ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY VALUES ■ 117
FIGURE 5.1
Historic District Premiums in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1980–2008
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Source: Econsult Corporation 2010.
14.3%
Base value National register
district
22.5%
Local historic
district
base value historic district premium
What is particularly notable is not just the diff erence in appreciation rates
between historic houses and houses in the rest of the market, but the diff erence
seen in local historic districts as compared to National Register historic districts.
Unlike in many countries, listing on the National Register puts no limitations
on what a private owner can do with the property. Even a National Historic
Landmark—the highest designation a property can have—could be torn down at
any time by its owner. 4 Th e only limitations on what can be done with the property
arises from local legislation; that is, being listed in a local historic district.
In one of the most complex property value analyses in Europe, researchers
from VU University in Amsterdam looked at both individual landmarking and
location within a heritage district to determine the impact of those variables on
property value (Lazrak et al. 2010). Th ey found these gains:
• Premium paid for monuments (that is, individually landmarked properties):
26.9 percent;
• Premium paid for location within 165 feet of a monument: 0.28 percent; and
• Premium paid for location within a heritage district: 26.4 percent.
Th ese fi ndings are consistent with a similar hedonic pricing analysis that
looked at the historic American city of Savannah, Georgia, United States. Th ere
the researchers found a premium of 1.7 percent for an individually landmarked
structure, and a 21–22 percent premium for being located within a local historic
district (Cebula 2009).
Th e four studies discussed above are included in this chapter mainly because:
(1) they are recent, (2) they are representative of the fi ndings of most heritage