Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Challenge the future Delft University of Technology Negative Externalities of Structural Vacant Offices Philip Koppels and Hilde Remøy.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Challenge the future Delft University of Technology Negative Externalities of Structural Vacant Offices Philip Koppels and Hilde Remøy."— Presentation transcript:

1 Challenge the future Delft University of Technology Negative Externalities of Structural Vacant Offices Philip Koppels and Hilde Remøy

2 2/27 Introduction High levels of (structural) vacancy Concentration in specific areas and buildings Social security & criminality Negative externalities related to structural vacant buildings? Positive externalities are often assumed Landmark buildings Public space: proximity to parks & water bodies Difficult to measure and quantify: spatially lagged variables Function of distance Negative Externalities and Structural Vacancy

3 3/27 Introduction Negative Externalities and Structural Vacancy Source: Thibodeau (1990)

4 4/27 Introduction Isolating the effect: Market conditions: rental adjustment equation Omitted variables: proxy for neighborhood quality Negative Externalities and Structural Vacancy

5 5/27 Structural Vacancy “Structural” nature: three consecutive years Visibility of vacancy: at least 50% of the building is vacant Operationalization

6 6/27 2003 Number of Structural vacant buildings = 1

7 7/27 2004 Number of Structural vacant buildings = 8

8 8/27 2005 Number of Structural vacant buildings = 17

9 9/27 2006 Number of Structural vacant buildings = 34

10 10/27 2007 Number of Structural vacant buildings = 32

11 11/27 2008 Number of Structural vacant buildings = 29

12 12/27 2009 Number of Structural vacant buildings = 38

13 13/27 2010 Number of Structural vacant buildings = 54

14 14/27 Research Method Data sample: 152 buildings 334 transactions 2003-2010 Hedonic Pricing

15 15/27 Model Specification Spatial Segmentation  Discrete spatial Heterogeneity  12 submarkets  Modelled by random effects

16 16/27 Model Specification Rent X coordinate Discrete Spatial Heterogeneity Submarket A Submarket B Submarket C

17 17/27 Model Specification Omitted Variables  Nested model:  Submarkets  Postcode area’s  Buildings  Modelled by random effects

18 18/27 Model Specification General Economic Trend (City-wide) Nominal Rent Level

19 19/27 Sub-market Specific Economic Trends Nominal Rent Level Model Specification

20 40.000 m²500 m² Building size (GFA) office buildings structural vacant office buildings 50 m r=500m 450 m 300 m

21 21/27 Weight factor Spatially Lagged Variable Model Specification Distance 0 R=250m. R=500m. R=750m. 1 R=150m. How to measure distance:  As the crow-flies  Along the road network

22 22/27 Distance Weight factor 0 R=250m. R=500m. R=750m. 1 R=150m. Spatially Lagged Variable Model Specification

23 50 m r=500m 450 m 300 m Impact depends on:  Distance  Building size

24 24/29 Negative Externalities of Structural Vacant Offices Best performing model assumes: Constant distance relationship with threshold distance at 250m. Distance measured: as the crow-flies 0 R=250m. 1 Distance Impact: independent of the size of the structural vacant building

25 25/29 Solution for Fixed Effects EffectTransformationEstimateStd. Err.Pr > |t| Intercept51.1670.2667<.0001 Building ageLogarithmic-0.064120.016210.0001 Travel time to highwayLogarithmic0.012960.028160.6457 Intercity location (r=250m): Yes0.037330.059510.5310 Intercity location (r=250m): No--- Distance tram/metro stopLogarithmic-0.017020.028370.5491 Daily amenitiesLogarithmic0.026760.020330.1901 Employment industryLogarithmic-0.000010.0000270.5967 Employment F&BLogarithmic0.037770.027380.1704 Inverse parking ratioLogarithmic0.11540.034050.0008 Garage: No-0.095040.031250.0025 Garage: Yes--- Number of floorsLogarithmic0.052360.027180.0549 Façade: Low/Standard-0.037550.029610.2056 Façade: High--- Company logo: No-0.028080.023590.2348 Company logo: Yes--- Size of entrance as % of total LFALogarithmic0.027870.014060.0482 Numb. Structural Vacant offices (r=250m)-0.023320.012030.0537

26 26/27 Conclusion & Discussion Base model seems plausible Significant relationship structural vacant offices and rent prices nearby buildings Vicious circle? Collective action Some issues to consider Proxy Weight matrix specification Submarket dummies Negative Externalities and Structural Vacancy

27 27/27 Questions? Contact author: p.w.koppels@tudelft.nl


Download ppt "Challenge the future Delft University of Technology Negative Externalities of Structural Vacant Offices Philip Koppels and Hilde Remøy."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google