walkitout (walkitout) wrote,

studies of teardowns

I'm reading my second one (links to be posted later), but I feel compelled to say that many times I read studies and am just outraged by the ridiculousness of the assumptions that went into the models. Of course, _those_ studies I'm tracking down because I was outraged by the ridiculousness of the conclusions. GIGO, right?

These studies, by contrast, just make me smile, over and over again, at the reasonableness of the assumptions that are going into the models. And, bonus, the conclusions are reasonable as well.

This means that my metric for reading studies could use a little work. I should spend less time reading studies that say foolish things and more time reading studies that are constructed well. I'm learning more from the good ones, too.

http://www.lincolninst.edu/pubs/dl/1683_897_Bean 2 Final.pdf (Teardowns and Land Values in New York City, Vicki Been, Ingrid Gould Ellen and Michael Gedal).


I'm still trying to find a copy of the 2007 study both of these reference.

  • Post a new comment


    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment