how do features of new urbanism affect - suny oneonta · new urbanism? • new urbanism is...
TRANSCRIPT
New Urbanism?
• New Urbanism is considered smart growth it’s a plan to end urban sprawl and recreate the community.
• The Congress of New Urbanism was founded by a group of architects with the goal of “Crea?ng buildings, neighborhoods, and regions that provide a higher quality of life for all residents, while protec?ng the natural environment”(CNU).
• Some basic principles of New Urbanism include: • High density, mixed use neighborhoods; convenient public transit, bicycles paths and pedestrian-‐friendly street networks; strategically placed open spaces; and architecture designed to foster social interac?on.
• It creates village style living and a great example of this is Oneonta!
Oneonta and New Urbanism
• The virtues of New Urbanism are derived from towns just like Oneonta, a tradi?onal pre World War II town that fosters community.
• Known for its high density lots with commercial use and recrea?onal parks spread throughout down town, Oneonta is an interconnected pedestrian friendly city. Even the architecture in Oneonta represents the history and an?quity of the region and city. Gothic churches and Victorian houses dot the downtown area crea?ng diversity and u?lity for residents.
Master Planned Community?
• A master planned community is any community that was carefully planned from start to finish in a previously undeveloped area. • Master planned communi?es contrast communi?es that evolve on their own and communi?es that evolve on their own tend to have New Urbanist features. • People view New Urbanism as living in a bubble however this is not necessarily true. “The bubble” aspect comes from the master planned community. This is because developers usually build on undeveloped farm land that's not necessarily connected to other towns. An example of this would be LeviZ town a[er World War II.
Relevant Literature
• Song, Yan, and Gerrit-‐Jan Knaap. "New urbanism and housing values: a disaggregate assessment." Journal of Urban Economics 54.2 (2003): 218-‐238.
• Tu, Charles C., and Mark J. Eppli. "Valuing new urbanism: The case of Kentlands." Real Estate Economics 27.3 (1999): 425-‐451.
• P.K. Asabere, The value of a neighborhood street with reference to cul-‐de-‐sac, Journal of Real Estate Financeand Economics 3 (2) (1990)
• D.R. Bowes, K.R. Ihlanfeldt, Iden?fying the impacts of rail transit sta?ons on residen?al property values, Journal of Urban Economics 50 (1) (2001) 1–25.
l _(SalePrice)= ßo + ßiXi∑ +Ui
"Valuing new urbanism: The case of Kentlands." Real Estate Economics 27.3 (1999): 425-‐451.
• Tu and Eppli took data on 2,061 single-‐family home transac?ons in and around Kentlands, Maryland to access the impact of new urbanism on home prices.
• They developed several hedonic price func?ons to help analyze the data. They view housing as a bundle of goods including site, improvement, loca?on and market characteris?cs.
• The researchers found that residents are willing to pay a premium to live in a neighborhood with New Urbanist features.
• Something I found useful an reused in my study was that the researchers eliminated data that was not considered a market clearing transac?on. To unsure the data reflected market clearing pricing an assessed value vs. sale price analysis was done. The researchers then deleted any transac?on that was 60% lower then the assessed value or 160% higher. This made the analysis a lot easier and prevented coding errors.
"Valuing new urbanism: The case of Kentlands." Real Estate Economics 27.3 (1999): 425-‐451.
• The paper did a great job controlling for the housing aZributes but it failed at showing what aspects of New Urbanism were causing the price premium. • A major reason for this was that the available technology was not advanced enough to complete it. A big part of New Urbanism is rela?ve distances to certain ameni?es and disseminates and even street lengths and area of the neighborhood are important. This is a major downfall because we cant say for sure if New Urbanism is causing the premium.
"New urbanism and housing values: a disaggregate assessment." Journal of Urban Economics 54.2 (2003):
218-‐238. • Song and Knaap picked up where Tu and Eppli le[ off and were able to u?lize Geographic Informa?on System (GIS) to compute rela?ve distances. • Using 48,000 real estate transac?ons in a suburb outside of Portland, Oregon they found that some of the aspects of New Urbanism had posi?ve influences on home values. • Their study broke down New Urbanism into 6 characteris?cs: Street design, density land use mix, accessibility, transporta?on mode choice, and walkability. • The results show that residents are willing to pay a premium to reside in a community with more streets-‐fewer blocks and beZer access to commercial use.
Data and Method
• Data has two primary sources: • The tax assessment files from Osceola County, Florida. • Census data from the US Census Bureau.
• The data is divided up into five characteris?cs: Housing aZributes, street design, density, accessibility and walkability. • Street design-‐ number of blocks divided by the number of housing units the fewer the blocks the greater internal connec?vity.
• Density-‐ single family units divided by the residen?al area and number of households divided by area of the neighborhood.
• Accessibility-‐ Distance to recrea?onal parks and commercial land.
• Walkability-‐ 1,000 feet from a park, 1,000 from commercial use.
Summary StaYsYcs
finarea 44679 1934.854 707.8426 216 14372 totalacres 44679 .2687309 .5787945 .002 20.795 pool 44679 .2975895 .4572031 0 1 halfbaths 44679 .2111954 .4126877 0 5 fullbaths 44679 2.280646 .6991002 1 10 bedrooms 44679 3.457933 .8537157 1 10 yearbuilt 44679 1997.545 12.82732 1900 2014assessedva~e 44679 139643.1 99746.42 12300 4928900 saleprice 44679 158601.9 116877 12000 6300000 Variable Obs Mean Std. Dev. Min Max
. summarize saleprice assessedvalue yearbuilt bedrooms fullbaths halfbaths pool totalacres finarea
Regression
year .021835 .0051479 4.24 0.000 .0117451 .031925 planned .3093186 .0095364 32.44 0.000 .290627 .3280101 elite 2.068566 .1907104 10.85 0.000 1.694771 2.442362 excellent 1.881563 .1756251 10.71 0.000 1.537335 2.225791 verygood 1.80801 .1752111 10.32 0.000 1.464593 2.151427 good 1.415834 .1751297 8.08 0.000 1.072577 1.759091 average 1.15069 .1750869 6.57 0.000 .8075167 1.493864 standard .9419387 .1751021 5.38 0.000 .5987355 1.285142 belowavg .6541781 .1788449 3.66 0.000 .303639 1.004717 finarea .0002927 2.84e-06 102.92 0.000 .0002871 .0002983 totalacres .0808055 .0020945 38.58 0.000 .0767002 .0849108 pool .1877884 .0028003 67.06 0.000 .1822998 .193277 halfbaths -.056078 .0032324 -17.35 0.000 -.0624136 -.0497424 fullbaths -.0127212 .0027519 -4.62 0.000 -.0181149 -.0073275 bedrooms .0306573 .0022821 13.43 0.000 .0261843 .0351303 yearbuilt .0062681 .0001327 47.24 0.000 .006008 .0065282 l_saleprice Coef. Std. Err. t P>|t| [95% Conf. Interval]
How Do Features of New Urbanism Affect Housing Prices in Osceola County, Florida?
Stephen Grosso