Property Evaluation for Residential Structures: A Predictive Approach Using View and Spatial Attributes

Conference paper
Part of the Green Energy and Technology book series (GREEN)

Abstract

Computational simulation programs and analytical scientific methods are usually used to evaluate properties and structures in the city. Although such programs can help gather various information and analyze it better and more accurately than with manual methods, they usually require a huge amount of historical data on sale prices and also extensive property data. This may be somewhat complicated in developing countries where the history of sales may be hard to track for various reasons. This paper is an attempt to abstract that process by investigating the relationship between property value for residential structures and both building overlook (view) and its spatial attributes as two of the primary factors affecting property value. Property value is considered as a collective lump-sum indication of residential privileges. Spatial and view attributes are two of the main privileges which will be studied. The paper uses Space Syntax as an analytical tool for comparing the influence of each of these attributes using regression analysis.

Keywords

Property value Space syntax Integration Choice to depth Spatial attributes 

References

  1. Bafna, S. (2003). Space syntax: A brief introduction to its logic and analytical technique. Environment and Behavior, 35(1), 17–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bell, K. (2006). World bank support for land administration and management: Responding to the challenges of the millennium development goals. Paper presented at the 23rd FIG Congress. Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
  3. Chiaradia, Alain J., Schwander, C., Gil, J., & Friedrich, E. (2008). Mapping the intangible value of urban layout (i-VALUL): Developing a tool kit for the socio-economic valuation of urban area, for designers and decision makers. Presented at: 9th International Conference on Design & Decision Support Systems in Architecture and Urban Planning, Eindhoven, Netherlands, 2–5 July.Google Scholar
  4. Del Giudice, V., Torrieri, F., & De Paola, P. (2014). Property value, urban quality and maintenance condition: A hedonic analysis in the city of Naples, Italy. Advanced Engineering Forum (Vol. 11, pp. 560–565). Switzerland: Trans Tech Publications.Google Scholar
  5. Hillier, B., & Hanson, J. (1984). The Social Logic of Space. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hillier, B., Burdett, R., Peponis, J., & Penn, A. (1987), Creating life: Or, does architecture determine anything? Architecture et Comportement/Architecture and Behavior, 3(3), 233–250.Google Scholar
  7. Hillier, B. (1996). Space is the machine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Hillier, B. (1999). The hidden geometry of deformed grids: Or why space syntax works when it looks as though it shouldn’t. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26, 169–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hillier, B, (2014). Space syntax as a theory as well as a method, space syntax laboratory, University College London. Retrieved from http://isuf2014.fe.up.pt/Hillier.pdf
  10. Jo, S. (1996). A balance between pedestrian and vehicular movement in relation to street configuration (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  11. Marcus, L. (2010). Spatial capital: A proposal for an extension of space syntax into a more general urban morphology. Journal of Space Syntax, 1(1), 30–40.Google Scholar
  12. Matthews, J., & Turnbull, G. (2007). Neighborhood street layout and property value: The interaction of accessibility and land use mix. Real Estate Finance and Economics, 35(2), 111–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Narvaez, L., Penn, A., & Griffiths, S. (2012a). Configurational economies: The value of accessibility in urban development, International Transaction Journal of Engineering, Management & Applied Sciences & Technologies, 3(3).Google Scholar
  14. Narvaez, L., Penn, A., & Griffiths, S. (2012b). Creating urban place: Re-thinking the value of residential and commercial use in urban street networks. In Space and Flows: International Conference on Urban and Extraurban Studies. Illinois: Common Ground Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Owusu-Ansah, A. (2012). Examination of the determinants of housing values in urban ghana and implications for policy makers. Paper presented at the African Real Estate Society Conference, Accra, Ghana.Google Scholar
  16. Read, S. (2005). Flat city; A space syntax derived urban movement network model. In A. van Nes (Ed.), 5th international space syntax symposium proceedings (pp. 341–357). Amsterdam: Techne Press.Google Scholar
  17. Roulac, S. (2007). Brand + Beauty + Utility = Property Value. Property Management, 25(5), 428–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Unlu, A., Ozener, O., Ozden, T., & Edgu, E. (2001). An evaluation of social interactive spaces in a university building, In 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium, Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  19. Van Nes, A. (2014). Integrating street vitality in excavated towns: Spatial configurative analyses applied to pompeii, Spatial analysis and social spaces. Interdisciplinary approaches to the interpretation of prehistoric and historic built environments (pp. 277–296). Berlin.Google Scholar
  20. Yi-Luen, D., & Gross, M. (1997). Tools for visual and spatial analysis of CAD models. Computer Assisted Architectural Design Futures: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Architectural Department, Faculty of EngineeringFayoum UniversityFayoumEgypt

Personalised recommendations