View
24
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
A Challenge of Brownfield Redevelopment. Indentifying Real Estate Features. Brano Glumac. Content. 1 Introduction 2 Brownfield Redevelopment (BR) 3 Decision Makers 4 Development Phases 5 BR Decisions and Requirements 6 Real Estate Features (REFs) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
A Challenge of BrownfieldRedevelopmentIndentifying
Real Estate Features Brano Glumac
Content
• 1 Introduction• 2 Brownfield Redevelopment (BR)• 3 Decision Makers• 4 Development Phases• 5 BR Decisions and Requirements• 6 Real Estate Features (REFs)• 7 QFD + AHP Implementation - REF Selection• 8 Discussion
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 226-6-2009
1 Introduction
• What are the most important features? • realizing basic requirements
• cover major features
• selecting the most important features
• supporting an idea of using mathematical tools
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 326-6-2009
• Brownfield definition
2 Brownfield Redevelopment (BR)
• focus on urban land
and buildings
• BR can provide a range of economic, social, and environmental benefits
• stagnation in surrounding environment
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 426-6-2009
(Alker et al. 2000)
3 Decision Makers
• Main decision makers− Private developer
− Local authority
− Land owner
• Developer typology− Independent Developer
− Developer- Contractor
− Developer- Investor or Asset-developer
− Developer- Housing association
− Developer- Financial institutions
− Developer- Architects
(Hieminga, 2006)
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 526-6-2009
• Five characteristics− Goal
− Performance and risk
− The scale of operation
− Flexibility
− Resources and talent
(Dowall, 1989)
4 Development Phases
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 626-6-2009
(Hieminga, 2006)
5 BR Decisions and Requirements
• Decisions
− Where to build? (Location, Location, Location)
− What to build? (Supply/Demand)
− When to build? (Real Estate Market Cycle)
− How to develop?
• Requirements
− Favorable location(Situation, Site)
− Space quality opportunity(Space Function, Space Density,
Space Flexibility, Space Appearance)
− Potential for phasing
− Good financial construction
− Legal procedure
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 726-6-2009
6 Real Estate Features (REFs)
• Definition of REFs− collection of visible and
invisible attributes of an urban district that are of interest for developers in their search and judgment for opportunities in BR
• List− Accessibility− Proximity to key city locations− Visibility− Size− Shape− Morphology / Topography− Site conditions− Orientation to sun− Infrastructure− Landscape / Skyline− Design− Neighborhood Image− Cultural Heritage− Existence of Genius Loci− Archeology site− Taxes− Financial Support Tool− Fees− Type of Ownership− Cooperation and Continuity− Zoning− Approvals needed− Approval process− Degree of citizen participation
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 826-6-2009
• Prioritization
7 QFD + AHP Implementation
• QFD background− market oriented technique
for upgrading a product value
• AHP background− Saaty 1980
− Mathematical tool for decision –making modeling
− Pair-wise comparison
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 926-6-2009
7 QFD + AHP Implementation
• QFD application
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 1026-6-2009
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Requirements1 9 50 0,500 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 9 19 0,189 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 9 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 9 0 0 13 9 6 0,060 0 9 0 9 9 0 3 9 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 9 0 0 3 3 14 9 10 0,097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 3 9 0 0 0 15 9 15 0,153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 9 9 3 9 9 3
9 9 3 9 0 3 3 9 9 3 9 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3Relationship 450 505 207 261 261 207 225 577 214 107 220 50 25 50 75 133 151 105 278 282 216 156 156 81Strong 9 9,0 10,1 4,1 5,2 5,2 4,1 4,5 11,6 4,3 2,1 4,4 1,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,7 3,0 2,1 5,6 5,6 4,3 3,1 3,1 1,61Moderate 3Weak 1None 0
Appr
oval
s nee
ded
Appr
oval
pro
cess
Degr
ee o
f citi
zen
parti
cipati
on
Fe
atur
es
Finan
cial S
uppo
rt To
ol
Fees
Type
of O
wne
rshi
p
Coop
erati
on a
nd C
ontin
uity
(LG)
Zoni
ng
Neigh
borh
ood
Imag
e
Cultu
ral H
erita
ge
Exist
ence
of G
eniu
s Loc
i
Arch
eolo
gy si
te
Taxe
s
Mor
phol
ogy /
Top
ogra
phy
Site
cond
ition
s
Infra
stru
ctur
e
Land
scap
e / S
kylin
e
Desig
n
Prox
imity
Visib
ility
Size
Shap
e
Orie
ntati
on to
sun
Wei
ght I
mpo
rtan
ce
Rela
tive
wei
ght
Max
imal
Rel
ation
ship
Val
ue in
Ro
w
Row
#
Acce
ssib
ility
Relative Weight
Not Complicated Legal ProcedureMax Relationship Value in ColumnAbsolute Weight
Column #
Favorable LocationSpace Quality OpportunityPossibility to Divide ProjectGood Financial Construction
7 QFD + AHP Implementation
• AHP model
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 1126-6-2009
7 QFD + AHP Implementation
• QFD application
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 1226-6-2009
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
Requirements1 9 50 0,500 9 9 3 3 3 3 3 9 3 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02 9 19 0,189 0 0 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 3 9 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 3 3 9 0 0 13 9 6 0,060 0 9 0 9 9 0 3 9 9 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 3 9 0 0 3 3 14 9 10 0,097 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 9 3 9 0 0 0 15 9 15 0,153 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 9 9 3 9 9 3
9 9 3 9 0 3 3 9 9 3 9 1 1 1 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 3Relationship 450 505 207 261 261 207 225 577 214 107 220 50 25 50 75 133 151 105 278 282 216 156 156 81Strong 9 9,0 10,1 4,1 5,2 5,2 4,1 4,5 11,6 4,3 2,1 4,4 1,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,7 3,0 2,1 5,6 5,6 4,3 3,1 3,1 1,61Moderate 3Weak 1None 0
Appr
oval
s nee
ded
Appr
oval
pro
cess
Degr
ee o
f citi
zen
parti
cipati
on
Fe
atur
es
Finan
cial S
uppo
rt To
ol
Fees
Type
of O
wne
rshi
p
Coop
erati
on a
nd C
ontin
uity
(LG)
Zoni
ng
Neigh
borh
ood
Imag
e
Cultu
ral H
erita
ge
Exist
ence
of G
eniu
s Loc
i
Arch
eolo
gy si
te
Taxe
s
Mor
phol
ogy /
Top
ogra
phy
Site
cond
ition
s
Infra
stru
ctur
e
Land
scap
e / S
kylin
e
Desig
n
Prox
imity
Visib
ility
Size
Shap
e
Orie
ntati
on to
sun
Wei
ght I
mpo
rtan
ce
Rela
tive
wei
ght
Max
imal
Rel
ation
ship
Val
ue in
Ro
w
Row
#
Acce
ssib
ility
Relative Weight
Not Complicated Legal ProcedureMax Relationship Value in ColumnAbsolute Weight
Column #
Favorable LocationSpace Quality OpportunityPossibility to Divide ProjectGood Financial Construction
7 QFD + AHP Implementation
• QFD generic results
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 1326-6-2009
1- Accessibility
2 - Proximity
3 - Visibility
4 - Size
5 - Shape
6 - Orientation to sun
7 - Morphology / Topography
8 - Site conditions
9 - Infrastructure
10 - Landscape / Skyline
11 - Design
12 - Neighborhood Image
13 - Cultural Heritage
14 - Existence of Genius Loci
15 - Archeology site
16 - Taxes
17 - Financial Support Tool
18 - Fees
19 - Type of Ownership
20 - Cooperation and Continuity
21 - Zoning
22 - Approvals needed
23 - Approval process
24 - Degree of citizen participation
8 Discussion
• complex decision making process
− decision support tool for real cases
− input for further research
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 1426-6-2009
• QFD + AHP tool− correlation between
requirements and features
− generic results that are stakeholder specific
8 Discussion
/ architecture, building & planning / UMDS PAGE 1526-6-2009
Thank you for your attention…
Recommended