The Value of Design in Real Estate Asset Pricing

Does design contribute to real estate value? Practicing architects require evidence to justify both functional and aesthetic building needs within the financial ecosystem. Some buildings that become real estate assets are valued using models that consider some proxies for understanding value, but th...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Helena Hang Rong, Juncheng Yang, Minkoo Kang, Andrea Chegut
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: MDPI AG 2020-10-01
Series:Buildings
Subjects:
Online Access:https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/10/10/178
id doaj-20f1da9364de49fca3e3584d5dbaabf1
record_format Article
spelling doaj-20f1da9364de49fca3e3584d5dbaabf12020-11-25T03:35:32ZengMDPI AGBuildings2075-53092020-10-011017817810.3390/buildings10100178The Value of Design in Real Estate Asset PricingHelena Hang Rong0Juncheng Yang1Minkoo Kang2Andrea Chegut3Real Estate Innovation Lab, Center for Real Estate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USAReal Estate Innovation Lab, Center for Real Estate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USAReal Estate Innovation Lab, Center for Real Estate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USAReal Estate Innovation Lab, Center for Real Estate, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, USADoes design contribute to real estate value? Practicing architects require evidence to justify both functional and aesthetic building needs within the financial ecosystem. Some buildings that become real estate assets are valued using models that consider some proxies for understanding value, but these features are abstract and may misidentify the sub-optimal differentiation that design brings. The lack of feedback between real estate valuation and building design often leads to poor design and economic outcomes. To address this miscommunication, we investigate the transaction price performance of four external architectural form features—diagonality, curvature, setbacks and podiums. Whilst controlling for drivers that are known to explain transaction price variation, we find that diagonality and podiums have a positive pricing differential of 12.4 and 9.7% more than rectilinear control buildings, respectively. Buildings with setbacks have a negative pricing differential of 10%. Furthermore, these results are also consistent for rental valuation. Results suggest that there is a significant economic impact of some architectural form interventions that differentiate commercial buildings and contribute to the role of form in design, planning and commercial real estate.https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/10/10/178architecturedesignbuilt environmentfinance/financializationvaluationasset pricing
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Helena Hang Rong
Juncheng Yang
Minkoo Kang
Andrea Chegut
spellingShingle Helena Hang Rong
Juncheng Yang
Minkoo Kang
Andrea Chegut
The Value of Design in Real Estate Asset Pricing
Buildings
architecture
design
built environment
finance/financialization
valuation
asset pricing
author_facet Helena Hang Rong
Juncheng Yang
Minkoo Kang
Andrea Chegut
author_sort Helena Hang Rong
title The Value of Design in Real Estate Asset Pricing
title_short The Value of Design in Real Estate Asset Pricing
title_full The Value of Design in Real Estate Asset Pricing
title_fullStr The Value of Design in Real Estate Asset Pricing
title_full_unstemmed The Value of Design in Real Estate Asset Pricing
title_sort value of design in real estate asset pricing
publisher MDPI AG
series Buildings
issn 2075-5309
publishDate 2020-10-01
description Does design contribute to real estate value? Practicing architects require evidence to justify both functional and aesthetic building needs within the financial ecosystem. Some buildings that become real estate assets are valued using models that consider some proxies for understanding value, but these features are abstract and may misidentify the sub-optimal differentiation that design brings. The lack of feedback between real estate valuation and building design often leads to poor design and economic outcomes. To address this miscommunication, we investigate the transaction price performance of four external architectural form features—diagonality, curvature, setbacks and podiums. Whilst controlling for drivers that are known to explain transaction price variation, we find that diagonality and podiums have a positive pricing differential of 12.4 and 9.7% more than rectilinear control buildings, respectively. Buildings with setbacks have a negative pricing differential of 10%. Furthermore, these results are also consistent for rental valuation. Results suggest that there is a significant economic impact of some architectural form interventions that differentiate commercial buildings and contribute to the role of form in design, planning and commercial real estate.
topic architecture
design
built environment
finance/financialization
valuation
asset pricing
url https://www.mdpi.com/2075-5309/10/10/178
work_keys_str_mv AT helenahangrong thevalueofdesigninrealestateassetpricing
AT junchengyang thevalueofdesigninrealestateassetpricing
AT minkookang thevalueofdesigninrealestateassetpricing
AT andreachegut thevalueofdesigninrealestateassetpricing
AT helenahangrong valueofdesigninrealestateassetpricing
AT junchengyang valueofdesigninrealestateassetpricing
AT minkookang valueofdesigninrealestateassetpricing
AT andreachegut valueofdesigninrealestateassetpricing
_version_ 1724553916337618944