Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 76
M I C R O S I M U L AT I O N O F S I N G L E - FA M I LY R E S I D E N T I A L L A N D U S E 65 TABLE 1 Results for Location Choice Model Explanatory Variable Coefficients t-Statistics Constant 2.59 15.5 Home price divided by household income 0.171 1.71 (Home price divided by household income)2 0.0509 4.04 Total interior square footage (ft2) 0.262 4.46 Euclidean commute distance (mi) 0.0643 7.86 Commute cost ($) 0.0208 4.66 Euclidean distance to the nearest shopping mall (mi) 0.121 6.28 Log-likelihood values Market shares 2293.0 Convergence 2437.8 LRI 0.0594 Number of observations 614a a While the original survey contains 965 records, the number of observations available for analysis here is just 614 due to missing data on workplace location (selected home attributes, such as home price, or both). Equilibrium of Single-Family Housing Market the basis of standard census-class weighted average): $11,000, $28,000, $42,000, $72,000, and $170,000. The Microsimulation of single-family residential land devel- new households were assumed to be demographically dis- opment for housing-market equilibrium was applied to tributed according to the 2002 American Community Sur- the City of Austin and its 2-mi extraterritorial jurisdic- vey. [This survey puts 19.1% in the first (lowest) income tion, assuming a 25% growth in household numbers. bracket, 16.0% in the second, 15.5% in the third, 30.5% (The study area accommodated about 304,800 house- in the fourth, and 18.9% in the fifth (highest) bracket.] holds in Year 2000. With the projected 25% growth, the Corresponding to a 10% random sampling of undevel- number of newly added households was around 76,000 oped parcels and a 25% population growth assumption, in the whole area.) Both the supply of and demand for the numbers of households to be allocated (for each of the homes were modeled explicitly. five types) were 1,500, 1,200, 1,200, 2,300, and 1,400, On the supply side, undeveloped sites with potential for residential development were located by using a Year 2000 land use parcel map obtained from the City of Austin's Neighborhood Planning and Zoning Depart- ment. Undeveloped parcels over 3,000 ft2 in size (in Year 2000) were considered available for single-family resi- dential development. Due to computational memory constraints (on a standard office PC, with 1 GB of RAM), a 10% random sample was drawn from all 16,750 developable parcels. Figure 1 depicts the study area, the undeveloped parcels, and the 10% sample. The distribution of existing single-family residential parcel sizes in Austin resembled a chi-square distribution, and large, undeveloped parcels were assumed to subdivide according to this distribution. Of course, not all subdi- vided parcels will be occupied by newly added house- holds; only the chosen sites were assumed to be developed into single-family residential land after the housing market reached equilibrium. To simulate home size, a floor-area ratio (FAR) of .25 was used. (As an extension to this work, this global variable is being made more site specific and random.) The newly generated single-family residential sites--defined by home size, parcel-specific unit price per interior square foot, and distances to employment sites and shopping centers-- were allocated to individual households based on rent- and utility-maximizing principles. On the demand side, the 7,600 future households con- FIGURE 1 Map of study area showing all undeveloped sisted of five types categorized by annual income levels (on parcels and 10% sample.