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.

 
 
 
 

Covid-19 is highlighting cities' unequal access to green space

In the UK, Londoners are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. (Leon Neal/Getty Images)

As coronavirus lockdowns ease, people are flooding back to parks – but not everyone has easy access to green space in their city.

Statistics from Google show that park attendance in countries across the globe has shot up as people have been allowed to move around their cities again.

This is especially true in urban areas, where densely populated neighbourhoods limit the size of private green space – meaning residents have to go to the park to get in touch with nature. Readers from England can use our interactive tool below to find out how much green space people have access to in their area, and how it compares to the rest of the country.

 

Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s announcement Monday that people are allowed to mingle in parks and gardens with groups of up to six people was partially following what people were doing already.

Data from mobile phones show people have been returning to parks across the UK, and also across Europe, as weather improves and lockdown eases.

People have been returning to parks across the world

Stay-at-home requirements were eased in Italy on 4 May, which led to a flood of people returning to parks.

France eased restrictions on 1 May, and the UK eased up slightly on 13 May, allowing people to sit down in public places so long as they remain socially distanced.

Other countries have seen park attendance rise without major easing of lockdown – including Canada, Spain, and the US (although states there have individual rules and some have eased restrictions).

In some countries, people never really stopped going to parks.

Authorities in the Netherlands and Germany were not as strict as other countries about their citizens visiting local parks during lockdown, while Sweden has famously been avoiding placing many restrictions on people’s daily lives.


There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that access to green space has major benefits for public health.

A recent study by researchers at the University of Exeter found that spending time in the garden is linked to similar benefits for health and wellbeing as living in wealthy areas.

People with access to a private garden also had higher psychological wellbeing, and those with an outdoor space such as a yard were more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than those without access to outdoor space. 

Separate UK research has found that living with a regular view of a green space provides health benefits worth £300 per person per year.

Access is not shared equally, however, which has important implications for equality under lockdown, and the spread of disease.

Statistics from the UK show that one in eight households has no garden, making access to parks more important.

There is a geographic inequality here. Londoners, who have the least access to private gardens, are most likely to rely on their local park for green space, and have the best access to parks. 

However the high population in the capital means that on the whole, green space per person is lower – an issue for people living in densely populated cities everywhere.

There is also an occupational inequality.

Those on low pay – including in what are statistically classed as “semi-skilled” and “unskilled” manual occupations, casual workers and those who are unemployed – are almost three times as likely as those in managerial, administrative, professional occupations to be without a garden, meaning they rely more heavily on their local park.

Britain’s parks and fields are also at significant risk of development, according to new research by the Fields in Trust charity, which shows the number of people living further than a 10-minute walk from a public park rising by 5% over the next five years. That loss of green spaces is likely to impact disadvantaged communities the most, the researchers say.

This is borne out by looking at the parts of the country that have private gardens.

The least deprived areas have the largest gardens

Though the relationship is not crystal clear, it shows at the top end: Those living in the least deprived areas have the largest private green space.

Although the risk of catching coronavirus is lower outdoors, spending time in parks among other people is undoubtedly more risky when it comes to transmitting or catching the virus than spending time in your own outdoor space. 

Access to green space is therefore another example – along with the ability to work from home and death rates – of how the burden of the pandemic has not been equally shouldered by all.

Michael Goodier is a data reporter at New Statesman Media Group, and Josh Rayman is a graphics and data visualisation developer at New Statesman Media Group.