The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values (Sept. ‘03) - prepared for the New York City Council by the New York City Independent Budget Office
“Conclusion:
IBO found clear evidence that after controlling for property and neighborhood characteristics, market values of properties in historic districts were higher than those outside historic districts for every year in our study. Although the results for price appreciation during particular sub-periods are mixed, for the entire 1975 through 2002 period properties in historic districts increased in price at a slightly greater rate than properties not in districts. Finally, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that districting itself causes higher prices or greater appreciation.”
Monday, July 16, 2007
The Impact of Historic Districts on Residential Property Values
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
So if the increase is only "slight" why bother?
WHO STANDS TO GAIN?
not me Bob Visentin
I DO! I believe the argument is to combat those against Local Historic District who say are property values will go down. There is so much good that comes from a Historic District (knowing my neighbors home is not going to be bulldozed for one and two knowing that a "developer" will not replace it by a home that towers over my home and other)that I'm willing to have an additional zoning overlay. I think if you read over the full page of postings you'll find there are many reason for a Historic District - Property Values not decreasing is just one.
The studies published here demonstrate the substantial amount of research across the country (including Georgia) that supports the economic sustainability of local historic districts. There are many factors that impact the market value of a home at any one time. But it is interesting that in this time of a downturn in the housing market that historic district designation dampens such economic impacts.
I believe that I do stand to gain. In addition to the enjoyment of the unique historic character of my neighborhood and the cultural and historic wealth that is preserved, my greatest asset is preserved. The economic stability, environmental stability, real estate market stability, cultural stability, and retention of diversity all mean protection of the value of my property.
That appeals to not only my pocketbook but to my own personal values and those of many of my neighbors. When such values are satisfied residents are more likely to set down long-term roots. This makes a neighborhood cohesive and more desirable.
Joy,
You are advocating "preserving" your greatest asset to the detriment of others' greatest asset.
You have a large house, while many others do not. Those in small houses should have the flexibility to enlarge/change their dwellings to suit their needs, without having to jump through arbitrary hoops and seek permission from others on their aesthetic choices.
Your perceived personal benefit is a cost to many others.
And by "many others" I specifically refer not only to the many who have placed signs in their yards to visually display their opposition, but also to the many who have yet to speak out.
The amount of square footage, size of the home, is governed by the zoning laws, not local historic district. Here are the current in-fill guidelines:
R-60 Single-Family Residential District
Maximum lot coverage remains at 40%.
Maximum building height is changed from 35 feet and 2½ stories to 35 feet and 2 stories.
A maximum floor area ratio of 0.40 is established.
The new proposed in-fill guidelines are:
The peak height should be limited to 33 feet up to the ridge (measured from 3 feet above grade so actually 36 feet) with a maximum of 2 1/2 stories, or the average of the four adjacent houses (two on each side) plus 5 feet, whichever is greater.
A sliding scale allows smaller lots to have proportionately larger Lot Area Coverage.
Create a “Primary FAR” of 40% or 3,600 square feet, whichever is greater, that will apply to the primary structure.
That means that if the new in-fill guidelines are accepted homes can be bigger and taller than they are today. Also, those residents with smaller lots can still have a home of 3,600 square feet regardless of the residential floor coverage.
None of the studies I have read here have indicated that the size of the home had an impact on the market value. Of course other than the obvious, bigger houses tend to be worth more when same quality of construction is considered.
The process for applying for a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of exemption is not arbitrary it will be defined in the ordinance. Not unlike the ordinance definintion requiring a permit for construction projects in excess of $1,000.
I do not see anything in Ms. Provost's comment that advocated detriment to her neighbor(s). I think comments such as that are an attempt to draw and attack and that is not appropriate nor beneficial to the community conversation.
Post a Comment