What structure could coordinate or combine selected public and private assets into an investable regeneration programme while protecting public objectives?
The study had to establish:
This is an independent applied study. It was not commissioned.
The question is one that recurs across regeneration programmes: a city holds strategically important but underused property, capital is available in principle, and the institutional structure that could connect the two has never been tested.
The study built the analysis that a government, municipality or development bank would need before selecting a vehicle.
The assets were not equivalent. Ownership certainty, heritage constraints, rehabilitation requirements, revenue potential and implementation readiness varied across the register.
A pooled vehicle assumes assets can be treated as a portfolio. That assumption has to be earned, not asserted.
Currency added a second layer: a project denominated in local currency can still carry foreign-currency debt and foreign-linked investor return expectations.
The desk-feasibility work suggests that asset heterogeneity and unresolved property-level risks can make immediate pooling less implementable than a staged structure: de-risk individual assets first, establish operating evidence, then test whether suitable stabilized assets should be pooled.
The study is also the proof case for REIV Structurer — the model built to run this comparison can be rerun on another city’s assets.
No transaction, ownership claim, valuation or procurement outcome is asserted. Proprietary weightings and full financial formulas are not published.
The study framed the question as a structuring decision rather than a development decision: what institutional and financial vehicle could carry a regeneration programme, given the assets and objectives that actually exist.
Decision framing · investment-vehicle analysis · public-value definition
Regeneration priorities were translated into asset-level variables — use, rehabilitation requirement, cost, revenue, control and evidence status — so that structures could be compared on the same terms.
Asset diagnostics · evidence classification · highest-and-best-use logic
Four candidate structures were specified alongside international REIV benchmarks, with the conditions each structure would require in order to be implementable.
Structure design · comparative benchmarking · risk-allocation logic
The financial model tests capital stack, financing gap, FX exposure, implementation readiness and downside sensitivity across the four structures, and records which variables move the ranking.
Financial modelling · scenario analysis · sensitivity testing
The comparison will be carried into a market-validation protocol and due-diligence gates, so the ranking can gain confidence as title, cost and rent evidence is verified.
Market validation · evidence gating · transaction-readiness design
The method is being carried into REIV Structurer so the same comparison can be rerun on another asset register, in another currency and jurisdiction.
Decision-product transfer · model governance · reusable method
The study did not choose a vehicle. It established what each vehicle would have to carry — and what still has to be verified before anyone commits.
The four-structure comparison in this study was run in REIV Structurer. The same engine can be rerun on another asset register, in another currency and jurisdiction.