ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

Recommendations

Info

TABLE 4.1 Overview of Hedonic Price Studies with Regard to Cultural Heritage Authors Study Study area Key fi ndings Narwold et al. (2008) Effect of designated historic houses on sale price Noonan (2007) Effect of landmarks and districts on sale price Ruijgrok (2006) Effect of authenticity, ensemble, and landmark designation on house prices Coulson and Lahr (2005) Effect of district designation on appreciation rate Deodhar (2004) Effect of heritage listing on sale prices Coulson and Leichenko (2001) Effect of designation on tax-appraisal value Leichenko et al. (2001) Effect of historic designation on house prices San Diego, California, U.S. Historic designation of single-family residences creates a 16 percent increase in housing value, which is higher than the capitalization of the property tax savings due to designation. Chicago, Illinois, U.S. Designated property has a positive effect on both itself and neighboring properties. Tiel, The Netherlands Authenticity and façade elements account for 15 percent of sale prices in the Hanseatic city of Tiel. Memphis, Tennessee, U.S. Appreciation rates were 14–23 percent higher when properties were in neighborhoods that were zoned historic. In this case, local designation proved to be more important than national designation. Sydney, Australia On average, heritage listed houses commanded a 12 percent premium over non-listed houses. This premium is a combined value of the houses’ heritage character, their architectural style elements, and their statutory listing status. Abilane, Texas, U.S. Local historic designation raises value of designated property by 17.6 percent. Nine different Texas cities, U.S. Historically designated properties in Texas enjoy 5–20 percent higher appraised prices than other property. 98 ■ THE <strong>ECONOMICS</strong> OF <strong>UNIQUENESS</strong>
Asabere and Huffman (1994a) Asabere and Huffman (1994b) Effect of federal historic district on sale prices Effect of historic façade easements on sale prices Asabere et al. (1994) Sales effects of local preservation Moorhouse and Smith (1994) Schaeffer and Millerick (1991) Effect of architecture on original purchase price Impact of historic district on sale prices Asabere et al. (1989) Effect of architecture and historic district on home value Ford (1989) Price effects of local historic districts Vandell and Lane (1989) Hough and Kratz (1983) Effect of design quality on rent and vacancy behavior on the offi ce market The effect of architectural quality on offi ce rents Source: Lazrak et al. 2009; this includes sources for all studies cited. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. Boston, Massachusetts, U.S. Owner-occupied property located in national historic districts in Philadelphia sell at a premium of 26 percent. Condominiums with historic easements sell for about 30 percent less than comparable properties. Small historic apartment buildings experience a 24 percent reduction in price compared to properties not locally certifi ed as historic. Architecture design was valued with a premium. Chicago, Illinois, U.S. Properties with national historic designation have a premium and local historic designation have a discount over non-designated properties. Properties near a historic district may enjoy positive externalities. Newburyport, Massachusetts, U.S. Baltimore, Maryland, U.S. Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S. Historic architectural styles have positive premiums. The historic district of Newburyport does not have positive external effects. Historic districts do have higher prices than non-historic districts. Design quality has a positive premium of 22 percent on rents, but there is a weak relationship between vacancy behavior and design quality. Chicago, Illinois, U.S. Tenants are willing to pay a premium to be in new architecturally signifi cant offi ce building, but apparently see no benefi ts associated with old offi ce buildings that express recognized aesthetics excellence. ECONOMIC VALUATION OF CULTURAL HERITAGE ■ 99
Page 1:
Public Disclosure Authorized Public
Page 4 and 5:
Th e Urban Development Series discu
Page 6 and 7:
© 2012 International Bank for Reco
Page 8 and 9:
vi ■ CONTENTS Project Appraisal i
Page 10 and 11:
viii ■ CONTENTS Appendix II: Addi
Page 12 and 13:
x ■ CONTENTS 7.4 Tourism Is Coupl
Page 14 and 15:
xii ■ CONTENTS 9.1 How to Organiz
Page 17 and 18:
Exegi monumentum aere perennius reg
Page 19:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ■ xvii Cultural O
Page 22 and 23:
xx ■ OVERVIEW What Are the Object
Page 24 and 25:
xxii ■ OVERVIEW and captures the
Page 26 and 27:
xxiv ■ OVERVIEW periphery, especi
Page 28 and 29:
xxvi ■ OVERVIEW tourism—by impr
Page 30 and 31:
xxviii ■ OVERVIEW 3. Institutiona
Page 33 and 34:
1 Livable Historic City Cores and E
Page 35 and 36:
LIVABLE HISTORIC CITY CORES AND ENA
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
2 Investing in the Sense of Place:
Page 49 and 50:
INVESTING IN THE SENSE OF PLACE ■
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
0 45° INVESTING IN THE SENSE OF PL
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
FIGURE 2.4 continued INVESTING IN T
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
A Dubious Alternative: Property Rec
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75:
Page 78 and 79:
46 ■ THE ECONOMICS OF UNIQUENESS
Page 80 and 81: 48 ■ THE ECONOMICS OF UNIQUENESS
Page 180 and 181:
Page 182 and 183:
Page 184 and 185:
Page 186 and 187:
Page 188 and 189:
Page 190 and 191:
Page 192 and 193:
Page 194 and 195:
Page 196 and 197:
FIGURE 6.5 Quito and Oaxaca: Timeli
Page 198 and 199:
Page 200 and 201:
Page 202 and 203:
Page 204 and 205:
Page 206 and 207:
TABLE 6.5 Quito Investments in the
Page 208 and 209:
Page 210 and 211:
Page 212 and 213:
Page 215 and 216:
7 UNESCO World Heritage List, Touri
Page 217 and 218:
UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST, TOURISM
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
TABLE 7.1 Regional and Historical D
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
TABLE 7.3 Benchmark Regressions Fir
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
TABLE 7.10 Robustness to Using Diff
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
8 Financial Mechanisms for Historic
Page 247 and 248:
FINANCIAL MECHANISMS FOR HISTORIC C
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
BOX 8.2 FINANCIAL MECHANISMS FOR HI
Page 255 and 256:
BOX 8.3 FINANCIAL MECHANISMS FOR HI
Page 257 and 258:
TABLE 8.1 Local Financial Tools Use
Page 259 and 260:
FIGURE 8.4 Brownfi eld Concession T
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275:
Page 278 and 279:
Page 280 and 281:
Page 282 and 283:
Page 284 and 285:
Page 286 and 287:
Page 288 and 289:
Page 290 and 291:
Page 292 and 293:
Page 294 and 295:
Page 296 and 297:
Page 298 and 299:
Page 300 and 301:
Page 302 and 303:
Page 304 and 305:
Page 306 and 307:
Page 308 and 309:
Page 310 and 311:
Page 312 and 313:
Page 314 and 315:
Page 317 and 318:
Boxes, fi gures, maps, notes, and t
Page 319 and 320:
China. See also specifi c cities ac
Page 321 and 322:
public sector role, 222-26, 223b, 2
Page 323 and 324:
Kraay, A., 198 Kratz, C. G., 96 L l
Page 325 and 326:
Pine Ridge Reservation (U.S.), 238
Page 327 and 328:
Shaoxing, China, local residents re
Page 329 and 330:
urban economics appraisal approach,
Page 332:
ECO-AUDIT Environmental Benefits St
show all

ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?