See United States v. Certain Interests in Prop. in Brooklyn , 326 F.2d 109, 114-15 (2d Cir. 1964); Fairfield Gardens, Inc. v. United States , 306 F.2d 167, 173-74 (9th Cir. 1962); cf. 252 Seventh Ave. , 92 F. Supp. at 396 (award of compensation “is not based upon any one abstraction or method of valuation, nor on any one isolated circumstance or even set of circumstances[;]” rather it “take[s] into consideration the physical characteristics of the property, the peculiarities of the area in which it is located, the teachings of the history of property in that area and adjacent areas, [an] inspection of the building and of comparable properties, sales which were brought forward on the theory that they involved equivalent buildings, and every bit of information that seemed relevant”). See generally USPAP Standards Rule 1-4(b) (specifying appraisers’ professional obligations “[w]hen a cost approach is necessary for credible assignment results”), Section 1.6 (The Approaches to Value); Section 1.6.5 (Reconciliation Process and Final Opinion of Value).