This paper presents the hedonic analysis of office space rent in the Greater Toronto area of Canada. The effects of accessibility, quality, location, and market conditions on rent are explored. Data indicate a high degree of spatial heterogeneity and clustering effects. Spatial analysis techniques are incorporated within the hedonic framework to capture these effects. Results indicate that access to transport infrastructure, distance from the central business district, and vacancy rate are significant in explaining variation in the rent.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Toronto City Planning Policy & Research.Profile TORONTO: Toronto Employment Survey 2005.City of Toronto, Canada, 2006.
2.
ElgarI., FarooqB., and MillerE. J.Modeling Location Decisions of Office Firms: Introducing Anchor Points and Constructing Choice Sets in the Model System. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2133, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2009, pp. 56–63.
3.
RosenS.Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets: Product Differentiation in Pure Competition.The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82, No. 1, 1974, pp. 34–55.
4.
RosenK. T.Toward a Model of the Office Building Sector.AREUEA Journal, Vol. 12, 1984, pp. 261–269.
5.
ShillingJ. D., SirmansC. F., and CorgelJ. B.Price Adjustment Process for Rental Office Space.Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 22, 1987, pp. 90–100.
6.
MunS., and HutchisonB. G.Empirical Analysis of Office Rent and Agglomeration Economies: A Case Study of Toronto.Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 35, No. 3, 1995, pp. 437–455.
7.
FrewJ., and DonaldG. J.The Vacancy Rate and Rent Levels in the Commercial Office Market.The Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1988, pp. 1–8.
8.
ClappJ.The Intrametropolitan Location of Office Activities.Journal of Regional Science, Vol. 20, No. 3, 1980, pp. 387–399.
9.
HoughD. E., and CharlesG. K.Can “Good” Architecture Meet the Market Test?Journal of Urban Economics, Vol. 14, 1983, pp. 40–54.
10.
GlascockJ. L., JahanianS., and SirmansC. F.An Analysis of Office Market Rents: Some Empirical Evidence.AREUEA Journal, Vol. 18, No. 1, 1990, pp. 105–119.
11.
SivitanidesP. S.The Rent Adjustment Process and the Structural Vacancy Rate in the Commercial Real Estate Market.Journal of Real Estate Research, Vol. 13, No. 2, 1997, pp. 195–209.
12.
BrennanT. P., CannadayR. E., and ColwellP. F.Office Rent in the Chicago CBD.AREUEA Journal, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1984, pp. 243–260.
13.
DunseN., and JonesC.A Hedonic Price Model of Office Rents.Journal of Property Valuation & Investment, Vol. 16, No. 3, 1998, pp. 297–312.
14.
BoxG. E. P., and CoxD. R.An Analysis of Transformations.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Statistical Methodology), Vol. 26, 1964, pp. 211–252.
15.
KimM., and HillR. C.The Box–Cox Transformation-of-Variables in Regression.Empirical Economics, Vol. 18, 1993, pp. 307–319.
KelejianH. H., and PruchaI. R.On the Asymptotic Distribution of the Moran I Test Statistic with Applications.Journal of Econometrics Vol. 104, 2001, pp. 219–257.
18.
GriffithD. A.Spatial Autocorrelation: A Primer.Association of American Geographers, Washington, D.C., 1987.
19.
AnselinL.Local Indicators of Spatial Association–LISA.Geographical Analysis, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1995, pp. 93–115.
20.
RaudenbushS. W., and BrykA. S.Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods.Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, Calif., 2002.
21.
GrafarendE. W.Linear and Nonlinear Models: Fixed Effects, Random Effects, and Mixed Models.Die Deutsche Bibliothek, Stuttgart, Germany, 2006.
22.
LiaoJ. G., and LipsitzS. R.A Type of Restricted Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Variance Components in Generalised Linear Mixed Models.Biometrika, Vol. 89, No. 2, 2002, pp. 401–409.
23.
YatchewA.Semiparametric Regression for the Applied Econometrician.Cambridge University Press, New York, 2003.
24.
RuppertD., WandM. P., and CarrollR. J.Semiparametric Regression.Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Mass., 2003.
VahalyJ.The Location of Services and Office Activities in Nashville–Davidson County, 1970.Land Economics, Vol. 52, No. 4, 1976, pp. 479–492.
29.
IhlanfeldtR. K., and RaperM. D.The Intrametropolitan Location of New Office Firms.Land Economics, Vol. 66, No. 2, 1990, pp. 182–198.
30.
ShuklaV., and WaddellP.Firm Location and Land Use in Discrete Urban Space: A Study of the Spatial Structure of Dallas–Ft. Worth.Regional and Urban Economics, Vol. 21, 1991, pp. 225–253.
