Consumer preference for neotraditional neighborhood characteristics

Housing Policy Debate

Volumn 15, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 171-202

  Morrow Jones, Hazel A ^a   Irwin, Elena G ^a   Roe, Brian ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Mobility; New Urbanism; Urban policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 25844442366     PISSN: 10511482     EISSN: 10511482     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10511482.2004.9521498     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Avin, Uri P., and Jane L. Dembner. 2000. Using Scenarios to Improve Plan-Making. Paper presented at the national conference of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Atlanta. November.
2. Boehm, Thomas P., Henry W. Herzog Jr., and Alan M. Schlottmann. 1991. Intra-Urban Mobility, Migration, and Tenure Choice. Review of Economics and Statistics 73(1):59-68.
3. Bohl, Charles C. 2000. New Urbanism and the City: Potential Applications and Implications for Distressed Inner-City Neighborhoods. Housing Policy Debate 11(4):751-801.
4. Bookout, Lloyd W. 1992. Neotraditional Town Planning: Cars, Pedestrians, and Transit. Urban Land 51:20-26.
5. Bothwell, Stephanie E., Raymond Gindroz, and Robert E. Lang. 1998. Restoring Community through Traditional Neighborhood Design: A Case Study of Diggs Town Public Housing. Housing Policy Debate 9(1):89-114.
6. Bradford, Susan. 1993. Are TNDs Selling? Builder, August, pp. 76-79.
7. Calthorpe, Peter. 1993. The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the American Dream. New York: Princeton Architectural Press.
8. Danielsen, Karen A., Robert E. Lang, and William Fulton. 1999. Retracting Suburbia: Smart Growth and the Future of Housing. Housing Policy Debate 10(3):513-40.
9. Eppli, Mark J., and Charles C. Tu. 1999. Valuing the New Urbanism: The Impact of the New Urbanism on Prices of Single-Family Homes. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
10. Fulton, William. 1996. New Urbanism: Hope or Hype for American Communities? Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
11. Furuseth, Owen J. 1997. Neotraditional Planning: A New Strategy for Building Neighborhoods? Land Use Policy 14(3):201-13.
12. Geoghegan, Jacqueline. 2002. The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use. Land Use Policy 19(1):91-98.
13. Handy, Susan. 1991. Neo-Traditional Development: The Debate. Berkeley Planning Journal 6:135-44.
14. Irwin, Elena G. 2002. The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics 78(4):465-81.
15. Johnston, Robert J., James J. Opaluch, Thomas A. Grigalunas, and Marisa J. Mazzotta. 2001. Estimating Amenity Benefits of Coastal Farmland. Growth and Change 32(3):305-25.
16. Louviere, Jordan. 1988. Conjoint Analysis of Stated Preferences. Journal of Transportation Economic Policy 22:93-119.
17. Morrow-Jones, Hazel A., Edward J. Malecki, and Katrin B. Anacker. 2004. Challenges of City Planning and City Development in the U.S.: Current Situation and Prognosis. Petermanns Geographische Mitteilungen (in English) 1:42-49.
18. Myers, Dowell, and Elizabeth Gearin. 2001. Current Preferences and Future Demand for Denser Residential Environments. Housing Policy Debate 12(4):633-64.
19. Nasar, Jack L. 2003. Does Neotraditional Development Build Community? Journal of Planning Education and Research 23:56-68.
20. National Association of Home Builders. 1999. 1999 Smart Growth Survey. Unpublished questionnaire and detailed tabulations. Washington, DC.
21. Ready, Richard C., Mark C. Berger, and Glenn C. Blomquist. 1997. Measuring Amenity Benefits from Farmland: Hedonic Pricings vs. Contingent Valuation. Growth and Change 28:438-58.
22. Roe, Brian, Elena Irwin, and Hazel A. Morrow-Jones. 2004. Estimating the Benefits of Farmland Preservation to Homeowners: Results of a Conjoint Analysis of Housing Choice. Land Economics 80(1):55-75.
23. Ryan, Sherry, and Michael G. McNally. 1995. Accessibility of Neotraditional Neighborhoods: A Review of Design Concepts, Policies, and Recent Literature. Transportation Research A 29A(2):87-105.
24. Rybczynski, Witold. 1998. (Some) People Like New Urbanism. Wharton Real Estate Review 2:49-53.
25. Schlelmer, John. 1993. Case Study: Are Neo-Traditional Communities Succeeding in the Marketplace? Lusk Review, Fall, pp. 76-82.
26. Sheppard, Stephen. 1999. Hedonic Analysis of Housing Markets. In Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics. Vol. 3. Applied Urban Economics, ed. Paul Cheshire and Edwin Mills, 1595-636. Amsterdam, Netherlands: North Holland.
27. Sohmer, Rebecca R., and Robert E. Lang. 2000. Editors' Introduction - From Seaside to Southside: New Urbanism's Quest to Save the Inner City. Housing Policy Debate 11(4):751-60.
28. Song, Yan, and Gerrit Knaap. 2002. Land Use Regulation, Urban Form, and the Price of Single Family Homes: A Preliminary Assessment of Portland's 2040 Plan. Presented at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy International Seminar on Urban Land Markets and the Impact of Land Market Regulations, July 15-17. Cambridge, MA.
29. Talen, Emily. 2001. Traditional Urbanism Meets Residential Affluence: An Analysis of the Variability of Suburban Preference. Journal of the American Planning Association 67(2):199-216.
30. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2000. U.S. Census of Population and Housing. Washington, DC.