A Challenge of Brownfield Redevelopment

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…