Urban wealth fund

Due to the lack of proper asset registers and public sector accounting, the real estate segment is the least well understood, with considerable value hidden from being considered when formulating the budget.

[7] In addition to the professional management of assets, such funds protect cities from short-sighted politically inspired measures, such as selling properties to resolve liquidity problems.

[8] For Detter and Fölster the core idea of the Urban Wealth Fund can be summarized by 5 key points, which are simple in design but may be difficult to execute:[8] Some economists[9][10] and politicians[11] advocate for the establishment of UWFs as a means of making more efficient use of city-owned assets, such as land, in order to generate revenue without necessarily resorting to tax increases or running up debts.

The positive examples of Copenhagen and Hamburg suggest that the concept can be successful despite the numerous differences between the UWF structure.

[10] However, McNickle notes that there is a dearth of scholarly literature casting any sort of critical eye on UWFs.

[10] The capital is then mainly used for infrastructure and basic amenities, notably roads, bridges, squares, parks, quays, and promenades.

[16] In addition to its financial tasks, HafenCity Hamburg GmbH clears and prepares sites, acquires real estate developers and is responsible for public relations and communications.

[18] This ensures that the long-term plans are not endangered by political shifts in local government and that the corporation has the needed agility to operate in market economies.

[19] Similar to CPH in Copenhagen, the UWF is used to ensure high quality public transport, while also increasing the living standard in Hong Kong.