atlanta-ga/qxxg5ky/ and https://www.rentca oper active in East Boston, with such a discourse reflecting a sustain­ fe.com/average-rent-market-trends/us/ga/atlanta/. In East Boston, a two- ability class argument (Gould and Lewis, 2017; Dauvergne, 2016). Even bedroom apartment (1,080 square feet) on the harbor rents for $3,500 per then, a national private developer also working in Boston underlined month, while the average rental prices for a two-bedroom apartment in East how their development goes beyond parks or green spaces per se and is Boston as of February 2021 is $2,225 per month. Data sources: https://www. “embodied within the living experience of what it is to either work, live, zillow.com/homedetails/45-Lewis-St-Boston-MA-02128/2102260953_zpid/ play or whatever it is around our buildings. [Boston] is a market that just and https://www.universalhub.com/2021/rent-prices-are-falling-east-bosto kind of organically gets that” (italics added). This discourse illustrates how n-sort. the residential housing market is understood as a naturally occurring 3 The Federal housing agency Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation phenomenon, free of socio-economic, racial or other positional realities, reports that Montrealś average condo prices in May 2021 were $332,230 rather than urban green real estate production, investment, and con­ (average condo size is 944 square feet), and that the household annual income needed to afford a condo is $69,459 per year. A new greened condo developed sumption being part and parcel of a specific – and often elitist and near the Lachine Canal was selling for $599,000 (1,119 square feet) in June exclusive – socio-political development process (Gould and Lewis, 2021. For more information see https://www.nbc.ca/content/dam/bnc/en/rat 2017). It also illustrates the power that urban green living, mixed use es-and-analysis/economic-analysis/housing-affordability.pdf and https://www. green (re)development and sustainable practices and discourses wields centris.ca/en/condos~for-sale~montreal-le-sud-ouest/22257762. among high-end users. 5 M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 Urban greening was also underlined by many developers as an (Dauvergne, 2016; Park and Pellow, 2011; Rice et al., 2020). important urban design element that increases the attractiveness and Over a quarter of the developers we interviewed, both private and consumer acceptance of new, and especially denser, residential devel­ non-profit alike, stated that green was also a reflection of what they opment. Private developers in Austin, Boston, Cleveland and Washing­ called their “DNA” and core business practice. Part of their firm’s beliefs ton DC spoke explicitly about how greenways create connections and visions involved sustainable practices, green buildings and even a between and continuity within neighborhoods, improving their acces­ broader commitment to greening public areas beyond their private sibility especially for new residents to whom they want to sell housing. properties themselves. While some recognized that local regulations Greening creates new recreational, leisure and sports opportunities, obliged them to include public greening as part of their redevelopment especially when coupled with waterfront or canal redevelopment and project in order to guarantee public access to the waterfront (i.e. Chapter the creation of new walking and cycling paths. It also allows for the 91 in Massachusetts and Blue Greenway provisions in San Francisco) or organization of social and cultural celebrations and festivals which to respond to climate adaptation plans, others affirm their deeper belief contribute to greater neighborhood attractiveness, vibrancy and desir­ in providing ample societal and public benefits to long-term residents. ability—albeit often for a more elite (white) and wealthy socio- Yet behind this commitment, our interviews reveal that deeper ques­ economic profile. While developers in several cities underscored tions of access, comfort, sense of feeling welcomed or part of the increased density as being green in itself, a local private affordable neighborhood redevelopment were not accounted for by developers, nor housing developer in Dallas and a private regional developer active in what will happen to the diversity and social sustainability of the Atlanta highlighted the importance of accessible urban greening to neighborhood in the mid-term future. Providing physical access was either directly address or counterbalance increased density and improve seen as “sufficient” and necessarily providing wider social and health its acceptance to potential homebuyers. This sentiment was echoed by a benefits. A growing literature, however, reveals the exclusion and ex­ non-speculative collective housing developer based in Lyon, who said clusivity that public green amenities can create for long-term residents that green spaces are attractive because of the size restrictions cooper­ in gentrifying neighborhoods (Oscilowicz et al., 2020; Kabisch and ative housing developments face. Haase, 2014; Triguero-Mas et al., 2021). Last, urban greening was said to help balance out or compensate for It is noteworthy that the idea of greening as a social good in and of the enduring or former presence of “undesirable” elements and speci­ itself emerged almost exclusively from non-profit developers particu­ ficities of particular areas, from the enduring presence of vacant land larly in Amsterdam, Lyon, Oakland, San Francisco, Austin and Cleve­ and environmental bads and toxics—despite the fact that toxic exposure land. While recognizing that greening is not a solution for every social can persist despite greening (Cole et al., 2021). It can add a veneer of issue, an Amsterdam based non-profit developer (formerly municipally livability and attractiveness over grey landscapes. This was highlighted owned) talked about how greening increases the wellbeing of people by a private Dublin-based developer who stated that greening a formerly living in social housing specifically through better health, more activity, grey neighborhood helps push away what they termed as “the undesir­ social contact and even eating habits in the case of community gardens. able element” while attracting affluent young professionals (architects, A national non-profit providing affordable housing in Cleveland doctors, estate agents, Google employees). However, the attractiveness underlined how the kind of greenery and natural features they attempt of urban greening is not linked to its public character, and in cities such to incorporate into their developments promote primarily mental and as Cleveland and Dublin, private greening was developers’ initial emotional wellbeing, underlined as particularly important for low- approach. Green conveys a sense that new (privileged) residents will income residents. This contrasts sharply with ideas, from some espe­ settle redeveloped neighborhoods. While this was not a prevalent cially more high-end focused developers, who are attracted to green­ discourse, it fully endorses green gentrification as an inherently positive space because they promote wellness, perceived as a luxury good. process for urban neighborhood transformation. 5. Discussion: residential developers’ urban green grabbing 4.3. Social dimensions of greening: behavior change, wellness, health and wellbeing The three broad discourses we uncovered operate in interconnected and layered, albeit differentiated, ways, forming an urban green grab­ The final theme that arose from our interviews relates to the broader bing triangle embedded in processes of neighborhood gentrification, as social benefits and impacts of greening. On the one hand, this was we depict in Fig. 1. The light blue triangle depicts the core actors communicated through aspirational visions of the social impacts of involved in the process, while the dark blue triangle details the main urban greening. A private Washington DC-based developer underlined discourses. In this section we first differentiate the dimensions of this how greening can help create different uses, jobs and opportunities in triangle as per private developers and non-profit developers, then un­ neighborhoods. In the most utopian statement—echoing idyllic garden pack the mechanisms through which urban green grabbing takes place, city and City Beautiful visions from nineteenth and early twentieth focusing on value and rent specifically. We finally turn to analyze the century planners and architects (Jacobs, 1961)—a private UK-based contextual framing of urban green grabbing and underline the limits and developer active in Glasgow expressed the hope that larger scale in­ challenges to its triumph. terventions like canal regeneration and a green bridge plus their green Our findings showed how private developers formulated urban interventions on-site “will actually help change behavior” towards more greening as financial and aesthetic value creation, a response to sustainable lifestyles. Private developers in Seattle and Atlanta backed (gentrifying) consumer and investor demand, a way to build credibility the idea that greenspaces promote “wellness” because they could be when searching for financing, and a path to change behaviors and spun-off as a luxury good in order to market and sell their projects. These mobilize “wellness” as a lifestyle. We heard no critical reflection about examples embody specific classed, raced and gendered ideas of greening for whom they were building a green city, or with what affordability or and its romanticized possibilities, as well as a political economic lacuna access outcomes; most assumed demand to be a naturally occurring regarding urban life and everyday realities of racialized, working-class phenomenon. In reality, the language used in discussing their clientele urban residents. It also acts as a fundamental prop for consumer and and seen in their marketing strategies, as well as the prices charged, investor-demand related issues discussed in the previous section, spe­ reveal target markets as wealthy, “creative” and/or privileged pop­ cifically around the belief (or, better said, illusion) that green spaces ulations, or at very least middle-income residential homebuyers or create incentives for more sustainable consumer behavior. Environ­ renters, those known as the sustainability class (Gould and Lewis 2017). mental privilege shows otherwise: despite exhibiting supposed pro- Their new greened developments, in other words, are even further out of green behavior by living in a green building or biking to work, reach for working-class and racialized urban residents for whom housing wealthier residents tend to have much higher environmental footprints is already often precarious and insecure—nor are these populations even 6 M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 Fig. 1. The urban green grabbing triangle: Residential developer dynamics in Global North green gentrifying neighborhoods. Source: Authors. considered to be recipients. When developers green adjacent public green corporate, development and marketing strategies and “close the areas, deeper questions around sense of connection and comfort or lack loop” of corporate positioning, value appropriation and rent extraction. of with those public amenities as well as their actual use remain un­ Echoing Missaka Hettiarachchi et al.’s (2019) findings, greened private touched (Triguero-Mas et al., 2021). residential housing developments are done in the name of green city- On the other hand, the majority of non-profit developers discussed making but largely benefit elites – whose behavior might actually be urban greening as either a required or helpful way to access funding, everything but green in practice (Dauvergne, 2016). counterbalance higher density, and improve residents’ health and Digging more deeply into the dynamics of (green) value and rent in wellbeing. While some “believed” in broader urban greening and sus­ urban green grabbing, we argue that there are two interconnected tainability, in many cases their obligation to act outweighed goodwill, processes happening when urban greening is articulated as “value cre­ and their focus was more often than not geared toward affordability ation”. First, value is not being created, but rather surplus value is rather than greening per se. At the same time, regarding affordability, appropriated from the productive labor-nature relation through which most non-profit developers operate amidst the broader neoliberalization urban green amenities are built. This is especially true in cases where of social housing policies, where marketization and privatization are the adjacent to housing large-scale green (or green–blue) amenities have norm as states shift away from housing provision across the Global been or are being created with public funds, like Atlanta’s BeltLine, North and social or public housing is a negligible part of total housing Amsterdam Noord’s waterfront redevelopment, Dublin’s Liberties’ construction (Grander, 2017; Hochstenbach, 2017; Murphy, 2020). parks, Cleveland’s Edgewater Park and Glasgow’s Forth and Clyde Canal Many non-profit developers we interviewed stated that they are just area regeneration. Here, part of the (surplus) value generated by mu­ following mandated social housing requirements, albeit some do nicipalities in producing urban green space is appropriated by de­ recognize their problematic nature. Nonetheless, the broader trans­ velopers and investors, accelerating initial gentrification trends. In this formation in social/public housing provision is leading non-profit de­ light developers are part and parcel of green growth strategies pushed by velopers to increasingly act through market logic and thus (wealthier) municipal planners and policy-makers, what many authors frame as a residents’ ability to pay. sustainability fix (Long, 2016; Rosol, 2013; While et al., 2004) and the While nuanced between private and non-profit developers, we argue green growth machine (DuPuis and Greenberg, 2019; Gould and Lewis, that urban green grabbing occurs through different yet connected 2018; Argüelles et al., 2021). The second process is one of rent extrac­ “green” discursive and material value appropriation and rent extraction tion. Urban greening produces differential rent—additional rent created strategies embedded in gentrification processes. Urban green grabbing by the increase in utility of a particular plot of land—which developers underlines how developers partially or completely appropriate the extract via higher property prices. A green rent gap, in other words, is financial and social benefits generated by new or planned urban green seized through higher prices charged to consumers and investors solely amenities through creating a commodity (housing) to be bought and due to owning a building located next to a green amenity. Consumers sold next door. Developers, in other words, are able to extract extra rent, and investors will in return be able to extract further rent as gentrifi­ surplus value, social capital and/or prestige from locating projects cation consolidates. State-driven greening strategies oftentimes generate adjacent to new or up-and-coming green amenities like parks, commu­ the very possibility and conditions for developers to extract rent, as nity gardens, greenbelts, greenways, green streets, and waterfront or neighborhoods that have suffered neglect and underinvestment for de­ canal regeneration. Some of the benefits of this grabbing strategy are cades are targeting for greening. transferred onto their, generally high-end, clients, who also become Fairhead et al. (2012) point to broader economic, discursive and green pioneers in redeveloped neighborhoods. Green spaces are not material orders that enable and enact green grabs. We propose that necessarily always physically grabbed by developers, but their symbolic urban green grabbing takes place in the emergent economic order of the and discursive dimensions are seized to appropriate the added financial green sustainable city where, especially in the context of green capi­ and social benefits they generate. These benefits may reach some lower- talism, political and business elites deploy the green label as a solution to and middle-income households in the case of non-profit housing de­ economic, environmental and societal problems. The dominant discur­ velopers, but ultimately they largely help private developers articulate sive order that green is inherently good for all (Angelo, 2021) is 7 M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 mobilized as a politically neutral, win–win vision and reality, bolstered gentrification. It illustrates how urban greening facilitates surplus value by an affective dimension of “doing good” (García-Lamarca and appropriation and rent extraction for a triple privileged class able to Ullström, 2020). While arguably there is a budding discursive order capitalize on initial risk and investment—developers, financial in­ challenging such a simplistic reading, this narrative remains dominant. stitutions and wealthy private renters or buyers—while long-term Finally, the emerging urban material order ignores the “real” environ­ renters and other vulnerable residents are unable to afford this new mental impact of residential real estate and greening projects and re­ high-end green lifestyle. Ultimately, we believe that unpacking urban alities of environmental privilege, ultimately reinforcing inequalities. green grabbing as a concept is useful at an analytical and political level, Low income and/or racialized urban residents’ right to any city, green or to identify how the value appropriated and rent extracted from urban not, is further dismantled through the creation of islands of environ­ greening adjacent to housing is distributed, and who decides who gets mental privilege (Anguelovski et al., 2018; Cole et al., 2020; Rice et al., what (Andreucci et al., 2017; Kay and Kenney-Lazar, 2017). 2020). How can such exclusionary green city-building dynamics be coun­ We want to close this discussion by highlighting limits and chal­ teracted now? Both research and practice have shown that paths do exist lenges to the triumph of urban green grabbing, especially from what to improve housing outcomes (Oscilowicz et al., 2021). Ambitious social Fairhead et al. (2012: 242) term the “inherent political and social con­ and affordable housing targets can be set, like the city of Nantes in tradictions that generate social and political resistance.” Along Mon­ France who recently adopted a legal requirement for new real estate treal’s decontaminated and regenerated Lachine Canal, some private projects to include 33% social housing and 24% affordable housing developments have gated access and their own private docks to access (Gallez, 2020). Density bonuses can be provided to developers in ex­ the water, a reality that has driven many community organizations in change for supplying more affordable housing (Ryan and Enderle, the area to organize around universal access to the canal as a common 2012). Rent controls can ensure that excessive rents are not seized by good. An emblematic pirate action even took place in 2018 to take over new green rental housing developers. Toward building more equitable the private docks, denouncing private real estate and wealthy residents’ and green housing and urban life, the Los Angeles Regional Open Space appropriation of the area.4 Similar complaints about the privatization of and Housing (LA ROSAH) collaborative elaborated a series of typolog­ greening that was meant to benefit all urban residents emerged in late ical approaches at different scales combining affordable housing and 2018 in Dublin’s The Liberties neighborhood when the global group green open space options, and offering public sector recommendations Uninest, which manages the high-end student residence New Mill, to make these possible (La Thrives and La Rosah, 2019). While these are closed off public access to what was meant to be accessible green space.5 all important initiatives and actions to fight for, dominant development Finally, a private developer building new housing and creating Cleve­ dynamics and (green) growth strategies often overturn or outmaneuver land’s Battery Park wanted the park to be private, but the elected district them. officer managed to change its status to a public greenspace. Such dis­ In this light, we call for further research into the mechanisms of putes challenging urban green grabbing can serve to politicize it, urban green grabbing. Following Missaka Hettiarachchi et al.’s (2019) bringing discourse and debate about who benefits from urban greening and Mona Chettri’s (2020) work on urban land grabbing, more in-depth, and housing development into the public sphere. place-based research is needed to build an intersectional and historical understanding of urban green grabbing, also in relation to settler colo­ 6. Conclusions nial dynamics and processes of accumulation by green dispossession. For example, in her exploration of land struggles in Detroit, Sara Safransky In this paper, we found that the urban greening discourses and (2017) notes that while land or green grabs might be novel, racialized practices of 42 residential real estate developers in 15 American, dispossession is not, and points to this process as a foundational dynamic Western European and Canadian gentrifying neighborhoods pivoted of Detroit’s land and green grabs. Sian Butcher (2020) similarly un­ around financial benefits, consumer- or investor-driven demand and covers how racialized geographies produce differential rent in afford­ social dimensions. We built on Fairhead et al.’s (2012) concept of green able greenfield housing development in Johannesburg. We also call for grabbing to analyze this discourse and practice, dissecting how real more deeply unpacking the role of planning authorities, legislation and estate developers appropriate additional surplus value, extract rent, regulation in the real estate developer-urban greening relationship, to social capital and/or prestige through locating developments adjacent to unpack other dimensions of the creation of real estate value(s). Research new or up-and-coming urban greening projects—all in the name of could also seek to better understand how residents’ senses of belonging profit-making and green city building. Although green amenities are not and comfort are shaped through developers’ green grabbing strategies, necessarily always physically grabbed by developers and some might and the outcome for socio-ecological relations and environ­ even be built for a wider public’s use, their symbolic and discursive mental/climate justice when green grabbing effectively alienates dimensions are seized to appropriate the additional financial and social vulnerable residents from green and blue spaces, while giving full access benefits they generate in gentrifying neighborhoods. These benefits may to wealthier ones. Finally, digging deeper into resistance to urban green reach some lower- and middle-income households in the case of non- grabbing is urgently needed to better understand how green value and profit housing developers, but—due to broader processes of the with­ rent can be seized (back) by working-class and racialized communities, drawal of the state, marketization and in some cases privatization of towards building more equitable and just green cities. public/social housing provision systems across the Global North in particular—urban green grabbing largely benefits private developers, CRediT authorship contribution statement investors and wealthy consumers and residents. In some cases, public green infrastructure even becomes privatized over time, furthering Melissa García-Lamarca: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal exclusionary green city development patterns. analysis, Investigation, Writing – original draft. Isabelle Anguelovski: Urban green grabbing serves as a conceptual tool to understand Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Project administration, specific mechanisms in residential real estate developers’ discourse and Resources, Supervision, Writing – original draft. Helen Cole: Investi­ practice, illuminating the inner workings of broader processes of green gation, Writing – review & editing. James J.T. Connolly: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Carmen Pérez-del-Pulgar: Investigation, Writing – review & editing. Galia Shokry: Investigation, Writing – re­ 4 For more information see https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ view & editing. Margarita Triguero-Mas: Investigation, Writing – re­ private-docks-lachine-canal-1.4699935. view & editing. 5 For more information see https://www.dublininquirer.com/2018/10/17/a- student-complex-in-the-liberties-gates-off-its-green-space. 8 M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 Declaration of Competing Interest Byrne, J., 2012. When green is White: The cultural politics of race, nature and social exclusion in a Los Angeles urban national park. Geoforum 43 (3), 595–611. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.10.002. The authors declare that they have no known competing financial Castree, N., Christophers, B., 2015. Banking Spatially on the Future: Capital Switching, interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence Infrastructure, and the Ecological Fix. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 105 (2), 378–386. the work reported in this paper. https://doi.org/10.1080/00045608.2014.985622. Checker, M., 2011. Wiped Out by the “Greenwave”: Environmental Gentrification and the Paradoxical Politics of Urban Sustainability. City & Soc. 23, 210–229. Acknowledgements Chegut, A., Eichholtz, P., Kok, N., 2014. Supply, Demand and the Value of Green Buildings. Urban Stud. 51 (1), 22–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098013484526. Chettri, M., 2020. From Shangri-La to de-facto SEZ: Land grabs from ‘below’ in Sikkim, The research presented in this paper received funding from the Eu­ India. Geoforum 109, 57–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.12.016. ropean Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon Christophers, B., 2018. Risking value theory in the political economy of finance and 2020 research and innovation program [grant agreement No. 678034]. nature. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 42 (3), 330–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0309132516679268. HC and MTM are funded by Juan de la Cierva fellowships [FJCI-2018- Cole, H.V.S., Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T., García-Lamarca, M., Pérez del Pulgar, C., 035322, FJCI-2017-33842] awarded by the Spanish Ministry of Econ­ Shokry, G., Triguero-Mas, I., 2021. Adapting the Environmental Risk Transition omy and Competitiveness. Theory for Urban Health Inequities: An observational study examining complex environmental riskscapes in seven neighborhoods in Global North cities. Soc. Sci. & Med. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113907. References Coiacetto, E., 2001. Diversity in real estate developer behaviour: A case for research. Urban Policy Res. 19 (1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08111140108727862. Andreucci, D., García-Lamarca, M., Wedekind, J., Swyngedouw, E., 2017. “Value Coiacetto,, E., 2009. Industry structure in real estate development: Is city building Grabbing”: A Political Ecology of Rent. Capital. Nature, Social. 28 (3), 28–47. competitive? Urban Policy Res. 27 (2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/ https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2016.1278027. 08111140802499080. Angelo, H., 2021. How Green Became Good: Urbanized Nature and the Making of Cities Cole, H.V.S., Anguelovski, I., Baró, F., García-Lamarca, M., Kotsila, P., Pérez del and Citizens. Chicago University Press, Chicago. Pulgar, C., Shokry, G., Triguero-Mas, M., 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic: power and Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T., Garcia-Lamarca, M., Cole, H., Pearsall, H., 2019a. New privilege, gentrification, and urban environmental justice in the global north. Cities scholarly pathways on green gentrification: What does the urban ‘green turn’ mean Heal. 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1080/23748834.2020.1785176. and where is it going? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 43 (6), 1064–1086. https://doi.org/ Cole, H., Immergluck, D., 2022. Reshaping legacies of green and transit justice through 10.1177/0309132518803799. the Atlanta Beltline. In: Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T. (Eds.), The Green City and Anguelovski, I., Irazábal-Zurita, C., Connolly, J.J.T., 2019b. Grabbed Urban Landscapes: Social Injustice: 21 Tales from North America and Europe. Routledge, New York, Socio-spatial Tensions in Green Infrastructure Planning in Medellín. Int. J. Urban pp. 137–147. Reg. Res. 43 (1), 133–156. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12725. Connolly, J.J.T., 2019. From Jacobs to the Just City: A foundation for challenging the Anguelovski, I., Brand, A.L., Ranganathan, M., Hyra, D., 2021. Decolonizing the green green planning orthodoxy. Cities 91, 64–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. city: from environmental privilege to emancipatory green justice. Enviro. Just. cities.2018.05.011. https://doi.org/10.1089/env.2021.0014. Connolly, J.J.T., 2022. A community fights for its health while battling impending Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J., Brand, A.L., 2018. From landscapes of utopia to the margins gentrification: Bayview-Hunters Point, San Francisco. In: Anguelovski, I, Connolly, J. of the green urban life. City 22 (3), 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1080/ J.T. (Eds.), The Green City and Social Injustice: 21 Tales from North America and 13604813.2018.1473126. Europe. Routledge, New York, pp. 111–122. Argüelles, L., Cole, H.V.S., Anguelovski, I., 2021. Rail-to-park transformations in 21st Conway, D., Li, C.Q., Wolch, J., Kahle, C., Jerrett, M., 2010. A spatial autocorrelation century modern cities: Green gentrification on track, 251484862110100 Environ. approach for examining the effects of urban greenspace on residential property Plan. E Nat. Sp.. https://doi.org/10.1177/25148486211010064. values. J. Real Estate Financ. Econ. 41 (2), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1007/ Anguelovski, I., Ranganathan, M., Hyra, D., 2022. The racial inequities of green s11146-008-9159-6. gentrification in Washington, D.C. In: Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T. (Eds.), The Czembrowski, P., Kronenberg, J., 2016. Hedonic pricing and different urban green space Green City and Social Injustice: 21 Tales from North America and Europe. Routledge, types and sizes: Insights into the discussion on valuing ecosystem services. Landsc. New York, pp. 160–170. Urban Plan. 146, 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.10.005. Antwi, A., Henneberry, J., 1995. Developers, non-linearity and asymmetry in the Dauvergne, P., 2016. Environmentalism of the Rich. MIT Press, Cambridge MA. development cycle. J. Prop. Res. 12 (3), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Dooling, S., 2009. Ecological gentrification: A Research agenda exploring justice in the 09599919508724146. city. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 33, 621–639. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468- Aroul, R., Hansz, J.A., 2012. The Value of “Green:” Evidence from the First Mandatory 2427.2009.00860. Residential Green Building Program. J. Real Estate Res. 34 (1), 27–50. https://doi. DuPuis, E.M., Greenberg, M., 2019. The right to the resilient city: progressive politics and org/10.1080/10835547.2012.12091327. the green growth machine in New York City. J. Env. Stud. & Sci. 9 (3), 352–363. Beatley, T. 2011. Biophilic Cities: Integrating Nature into Urban Design and Planning. Fainstein, S., 1994. The City Builders: Property, Politics, & Planning in London and New Island Press, Washington, DC. York. Blackwell, Oxford. Ballard, R., Butcher, S., 2020. Comparing the relational work of developers. EPA: Econ. Fairhead, J., Leach, M., Scoones, I., 2012. Green Grabbing: a new appropriation of Space 52 (2), 266–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19893684. nature? J. Peasant Stud. 39 (2), 237–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Benson, E.M., Bereitschaft, B., 2020. Are LEED-ND developments catalysts of 03066150.2012.671770. neighborhood gentrification? Int. J. Urban Sustain. Dev. 12 (1), 73–88. https://doi. Feola, G., Suzunaga, J., Soler, J., Goodman, M.K., 2019. Ordinary land grabbing in peri- org/10.1080/19463138.2019.1658588. urban spaces: Land conflicts and governance in a small Colombian city. Geoforum Beuschel, V., Rudel, T.K., 2010. Can real-estate developers be “green”?: Sprawl, 105, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.05.018. environmental rhetoric, and land use planning in a New Jersey community. Soc. Nat. Flynn, J., 2016. Complete control: Developers, financial viability and regeneration at the Resour. 23 (2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920802013981. Elephant and Castle. City 20 (2), 278–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Bigger, P., Millington, N., 2019. Getting soaked? Climate crisis, adaptation finance, and 13604813.2016.1143685. racialized austerity. Environ. Plann. E: Nature Space 3 (3), 601–623. https://doi. Gallez, E., 2020. Assessment of land and housing policy instruments for the provision of org/10.1177/2514848619876539 (in press). affordable housing in a European metropolis. Masters thesis. Wageningen University. Borras, S.M., Franco, J.C., Gómez, S., Kay, C., Spoor, M., 2012. Land grabbing in Latin García-Lamarca, M., Anguelovski, I., Cole, H., Connolly, J.J.T., Argüelles, L., Baró, F., America and the Caribbean. J. Peasant Stud. 39 (3-4), 845–872. https://doi.org/ Loveless, S., del Pulgar, P., Frowein, C., Shokry, G., 2021. Urban green boosterism 10.1080/03066150.2012.679931. and city affordability: For whom is the ‘branded’ green city? Urban Stud. 58, Bouzarovski, S., Frankowski, J., Tirado Herrero, S., 2018. Low-Carbon Gentrification: 90–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098019885330. When Climate Change Encounters Residential Displacement. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. García-Lamarca, M., Ullström, S., 2020. “Everyone wants this market to grow”: The 42 (5), 845–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijur.2018.42.issue-510.1111/1468- affective post-politics of municipal green bonds. Environ. Plan. E Nat. Sp. https:// 2427.12634. doi.org/10.1177/2514848620973708. Brand, U., Wissen, M., 2014. The Financialisation of Nature as Crisis Strategy. J. fur Gould, K.A., Lewis, T., 2017. Green Gentrification: Urban Sustainability and the Struggle Entwicklungspolitik 30, 16–45. for Environmental Justice. Routledge, New York. Brill, F., 2018. Playing the game: A comparison of international actors in real estate Gould, K.A., Lewis, T.L., 2018. From Green Gentrification to Resilience Gentrification: An development in Modderfontein, Johannesburg and London’s Royal Docks. Geoforum Example from Brooklyn. City & Comm. 17 (1), 12–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2018.05.015. cico.12283. Bulkeley, H., Castán Broto, V., 2013. Government by experiment? Global cities and the Grander, M., 2017. New public housing: a selective model disguised as universal? governing of climate change. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 38, 361–375. https://doi.org/ Implications of the market adaptation of Swedish public housing. Int. J. Hous. Policy 10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00535.x. 17 (3), 335–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2016.1265266. Butcher, S., 2020. Appropriating rent from greenfield affordable housing: developer Guironnet, A., Attuyer, K., Halbert, L., 2016. Building cities on financial assets: The practices in Johannesburg. EPA: Econ. Space 52 (2), 337–361. https://doi.org/ financialisation of property markets and its implications for city governments in the 10.1177/0308518X19895278. Paris city-region. Urban Stud. 53 (7), 1442–1464. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0042098015576474. 9 M. García-Lamarca et al. Geoforum 128 (2022) 1–10 Haila, Anne, 1988. Land as a Financial Asset: The Theory of Urban Rent as a Mirror of Green City and Social Injustice: 21 Tales from North America and Europe. Routledge, Economic Transformation. Antipode 20 (2), 79–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/ New York, pp. 35–48. anti.1988.20.issue-210.1111/j.1467-8330.1988.tb00170.x. Prudham, Scott, 2009. Pimping climate change: Richard Branson, global warming, and Halbert, L., Rouanet, H., 2013. Filtering risk away: Global finance capital, transcalar the performance of green capitalism. Environ. Plan. A 41 (7), 1594–1613. https:// territorial networks and the (un)making of city-regions: an analysis of business doi.org/10.1068/a4071. property development in Bangalore, India. Reg. Stud. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Purcell, Thomas F., Loftus, Alex, March, Hug, 2020. Value–rent–finance. Prog. Hum. 00343404.2013.779658. Geogr. 44 (3), 437–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132519838064. Harvey, D., 1982. The Limits to Capital. Blackwell, Oxford. Qian, Q.K., Chan, E.H.W., Choy, L.H.T., 2013. How transaction costs affect real estate Healey, P., 1994. Urban policy and property development: the institutional relations of developers entering into the building energy efficiency (BEE) market? Habitat Int. real-estate development in an old industrial region. Environ. Plann. A 26, 117–198. 37, 138–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.12.005 (in press). Heckert, M., Mennis, J., 2012. The economic impact of greening urban vacant land: A Quastel, Noah, 2009. Political Ecologies of Gentrification. Urban Geogr. 30 (7), 694–725. spatial difference-in-differences analysis. Environ. Plan. A 44 (12), 3010–3027. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.30.7.694. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4595. Rice, Jennifer L., Cohen, Daniel Aldana, Long, Joshua, Jurjevich, Jason R., 2020. Hettiarachchi, M., Morrison, T.H., McAlpine, C., 2019. Power, politics and policy in the Contradictions of the Climate-Friendly City: New Perspectives on Eco-Gentrification appropriation of urban wetlands: the critical case of Sri Lanka. J. Peasant Stud. 46 and Housing Justice. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 44 (1), 145–165. https://doi.org/ (4), 729–746. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2017.1393801. 10.1111/ijur.v44.110.1111/1468-2427.12740. Heynen, N., Perkins, H.A., Roy, P., 2006. The Political Ecology of Uneven Urban Green Robertson, Morgan M., Wainwright, Joel D., 2013. The Value of Nature to the State. Ann. Space: The Impact of Political Economy on Race and Ethnicity in Producing Assoc. Am. Geogr. 103 (4), 890–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Environmental Inequality in Milwaukee. Urban Aff. Rev. 42 (1), 3–25. https://doi. 00045608.2013.765772. org/10.1177/1078087406290729. Robin, E., 2018. Performing real estate value(s): real estate developers, systems of Hochstenbach, C., 2017. State-led Gentrification and the Changing Geography of Market- expertise and the production of space. Geoforum 214–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/ oriented Housing Policies. Housing, Theory Soc. 34 (4), 399–419. https://doi.org/ j.geoforum.2018.05.006. 10.1080/14036096.2016.1271825. Rocheleau, Dianne E., 2015. Networked, rooted and territorial: green grabbing and Immergluck, D., 2009. Large redevelopment initiatives, housing values and resistance in Chiapas. J. Peasant Stud. 42 (3-4), 695–723. https://doi.org/10.1080/ gentrification: the case of the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Stud. 46, 1723–1745. https:// 03066150.2014.993622. www.jstor.org/stable/43198502. Rosol, M., 2013. Vancouver’s “EcoDensity” Planning Initiative: A Struggle over Immergluck, D., Balan, T., 2018. Sustainable for whom? Green urban development, Hegemony? Urban Stud. 50, 2238–2255. environmental gentrification, and the Atlanta Beltline. Urban Geogr. 39 (4), Rouanet, H., Halbert, L., 2016. Leveraging finance capital: Urban change and self- 546–562. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2017.1360041. empowerment of real estate developers in India. Urban Stud. 53 (7), 1401–1423. Jacobs, J., 1961. The death and life of great American cities. Random House, New York. Rutland, T., 2010. The Financialization of Urban Redevelopment. Geogr. Compass 4, Jones, R., Baker, T., Huet, K., Murphy, L., Lewis, N., 2020. Treating ecological deficit 1167–1178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2010.00348.x. with debt: The practical and political concerns with green bonds. Geoforum 114, Ryan, Sherry, Enderle, Bridget Elaine, 2012. Examining Spatial Patterns in Affordable 49–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2020.05.014. Housing: The Case of California Density Bonus Implementation. J. Housing Built Kabisch, N., Haase, D., 2014. Green justice or just green? Provision of urban green spaces Enviro. 27 (4), 413–425. in Berlin, Germany. Landsc. Urban Plan. 122, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Safransky, Sara, 2017. Rethinking Land Struggle in the Postindustrial City. Antipode 49 landurbplan.2013.11.016. (4), 1079–1100. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.v49.410.1111/anti.12225. Kallis, G., Swyngedouw, E., 2018. Do Bees Produce Value? A Conversation Between an Safransky, S., 2014. Greening the urban frontier: Race, property, and resettlement in Ecological Economist and a Marxist Geographer. Capital. Nat. Social. 29 (3), 36–50. Detroit. Geoforum 56, 237–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2014.06.003. https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2017.1315830. Sah, Vivek, Miller, Norman, Ghosh, Biplab, 2013. Are Green REITs Valued More? J. Real Katz, C., 1998. Whose nature, whose culture“: Private productions of space and the Estate Portf. Manag. 19 (2), 169–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/ “preservation” of nature In: Braun, B., Castree, N. (Eds.), Remaking Reality: Nature 10835547.2013.12089948. at the Millenium. London and New York, pp. 45–62. Searle, L.G., 2014. Conflict and commensuration: contested market making in India’s Kay, K., Kenney-Lazar, M., 2017. Value in capitalist natures: An emerging framework. private real estate development sector. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 38 (1), 60–78. https:// Dialogues Hum. Geogr. 7 (3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/ doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12042. 2043820617736584. Smith, N., 2007. Nature as accumulation strategy. Social. Regist. 43, 1–21. Knuth, S., 2016. Seeing Green in San Francisco: City as Resource Frontier. Antipode 48 Steel, G., van Noorloos, F., Klaufus, C., 2017. The urban land debate in the global South: (3), 626–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.v48.310.1111/anti.12205. New avenues for research. Geoforum 83, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Krueger, R., Gibbs, D.C., 2007. The sustainable development paradox: urban political geoforum.2017.03.006. economy in the United States and Europe. Guilford Press, New York. Sullivan, S., 2013. Banking Nature? The Spectacular Financialisation of Environmental La Thrives and La Rosah, 2019. Pathway to Parks & Affordable Housing Joint Conservation. Antipode 45, 198–217. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467- Development. https://d3h55oe312fhj3.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/ 8330.2012.00989.x. 05/Pathway_to_Parks_and_Affordable_Housing.pdf. Swyngedouw, E., 2019. The Urbanization of Capital and the Production of Capitalist Leffers, Donald, Wekerle, Gerda R, 2020. Land developers as institutional and Natures. Oxford Handb. Karl Marx 538–556. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/ postpolitical actors: Sites of power in land use policy and planning. Environ. Plan. A 9780190695545.013.30. 52 (2), 318–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X19856628. Tretter, Eliot M., 2013. Contesting Sustainability: ‘SMART Growth’ and the Li, T.M., 2018. After the land grab: Infrastructural violence and the “Mafia System” in Redevelopment of Austin’s Eastside. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 37 (1), 297–310. https:// Indonesia’s oil palm plantation zones. Geoforum 96, 328–337. https://doi.org/ doi.org/10.1111/ijur.2013.37.issue-110.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01166.x. 10.1016/j.geoforum.2017.10.012. Triguero-Mas, Margarita, Anguelovski, Isabelle, García-Lamarca, Melissa, Loftus, Alex, March, Hug, 2016. Financializing Desalination: Rethinking the Returns of Argüelles, Lucía, Perez-del-Pulgar, Carmen, Shokry, Galia, Connolly, James J.T., Big Infrastructure. Int. J. Urban Reg. Res. 40 (1), 46–61. https://doi.org/10.1111/ Cole, Helen V.S., 2021. Natural outdoor environments’ health effects in gentrifying 1468-2427.12342. neighborhoods: Disruptive green landscapes for underprivileged neighborhood Long, J., 2016. Constructing the narrative of the sustainability fix: Sustainability, social residents. Soc. Sci. Med. 279, 113964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. justice and representation in Austin, TX. Urban Stud. 53, 149–172. socscimed.2021.113964. Loughran, Kevin, 2014. Parks for profit: The high line, growth machines, and the uneven Walker, Richard, 2017. Value and Nature: Rethinking Capitalist Exploitation and development of urban public spaces. City & Comm. 13 (1), 49–68. Expansion. Capital. Nature, Social. 28 (1), 53–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/ Murphy, Laurence, 2020. Neoliberal social housing policies, market logics and social 10455752.2016.1263674. rented housing reforms in New Zealand. Int. J. Hous. Policy 20 (2), 229–251. Wallis, Victor, 2009. Beyond “Green Capitalism”. Mon. Rev. Rev. 61 (9), 32. https://doi. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2019.1638134. org/10.14452/MR-061-09-2010-0210.14452/MR-061-09-2010-02_3. Nelson, A., Rakau, O., 2010. Green buildings. A niche becomes mainstream. Dtsch. Bank Ward, Callum, Aalbers, Manuel B, 2016. Virtual special issue editorial essay: ‘The shitty Res. April 12, 1–29. rent business’: What’s the point of land rent theory? Urban Stud. 53 (9), 1760–1783. Oscilowicz, E., Hajtmarova, S., Anguelovski, I., 2021. Enacting Just Urban Green Futures: https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016638975. Promising policy and planning tools and regulations for Europe and North America. Weber, R., 2015. From Boom to Bubble: How Finance Built the New Chicago. University In: Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J. (Eds.), The Green City and Social Injustice: 21 of Chicago Press, Chicago. Tales from North America and Europe. Routledge, New York, pp. 295–310. Weber, R., 2002. Extracting Value from the City: Neoliberalism and Urban Oscilowicz, E., Honey-Rosés, J., Anguelovski, I., Triguero-Mas, M., Cole, H., 2020. Young Redevelopment. Antipode 34, 519–540. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444397499. families and children in gentrifying neighborhoods: how gentrification reshapes use ch8. and perception of green play spaces. Local Environ. 25, 765–786. https://doi.org/ While, A., Jonas, A., Gibbs, G., 2004. The Environment and the Entrepreneurial City: 10.1080/13549839.2020.1835849. Searching for the Urban ‘Sustainability Fix’ in Manchester and Leeds. Int. J. Urban Ouma, Stefan, Johnson, Leigh, Bigger, Patrick, 2018. Rethinking the financialization of Reg. Res. 28, 549–569. ‘nature’. Environ. Plan. A 50 (3), 500–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/ Zhang, L., Wu, J., Liu, H., 2018. Turning green into gold: A review on the economics of 0308518X18755748. green buildings. J. Clean. Prod. 172, 2234–2245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. Park, L., Pellow, D., 2011. The Slums of Aspen: Immigrants vs. the Environment in jclepro.2017.11.188. Americas Eden. New York University Press, New York. Zoomers, A., van Noorloos, F., Otsuki, K., Steel, G., van Westen, G., 2017. The Rush for Pérez-del-Pulgar, C., 2022. Dismantling the just city: The unevenness of green Land in an Urbanizing World: From Land Grabbing Toward Developing Safe, experiences in Amsterdam Noord. In: Anguelovski, I., Connolly, J.J.T. (Eds.), The Resilient, and Sustainable Cities and Landscapes. World Dev. 92, 242–252. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2016.11.016. 10