ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

Recommendations

Info

140 ■ THE <strong>ECONOMICS</strong> OF <strong>UNIQUENESS</strong> to come from the private sector. Th e private sector is far more likely to make an investment in an area with rising property values than one with stagnant or declining values. Further, as property values increase, the amount of public resources required as subsidies or incentives decreases. Th e sustainable preservation management of historic urban fabric starts when heritage buildings are fi rst identifi ed and then protected, when there is a comprehensive approach in public policy toward safeguarding of heritage assets along with strategic investments made to upgrade public infrastructure, and when private-sector investment in those buildings is captured. Where these elements are in place, the economic value of heritage places is being demonstrated around the world, confi rmed by a robust and growing body of research. Notes 1. As was noted earlier, the total economic value of a heritage building is its use value plus its non-use value(s). Th is chapter only deals with the direct use value. 2. A relatively low-cost approach to track building condition is to simply take digital photographs of the exteriors of every heritage building on a regular basis—every 6–12 months. While not a precisely measureable indicator, at least it is relatively easy to determine if general physical conditions are getting better or worse. If building conditions are improving, that inherently implies that someone is making an investment in the buildings, and investment itself is both a cause and an eff ect of enhanced property values. 3. Using this approach it is important to identify any capital improvements that may have been made to the property between the two selling dates, as that, rather than simple appreciation, may be the cause of the higher selling price. 4. Th e exception is if the owner of the property is the federal government itself, or if federal government funds are being used as part of the project. Even this exception doesn’t guarantee that the property will not be razed, but it does mean there will be a rather extensive review process and a consideration of alternatives before the demolition can be taken. 5. http://www.merriam-webster.com. 6. Th ere is an exception to this general principle: when a “vacant” building is actually occupied by those who have no established legal right to be there and may be paying no rent. In some situations the political, regulatory, or social processes of emptying the building so that redevelopment can take place can be both expensive and burdensome. 7. Rising property taxes can be a diffi culty for low-income housing owners. But this is a cash fl ow problem, not a wealth problem; their underlying asset is appreciating in value. Th erefore a relatively simple solution can be implemented by allowing the property taxes to simply accrue until the property is ultimately sold or transferred to younger family members, at which point the deferred taxes can be collected. 8. Th e third sector is usually defi ned as including nongovernmental organizations as well as philanthropic and voluntary activities.
References HERITAGE CONSERVATION AND PROPERTY VALUES ■ 141 Architectural Conservancy of Ontario. 2009. Heritage Districts Work! http://www. arconserv.ca/news_events/show.cfm?id=184 Broadbent, K. 2011. “Assessing the Impact of Local Historic District Designation on Mortgage Foreclosure Rates: Th e Case of Philadelphia.” Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania. Cebula, R. J. 2009. “Th e Hedonic Pricing Model Applied to the Housing Market of the City of Savannah and Its Savannah Historic Landmark District.” Th e Review of Regional Studies 39 (1). Cherry, M. 2001. “Listing as an Instrument in Managing Change to Historic Buildings.” In Historic Cities and Sacred Sites: Cultural Roots for Urban Futures, ed. I. Serageldin, E. Shluger, and J. Martin-Brown, 247–257. Washington, DC: World Bank. Coffi n, D. A. 1989. “Th e Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values.” Eastern Economic Journal 9 (3). http://www.jstor.org/pss/40325269 Coulson, N. E., and M. L. Lahr. 2005. “Gracing the Land of Elvis and Beale Street: Historic Designation and Property Values.” Real Estate Economics 33 (3). http://onlineli brary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-6229.2005.00127.x/abstract Deodhar, V. 2004. Does the Housing Market Value Heritage? Some Empirical Evidence. Sydney, Australia: Macquarie University. http://www.heritage.wa.gov.au/assets/fi les/ LG_publications/SyndeyResearchHousingMarket.pdf Department of Urban Planning and Design, City of Tucson, Arizona. 2007. Benefi ts of Residential Historic District Designation for Property Owners. Econsult Corporation. 2010. Th e Economic Impact of Historic Preservation in Philadelphia. http://www.preservephiladelphia.org/wp-content/uploads/Econ_Report_ Final.pdf Gale, D. E. 1991. Th e Impact of Historic District Designation in Washington, DC. Occasional Paper No. 6, Center for Washington Area Studies, George Washington University, Washington, DC. http://www.gwu.edu/~gwipp/Th e%20Impact%20of%20 Historic%20District%20Designation.pdf Gilderbloom, J. I., M. J. Hanka, and J. D. Ambrosius. 2009. “Historic Preservation’s Impact on Job Creation, Property Values, and Environmental Sustainability.” Journal of Urbanism 2 (2). http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/486835__913321085.pdf Ijla, A. 2008. Th e Impact of Local Historic District Designation on Residential Property Values: An Analysis of Th ree Slow-Growth and Th ree Fast-Growth Central Cities in the United States. Cleveland State University. http://etd.ohiolink.edu/view.cgi/Ijla%20 Akram.pdf?csu1206539169 Jaramillo, P. 2010. Th e Sustainability of Urban Heritage Preservation: Th e Case of Quito. Inter-American Development Bank. http://idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument .aspx?docnum=35334775 Lazrak, F., P. Nijkamp, P. Rietveld, and J. Rouwendal. 2010. Th e Market Value of Listed Heritage: An Urban Economic Application of Spatial Hedonic Pricing. Amsterdam: VU University. Mendes Zancheti, S., and J. Gabriel. 2010. Th e Sustainability of Urban Heritage Preservation: Th e Case of Salvador de Bahia. Inter-American Development Bank. http:// idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=35343131
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:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120 and 121:
Page 122 and 123: 90 ■ 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 206 and 207: TABLE 6.5 Quito Investments in the
Page 215 and 216: 7 UNESCO World Heritage List, Touri
Page 217 and 218: UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST, TOURISM
Page 219 and 220: UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST, TOURISM
Page 221 and 222: TABLE 7.1 Regional and Historical D
Page 223 and 224:
UNESCO WORLD HERITAGE LIST, TOURISM
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?