Big House, Little House: Relative Size and Value
How do markets value relative house size in a neighborhood? The literature offers differing rationales: atypical houses sell for less, capitalization of property taxes penalizes larger and benefits smaller houses in mixed neighborhoods and conspicuous consumption reinforces the value of relatively larger houses and reduces the value of relatively smaller houses to consumers. Using a simultaneous price-liquidity model that controls for neighborhood supply and demand conditions, this article finds a dominant tax capitalization effect on price and marketing time that appears to override any extant atypicality or conspicuous consumption effects. Copyright 2006 American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 34 (2006)
Issue (Month): 3 (09)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, 1309 East Tenth Street, Suite 738, Bloomington, Indiana 47405|
Phone: (812) 855-7794
Fax: (812) 855-8679
Web page: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=1080-8620
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/subs.asp?ref=1080-8620|