Understanding the Three Value Chains

Each chain operates on a distinct logic, and understanding that distinction makes the tensions that follow legible.

Each chain creates value differently:

• Investment focuses on raising the required capital through appropriate structures such as direct equity-based investments, debt structures, revenue-sharing agreements, joint-development partnerships, BOT/BOOT structures, and others. In publicly funded projects, the primary objective is often to minimise public equity injections.

• Development focuses on transforming raw land into the desired vision captured within the master plan, underpinned by placemaking and community enrichment principles.

• Asset Management focuses on optimising performance while preserving long-term capital and social asset value.

Each value chain reveals nuances missed at the surface, and in pursuit of the common goal, the chains create internal frictions. The image below shows prototypical sub-value chains within giga-projects built from my experience working on such projects.
Each project fine-tunes the sub-value chain to meet its immediate requirements.

The responsibility for asset exits may lie with either the investments or the asset management team, depending on the organisational context. In the illustration above, I’ve assigned this function to the asset management team, as it fits with the overall evolution of Giga-Projects as they transition from development to perpetual operations. While investment teams may also be involved in certain cases, I’ve limited their scope here to capital raising and portfolio management.

Misalignments Across Value Chains

Naturally, giga-projects focus heavily on developments, as the initial phase converts raw land to a built environment, and through it, a vision becomes a reality. Yet, the intersection of these sub–value chains is rarely seamless; each operates with its own drivers, creating areas of tension and misalignment. I highlight such misalignments with two examples below:

Example 1 — In practice, development teams often prioritise on-time completion.
Once funding is secured, they move ahead with construction plans to break ground.
Execution is the first core activity in realising the vision. In pursuit of achieving timely completion, development teams may operate almost entirely independently with limited coordination across investment or asset management teams. The misalignment ripples across the commercial outcomes of the other value chains.
For example, development teams will construct assets without exploring options such as capital raising, joint-development agreements, 3rd party developments governed through specifications, and others.

Example 2 — Decisions made during design and construction frequently overlook their long-term operational impact. Asset Management teams possess significant knowledge of asset operations to materially improve Net Operating Income (NOI) when the asset starts operating. Development teams rarely carry that depth of operational knowledge, and even when asset management input is available, delivery pressures or organisational immaturity mean it goes unheeded.

The examples above are illustrative and do not capture the full extent.
In my experience, the misalignments can be categorised into 3 broad areas:

1. Strategic Focus: Each value chain measures success differently. Investment focuses on capital deployment and returns; development focuses on time, cost, and quality; asset management focuses on efficiency and value maximisation.

2. Operational Procedures & Toolkits: The tools and data used by each team rarely align. Insights buried in reports and schedules are condensed into Excel models for investment analysis, which often fail to reflect the operational realities later faced by asset management.

3. Team Composition: Development and asset management teams tend to be specialised by asset class, whereas investment teams operate across asset types. The result is a structural mismatch in how decisions are made and who is consulted.

Due to these misalignments, we are seeing problems manifest across the Saudi Giga-Projects, and I am sure they have historically existed in previous global giga-projects.
The misalignments are structural, and so is the solution.

Integrated Isolation: Balancing Independence & Alignment

Through experience, I have found that the solution lies in what I call integrated isolation. An organisational design feature that separates yet connects by creating three independent units (Investment, Development and Asset Management), each with its own leadership, strategic focus, KPIs, and toolkits. This achieves the isolation: allowing each unit to specialise, operate, and innovate within its own value chain. The remaining challenge lies in achieving effective integration across these units. Unlike traditional group structures that rely on hierarchical reporting lines and shared KPIs that blur strategic focus, integrated isolation preserves true autonomy within a framework of shared outcomes. Each unit retains freedom to act entrepreneurially, yet remains strategically aligned through a focused executive governance layer that synchronises their efforts. All three units receive the master plan upfront, with a focus on their area:

• Investment develops capital strategies for funding phases and asset exits.

• Development executes according to its own programme.

• Asset Management builds early operational and maintenance strategies for each asset class.

Coordination happens not through daily interdepartmental reporting, but through a governance layer — a focused executive committee receiving progress and feedback at regular intervals. This ensures each unit remains agile while contributing to shared project outcomes, while also clarifying lifecycle ownership. For instance, investment exits, traditionally managed by the investment function, would transition to Asset Management once projects stabilise. This ensures continuity beyond early investment phases and embeds long-term stewardship into the value chain.

Outcomes: Flexibility, Efficiency, and Socio-Economic Impact

Each unit operates independently, free from the inertia of large organisations.
As development plans evolve, investment and asset management can adapt in parallel, rather than reactively.
It also ensures these departments are scaled up and scaled down at the appropriate points in the project’s life cycle.
For asset management in particular, it enables early preparation for scaling operations as assets come online — bridging the very gap that once caused friction across the value chains. Integrated isolation gives giga-projects something rare at their scale: the ability to adapt without fracturing.

Giga-projects are a new real estate category underpinned by traditional and new asset classes that are interconnected in the service of national strategic objectives. At times, and wrongfully, they are categorised under “urban regeneration”, and I disagree with such a categorisation. While they transform the surrounding urban landscape, they embody the sovereign ambitions to achieve national objectives. The latter separates them from mainstream urban regeneration projects. Giga-projects are their own category and orchestrate different entities, as illustrated in my last article (link), and the central challenge is delivering them with coherence.

Challenge

A key challenge in Giga-Projects is translating the vision into reality--that is, what was envisioned is executed. It is inevitable for such projects to drift under the weight of execution. The short-term focus on delivery milestones starts to dilute the vision, creating a sense of disconnect, and in the absence of a coherent framework, tactical activities satisfy short-term requirements but expose the long-term. This article focuses on a framework of strategic components that must exist for giga-projects to be successful, built from my direct experience with such projects.

Framework

The framework has 5 elements that, working together, ensure better outcomes.

1. An Anchoring Vision--What future are we trying to create?

2. Socio-economic Outcomes--Will it provide benefits in the future?

3. Placemaking--Are our traditions, culture, and beliefs embedded in this future?

4. Financial Sustainability--How can this be a net-positive contributor?

5. Inclusive and holistic design--Does our design incorporate the above?

A diagrammatic outline is shown below.

An Anchoring Vision

Giga-Projects have ambitious, expressive, and futuristic visions, and considerable effort goes into articulating the desired end state. It is extremely difficult, however, to find any interim visions describing the project 5, 10, or 15 years after its announcement, even a simple description of the state of the infrastructure. Such descriptions need to exist as the vision acts as a common banner for action. As different organisations develop their execution plans, the presence of such defined states minimises the risk of vision dilution. The short-term focus disconnects the organisations from the long-term vision, which can lead to sub-optimal outcomes.

For example, a smart city powered by AI and the latest cutting-edge technology requires a larger ecosystem that provides access to talent, device manufacturing, and strong connectivity infrastructure, among other things. An organisation developing such a strategy will focus on delivering on its own workstream without accounting for the broader ecosystem dependencies. The question should be seen as a reflection rather than a constraint, as enabling systems may require substantial improvement before a vision is realised.

Socio-economic Outcomes

Socio-economic outcomes such as GDP contribution, job creation, new economic sectors, regional development, home ownership, skills development, and others are the second element of the Giga-project strategy. The orientation of these metrics reveals the underlying priorities. For example, if home ownership is key, vision documents and relevant Giga-Project corporate documents will explicitly mention pre and post-states.

Most Giga-projects have detailed metrics on the attained socio-economic outcomes at the time of the vision, but are drowned under the weight of execution pressure. Missed milestones generate more debate than slipping socio-economic targets. The former are visible and measurable; the latter drift quietly, unnoticed until the damage is done.
Countering such behaviours requires continuously anchoring decisions in socio-economic outcomes beside financial metrics. Otherwise, the Giga-Project distils to a construction project doing a great disservice to the national strategy of economic transformation.

One approach is to assign weights to financial and socio-economic metrics, with decisions made on the overall score. Such analysis can operate across multiple scales: giga-project master plan, phase, district, and asset-level. Each unit contributes to the overall socio-economic metrics. At higher levels of aggregation, the link between outcome and contribution is direct—that is, the completion of a master plan drives job growth. Similarly, at lower levels the link shifts to indirect as they contribute to an overall objective such as job growth.

Placemaking

A critical aspect for giga-projects is providing “meaning” to a place, that is, giving people a reason to belong to it. It requires a thorough understanding of the local culture, heritage, and values of its people. Imported foreign values can provide an initial momentum to the project, but a place lasts when it is grounded in local customs.

Giga-projects should act as amplifiers, and not substitutes, by preserving the authenticity of the local culture and heritage. Creating a place, however, requires time and curation. A project has a defined start and end, but a place endures over time. The Pyramids, Colosseum, and Eiffel Tower are examples of a giga-project becoming a place. In London, the regeneration around Kings Cross has added another place with meaning. While predominantly residential, the anchoring of retail and restaurants around the historic coal yard gives meaning to the place.
Coal was an energy source powering the city, and today, the restaurants, retail, and major office occupiers are powering the area.

For Giga-Projects to endure, they must embed placemaking principles throughout their project lifecycle, creating a lasting connection with their people.

Financial Sustainability

Arguably, financial sustainability is the most discussed aspect of Giga-Projects, and their impact is reduced to a handful of financial metrics such as total spend (often in billions of dollars), IRRs (Internal Rate of Return), or Return on Equity (ROE). We have already argued for broadening the definition of financial sustainability. The focal challenge for Giga-Projects lies in the underlying assumptions. With limited public information, it is difficult to determine the expected return requirements from such projects.

If we assume, however, they would have typical return requirements (i.e. IRRs of >12%), the underlying financial models are developed to support the return expectations, whereas future market conditions may not support those expectations. The result: spiralling budgets, delayed completion timelines, and other issues lead to a comprehensive project rationalisation and prioritisation, with some being entirely cancelled. The long time horizons necessitate continuous updates to financial projections, grounding Giga-Projects in market realities. The reliance on outdated financial models and investment cases should be challenged the moment the first shovel breaks ground.

Assumptions are one side of the financial equation: strong product-market fit is the other. We define product-market fit as strong alignment between the end-product and market requirements, evidenced by the willingness of external capital to participate. We have seen, generally, that Giga-Projects demonstrate strong product-market fit driven by underlying national priorities. Large-scale urban regeneration projects in the UK, which I consider Giga-Projects, cater to the residential and office demand, strongly aligned with investor expectations. Saudi Giga-Projects, similarly, are driven by economic transformation resulting in expansion and creation of new economic sectors, and their product-market fit remains to be fully tested.

Giga-Projects require continuously updated information to assess their sustainability and create strong alignment between their offering and market expectations.
In the absence of such steps, Giga-Projects will be considered failed experiments.

Inclusive & Holistic Design

Design is a critical component in giga-projects, and it is broader than its architectural definition. It is a crucial mechanism through which all components are integrated harmoniously. Such designs also reflect the orientation of the Giga-Project.
For example, Giga-Projects inclined toward financial results will require designs maximising revenue-generating spaces to achieve the targeted returns. Conversely, socially focused projects will dedicate space to culture, heritage or other types of spaces.

In our view, design acts as the final gate, ensuring socio-economic outcomes, financial sustainability, and placemaking elements are aligned to the underlying vision. After which, design should focus on its architectural spirit to reflect all three elements. Designs, unfortunately, often remain within the architectural realm, creating disconnects between idealism and reality. Design requires a multi-faceted view (social, economic, sustainable, financial, and others) to create a successful giga-project. It should be led by those responsible for delivering the Giga-Project, ensuring the design brief is accountable to all five elements before a single line is drawn.

Concluding thoughts

These five components form an integrative framework to create a balanced giga-project. Overlooking any of these components creates the risk of misalignment, cost overruns, and poor outcomes for stakeholders. Successful giga-projects must embody vision, embed value, and endure over time. They should be constantly assessed against this framework to minimise drift.

Giga-projects are no longer just about skyline statements or infrastructure scale.
They are now the centrepiece of national transformation strategies — instruments to reshape economies, societies, and futures.
Since Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 announcement, these multi-decade, multi-billion-dollar undertakings have redefined the role of real estate, from a sector to a system of national consequence.

Aspirations

Giga-Projects deploy various forms of real estate—land, buildings, infrastructure, and place—as the preferred mechanism to realise national goals. For example, the presence of residential assets ensures a liveability-focused project providing vital housing. Similarly, the presence of various industries aims to generate economic activity, leading to job creation.

Behind the branding, governments pursue giga-projects for three reasons.

1. Economic Diversification & Growth. They act as conduits to grow the economy by investing in untapped sectors, such as tourism, advanced manufacturing, and tech.

2. Social Cohesion and Reinforcement. They create spaces where culture, heritage, and identity are expressed and reinforced. It is a cultural legacy built through intentional placemaking, not inherited by accident.

3. Anchoring the Future. They anchor a vision of the future in the present, creating positivity and bringing the possibilities of tomorrow today. The Diriyah Project in Riyadh (Saudi Arabia) is a perfect example.

Fundamentally, every giga-project is a scaled real-estate system reflecting and executing national goals. Understanding how that system works — and who drives it — is what separates projects that deliver from those that drift.

Giga Project Domain Navigation

Giga-projects engage with real estate as an interplay of multiple industries — construction, finance, urban planning, property operations, regulation and more. Each brings its own objectives, capabilities, and power dynamics, forming a domain unique in its scale, complexity, and national importance. They must reconcile public sector vision with private sector execution. They must navigate land use constraints, attract investment, enable infrastructure, and shape socio-economic outcomes — all at an extraordinary scale and within rigid timelines. In this reframing, real estate is more than just about buildings, but about:

• Managing and controlling the sovereign land bank

• Deploying capital across an ultra-long time horizon (10-20+ years)

• Developing an ecosystem of public-private partners for outcome realisation

• Evolving operating models from development to long-term asset management

• Harmonising multi-product and multi-assets in the existing urban fabric

• Infusing culture, heritage, and purpose through place-based narratives, reinforcing national identity

This domain can be navigated by creating a 2x2 map based on two dimensions:

1. Financial Orientation: Is the player profit-driven or service-oriented

2. Ownership: Is the player government-owned or private?

This yields four broad types of entities:

• Public–Service Oriented (e.g., municipalities)

• Public–Profit Oriented (e.g., sovereign wealth funds)

• Private–Profit Oriented (e.g., developers, contractors)

• Private–Service Oriented (e.g., non-profits or NGOs, less common in giga-projects)

This simple matrix helps identify where a given entity sits in the broader ecosystem and what motivates its behaviour.

Each player operates with its internal logic:

• Developers want to deliver on time and on budget.

• Municipalities want compliance and long-term livability.

• Banks seek creditworthy projects with clear exit strategies.

• Contractors want scope clarity and predictable payments.

• Landowners want asset appreciation and/or utilisation.

These diverging motivations often result in discontinuity — strategic misalignment, scope creep, and reactive problem-solving. In giga-projects, such misalignments can lead to delays, cost overruns, or reputational damage on an international stage. For example, a developer may commit to a launch date driven by political optics, while financing partners are still conducting due diligence. Or a municipality might revise infrastructure requirements mid-project, forcing redesigns. These tensions are not dysfunctions — they are intrinsic to the domain.

Central Player for Giga-Projects: Developer or Asset Manager

Who is the gravitational centre of a giga-project? In early phases, it’s the developer setting the tone for land use, partners, and phasing. However, over time, the developer may evolve into an Asset Manager. This requires a transformation of their operating model, which I intend to cover in a later piece. Alternatively, an existing Asset Manager may be appointed with the long-term focus of optimising yields, performance, and sustainability.

Giga-Projects as Real Estate Playbooks in Disguise

When you look past the branding and vision decks, giga-projects are essentially trying to answer three real estate questions at scale:

1. How do we build new economic sectors aligned with national strategy, utilising giga-projects and real estate as enablers?

2. How can giga-projects act as places of community cohesion, reinforcing cultural values and national identity?

3. How do we ensure real-estate in giga-projects delivers sustainable financial returns to investors?

These are not new questions. But their scale, speed, and strategic gravity in giga-projects require an entirely new playbook. The articles that follow examine each dimension in turn — from strategic design and value chains, to capital structuring, site constraints, and the long-term outcomes that will determine whether these projects deliver on their national promise.