ECONOMICS UNIQUENESS

FIGURE 2.4 continued
INVESTING IN THE SENSE OF PLACE ■ 33
C. Situation when saving the landmark leads to a large increase
in the value of the area, and renovating other buildings with
architectural value substantially amplifies the gains
B, C
U + I
Partial renovation
0 1 n + 1
ΔH + ΔV
U + R + I
Units
renovated
B Benefi t to society.
C Cost to society.
U Infrastructure upgrades.
I Private investment.
R Spending on renovation.
ΔV Change in property value of the area.
ΔH Change in heritage value of the area.
k Number of buildings with architectural value preserved (apart from the landmark).
n Total number of buildings with architectural value (apart from the landmark).
Source: Author.
Depending on how large the monetary and non-monetary gains from renovation
are relative to project costs, three cases can be distinguished. Th ey correspond
to the three panels in fi gure 2.4A, B, and C. For simplicity, the fi gure
assumes that undertaking a standard urban upgrading project is warranted,
implying that the cost in the absence of renovation C = U + I is less than the
resulting change in the heritage and property values of the area of intervention,
ΔH + ΔV. Th e change in the heritage value of the area ΔH can actually be negative
if the absence of a cultural component in the project leads to the demolition of
properties with architectural character. But the change in the property value ΔV
is positive. In the fi gure it is supposed to be large enough to off set any possible
decline in the heritage value, and also large enough that the net benefi t from the
project exceeds its cost to society. Th e only diff erence between the three panels
thus concerns the relative increase in costs and benefi ts from the project as more
and more properties with architectural value are renovated.
In fi gure 2.4A, “saving” the landmark does not result in large gains to society,
and renovating each of the other buildings with architectural value even