Identity as a project resource: How real estate companies and associated professional groups use the concept of “identity” in contemporary urban development
Keywords:
дискурс-анализ, real-estate development, place identity, project identity, professional roles, expert interviews, discourse analysisAbstract
This article examines the ways in which the concept of “identity” is used and interpreted in contemporary Russian real estate development. Drawing on expert semistructured interviews with developers, architects, marketing and branding specialists, urbanists, anthropologists, and urban researchers, as well as a discourse analysis of industry and academic sources, the study demonstrates that identity in development is formed and applied primarily as a managed project resource. It is used to frame and interpret design decisions, legitimate economic advantage, and establish product distinctiveness. However, it is often stabilized at early stages of the project, and is rarely sustained beyond the active marketing phase. The article describes the methodology and empirical basis of the study and examines the initiation of identity, identity as a source of added value and market differentiation, locality and heritage, the limits of symbolic gestures, the translation of identity across professional roles, and identity as both a process and a boundary of manageability. The article offers an analytical distinction between place identity and architectural identity as categories of experience and professional reflection, on the one hand, and project identity as a tool for managing the development cycle, on the other. Whereas in theoretical works identity is associated with lived experience, memory, and everyday practices, in development practice it often becomes a preliminary project framework that must subsequently be confirmed through architecture, the product, communication, and activation during the operational phase. The study shows that professional groups converge in recognizing the value of identity for project differentiation, but diverge in their understanding of its sources, the limits of manageability, and the ways of implementation in the product, the environment, and operational phase.Downloads
References
Брубейкер, Р. (2012). Этничность без групп. М.: Издательский дом Высшей школы экономики. Линч, К. (1982). Образ города. М.: Стройиздат.
Малышев, Г. Н. (2024). Концепт идентичности в современной российской архитектурно-градостроительной практике как инструмент профессиональной легитимации: этнография одного бюро. Городские исследования и практики, 9(4), 40-53. https://doi.org/10.17323/usp94202440-53 https://elibrary.ru/PGACHI
Brown, P. H. (2015). How real estate developers think: Design, profits, and community. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57-83.
Rahman, H. A., Barley, S. R. (2017). Situated redesign in creative occupations: An ethnography of architects. Academy of Management Discoveries, 3(4), 404-424. https://doi.org/10.5465/amd.2016.0039
Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.
Torabi, Z., Brahman, S. (2013). Effective factors in shaping the identity of architecture. Middle-East
Journal of Scientific Research, 15(1), 106-113. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2013.15.1.2357