ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

Recommendations

Info

118 ■ THE <strong>ECONOMICS</strong> OF <strong>UNIQUENESS</strong> property value studies, and (3) they were conducted using a sophisticated methodology. But those research fi ndings are not unusual. One American research project reviewed more than a dozen studies of cities around the country over diff erent time periods and saw consistently higher property values in historic districts compared to other neighborhoods. Th e fi ndings are summarized in fi gure 5.2 (Department of Urban Planning and Design, City of Tucson, Arizona 2007). While much of the property value research has been done in the United States, revealing fi ndings come from elsewhere as well. A recent Canadian study looked at property sales data from 32 heritage districts in the province of Ontario (Architectural Conservancy of Ontario 2009). Th e researchers presented their data somewhat diff erently than the studies described above. Th ey looked at whether houses in historic districts sold for more, less, or the same as similar nearby houses not in historic districts. As can be seen in fi gure 5.3, nearly 80 percent of all sales were either for the same price or greater than proximate non-designated housing. As such property values research continues to be conducted, diff erent analysts have begun looking at more nuanced issues. Recent studies include the following: • An Australian study found that historic houses in heritage districts commanded an average premium of 12 percent, but that the most historically signifi cant houses garnered a 47 percent premium over the least signifi cant historic houses (Deodhar 2004). • An analysis of historic districts in Memphis, Tennessee, found that while houses in historic districts were worth 14–23 percent more than comparable FIGURE 5.2 Property Value Premiums for Historic Districts in U.S. Cities Tucson, Arizona Tifton, Georgia Texas (9 cities) San Diego, California Rome, Georgia Phoenix, Arizona New York City, New York Mesa, Arizona Memphis, Tennessee Durango, Colorado Denver, Colorado Athens, Georgia Source: City of Tucson 2007. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%
HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY VALUES ■ 119 FIGURE 5.3 Property Sales in 32 Historic Districts in Ontario, Canada Houses sold for less than nearby comparable 21.8% Houses sold the same as nearby comparable 34.1% Source: Architectural Conservancy of Ontario 2009. Houses sold for more than nearby comparable 44.1% housing, that premium also benefi ted new infi ll houses in the historic districts (Coulson and Lahr 2005). • Designated historic districts tend to have higher rates of participation in neighborhood associations and improvement projects, which relates to residents’ desire to protect shared public spaces from decline (Department of Urban Planning and Design, City of Tucson, Arizona 2007). While there may be a temptation to assume that historic housing is occupied mainly by the wealthiest households (particularly in countries with advanced economies), that does not prove to be the case in both developed and developing countries. In the town of Aurora, Illinois, United States, 82 percent of the houses that were sold in historic districts were also in low-income census tracts, but still managed to command a value increment of 6–7 percent over the rest of the local market (Coffi n 1989). A doctoral dissertation considered the impact of historic district designation on property values in three fast-growth American cities—Dallas, Texas; Atlanta, Georgia; and Phoenix, Arizona—and three slow-growth cities—Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Cleveland, Ohio; and Cincinnati, Ohio. Th e study found that “the positive appreciation eff ects of local historic designation in slow-growth central cities were higher than in fast-growth central cities by 7.7 percent, suggesting that historic designation has a role to play in urban revitalization for areas striving to improve property values despite slow population growth” (Ijla 2008). Nonetheless, much of this real estate data were taken from periods of real estate appreciation, when increases in value are not surprising. What about in times of economic downturns? Less research has been conducted about such
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:
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101: 68 ■ THE ECONOMICS OF UNIQUENESS
Page 130 and 131: TABLE 4.1 Overview of Hedonic Price
Page 196 and 197: FIGURE 6.5 Quito and Oaxaca: Timeli
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?