2013
DOI: 10.1080/02673037.2013.825695
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of Urban Growth Boundary on Housing and Land Prices: Evidence from King County, Washington

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
25
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 30 publications
(27 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
1
25
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Each phase is explained in the subsections below. 9 Politicians in Flanders are allowed to have concurrent seats in both local and regional bodies, creating close ties between local and regional politics.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Each phase is explained in the subsections below. 9 Politicians in Flanders are allowed to have concurrent seats in both local and regional bodies, creating close ties between local and regional politics.…”
Section: Datamentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As Calthorpe and Fulton state, Despite the recognition that UGM instruments are multifaceted, Knaap and Nelson already noted three decades ago that, "Although UGBs are multi-objective instruments, most research on the effects of UGBs has focused on land values" [6]. This also holds true for the evaluative literature published in subsequent decades, which focuses primarily on analysing the effects of growth management strategies on land values and housing prices [7][8][9][10][11]. Additionally, there are many reviews of the effects of urban growth management on urban development patterns [12][13][14][15][16] and mobility [17,18].…”
Section: Introduction: Evaluating Growth Managementmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Urban densification itself is also argued to produce negative externalities. Densification can put pressure on existing services and infrastructure, lead to higher overall house prices if combined with urban growth boundaries or other measures increasing the scarcity of buildable land (Mathur, 2014), reduce the absolute and relative availability of open and green space in urbanised areas (Giezen et al, 2018), and even impact species richness and abundance in remaining greenspace (Vergnes et al, 2014). In addition, urban densification has been argued to be unfeasible, as often there remains a need for urban expansion (Breheny, 1996;Westerink et al, 2013), and environmental benefits are said to fall short of predictions (Westerink et al, 2013).…”
Section: Densification and Instruments Of Land Policymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…El caso más estudiado es Portland, Oregon, que implementó un PCU en 1979. Pese a que la ciudad experimentó un aumento de los precios del suelo en la década de 1990, no se ha podido probar que los aumentos en el precio de las viviendas hayan sido significativamente diferentes a los de otras ciudades de EEUU (Downs, 2002;Jun, 2006;Mathur, 2014;Phillips y Goodstein, 2000). Sin embargo, investigadores han probado también que los PCU disminuyen la oferta de vivienda de bajo costo, por lo cual las ciudades deberían especificar metas en producción de vivienda para los diversos segmentos del mercado, ya que los PCU tienen efectos diferenciados según el segmento.…”
Section: Experiencia Internacionalunclassified