larger parcel; the backland theory, slide back theory, front land-rear land concept

[Pivopiju]

I know and understand this theory, however I was asked to site a reference for it. Can anyone refer a text or article which discusses this theory?

 

[hastalavista]

I'm posting just to track this thread.

I've never heard any of the theories you mentioned?
(so I'm tagging along to learn something!)

 

[Elliott]

Piv,
I dusted off a few books, couldn't find it in Babcock, 1968,
RE Appraisal Terminology, 1975, but of course found them
referenced in Jim (J.D.) Eaton's Real Estate Valuation in
Litigation, 1982. Great book, good guy.

 

[OSU Beavers]

Ye olde rule of thumb, the value of the lot decreases away from the frontage.

The first quarter of the depth has 40% of the value, second quarter is 30%, third quarter is 20% and the last quarter only has 10% of the value.

 

[CANative]

Longest thread title ever.

If you're referring to depth-value estimation then there is a good discussion of this in Boykin's text "Land Valuation - Adjustment Procedures and Assignments" published by the Appraisal Institute. In John A. Zangerle's 1924 book, Zangerle observed that the first depth curve was the 4-3-2-1 rule. Under this rule, a parcel was divided into quarters, with the first quarter of depth from the street being worth 40% of the total value, the second quarter contributed 30% of total value, the third quarter was worth 20% and the rear quarter was sorth 10%.

Babcock suggested that different types of land would reveal different depth-value patterns. The rate of value increase will be very low in retail districts, will be relatively higher in wholesale districts and in apartment districts, and will very nearly approach direct propertion in industrial property.

There's a funny story (in terms of appraiser humor that is) in the text. It's a cautionary tale and it is suggested that as a general rule of thumb appraisers should avoid the use of published depth tables and curves for valuation of individual parcels. However, convincing and accurate reports can result from preparing such benchmarks from local market data.

The above is paraphrased from James D. Boykin's text book. I wish I could have attended his class in the Fresno area last week. I keep his book on my desk and would have like to meet him. Perhaps when and if it comes around again.

 

[Ray Miller]

In the rural area I cover there are many lots that will front a street on both sides. How does this effect the theroy and the value of the lot???

You have access from two streets.

What about a lot that fronts a street and backs to an alley. You have two access points here as well?

what about a section of Land 640 acres, 320 acres, 160 acres, 80 acres, that have from two to four roads on each side? What theroy do you use in this case.

Many sections have roads on all four side as in states such as AZ, Mo. Ka. Tx. where it is flat.

 

[Farm Gal]

Larger Parcel is thoroughly discused in Real Estate Valuation in Litgation, JD Eaton (AI standard text) ISBN 0-922154-20-1 Whole chapter on the issue. Good book to have on the shelf.

Only WRITTEN reference the Backland Theory (in those terms) I could find was in the National Higway Institue/US DOT FHWA Appraisal for Federal-Aid Highway Programs- course manual, and it addressed by name only the Backland Theory... indicating applicability only to Federal Rule acqusition situations.

Have several notes from various courses on both of the above, but other than as indicated above... actual text citations are slim on the ground, the other situations are also discussed in general terms or by other names, but to a lesser extent. No other good written sources, unless you want to get into case law... it seems as usual it's an 'everybody knows' and boy are you an idjit if you don't also

 

[Fred]

Longest thread title ever.

If you're referring to depth-value estimation then there is a good discussion of this in Boykin's text "Land Valuation - Adjustment Procedures and Assignments" published by the Appraisal Institute. In John A. Zangerle's 1924 book, Zangerle observed that the first depth curve was the 4-3-2-1 rule. Under this rule, a parcel was divided into quarters, with the first quarter of depth from the street being worth 40% of the total value, the second quarter contributed 30% of total value, the third quarter was worth 20% and the rear quarter was sorth 10%.

Babcock suggested that different types of land would reveal different depth-value patterns. The rate of value increase will be very low in retail districts, will be relatively higher in wholesale districts and in apartment districts, and will very nearly approach direct propertion in industrial property.

Why do I feel such a sense of accomplishment?

You didn't point out which Babcock or where. Also, did Zangerle mention that 4321 stuff was made up for sites with 100 feet of depth?

Can anyone refer a text or article which discusses this theory?

Any basic economics book and any appraisal book that has the "principles." It should also show up in your market analysis.

 

[CANative]

The Appraisal of Real Estate, 1927, p. 287. (Frederick)

Zangerle credited Judge Murray Hoffman of New York City. And yes, 100 feet. The first 50 feet is worth two thirds.

 

[KD247]

I'm posting just to track this thread.

Ditto. I have a feeling I'm going to have a tough time explaining these principles to owners of Montecito flag-lot estates that have long private drives that greatly enhances the property's privacy, solitude, and setting.

When a principle is so market-specific, can it really be called a "theory?"