What are the factors that give a place value?

Little Green Street, Kentish Town, London: probably quite valuable. Image: Getty.

The value of place is simultaneously the most discussed and the least understood of all things. House prices used to be the leitmotiv of a million clichéd dinner parties – no more, I think – but what we mean by the value of an actual neighbourhood and what drives that value is not only little discussed. It has, until recently, barely even been studied.

Create Street’s new report, Beyond Location, tries to answer this question. We have taken advantage of new techniques for analysing values as well as the big data revolution. We have conducted a uniquely wide, data-rich analysis of every 2016 property sale in six English cities (London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds, Liverpool and Newcastle).

This has used open datasets to compute basic urban characteristics, such as street network connectivity, population density, amount of greenery, availability of different transport modes. The point of the analysis was not to investigate them separately, but together – and to permit city-wide conclusions and inter-city comparisons.

The findings – part predictable, part surprising – tell us much about the state of our cities. One thing they do show is that urban form really does matter in understanding value. Our models for urban form can predict up to 74 per cent of the official UK poverty index – the Index of Multiple Deprivation – and up to 54 per cent of sales values.

How do specific characteristics affect the value of a London property?

Our key findings include that more greenery is not always a good thing. The immediate presence of attractive greenery or high-quality parks can add huge value in many situations. However, at the city-wide level, the presence of more greenery can be associated with lower as well as higher value. What it is and how it is managed really matters. For example, in London, a home closer than average to a high-quality park costs, on average, 11 per cent (or £51,000) more than one that is not, holding everything else equal. However, in Liverpool, a home located closer than average to a high-quality park is worth, on average, 7 per cent (or £7,760) less. 

Land use and form also matters. We found significant relationships across the six cities between urban form and deprivation and value. Areas of high population and high areas of unbuilt land – for example, high-rise estates with lots of wide-open space – are less valuable and often associated with more deprived communities. This might be partly due to the history of post-war building but, after thirty years of right to buy, most people who can afford to choose continue to avoid this type of urban pattern

Population density and deprivation in London. Click to expand.

The heritage premium is more important than the new build premium. In every city studied, proximity to a listed building was associated with more additional value than the premium associated with a newly built home. A home closer than average to a listed building in London is worth 10.3 per cent (or £49,770) more than one that isn’t, holding everything else equal. The equivalent new build premium is only £8,795.

The findings also highlight a clear difference between London and the other British cities. Accessible income is driving an urban renaissance in London out of all proportion to that visible elsewhere in the UK. Walkable street-based networks or older properties have a value premium over other neighbourhoods which far exceeds that yet visible in other cities. Proximity to a listed building is associated with nearly seven times as much value premium in London as in the other cities studied.

Finally, diversity is valuable. Areas with more diversity of house types suffer from less deprivation. Areas with a more diverse offering of transport and amenities are normally worth more, other things being equal. Above average amenity diversity is associated with additional value in all cities studied.

Property value and connectivity in Newcastle. Click to expand.

Value is a fraught term. Extra value is not always a good thing – certainly not for everyone. In globally successful cities, spiralling house prices are forcing out existing communities. There are ‘sorting effects’, where the better off out-compete the less well-off for the best places.


The ultimate aim of this study therefore is to help developers to build and planners to permit more good places by understanding human preferences more richly.

One thing is for certain though. When it comes to understanding, and predicting, economic and social value, urban form and design really matters.

Alessandro Venerandi is a researcher and urban designer at Create Streets. He has recently completed his doctorate in urban sustainability and resilience at UCL. Beyond Location is available here.

 
 
 
 

Barnet council has decided a name for its new mainline station. Exciting!

Artist's impression of the new Brent Cross. Image: Hammerson.

I’ve ranted before about the horror of naming stations after the lines that they’re served by (screw you, City Thameslink). So, keeping things in perspective as ever, I’ve been quietly dreading the opening of the proposed new station in north London which has been going by the name of Brent Cross Thameslink.

I’ve been cheered, then, by the news that station wouldn’t be called that at all, but will instead go by the much better name Brent Cross West. It’s hardly the cancellation of Brexit, I’ll grant, but in 2017 I’ll take my relief wherever I can find it.

Some background on this. When the Brent Cross shopping centre opened besides the A406 North Circular Road in 1976, it was only the third large shopping mall to arrive in Britain, and the first in London. (The Elephant & Castle one was earlier, but smaller.) Four decades later, though, it’s decidedly titchy compared to newer, shinier malls such as those thrown up by Westfield – so for some years now, its owners, Hammerson, have wanted to extend the place.

That, through the vagaries of the planning process, got folded into a much bigger regeneration scheme, known as Brent Cross Cricklewood (because, basically, it extends that far). A new bigger shopping centre will be connected, via a green bridge over the A406, to another site to the south. There you’ll find a whole new town centre, 200 more shops, four parks, 4m square feet of offices space and 7,500 homes.

This is all obviously tremendously exciting, if you’re into shops and homes and offices and not into depressing, car-based industrial wastelands, which is what the area largely consists of at the moment.

The Brent Cross site. Image: Google.

One element of the new development is the new station, which’ll sit between Hendon and Cricklewood on the Thameslink route. New stations are almost as exciting as new shops/homes/offices, so on balance I'm pro.

What I’ve not been pro is the name. For a long time, the proposed station has been colloquially referred to as Brent Cross Thameslink, which annoys me for two reasons:

1) Route names make rubbish modifiers because what if the route name changes? And:

2) It’s confusing, because it’s nearly a mile from Brent Cross tube station. West Hampstead Thameslink (euch), by contrast, is right next to West Hampstead tube.

Various other names have been proposed for the station. In one newsletter, it was Brent Cross Parkway; on Wikipedia, it’s currently Brent Cross South, apparently through confusion about the name of the new town centre development.

This week, though, Barnet council quietly confirmed it’d be Brent Cross West:

Whilst the marketing and branding of BXS needs to be developed further, all parties agree that the station name should build upon the Brent Cross identity already established. Given the station is located to the west of Brent Cross, it is considered that the station should be named Brent Cross West. Network Rail have confirmed that this name is acceptable for operational purposes. Consequently, the Committee is asked to approve that the new station be named Brent Cross West.

Where the new station will appear on the map, marked by a silly red arrow. Image: TfL.

That will introduce another irritating anomaly to the map, giving the impression that the existing Brent Cross station is somehow more central than the new one, when in fact they’re either side of the development. And so:

Consideration has also been given as to whether to pursue a name change for the tube station from “Brent Cross” to “Brent Cross East”.

Which would sort of make sense, wouldn’t it? But alas:

However owing to the very high cost of changing maps and signage London-wide this is not currently being pursued.

This is probably for the best. Only a handful of tube stations have been renamed since 1950: the last was Shepherd’s Bush Market, which was until 2008 was simply Shepherd's Bush, despite being quite a long way from the Shepherd's Bush station on the Central line. That, to me, suggests that one of the two Bethnal Green stations might be a more plausible candidate for an early rename.


At any rate: it seems unlikely that TfL will be renaming its Brent Cross station to encourage more people to use the new national rail one any time soon. But at least it won’t be Brent Cross Thameslink.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of CityMetric. He is on Twitter as @jonnelledge and also has a Facebook page now for some reason. 

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook