Advertisement

GeoJournal

, Volume 73, Issue 4, pp 285–295 | Cite as

Urban consolidation and house prices: a case study of Melbourne 1990–2004

  • Sun Sheng Han
  • Kevin O’Connor
Article

Abstract

This paper explores the links between a strategic policy, urban consolidation, and house prices by examining the changes in the mix of housing and in house price for the period 1991–2004. We contend that urban consolidation could be seen as a source of additional supply, (which might be expected to be felt in lower prices and so contribute to a local policy objective) but also as a stimulus to demand (by developers who could bid up the price of lots where it was understood more housing could be built). Analyses were carried out at the metropolitan and sub-regional scales using correlation tests. The research finds very weak statistical connections, and concludes that this policy has not been associated with price changes.

Keywords

Urban consolidation House price Spatial distribution, Melbourne 

References

  1. Anselin, L. (1995). Local Indicators of Spatial Association-LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27(2), 93–115.Google Scholar
  2. Bourassa, S., Hamelink, F., Hoesli, M., & MacGregor, B. (1999). Defining housing submarkets. Journal of Housing Economics, 8, 160–183. doi: 10.1006/jhec.1999.0246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Han, S. S. (2004). Spatial structure of residential property value distribution in Beijing and Jakarta. Environment & Planning A, 36(7), 1259–1283. doi: 10.1068/a36147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Han, S. S. (2005). Polycentric urban development and spatial clustering of condominium property values: Singapore in the 1990s. Environment & Planning A, 37(3), 463–481. doi: 10.1068/a3746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Lusht, K. M. (1997). Real estate valuation: Principles and applications. New York: Irwin.Google Scholar
  6. MacLennan, D., Munro, M., & Wood, G. (1987). Housing choice and the structure of the housing sub market. In B. Turner, J. Kemeny, & L. Lundquist (Eds.), Between state and market housing in the post industrial era (pp. 26–51). Stockholm: Almquist and Wicksell.Google Scholar
  7. MacLennan, D., & Tu, Y. (1996). The micro economics of local housing market structure. Housing Studies, 11, 387–406. doi: 10.1080/02673039608720864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. O’Connor, K., & Healy, E. (2002) Labour market, housing market interdependence within metropolitan Australia: A case study of Melbourne. Final Report Project 50024. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute. http://www.ahuri.edu.au/publications/projects/p50024.
  9. Pendall, R., Martin, J., & Fulton, W. (2002) Holding the line: Urban containment in the United States. A discussion paper prepared for The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.Google Scholar
  10. Smith, F. H. (2003). Historical evidence on the monocentric urban model: A case study of Cleveland, 1915–1980. Applied Economics Letters, 10, 729–731. doi: 10.1080/1350485032000133363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Watkins, C. A. (2001). The definition and identification of housing submarkets. Environment & Planning A, 33, 2235–2253. doi: 10.1068/a34162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MelbourneMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations