◉ PHASE 1 / DISTRICT-LEVEL

Taipei Older Buildings: Spatial Demolition Pressure Analysis

A district-level spatial model of demolition pressure on older buildings without designated heritage status, combining public property transaction, occupancy permit and urban renewal data across Taipei’s 12 districts.

Sources: Ministry of the Interior property transactions / data.taipei occupancy permits / urban renewal cases / g0v twgeojson

12 Districts
8,737 Permits parsed
6,092 Transaction samples
49.2% Buildings aged 30+
5 High / very high districts

Motivation and Research Gap

Older buildings without heritage designation can face redevelopment pressure. This project uses public datasets to explore that pressure spatially.

The project addresses a practical gap: Heritage studies often focus on designated monuments and historic buildings, while urban renewal studies often emphasize policy and regulations. This analysis combines maps and data to compare demolition pressure on ordinary older buildings。 Ageing buildings can face both physical deterioration and redevelopment pressure. This analysis compares Taipei districts using the stated spatial indicators and the original project dataset.
Heritage perspective

Undesignated does not mean valueless

Older buildings may carry community memories even without formal heritage designation.

Public data

Available datasets, integration needed

Property transactions, occupancy permits and urban renewal cases provide public inputs that can be integrated into a spatial pressure model.

This project

Phase 1: district scale

Phase 1 explores the method and data quality at district scale. A possible Phase 2 would refine the analysis to blocks and parcels.

Five-Indicator Composite Score

Each indicator is assigned 0–3 points by percentile. The five scores sum to a maximum of 15 and are grouped into five pressure levels.

Indicator 1

Older-building share

Use completion dates in transaction records to calculate the share of buildings aged 30+ and 50+ in each district. Higher shares receive higher pressure scores.

Indicator 2

Price pressure

Use district mean transaction prices per square metre as a proxy for redevelopment incentives. Higher prices receive higher scores.

Indicator 3

Urban renewal activity

Count urban renewal cases in each district using data.taipei records. More cases indicate stronger redevelopment activity.

Indicator 4

Recent rebuilding activity

Count permits issued in the most recent 10-year window from over 8,700 occupancy permit records (ROC years 90–114, equivalent to 2001–2025) as a proxy for rebuilding activity.

Indicator 5

MRT accessibility

Measure the distance from each district centre to the nearest station in the project’s 39-station MRT dataset. Shorter distances receive higher pressure scores.

Risk Index

Composite score

5 indicators × 3 points = 15 maximum | Very high: 12+; high: 9–11; medium: 6–8; low: 3–5; very low: 0–2

Indicators Across 12 Districts

Compare the five indicators to explore the pressure profile of each district.

Unit: points | Maximum: 15 | Darker colors indicate higher pressure | Top 3 have dark borders

Unit: % | Source: completion dates in Ministry of the Interior transaction records

Unit: NTD 10,000 / m² | Source: district mean transaction price

Unit: cases / permits | Source: data.taipei urban renewal cases and occupancy permit summaries

Unit: points (0–3 per indicator) | Source: composite scores for the top 3 districts

Two pressure profiles: The results suggest two patterns: Da’an, Songshan and Xinyi combine older housing and high prices with relatively less recent rebuilding; Datong, Wanhua and Shilin show ongoing redevelopment through renewal cases, recent permits and MRT proximity.

Interactive District Map

Select a district to inspect raw values and scores for all five indicators.

Very high (12+) High (9–11) Medium (6–8) Low (3–5) Very low (0-2)

Map: Folium + Leaflet.js | Basemap: CartoDB Positron

Top Five Districts by Demolition Pressure

Key values for the five districts with the highest composite scores.

1st

Da’an

10/15 High
Age 30+59.2%
Age 50+12.7%
Mean unit price297,616 NTD/m²
Renewal cases14 projects
Recent permits245 records
Nearest MRTDa’an (734m)
2nd

Datong

10/15 High
Age 30+51.5%
Age 50+14.4%
Mean unit price254,938 NTD/m²
Renewal cases19 projects
Recent permits160 records
Nearest MRTDatong (0m)
3rd

Songshan

9/15 High
Age 30+61.5%
Age 50+21.6%
Mean unit price274,511 NTD/m²
Renewal cases7 projects
Recent permits91 records
Nearest MRTSongshan (0m)
4th

Wanhua

9/15 High
Age 30+53.6%
Age 50+19.1%
Mean unit price185,443 NTD/m²
Renewal cases19 projects
Recent permits109 records
Nearest MRTLongshan Temple (82m)
5th

Shilin

9/15 High
Age 30+48.5%
Age 50+13.7%
Mean unit price202,797 NTD/m²
Renewal cases17 projects
Recent permits282 records
Nearest MRTShilin (150m)

Full District Dataset

Explore 12 districts. Click a column header to sort, or use the search and level filter.

Districts Score Level Age 30+ % Age 50+ % Median age Mean price Renewal cases Recent permits Mean floors Nearest MRT MRT distance (m)

Study limitations

Public data resolution limits this analysis to districts. Scores do not identify the risk of individual buildings.

Why district scale? The main sources cannot all be linked directly to individual buildings: Transaction records include only completed sales; older buildings that have not sold are absent from the sample. Permit summaries are aggregated by district rather than precisely matched to each building. Urban renewal locations often identify a neighbourhood or block without a complete building inventory. This analysis can compare which districts face greater pressure, but cannot identify which individual building is most at risk.
Data limits

District-level resolution

Public sources often resolve only to districts or blocks and do not provide complete age, ownership and structural information for every building.

Sample limits

Transactions only

Long-held buildings without transactions are excluded. The sample may favour areas with more frequent trading.

Scale limits

Within-district differences

Older apartment lanes and new luxury developments can face different pressures within the same district. District aggregates hide these differences.

Method limits

Equal indicator weights

The five indicators have equal weights (0–3 points each). Expert surveys or AHP-derived weights could refine how the model represents redevelopment decisions.

Next Step

Possible Phase 2 Improvements

Address, parcel or cadastral data could support finer block or parcel analysis, with natural hazard and seismic-resistance information added.