<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:x="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:excel" xmlns:p="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:powerpoint" xmlns:a="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:access" xmlns:dt="uuid:C2F41010-65B3-11d1-A29F-00AA00C14882" xmlns:s="uuid:BDC6E3F0-6DA3-11d1-A2A3-00AA00C14882" xmlns:rs="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:rowset" xmlns:z="#RowsetSchema" xmlns:b="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:publisher" xmlns:ss="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:spreadsheet" xmlns:c="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:component:spreadsheet" xmlns:odc="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:odc" xmlns:oa="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:activation" xmlns:html="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" xmlns:q="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/envelope/" xmlns:rtc="http://microsoft.com/officenet/conferencing" xmlns:D="DAV:" xmlns:Repl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/repl/" xmlns:mt="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/meetings/" xmlns:x2="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/excel/2003/xml" xmlns:ppda="http://www.passport.com/NameSpace.xsd" xmlns:ois="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/ois/" xmlns:dir="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/directory/" xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#" xmlns:dsp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/dsp" xmlns:udc="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:sub="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/2002/1/alerts/" xmlns:ec="http://www.w3.org/2001/04/xmlenc#" xmlns:sp="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/" xmlns:sps="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:udcs="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/soap" xmlns:udcxf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/xmlfile" xmlns:udcp2p="http://schemas.microsoft.com/data/udc/parttopart" xmlns:wf="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/workflow/" xmlns:dsss="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig-setup" xmlns:dssi="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2006/digsig" xmlns:mdssi="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/digital-signature" xmlns:mver="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/markup-compatibility/2006" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns:mrels="http://schemas.openxmlformats.org/package/2006/relationships" xmlns:spwp="http://microsoft.com/sharepoint/webpartpages" xmlns:ex12t="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/types" xmlns:ex12m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/exchange/services/2006/messages" xmlns:pptsl="http://schemas.microsoft.com/sharepoint/soap/SlideLibrary/" xmlns:spsl="http://microsoft.com/webservices/SharePointPortalServer/PublishedLinksService" xmlns:Z="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" xmlns:st="" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">

<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<title>Fw: [article] CEOS for Cities and WalkScore release study on price
premiums in walkable neighborhoods</title>
<style>
<!--
 /* Font Definitions */
 @font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
 /* Style Definitions */
 p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        margin-bottom:.0001pt;
        font-size:12.0pt;
        font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:purple;
        text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
        color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;}
@page Section1
        {size:8.5in 11.0in;
        margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
        {page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
 <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
  <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
 </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>

<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>

<div class=Section1>

<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>

<div id=idOWAReplyText59341>

<div>

<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:10.0pt'>The study link is<br>
<a
href="http://blog.walkscore.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities.pdf">http://blog.walkscore.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities.pdf</a><br>
<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-18-pay-more-walkability/">http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-18-pay-more-walkability/</a><br>
                                                                                                                        <br>
                                                                                                                        <br>
                                                                                                                        <br>
  Would you pay more for walkability? Should
you?                                                                       <br>
  Posted 9:51 AM on 18 Aug
2009                                                                                         <br>
  by Katharine
Wroth                                                                                                    <br>
                                                                                                                        <br>
                                                                                                                        <br>
  Forget letting your fingers do the walking: A study released today shows
that homebuyers are letting their wallets do <br>
  the walking, paying more for homes in neighborhoods where you can get
around without
wheels.                          <br>
  Conducted by CEOs for Cities, the analysis looked at 94,000 real-estate
transaction in 15 markets across the U.S.,    <br>
  from Fresno, Calif., to Arlington, Va. Researchers found that in 13 of
the markets, housing values were higher in more<br>
  walkable neighborhoods. (What about the other two markets? In
Bakersfield, Calif., no correlation was found; in the   <br>
  other, which starts with Las Vegas and rhymes with Armageddon, housing
values were lower in walkable neighborhoods.)  <br>
  Using data from Walk Score, the study found that houses in hoods with
above average walkability commanded $4,000 to   <br>
  $34,000 more than those in hoods with average walkability. Characterized
as the first to put a dollar value
on        <br>
  walkability, the study could be big news for municipal leaders and mere
mortals alike, said CEOs for Cities head Carol<br>
  Coletta: “These findings ... tell us that if urban leaders are
intentional about developing and redeveloping their    <br>
  cities to make them more walkable, it will not only enhance the local
tax base but will also contribute to individual <br>
  wealth by increasing the value of what is, for most people, their
biggest
asset.”                                     <br>
  But wait, you’re saying (as one staffer did at our news meeting this
morning): Couldn’t this connection just be due to<br>
  the fact that walkable areas tend to be metro areas, and that makes them
more expensive in general? The smarties      <br>
  behind the study are all over
that:                                                                                   <br>
       Using an economic technique called hedonic
regression, we estimate how much market value homebuyers
implicitly   <br>
       attach to houses with higher Walk Scores
... Our statistical approach controlled for key characteristics
of      <br>
       individual housing units (their size,
number of bedrooms and bathrooms, age and other factors), as well as
for   <br>
       the neighborhoods in which they were
located (including the neighborhood’s income level, proximity to the
urban  <br>
       center and relative accessibility to
employment opportunities). After controlling for all of these other
factors <br>
       that are known to influence housing value,
our study showed a positive correlation between walkability
and       <br>
       housing prices in 13 of the 15 housing
markets we
studied.”                                                      <br>
  They had me at hedonic
regression.                                                                                    <br>
  For me, the question is: Should we have to pay more for the privilege of
being able to walk to a grocery store or     <br>
  school or post office or local pub? Walking—which the study terms a
“largely unmeasured and grossly under appreciated <br>
  component of the urban transportation system”—is good for our health and
good for the planet, not to mention good for <br>
  things like car-insurance premiums. Should such a set-up be available
only to those who can afford it? Our old friend <br>
  Clark Williams-Derry over at Sightline offers this
take:                                                              <br>
       What the CEOs for Cities study shows is
that there is a real and measurable pent up demand for homes in walkable <br>
       neighborhoods. For decades, sprawl
apologists have argued that low-density suburban development was
somehow      <br>
       “natural,” because it’s what homebuyers “prefer.”
By now, though, it’s clear that many homebuyers are willing to <br>
       pay a premium for walkability. The real
problem is that the demand for walkable homes exceeds the
supply—which   <br>
       pushes up the
price.                                                                                             <br>
       To me, that argues for policies that are
designed to increase the supply of homes in walkable
neighborhoods.     <br>
       That’s good for affordability, good for
reducing transportation costs, and a great way to help more people
add   <br>
       walking to their daily
routines.                                                                                 <br>
                                                                                                                        <br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
***********<br>
Megan M. Susman<br>
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency<br>
Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation<br>
Mail Code 1807T<br>
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW<br>
Washington, DC 20460<br>
Phone: 202-566-2861<br>
Fax: 202-566-2868<br>
Email: susman.megan@epa.gov<br>
------------------------------<br>
Development, Community & Environment Division:<br>
<a href="http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth">http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth</a><br>
A partner in the Smart Growth Network: <a href="http://www.smartgrowth.org/">http://www.smartgrowth.org</a></span><o:p></o:p></p>

</div>

</div>

</div>

</body>

</html>