interview fromA&B Issue 03 | 2022
We talk to Kuba Snopek about what makes developers pursue social goals in a capitalist reality, and why it is worth looking at the context and activities of these companies with benevolent neutrality.
Alicja Gzowska: In your opinion, are there responsible developers?
Kuba Snopek: For me, this question is random. Maybe let's start with how the development process is structured, because it is within this process that responsibility is specified. Patrice Derrington's book "Built Up. An Historical Perspective on the Contemporary Principles and Practices of Real Estate Development" takes a closer look at how the development system evolved over hundreds of years in Britain and later in the United States. It is based on the premise that social responsibility lies with either the municipality or the public sector, and the developer is simply a money-making enterprise. That is, what matters most in the context of said responsibility is how well the rules of the game are organized between the private entity - that is, the company that is building the city to achieve its business goals - and the public entity.
Nowadays it is much more complicated, if only because in cities in the United States (where the development system is most developed) in the 1980s the public sector was severely curtailed. The mechanism was therefore no longer sustainable, and this entailed a shift in the limit of responsibility. We are seeing in the States an increasing push for developers to also be responsible for some of those things that the public sector was previously responsible for. So-called POPS(privately owned public space), or public spaces built by developers, are examples of corporate co-financing of either technical or social infrastructure elements. Another example is public-private partnerships. And this is where a very interesting game begins, because some elements of such infrastructure are in the developers' favor, and some are not. For example, for a school, developers are eager to dump, they also want to participate in its design, they try to make it as good as possible, because this directly affects sales. There are also less obvious elements of social infrastructure, for example, the realization of a local cinema is not an obvious idea, but it can be supported by business arguments in some situations. In Poland, a version of the American development system has been created. As in the US, in our country the public sector has been weakened and the realization of various elements of the city, which should be realized from taxes, is often expected from the developer.
The designation of a private public open space on the terrace of the Intercontinental Hotel in San Francisco, California
Photo credit: Staeiou, CC BY-SA 4.0 Wikimedia Commons
Alicia: But he is not neutral in this structure.
Kuba: In Polish discussions, the developer more or less resembles the one from the movie "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?" - such an evil capitalist who wants to destroy everyone. In reality, development companies are very different. First, they have different products; they are residential, commercial and so on. Second, they operate from different time perspectives: some build to sell immediately ( build-to-sell business model), while others remain owners of what they create. Finally, we also have other models of sharing; apartments can be sold or rented. These are just three factors out of many that influence what you are asking. I'm oversimplifying a lot, but someone who will own the building in which he rents apartments for the next seventy or a hundred years wants what surrounds them to be of the highest quality. If there is a beautiful old park there, the meeting place will be a well-known local cafe, tidiness will be maintained, then simply the price of that rental will be higher. And for a developer focused on a quick sale, such elements are needed at the specific moment of sale, not later.
Alicia: So you're suggesting that a developer will only act for the common good if it's the same as his business goals?
Kuba: This is a simplification. In the Polish discussion of the city, we have this narrative that the public sector is good and the private sector is bad, so ideally the public sector should build everything. But things are more complex. Let's look at specific examples: I myself rent an apartment in a building from the early 1950s. It's Socialist Realism, which is widely regarded as good architecture. Did the public sector of the time - the face of which was Bierut, considered a criminal today - work for the common good? If the Polish government erects a propaganda dummy of the former palace at Pilsudski Square just so that the TV appearances will have a good setting, will that be a public sector that works for the common good? Such a simplification does not stand up to reality. The same is true of the private sector, there are, for example, businesses referred to as double bottom line, which earn enough to exist by creating ethical products.
Another thing is that developers are people too. Working with them, I have met some who are not at all interested in the city and what will be built. For them, there is only an Excel table. But there are also those who want to build something so they can show it to their parents or children later and be proud of it. One of the most interesting historical examples of such a developer is the Venice of America (now Venice Beach) - a part of Los Angeles created by Abbott Kinney. He built Venice according to how he envisioned it in America. I like both this and the historic Venice. They are completely different places - one and the other has its pluses. Venice Beach, while lacking the historic fabric of this Italian Venice, has its own character and charisma, and is popular with locals and businesses.
Canals in the historic part of Venice of America (Venice Beach), Calif.
Photo: Carsten Tolkmit from Kiel, Germany, CC BY-SA 2.0 Wikimedia Commons
There are also contemporary examples of a humane approach by developers to creating a city. In Oakland, I was able to persuade a developer of office buildings to give some of the first floor space to an NGO that organizes residencies for artists. The artists got a place to work and stipends, and the developer got a lively first floor full of people. A year later, I managed to persuade a developer in Odessa to do something similar.
I think it is important to try to understand these mechanisms - human, financial, spatial - by which the developer is governed. This is extremely important, because today this is mainly how cities are built.
Alicia: Why is it then that quality realizations, despite high demand, are in the minority, and good solutions are always expensive?
Kuba: In Poland, we have made a specific political decision: we have chosen a model of urban development based on a market economy system, and we build cities roughly in the American fashion. Yes, we have a discussion about whether it should not be transformed in some way, for example by creating communal housing or built by municipalities in a non-market logic. But this debate takes place in expert circles, and despite isolated realizations, unrealized bills and failed state programs, it does not shape reality in any way. All the time it is the case that the public sector creates constraints - in the form of plans or regulations, while the private sector, i.e. businesses, builds for profit. This is the logic in which we operate.
