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