New Urbanism and traditional neighbourhood development (TND) have been championed as solutions to the problems associated with post-war suburban sprawl. However, they have yet to capture a substantial share of the US housing market. The market context for TND is not well understood as the paucity of TND makes it difficult to study directly. This paper takes a novel approach by focusing on the market for ‘traditional’ development itself, defined as subdivisions recorded prior to World War II, in the sprawling Tucson, Arizona, MSA. The results of the hedonic analysis demonstrate that home buyers value the features embodied in traditional development, as homes in subdivisions platted before 1940 command premiums over those in their modern counterparts, even after carefully controlling for locational and structural characteristics. Moreover, the analysis finds that the premiums have increased through time, which suggests growing demand for traditionally designed subdivisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsR. (1971) Urban Land Economics and Public Policy. New York: Free Press.
BohlC. (2000) New urbanism and the city: potential applications and implications for distressed inner-city neighborhoods, Housing Policy Debate, 11(4), pp. 751–801.
CoulsonN.McMillenD. (2008) Estimating time, age and vintage effects in housing prices, Journal of Housing Economics, 17, pp. 138–151.
7.
CropperM.DeckL. B.McConnellK. E. (1988) On the choice of functional form for hedonic price functions, Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, pp. 668–675.
8.
DuanyA.Plater-ZyberkE.SpeckJ. (2000) Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream. New York: North Point Press.
9.
EppliM. J.TuC. C. (1999) Valuing the New Urbanism: The Impact of the New Urbanism on Prices of Single-family Homes. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
10.
EwingR.CerveroR.(2001) Travel and the built environment, Transportation Research Record, 1780, pp. 87–114.
11.
GutteryR. S. (2002) The effects of subdivision design on dousing values: the case of alleyways, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, pp. 265–272.
12.
HandyS.SallisJ. F.WeberD.MaibachE.HollanderM. (2008) Is support for traditionally designed communities growing? Evidence from two national surveys, Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, pp. 209–221.
13.
KahnM. E. (2000) The environmental impact of suburbanization, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, pp. 569–586.
14.
LeinbergerC. (2007) The Option of New Urbanism: Investing in an American Dream. Washington, DC: Island Press.
15.
LevineJ.FrankL. (2007) Transportation and land-use preferences and residents’ neighborhood choices: the sufficiency of compact development in the Atlanta region, Transportation, 34, pp. 255–274.
16.
LevineJ.InamA.TorngG. (2005) A choice-based rationale for land use and transportation alternatives, Journal of Planning Research and Education, 24, pp. 317–330.
17.
MatthewsJ.TurnbullG. (2007) Neighborhood street layout and property value: the interaction of accessibility and land use mix, Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 35, pp. 111–141.
18.
McMillenD. (2008) Changes in the distribution of house prices over time: structural characteristics, neighborhoods, or coefficients?, Journal of Urban Economics, 64, pp. 573–589.
19.
Morrow-JonesH. A.IrwinE. G.RoeB. (2004) Consumer preferences for neotraditional neighborhood characteristics, Housing Policy Debate, 15, pp. 171–202.
20.
MyersD.GearinE. (2001) Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments, Housing Policy Debate, 12, pp. 633–659.
21.
NasarJ. (2003) Does neotraditional neighborhood development build community?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 23, pp. 56–58.
22.
NelsonA. C. (2006) Planning leadership in a new era, Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, pp. 393–407.
23.
RosenS. (1974) Hedonic prices and implicit markets: product differentiation in pure markets, Journal of Political Economics, 82, pp. 34–55.
24.
RyanB. D.WeberR. (2007) Development strategies in low-income urban neighbourhoods, Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(1), pp. 100–111.
25.
SongY.KnaapG. (2003) New urbanism and housing values: a disaggregate assessment, Journal of Urban Economics, 54, pp. 218–238.
26.
SongY.QuerciaR. (2008) How are neighbourhood design features valued across different neighbourhood types?, Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23, pp. 297–316.
27.
TalenE. (2001) Traditional urbanism meets residential affluence: an analysis of the variability of suburban preference, Journal of the American Planning Association, 67, pp. 199–216.
28.
TuC. C.EppliM. J (1999) Valuing new urbanism: the case of Kentlands, Real Estate Economics, 27, pp. 425–451.
29.
TuC. C.EppliM. J (2001) An empirical examination of traditional neighbourhood development, Real Estate Economics, 29(3), pp. 485–501.
