Valuing Public Space

1
Valuing Public Space (and What To Do With the
Valuations)Dr. Gareth PottsDirector of
Research and Policy, BURAgareth_at_bura.org.uk
2

• BURA Involvement in Design
• BURA
• CABE project
• case for investment in good design
• particularly public realm (CABE / TfL / all /
  harder)
• show value of investment made
• make decisions between options
• visual tools for doing that Value Maps

3

• Valuing Proposed Design
• WtP based on estimated net benefits (rel. to
  cost)
• WtP match or exceed cost for different designs?
• Markets for land and buildings
• BUT .. no market in public space
• SO .. need methods to get at these values in
  use

4

• Valuing Proposed Design

5

• Whose Values?

6

• Whose Values II?
• All public affected by any one public decision
• Local v non-local
• Here and now (versus future)
• good design v valued design
• expert v lay - contextual, health n safety,
  technical
• User-provider dialogue (public value)
• Design awareness Angel of North
• What about regeneration areas (no residents)
• The poor!

7

• Benefits for the Public of Good Public Realm

8

• Benefits for Commercial/Residential Property
  Interests

9

• Methods for Valuing Proposed Design

10

• Best Methods for Valuing Proposed Design II
• Multi-Criteria Analysis (MCA)
• Weighting and scoring
• Quick(ish)
• Interactive / engaging
• DQI (MCA)
• useful / build quality / sense of place
• VALID (MCA)
• More discerning in options
• sacrifices
• Risk (delays) / costs (security) / time delays
  (consultation)
• PCT (MCA)
• users and managers

11
Design Quality Indicators Score Sheet Example
12

• Best Methods for Valuing Proposed Design II
• Stated Preferences
• Contingent Valuation
• Options
• WtP / survey (and statistical analysis)
• cognitively difficult focus down
• Contingent Ranking
• rank different sets of design options street
  survey
• some of which include a monetary element
• Subjective Well-Being
• Design / Income / Real-time SWB
• compensate public / reward private

13

• Methods for Valuing Existing Design II
• N.B. can also use MCA here / feedback to
  developers
• RP 1 Hedonic Pricing Method
• impact on market prices of parks, schools etc.
• most appropriate to houses / what of aesthetics?
  / innovation?
• RP II Travel Cost Method
• calculate demand at different (travel) prices
• n.b. non-use ignored
• Impacts
• RDA-type perspective (ONE, EMDA, NWDA)
• interest in showing benefits for RES
• n.b. social (places for kids) and environmental
  benefits too
• not about public value (but can inform) / not
  always monetary

14

• When to Use?

15

• Paying for It All
• Private
• BIDS based on rateable value of space
• Section 106 / Roof Tax / PGS
• Brokering Funding (DomAssurCon/Coasian pool)
• Public
• WtP and Council Tax
• resident vote on how developer money spent
• Negotiation
• Need to do deals some pay more

16

• Where Next?
• Real inter-disciplinarity (econ/design/anthropol)
• Greater attention to such work in academia
• More use of the techniques
• More use of their application
• Compare approaches e.g. SWB and CV and MCA
• Unified MCA
• Academic-industry partnerships
• Knowledge exchange between RDAs/RCEs
• Align impacts approach with valuation approaches
• BURA interested in brokering event
• Right methods for right situations cost!
• gareth_at_bura.org.uk