Because of the loss of function, the vacancy levels of cultural heritage are rising. This leads to all kind of (societal) problems. Meanwhile, the value of cultural heritage is difficult to qualify and quantify in terms of economic benefits, which makes it hard to define the adde
...
Because of the loss of function, the vacancy levels of cultural heritage are rising. This leads to all kind of (societal) problems. Meanwhile, the value of cultural heritage is difficult to qualify and quantify in terms of economic benefits, which makes it hard to define the added value of cultural heritage and the value created by the adaptive re-use of cultural heritage. Consequently, cultural heritage is sometimes unnecessarily demolished or abandoned. This research therefore aims firstly, to identify the values of cultural heritage in general, to capture its unique and impossible to recreate identity. Secondly, this research aims to prove the indirect added economic value of transforming industrial cultural heritage into hubs of social and/or cultural integration within inner cities. By proving this added value for the neighbourhood, the awareness about the value of cultural heritage and hopefully the investments made in the adaptive re-use of cultural heritage will be increased. To identify the value of cultural heritage a qualitative approach is used following a value division made based on the literature study. This approach contained two explorative interviews and three semi-structured interviews. The perspective of five experts with a design, marketing and governmental background were compared. The interviews showed the different views on the value of cultural heritage within different working fields. To prove the added value of the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage a quantitative approach is used, the hedonic pricing method. The hedonic pricing method focusses on different characteristics of the building to determine the market value of the building based on a statistical model. The characteristics function as variables for the model. Based on previous research a variables list is defied as input to the hedonic pricing model. This method is used because it assumes that the difference in market value is caused by the difference in characteristics. By separating these characteristics, it can be determined if and how much impact one characteristic, in this case the proximity of transformed cultural heritage site, has on the market value. To do this four cases studies in Amsterdam are used, De Hallen, NDSM site, Pakhuis De Zwijger and the Westergasfabriek. Three out of the four case studies show a significant outcome. In the conclusion the answer to the first research question “What is the value of cultural heritage?” is given. It is concluded that cultural heritage is unique and irreplaceable, this creates its value. This value is recognised by people, mostly in an emotional and social context. However, the value of cultural heritage cannot be described in one sentence or in one value. The value of cultural heritage is plural and is partly subjective. A distinction is made between estimating the value of cultural heritage in price (economic value) and appreciating the value of cultural heritage in content (non-economic value). The adaptive re-use of cultural heritage has a positive impact on the market price of the cultural heritage buildings. But above all, the narrative of a building, the story behind the building, is the most important value of cultural heritage and separates it from new built. The narrative is an overarching concept that incorporates all the non-economic values, architectural, emotional and social. It is seen as a heritage premium above the normal market price of a building.
The second main research question “What is the indirect added economic value of transforming industrial cultural heritage into hubs of social and cultural integration within cities?” is answered by comparing four heritage models per case study. Three main aspects can be concluded when proving the existence of a heritage premium with the use of a hedonic pricing model. First, in two of the four case studies a negative price premium is found before transformation. This is probably due to the poverty and construction before transformation of some buildings. Secondly, an overall pattern is observed where the highest heritage premium is not found directly next to the case study, but a few hundred meters away. This can be explained by the possibly nuisance that is caused by the activities of the case studies. Finally, an overall average price premium of 7.1% within a radius of 620-1290 meters was found in the three case studies that had a significant outcome. It can thus be concluded that the adaptive reuse of cultural heritage has a positive effect on the surrounding houses by creating an extra house price premium.
