Territories of urban financialization and of real estate crises

Does growing financialization and the widening geographic mobility of capital imply the ubiquity of real estate and other types of investment funds? Does the globalization of economic crises (unleashed by real estate financialization) involve the deterritorialization of these crises? In other words, is ubiquity or territoriality prevalent in the financialization of cities and of real estate crises? Responding to these queries is the objective of this research. The primary results include: the metropolitanization of GDP and the financial as well as real estate sectors; the geographically selective mobility of capital; the metropolitan concentration of real estate funds; the unequal inter-regional disequilibrium of pension funds; the metropolitanization of real estate bubbles and economic crises; the geography of the international contagion of these crises; and the corresponding socio-territorial wounds and scars. These results allow for the conclusion that financialization does not imply ubiquity, and that globalization does not involve deterritorialization. To the contrary, far from undoing regional and urban structures, these phenomena have contributed to worsening geographic discrimination and concentration, with a clearly metropolitan epicenter.