BUILDING BELOW: ARCHITECTURE BETWEEN FINANCE AND SUBTERRANEAN FUTURES

19th WORLD CONFERENCE OF THE ASSOCIATED RESEARCH CENTRES FOR THE URBAN UNDERGROUND SPACE, Belgrade, Serbia, November 4-7, 2025. (Paper No: 1.7.223,  pp. 78-91)

 

АУТОР(И) / AUTHOR(S): Danilo Furundžić , Dejan Filipović, Nebojša Bojović 

 

Download Full Pdf   

DOI:  10.46793/ACUUS2025.1.7.223

САЖЕТАК / ABSTRACT:

This paper investigates how financialization reshapes the city by transforming architecture and urbanism into instruments of financial capital. Building on the concept of asset urbanism, it argues that urban space increasingly operates as an investment vehicle rather than a collective good. The central question is straightforward: when buildings are treated primarily as financial assets, what becomes of their capacity to provide housing, foster public life, and support environmental resilience? The paper pursues three objectives.

First, it traces the financialization of urban space, showing how architecture is reconfigured into a financial asset. This means examining the mechanisms that convert inherently illiquid real estate into liquid capital, giving rise to new morphological types that act as spatial avatars of finance—most notably luxury mega-basements, commonly known as “iceberg homes.” From these subterranean expansions to super-slender towers, this paper situates architectural form within the logics of finance capitalism. It further considers the development of subterranean public spaces through the economic lens of housing market financialization, shaped by capital flows, speculative investment, and liquidity tools.

Second, it documents the social outcomes of asset urbanism: increasing vacancy rates, the normalization of “zombie urbanism,” and the growing disconnect between statistical density and actual habitation. Within this framework, subterranean mega-projects are analyzed through the same logic as the iceberg phenomenon in luxury mansions. The contribution lies in reframing iceberg urbanism not as an isolated curiosity, but as part of a broader urban condition in which civic facades conceal hidden financial infrastructures. This perspective foregrounds the ethical dilemmas faced by architects, who must navigate between the market imperatives of liquidity and their professional commitments to sustainability and social inclusion.

Third, the paper examines the opportunities and challenges posed by the iceberg phenomenon across global cities, situating it within broader debates on urban inequality, speculative development, and the contested role of architecture in shaping contemporary urban life. In doing so, it incorporates media accounts, regulatory conflicts, and sustainability frameworks to demonstrate how underground expansion simultaneously generates spatial inequalities and ecological risks. Ultimately, it calls for a renewed assertion of architecture’s public role against the universalizing pressures of finance.

КЉУЧНЕ РЕЧИ / KEYWORDS:

finance capitalism, asset urbanism, zombie urbanism, subterranean megaprojects, iceberg homes, sustainable architecture, the iceberg phenomenon

ПРОЈЕКАТ / ACKNOWLEDGEMENT:

ЛИТЕРАТУРА / REFERENCES:

  • Aalbers, M. B. (2012). Subprime cities: The political economy of mortgage markets. Wiley-Blackwell.
  • Jameson, F. (1998). The brick and the balloon: Architecture, idealism, and land speculation. New Left Review, 228, 25–46.
  • Krippner, G. R. (2005). The financialization of the American economy. Socio-Economic Review, 3(2), 173–208. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwi008
  • Arrighi, G. (1983). The geometry of imperialism: The limits of Hobson’s paradigm (New ed.). Verso.
  • Soules, M. (2021). Icebergs, zombies, and the ultra-thin: Architecture and capitalism in the twenty-first century. Princeton Architectural Press.
  • Wu, F. (2018). Planning centrality, market instruments: Governing Chinese urban transformation under state entrepreneurialism. Urban Studies, 55(7), 1383–1399. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098017721828
  • Atkinson, R. (2020). Alpha city: How London was captured by the super-rich. Verso.
  • Burrows, R. (2019). Living on icebergs: The rise of mega-basements in London. Urban Studies, 56(12), 2530–2548. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018795796
  • Graham, S. (2016). Vertical: The city from satellites to bunkers. Verso.
  • Lapavitsas, C. (2013). Profiting without producing: How finance exploits us all. Verso.
  • Daniel, M. (2022). Subterranean London: The cultural politics of underground space. Routledge.
  • Atkinson, R. (2016). Limited exposure: Social concealment, mobility and engagement with public space by the super-rich in London. Environment and Planning A, 48(7), 1302–1317. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518X15598320
  • Burrows, R., Graham, S., & Wilson, A. (2022). Bunkering down? The geography of elite residential basement development in London. Urban Geography, 43(9), 1372–1393. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2021.1934628
  • Garrett, B. (2020). Subterranean London: Cracking the capital’s hidden geographies. Reaktion Books.
  • Stein, S. (2019). Capital city: Gentrification and the real estate state. Verso.
  • Burrows, R., Webber, R., & Atkinson, R. (2017). Welcome to “Pikettyville”? Mapping London’s alpha territories. The Sociological Review, 65(1), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-954X.12375
  • Baldwin, S., Burrows, R., & Knowles, C. (2019). Troglodytism and urban transformation: London basements as elite spaces. Architectural Research Quarterly, 23(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1359135519000225
  • Arrighi, G. (2010). The long twentieth century: Money, power, and the origins of our times (Updated ed.). Verso.
  • Đokić, V., Ristić Trajković, J., Furundžić, D., Krstić, V., & Stojiljković, D. (2018). Urban garden as lived space: Informal gardening practices and dwelling culture in socialist and post-socialist Belgrade. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 30, 247–259. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.014
  • Despommier, D. (2010). The vertical farm: Feeding the world in the 21st century. Thomas Dunne Books.
  • Eigenbrod, C., & Gruda, N. (2015). Urban vegetable for food security in cities? A review. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 35(2), 483–498. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0273-y
  • Furundžić, D. S., & Bojović, N. (2023). The potential of underground spaces around metro stations as special urban forms. In Proceedings of the 18th Conference of the Associated Research Centers for the Urban Underground Space (ACUUS 2023) (pp. 25–31). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-1257-1
  • Foster + Partners. (1995). Bilbao Metro [Architectural firm report]. Retrieved from https://www.fosterandpartners.com
  • Foster + Partners. (2017). Apple Park, Cupertino [Architectural firm report]. Retrieved from https://www.fosterandpartners.com
  • Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054346
  • Greater London Authority. (2016). Basement development in London: Policy guidance [Policy guidance]. Greater London Authority.
  • Greater London Authority. (2008). The London plan: Spatial development strategy for Greater London [Policy guidance]. Greater London Authority.
  • Gotham, K. F. (2009). Creating liquidity out of spatial fixity: The secondary circuit of capital and the subprime mortgage crisis. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 33(2), 355–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2009.00874.x
  • Wilson, D. M. (2002). The British Museum: A history. British Museum Press.
  • Sudjic, D. (2010). Norman Foster: A life in architecture. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
  • El-Geneidy, A., Kastelberger, L., & Abdelhamid, H. T. (2011). Montréal’s roots: Exploring the growth of Montréal’s Indoor City. Journal of Transport and Land Use, 4(2), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.v4i2.176
  • Berger, P., & Anziutti, J. (2016). LA CANOPEE in Paris — An innovative architecture, a challenge for engineering. Structural Engineering International, 26(3), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.2749/101686616X14636714865383
  • Colomb, C. (2012). Staging the new Berlin: Place marketing and the politics of urban reinvention post-1989. Routledge.
  • Safdie, M. (2011). Marina Bay Sands: Integrating resort, city, and public space. Architectural Design, 81(4), 68–73. https://doi.org/10.1002/ad.1271
  • Chang, T. C., & Huang, S. (2011). Recreating place, replacing memory: Creative destruction at the Singapore River. Asia Pacific Viewpoint, 52(2), 144–158. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8373.2011.01445.x
  • Leaf, M. (2018). Subterranean urbanism in Chongqing: Topography, circulation, and hybrid space. Journal of Urban Design, 23(4), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2018.1425501
  • Moss, J. (2016). The Lowline: A case study in speculative urbanism and the politics of subterranean public space. Journal of Urban Design, 21(5), 617–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2016.1184567
  • Boston Society of Architects. (2018). NatureStructure: Design for resilient communities [Exhibition catalog]. BSA Space.
  • BNKR Arquitectura. (2011). Earthscraper: A subterranean alternative to urban growth in Mexico City [Architectural concept]. BNKR Arquitectura.
  • Admiraal, H., & Cornaro, A. (Eds.). (2016). Think Deep: Planning, development and use of underground space in cities. ISOCARP/ITACUS.
  • Bobylev, N. (2016). Underground space as an urban indicator: Measuring use of subsurface. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, 40–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2016.01.010
  • Broere, W. (2016). Urban underground space: Solving the problems of today’s cities. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 55, 245–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2015.11.014
  • Gao, C., Wang, Y., Zhang, X., & Xu, Y. (2021). The main characteristics of urban underground space regulatory plan from the perspective of China’s spatial planning: A practice in Beijing Sub-Center. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 703, 012009. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/703/1/012009