Homework answers / question archive / You are required to compare the readings and discuss their capacities and limitations in helping us to understand the concepts linking economic value to the use and/or transformation of property (including buildings and land)

You are required to compare the readings and discuss their capacities and limitations in helping us to understand the concepts linking economic value to the use and/or transformation of property (including buildings and land)

Writing

Share With

You are required to compare the readings and discuss their capacities and limitations in helping us to understand the concepts linking economic value to the use and/or transformation of property (including buildings and land). You can draw on a relevant example from the weekly content, to make your case.
Tip: Try to identify key issues and points of similarity and/or contention between the two readings. It is important to be able to briefly but clearly relate the readings to the different ways of understanding how economic value is achieved and attached to urban property
The Critical Commentary will be a formally well-written, clearly structured and academicallyreferenced piece of 600 words, demonstrating a careful analysis of the combination of the two Weekly Required Readings, supported by linking your own academic judgement to insights from the main concepts as explored in the relevant weekly lecture and workshopmaterial. Your Commentary must be structured based on your brief but clear answer to the Commentary Question, considering as relevant for example, what the readings suggest about:
- What are the key ideas (concepts, models, instruments, examples) presented in the weekly Required Readings that tell us about the economic ‘value’ of urban property and/or land?- How are resources (land, labour, and/or capital) transformed into productive outputs (property or ‘goods’, and/or related uses and activities or ‘services’)?- Where is value located (i.e. in growth, productivity, wealth, income, allocation, and/or (re)distribution)?- Value for who? Who benefits in this understanding of how property is valued?- What does the reading suggest as a challenge or critique to the approach to the economic value of property covered by that reading (if any)?