real estate prices in

MemeFirst: New York real-estate prices explained -- MemeFirst December 01, 2005 New York real-estate prices explained The 2.2 million jobs in Manhattan pay, on average, $2,025 per week . (You know that feeling you get when you find out you're below average? I've been having that for years.) Manhattan is 22 square miles, which means that the island of Manhattan pays, on average, $378 per square foot per year . And that includes Washington Heights. Posted by Felix at 02:54 PM GMT All proceeds go to MSF -- Comments #1 Pity we can't all work for Goldman Sachs. Posted by: Gherimiah on December 1, 2005 03:28 PM #2 I'll happily defer to someone with a firmer grasp of stats on this, but in the meantime, I wonder, does that average income number tell you very much? Given the massive disparity in Manhattan incomes, between, say, the dishwasher and the hedge-fund owner, which surely are among the widest in the country, wouldn't you also need to know the distribution of the data points? At a minium, wouldn't you want also to know the median income? Also, is this net or gross? Article talked about paychecks, which could probably mean either. Posted by: Matthew on December 1, 2005 04:36 PM #3 Oh, and also, Felix, presumably the 2.2 million people with jobs in Manhattan don't all live there, so your extrapolation doesn't wash. Posted by: Matthew on December 1, 2005 04:38 PM #4 Obvs mean incomemedian income, and I'd be surprised if more than 40% of Manhattanites made above average. Probably less. But even so. And actually, the fact that there are 2.2 million jobs to 1.5 million people in Manhattan actually only serves to exacerbate the demand-supply imbalance when it comes to real estate. Posted by: Felix on December 1, 2005 04:53 PM #5 I hate to be the one to break this to you, Felix, but nearly all residential housing in Manhattan consists of multi-story buildings. The salary range you describe explains real estate prices in Westchester County, NY and Bergen County, NJ to about the same degree as prices in Manhattan. Posted by: Sterling on December 1, 2005 07:05 PM #6 How delightful that the discussion of property prices one is sometimes unable to defuse at dinner parties just carries on here - almost as if taunting one with its dreary ineluctability. And how nice that Felix should bring along his no doubt expert appreciation of statistical lore. The one thing I am missing is the crucial evaluation of bedbug incidence as it affects property prices in Manhattan. In another thread, Betty has said this bedbug malarkey is all a plan of Bush's. For myself, I prefer to recall that bedbugs tend to originate in Belgium. Schtumm for now. More on this later. Posted by: Claude de Bigny on December 1, 2005 08:40 PM #7 Also, this seems to imply that everyone pays all of their income for housing, which is hopefully not the case. To be more realistic (ignoring the issues rightly brought up by the other commentators, including whether all of those people actually live in Manhattan and whether you can just take the sq ftge of Manhattan as the residential sq ftge), say people on average spend 40% of their income on housing. That gets your income for housing per sq ft to around $151. Posted by: Susan on December 1, 2005 09:14 PM #8 Susan and Sterling, you are embarassingly confused. What percentage of real estate in Manhattan is used for housing? According to this http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/landusefacts/landuse_tables.pdf (in case you are confused by the graph, the percents sum together veritcally and the land area sum horizontally). And even assuming that all "Mixed Residential and Commercial" was used for housing, less than 38% of the land in Manhattan is for housing. These data certainly allow for the idea that much of rent paid in Manhattan is for commercial use, and even then, a considerable percent is used for public space (Central Park alone is 10% of the area of Manhattan). Anyway, the amount people earn in a particular location is not directly related to the amount the people who live there earn, or the amount the people live there pay for rent. Look at this site: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/saipe/index.html The direct link is unavailable, but the Median household income for New York County was 43,573. Nassau County on the other hand is more than 71,000. In which place is it cheaper to rent by the foot? Posted by: Andrew on December 2, 2005 07:22 AM #9 I don't think I'm confused. My points are: a) there is actually quite a bit more than 22 square miles of residential floor space in Manhattan because of vertical construction b) a lot of upper-income Manhattan workers live outside Manhattan, and their buying power lifts prices in tony bedroom communities Posted by: Sterling on December 3, 2005 03:38 PM #10 OK, Sterling, let's do it your way. Assume that each of the 1.5 million residents of Manhattan has 400 square feet to call their own: that works out to 1200 square feet for the average family of three and 1600 square feet for the average family of four. Generous, I'd say. That comes out to 600 million square feet of residential real estate in Manhattan. Using that figure, my calculation actually comes out slightly higher : $386 per square foot per year, rather than $378. What makes you think that there's more than 22 square miles of residential floor space in Manhattan? As for your point b, I fail to see how it is in any way germane. Posted by: Felix on December 3, 2005 11:09 PM #11 OK, 22 square miles equals about 613,324,800 square feet. That would leave each of Manhattan's 1.5 million residents with 409 square feet of living space. But I don't believe that most Manhattan residents are actually so deprived, especially when you take into account common areas in apartment buildings such as laundry facilities, hallways, lobbies, etc. I'd be surprised if the average wasn't at least 600, and it's probably more than 800. And besides, that's not what you originally meant - you were dividing Manhattan's land footprint and not taking into account its vertical expansion. As for the second point, I suspect there's a strong tendency among $100,000 - $1,000,000 per annum Manhattan earners - which is well-off to wealthy-on-a-budget - to live in places like Valhalla and Ho-Ho-Kus, especially if they're married with kids. Family-flight in turn increases the average per-capita-square-footage of the Manhattan residential footprint through bleed-off of children. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 02:29 AM #12 Sterling jumped the shark so long ago it's probably not surprising, but for those of you keeping score at home, he really did just say that the average Manhattanite has 800 square feet of their own. So if you're an average person living with 2 roommates, that means you're in a 2400 square foot apartment. In Manhattan. Yeah. Oh, and that 350 square foot apartment you've got? It's not 350 square feet at all, it's probably more than 4000 square feet. You're just not including the lobby and all the hallways. Posted by: Felix on December 4, 2005 02:43 AM #13 My claim is that the amount of residential-zoned floor space in Manhattan probably works out to between 600 and 800 square feet per resident of Manhattan. You're not only challenging this, but asserting that my claim is absurd. Sure you wanna do that? Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 02:59 AM #14 I've tried to find the statistic, but to no avail. It seems that while office space inventor is measured in square footage, residential space is simply measured, in all documents, by units. But we can work with that. So far I've learned that 82% of zoned lots in Manhattan are residential, making up about 280,000,000 square feet, which includes permanently undeveloped spaces like yards and gardens. If the average height of development across all that land is four stories, then, we're looking at about 750 square feet per person. I've also learned that in 1999 there were about 727,000 residential units in Manhattan , which means that the average unit houses two people. So those three-roomies crammed into one 800-square-foot-tenement-with-the-bathtub-in-the-kitchen examples are mostly fiction. Which is a shame because I get a tingle from the mental picture of Manhattan twenty- and thirty-somethings living in cramped, dingy conditions. If we divide the total residential land area by the total number of units, we get 385 square feet, which works out to 192.5 square feet per person, assuming no dwellings above one story in height and no unimproved/vacant land. If the average height is assumed to be four stories, in this scenario we get about 770 square feet per person. Here's a report from Prudential Douglas Elliman that details its 1Q 2005 sales. Units sold averaged 1,334 square feet, which divided by two yields 767 square feet per person. Breaking it down further we find co-ops averaging 1,197 square feet, condos at 1,496 square feet, luxury at 2,921 and loft at 2,145. So that's 598.5 square feet per person at the low end all the way up to 1,460.5 at the top. There's three separate analytical models for you Felix, all of which yield per-person square footage of 750 or better. I admit they're not all that fleshed out, but I'm stuck inside with a cold watching The Taking of Pelham One-Two-Three on DVD, and I'm disinclined to dig deeper. But you're welcome to. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 04:04 AM #15 Sterling: do your calculations include infrastructure or is the 280MM number a percentage of raw space? Building density is higher here than anywhere else in America, but 15% to circulation (in buildings and streets themeselves) would be an easily defended metric. Counting hallways in urban residential structures is like counting sidewalks as part of sf for suburban homes. As much Sterling does sound like a set designer for Friends, Felix, I gotta say, of the 25 or so apartments of people that I can definitely make an estimate of size, we average 500 sf easy. Most everyone is a half a standard tenement lot (25 x 25), with a couple of lofts and post-war, large-scale developments thrown in. This is skewed because many of them are single (I live in a 2bd alone) or have rent-controlled apartments from way back. Posted by: 99 on December 4, 2005 07:19 PM #16 Where does your 280m sq ft number come from? Your first two calculations are based on it, so I'd like to know. (They're also based on a multiplier of 4, which as far as I can tell came pretty much out of thin air.) As for apartment sales, in Manhattan individual condos and coops tend to be much larger than the apartments inside rental buildings. So if you look just at sold apartments as opposed to rented apartments, you're going to get a skewed figure. What's more, if a 3800-square-foot brownstone in Harlem, say, is sold and then the downstairs floor is rented out, that still counts as a 3800 square foot deal under these figures. Posted by: Felix on December 4, 2005 09:21 PM #17 The multiplier of 4 was back-of-envelope guess. The 280,000,000 number came from this PDF . Sorry, thought I'd linked to it initially. As for rental apartments being smaller than privately owned condos or co-ops...not sure I buy that. But even if it's true, how much smaller could they be? 10%? Doesn't really matter. You can apologize any time now. Posted by: Sterling on December 4, 2005 10:06 PM #18 if anyone is real curious why not pony up the $250 to get a list of every tax lot in the city? http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/bytes/applbyte.shtml in the meantime, simply because i am tired of having to read sterlings pontifications about things he knows anything about, i downloaded a list of all the residential tax lots from 14th street and below from propertyshark. only 14th street and below, because after 6000+ entries, i became bored. 14th street down is a good representative sample of the 99000+ residential tax lots in manhattan. it includes spacious luxury lofts of tribeca, tenements of the les, projects on the eastside, high rise high density battery park and half building condo conversions of downtown (note that a rental bldg with multiple units counts as a single tax lot with the number of units listed as a seperate data field). the average unit size works out to 1100sf with 590sf per person (based 2000 census population stats for 14th st & below). this includes all common space in a building as it is based on total building size for single tax lot (rental) buildings and counts common space tax lots for condo buildings (read lobbies, circ, etc.) multiplying back out by the 2000 census population numbers for manhattan of 1,537,195... we get 906,945,050sf of residential space in manhattan. let's call that an even 9Bsf since the city lists 3800 acres of lot area in manhattan (165,500,000sf), that gives a rough overbuild factor of 5.5. this will obviously skew higher with the ues & uws densities without actually affecting the sf/person. summary- -590sf of residential per person (inclusive of common areas). close to sterlings low estimate of 600, but nowhere near the 800sf -1100sf average size per unit (inclusive of common areas). again close to sterlings guess based on broker mumbojumbo, but still below the stated average. -9Bsf of residential space in manhattan sterling- close on your numbers, but not nearly close enough to be quite so pompously smug. stick to things you know about, like why bush is a foreign policy genius. felix- remind me what this related to? Posted by: geoff on December 5, 2005 12:34 AM #19 Geoff - The only reason I was pompously snug is because Felix had reacted to to my estimates with such comedic outrage. Also, I don't think 14th St. and below is a good representative sample. Newer and I suspect more spacious high-rises make up a much larger proportion of housing from the 30s up through the low 100s. So I'm sticking with 600+. I suspect the actual number is around 750, as stated above. As for your justification of your work - "simply because i am tired of having to read sterlings pontifications about things he knows anything about" - I'm not sure what it means. Perhaps you meant to write "nothing" instead of "anything"? I'm not claiming to be right all the time - I am not right all the time. I am, however, pretty much always right whenever Felix gets all worked up and tells me I have no idea what I'm talking about. Thanks for your small role in marking off another example for me to throw back at him at some future date. Posted by: Sterling on December 5, 2005 06:19 AM #20 Renter-occupied apartments are much smaller than owner-occupied apartments. And as the PDF you yourself linked to shows (see page 24), the vast majority of apartments in Manhattan are renter-occupied. Think about it: one needs maybe 350 sq ft per person to live in some reasonable comfort. Beyond that, you're shelling out extra cash for extra space. Owners are happy doing that because they have 100% equity in that space: everyone has heard the advice that they should buy the biggest apartment they can afford. Renters, on the other hand, are simply giving away thousands of dollars in rent every month, with nothing at all to show for it. So they tend to go not for the biggest apartment they can afford, but rather the cheapest apartment they find adequate. Put it this way: Manhattan is full of individuals spending an enormous proportion of their income on outsize mortgage payments. Almost everyone, when they move from renting to buying, sees their monthly housing costs rise substantially. If you move to Manhattan and have a relatively low income, then you might spend a crazy amount of it on rent, it's true. But if your income is average or higher (and remember that average is $2,025 per week), I very much doubt that your rent is making nearly as much of a dent in your paycheck as it would if you owned your own apartment. You reach a standard of living you're comfortable with, and you stop. Anything beyond that is money which you could otherwise spend on clothes, or travel, or restaurants. Whereas if you buy , you're not spending so much as investing. The only money which you're really spending is the interest on your mortgage -- and even that comes with a tax deduction. Or let's put it another way. That Elliman report you linked to has an average sales price of $1.21 million. A typical rental yield in Manhattan these days is 4%, so if rentals were functionally identical to owner-occupied apartments, which you seem to assume, then the average rent in Manhattan would be over $4,000 a month. In fact, of course, it's nowhere near that. Posted by: Felix on December 5, 2005 06:55 AM #21 There's the shark, and then there's the A train. Sterling's Manhattan clearly stops at 96th street. Sterling, dear, north of that bright white line, the housing stock is incredibly stable and consistent in terms of size and layout. Harlem is just now getting it's first 'luxury' apartment building in a half century. Any larger apartment complexes are housing projects, which have smaller units by definition, and, allowing for the dispersal of the towers in some International Style fantasy also insures that the density does not increase much. Posted by: 99 on December 5, 2005 04:03 PM #22 Felix, just because apartments are currently going for $1.21 million a pop doesn't mean that everyone who owns an apartment paid that much. Rent prices move in sympathy with real estate prices but are less prone to bubbles. What you're missing here, and you've missed the same thing when we've talked about the stock market in the past, is the difference between speculative investors and income investors. Speculators don't buy an apartment (or apartment building) primarily for the benefit of the rent; their main motivation is the hope of flipping the property at some later date for a larger sum than they paid for it. The current Manhattan real estate bubble is the product of speculators. Real estate income investors view rent collection as their goal - most apartment buildings in any town or city in the U.S. are owned by income investors. They get less press than speculators, but they also tend to go bankrupt less often. The market value of a rental property can be determined by the amount of rent it generates for the owner, not the other way around. Manhattan rents are high - probably even ludicrously high - but that is a function of large demand chasing relatively low supply, and is only weakly related to current real estate prices. I do acknowledge your point about space not being a priority for Manhattan renters, there is some truth in that. People who do see space as a necessity tend to wind up in rental units in Brooklyn, Queens or Hudson County. But that's not exclusively the case. Posted by: Sterling on December 5, 2005 04:59 PM #23 This thread is hilarious and sad, although a good example of how the same statistics can be applied to support any and all political positions. Posted by: sac on December 5, 2005 06:39 PM #24 Sterling, Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, zero speculators under your definition. No one buys Manhattan property in order to flip it. For one thing, co-op boards (and even condo boards, for that matter) hate flippers, and are likely to punish them. There's flip taxes, brokers' fees of 6% for the seller, and a luxury tax of 1% on any apartment over $1m for the buyer. Prices are so high that the carrying costs are enormous -- and you can't rent out the apartment in the meantime, because that makes it pretty much unsaleable. There are, of course, lots of buildings owned by income investors in New York. Most of the East Village, where I live, is comprised of such buildings: they normally have 20 or so apartments (say 5 floors, 4 apartments per floor), and they've been going up in price almost as much as individual apartments have -- the only reason they haven't gone up just as much is because many of the tenants are rent-controlled or rent-stabilised below market. These are typical New York apartments, from a renter's point of view -- but I can tell you, as someone who was apartment hunting in the East Village for almost a year, they're much less typical from an owner's point of view. Also, there's a strong incentive for for-sale apartments to be as large as possible: price per square foot is positively correlated with size. That's not the case in the rental market: it's easier to rent out a 650sqft apartment for $2500 than it is to rent out a 1300sqft apartment for $5000. Posted by: Felix on December 5, 2005 09:14 PM #25 "Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, zero speculators under your definition. No one buys Manhattan property in order to flip it." Felix, of course people speculate on property in Manhattan. Just because the barriers to entry are high doesn't mean some won't jump them. How else do you think a modest apartment winds up costing as much as a dozen Mercedes-Benz CL500s? Who do you imagine is providing demand at that level? You know banks are not issuing $1,000,000 mortgages to households with joint incomes of $200,000. It's trust fund kiddies - who are often divorced from fiscal reality - and speculators. As for your point about different-sized apartments being suitable for rent versus sale, I might agree with you except for the fact that every rental apartment IS OWNED by someone. It IS PART of the for sale market. I'd be surprised if fewer than half of the condos in Manhattan are rented out by their owners. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 01:51 AM #26 Sterling, I'm afraid the factors leading to high apartment prices are much more mundane than your feverish mind would like to imagine. Lots of global liquidity, driving down interest rates and banks' credit tests. Lots of demand, due to Manhattan's status as the center of the universe and high Wall Street bonuses. And very limited supply. The market for flippers is Miami, not NYC -- where a condo can be bought and sold three or four times before it is even built. As for your point about rental apartments being owned by someone, it sounds clever until you stop to think about what I've already said. Rental buildings are owned by landlords; the vast majority of condos and co-ops are owner-occupied. For one thing, co-ops vastly outnumber condos, and they're hard to rent. And as for condos, they generally get rented out when they're not the place their owner really wants to live. Given how valuable they are, few owners who don't want to live here would rather rent out their condos rather than simply sell them. Take my East Village condo building, for instance: when it went condo in 1983, only one owner lived here. Today, all the units bar one are owner-occupied. I haven't done my homework on this, but I'll happily accept your wager: I'll bet the standard bottle of vintage champagne that more than half the condos in Manhattan are owner-occupied. Deal? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 02:43 AM #27 If you go double or nothing on the proposition that the amount of existing residential floor space in Manhattan divided by the number of residents of Manhattan is equal to or greater than 600 sq. ft., then it's a bet. How are we going to research this? FWIW, I am descended from a man who is reputed to be the first person to negotiate a real estate deal in New York: Wessel Wesselse (ten Broek). He may have been the man to offer 60 guilders (often misreported as $24) as the purchase price of Manhattan from the Canarsies. (Technically the Canarsies didn't own Manhattan Island - it's not for nothing that "Canarsie" is in Brooklyn. Also technically the Dutch West India Company didn't care which tribe owned it. It just needed some bunch of natives to smile and sign off on the deal to keep the English away.) This of course conveys no special knowledge upon me, but it certainly adds a humorous subtext to our disagreement. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 04:14 AM #28 I'm not sure about the terms of the wager: we seem to be betting on two different things at the same time. But spell it out, and I'll be amenable. I do want to ensure, of course, that hallways and elevator shafts and the like do not count as residential floor space. And please also ensure that if one of the propositions can be determined while the other one can't, then the other wager still stands. Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 05:55 AM #29 I'm not sure how we could specify the terms to exclude elevators if they are included in filings. However, it occurs to me that Manhattan Borough probably requires a statement of total dwelling space for its Certificate of Occupancy, so that would work for me. And no, I think double or nothing sounds good to me, especially since we will be attempting to falsify two of my estimations, rather than either of yours. Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:20 AM #30 You've lost me, I'm afraid. When you say "double or nothing", are you proposing a 2BVC bet on the residential floor space, and no bet at all on the proportion of condos which are rented out? Or what? It makes no sense to me: "double or nothing" normally happens after A has lost a bet and B has won it. Then going double or nothing means that either B wins double the original amount, or he wins nothing. You essentially run the bet over again. Are you maybe trying to propose something whereby if I lose I lose 2BVCs, and if I win I win nothing? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 07:44 AM #31 Are you trying to squirm out of it? Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:03 PM #32 Sterling, will you propose your bet already? I've already said that I'm likely to accept. Just tell me the terms! Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 06:12 PM #33 I did! Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:25 PM #34 OK, have a few moments now, I had to get someplace before 2pm and the roads are crap with snow and slush. Um, OK. My terms for the bet is those two things specified, avg. sq. footage = 600 and = 50% of condos. Either side has to get both right to collect. gotta run Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 06:51 PM #35 So if one of us gets both right, he wins 1BVC or 2BVCs? And if one of the two turns out to be unverifiable, then it's a wash? Posted by: Felix on December 6, 2005 07:22 PM #36 Honestly, Felix, I doubt either number is verifiable. Like I wrote above, the city appears to track residential rental inventory by units, rather than by square footage. Also, most owners of condominium units who rent them out do so through agents - even the tenant may be only vaguely aware of the legal status of the unit. In NJ I don't think an individual condo owner even needs to report the unit as a rental property if it's in a building that's already inspected under multi-family housing regulations (or if it's a standalone unit or duplex). The rent revenue has to be reported as taxable income, naturallly, but not to any entity with housing oversight. So make it for one bottle and yes both figures have to be verifiable. That said, if either of us can show a grouping of not-completely-conclusive figures from multiple sources that seem reasonable and fall long or short of my guesses by ten percent or more, then I think we should accept them. (Of course, I have arguably already met this condition with my square footage prediction, and Geoff's calculations don't contradict it under the 10% rule I suggest.) Posted by: Sterling on December 6, 2005 10:05 PM #37 as i mentioned earlier, you can get the sf and unit count for every residential tax lot in the city from the cities web site... google 'bytes of the big apple' and look at the 'pluto' product. the license fee is $250 or you can get the info from propertyshark.com. there are 99000+ listings for manhattan. at 100 listings per page, thats a lot of cutting and pasting into excel. both of these will give you tax lot sizes (whole buildings/unit count or condo unit), which will be inclusive of common area. 10-15% is considered a fairly standard deduction for circulation. mechanical space is not included in the floor area count. happy dueling Posted by: geoff on December 6, 2005 10:29 PM Post a comment Name: Email Address: URL: Remember personal info? Yes No Anti-spam question: Share four cupcakes equally among four people. How many does each person get (in digits)? Comments: XML Atom RSS 2.0 RSS 1.0 Sources Eurof Felix Jame Michelle Mike Sage7 Stefan Sterling &c. Disclaimer Archive 12/05 11/05 10/05 09/05 08/05 07/05 06/05 05/05 04/05 03/05 02/05 01/05 12/04 11/04 10/04 09/04 08/04 07/04 06/04 05/04 04/04 03/04 02/04 01/04 12/03 11/03 10/03 09/03 Old site Recent posts 08/12: Not man enough (1) 08/12: Fare's fair (0) 07/12: Briddishisms (5) 06/12: The Trial of Saddam (5) 05/12: Leg deficiencies (4) 01/12: New York real-estate prices explained (37) 30/11: Bad vibe (22) 30/11: Thick-headed bouncers (0) 29/11: Argentina's sinister move (2) 28/11: Bedbugs and the city (8) 27/11: I've got a fast card (1) 22/11: Pedestrianize Broadway! (5) 19/11: Century 21 the next casualty at Ground Zero? (23) 19/11: Johnny Depp - sunshine traitor (4) 18/11: Gawker F***** by Yahoo! (7) Comments 06/12: geoff: as i mentioned earlier, you can get the sf and unit count for every residential tax lot in the ci 06/12: Sterling: Honestly, Felix, I doubt either number is verifiable. Like I wrote above, the city appears to tr 06/12: Felix: So if one of us gets both right, he wins 1BVC or 2BVCs? And if one of the two turns out to be unv 06/12: Sterling: OK, have a few moments now, I had to get someplace before 2pm and the roads are crap with snow an 06/12: Sterling: I did! 06/12: Felix: Sterling, will you propose your bet already? I've already said that I'm likely to accept. Just te 06/12: Sterling: Are you trying to squirm out of it? 06/12: Felix: You've lost me, I'm afraid. When you say "double or nothing", are you proposing a 2BVC bet on the 06/12: Sterling: I'm not sure how we could specify the terms to exclude elevators if they are included in filings. 06/12: Felix: I'm not sure about the terms of the wager: we seem to be betting on two different things at the s 06/12: Sterling: If you go double or nothing on the proposition that the amount of existing residential floor spac 06/12: Felix: Sterling, I'm afraid the factors leading to high apartment prices are much more mundane than your 06/12: Sterling: "Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and purposes, 05/12: Felix: Sterling, Manhattan is the one real-estate market in the US where there are, to all intents and p 05/12: sac: This thread is hilarious and sad, although a good example of how the same statistics can be appli 05/12: Sterling: Felix, just because apartments are currently going for $1.21 million a pop doesn't mean that ever 05/12: 99: There's the shark, and then there's the A train. Sterling's Manhattan clearly stops at 96th stree 05/12: Felix: Renter-occupied apartments are much smaller than owner-occupied apartments. And as the < 05/12: Sterling: Geoff - The only reason I was pompously snug is because Felix had reacted to to my estimates with 05/12: geoff: if anyone is real curious why not pony up the $250 to get a list of every tax lot in the city?<br 04/12: Sterling: The multiplier of 4 was back-of-envelope guess. The 280,000,000 number came from <a href 04/12: Felix: Where does your 280m sq ft number come from? Your first two calculations are based on it, so I'd 04/12: 99: Sterling: do your calculations include infrastructure or is the 280MM number a percentage of raw 04/12: Sterling: I've tried to find the statistic, but to no avail. It seems that while office space inventor is 04/12: Sterling: My claim is that the amount of residential-zoned floor space in Manhattan probably works out to b 04/12: Felix: Sterling jumped the shark so long ago it's probably not surprising, but for those of you keeping 04/12: Sterling: OK, 22 square miles equals about 613,324,800 square feet. That would leave each of Manhattan's 1 03/12: Felix: OK, Sterling, let's do it your way. Assume that each of the 1.5 million residents of Manhattan ha 03/12: Sterling: I don't think I'm confused. My points are: a) there is actually quite a bit more than 22 02/12: Andrew: Susan and Sterling, you are embarassingly confused. What percentage of real estate in Manhattan i Trackbacks

Buy House

Amazon.com: House of D: DVD Your Store DVD See All 32 Product Categories Your Account | Cart | Wish List | Help | Advanced Search | Browse Genres | Top Sellers | New & Future Releases | Television Central | Life & Learning | DVD Essentials | Blowout DVDs | Movie Showtimes | Used DVDs Search Amazon.com DVD Web Search Join Amazon Prime and ship Two-Day for free and Overnight for $3.99. Already a member? Sign in . DVD Information Explore this item buying info editorial reviews customer reviews cast and crew fun facts Listmania! cult faves : A list by ramalamaman Add your List Ready to buy? Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering. A9.com users save 1.57% on Amazon. Learn how . MORE BUYING CHOICES 101 used & new from $6.03 Available for in-store pickup now from: $27.99 Price may vary based on availability Enter your ZIP Code Have one to sell? House of D (2004) Starring: Anton Yelchin , Téa Leoni Director: David Duchovny Rating: See 2 customer images Share your own customer images List Price: $27.98 Price: $24.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details You Save: $2.99 (11%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Want it delivered Friday, December 30? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details 101 used & new available from $6.03 Edition: Better Together Buy this DVD with Spanglish DVD ~ Adam Sandler today! Total List Price: $47.92 Buy Together Today: $38.98 Customers who bought this DVD also bought Spanglish DVD ~ Adam Sandler Hostage DVD ~ Bruce Willis The Upside of Anger DVD ~ Joan Allen Bewitched DVD ~ Nicole Kidman Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Books , and in Music Storyline Genres: Drama Tagline: See the world a little differently. Plot Outline: By working through problems stemming from his past, Tom Warshaw (Duchovny), an American artist living in Paris, begins to discover who he really is, and returns to his home to reconcile with his family and friends. Plot Keywords: Artist | Bicycle | Janitor | Mental Retardation | Theft | Coming Of Age | Directorial Debut | Greenwich Village New York | Paris France | Women's Prison | Flip Book | Stickball | (Show all 68 plot keywords recommended by customers) Product Details Actors: Anton Yelchin , Téa Leoni , David Duchovny , Robin Williams , Erykah Badu , See more Directors: David Duchovny Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Special edition, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc Rated: Studio: Lions Gate DVD Release Date: October 4, 2005 Run Time: 97 min (original theatrical or airing runtime) Average Customer Review: Based on 24 Reviews From IMDb: Quotes & Trivia ASIN: B000ARFPNK Amazon.com Sales Rank: #9,233 in DVD Theatrical Release Information MPAA: for sexual and drug references, thematic elements and language. Production Company: Bob Yari Productions, Jeff Skoll Productions, Southpaw Entertainment, Tribeca Productions USA Box Office: $0 Million Filming Locations: New York City, New York, USA| Paris, France Editorial Reviews Amazon.com House of D is a bittersweet, moving story of an American expatriate's painful decision to come to terms with the childhood he fled in early 1970s New York City. David Duchovny wrote and directed this comedy-drama; he also stars as the adult version of the film's hero, Tom Warshaw, an illustrator who has spent most of his life in Paris and decides—on the occasion of his son's birthday—to finally reveal long-withheld facts about his past. The bulk of the story, told in flashback, portrays 13-year-old Tom (Anton Yelchin) as a quick-witted prince of his neighborhood, a delivery boy who knows every eccentric on his bicycle route and a Catholic school kid fond of playing pranks on his clueless French teacher and soulful principal (Frank Langella). His best friend is the school's mildly retarded, 41-year-old janitor, Pappas (Robin Williams), and his advisor on matters of the heart is Lady (Erykah Badu), a prison inmate whom the fatherless Tom (or Tommy, as he's called in 1973) can neither see nor touch. Tommy's vivacity is an asset at home, where his mother (Tea Leoni), a grieving widow with a mounting addiction to pills, is slipping away from her son's ability to help. Duchovny's screenplay sometimes borders on the precious: A number of scenes are enamored with their own boldness and originality, as if Duchovny has been squirreling away lots of colorfully expressive storytelling details for years, and unloaded them here. But that flaw all but disappears in the glow of House of D 's emotional resonance and honesty, not to mention several exceptional performances. Among these is Zelda Williams's work as Tommy's sage-beyond-her-years girlfriend, Melissa, whose name offers a suitable excuse to work a rather lovely Allman Brothers song into the soundtrack. --Tom Keogh Customers who viewed this DVD also viewed Crash (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Don Cheadle In Good Company (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Dennis Quaid The Interpreter (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Yvan Attal Birth DVD ~ Nicole Kidman Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Music , and in Books Spotlight Reviews Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. 10 of 10 people found the following review helpful: Give me the Dad face , October 21, 2005 Reviewer: Matthew Wilson - See all my reviews This story had ecsaped my attention until recently. I rented it, thinking it had to be decent, given the casting. I was pleasantly surprised upon viewing. The story is relatable and moving. Anton Yelchin gives a stirring performance as a child dealt a difficult hand, struggling to make his own way. Tea Leoni plays very well the role of a distraught, widowed mother who has been left to care for her son. I feel the role of Pappas (played by Robin Williams) could have been slightly more developed, but he turns in a wonderful performance. David Duchovny wrote and directed the movie, as well as acted as the present day version of the main character. It's not the most engaging movie, but it is interesting. It has its moments of humor, sadness and happiness. Altogether a good effort by Duchovny. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 9 of 12 people found the following review helpful: Clever, fitting, heartwarming.... , October 10, 2005 Reviewer: Jarrod T Thompson "yaauthor" (Junction City, KS) - See all my reviews David Duchovny does a fantastic job of creating a picture of a boy's childhood(Tom) with an addicted mother who is in need of parenting from her son and who is not capable of being the mother he so desperately needs. The humor of being thirteen and the jokes we have all told are caught in the most appropriate of depictions. This story is a wonderful Bildungsroman that creates a realistic and fun view of Thomas as a young boy becoming a man and growing apart from his retarded friend(Pappas) by becoming an older mental age than Pappas can ever be. The life journey of Thomas is interesting, sad, funny and heartwarming all at once. Those who are so critical of Duchovny and this film had expectations that were too lofty for anyone to live up to. I have different expectations when I go the movies. I am not there to give amateur critiques of the directing and script. I am there to watch and hopefully be entertained, and this film does not disappoint. Duchovny is subtly funny bordering on hilarious. The depiction of the thirteen-year-old boy in his private school French class is a scene that I will be laughing about forEVER. This movie is well worth its price. Great Job David Duchovny! Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) Customer Reviews Average Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. 1 of 1 people found the following review helpful: Lovely Film , December 20, 2005 Reviewer: nic "nic" (France) - See all my reviews Just watched this, and wanted to say - great film!! Wonderful characters, and some great acting, especially from the lead, Anton Yelchin. Really sweet story, with a proper fairytale ending. Definitely recommend checking this one out. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 1 of 4 people found the following review helpful: Are these reviews serious? , December 16, 2005 Reviewer: Jane (New York City) - See all my reviews I read the (mostly glowing) reviews here and decide to take a chance on the film despite the horrible reviews it received when released theatrically. I have to agree with professional critics on this one as I thought the film was poorly written, poorly shot and, except for the kids, poorly acted. Trite at best. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 2 of 3 people found the following review helpful: Beautiful story, unfulfilling sensation , November 15, 2005 Reviewer: Adrian Kain "The Lord of the Shoes" (Utah, USA) - See all my reviews I wasn't expecting much from the movie itself to tell the truth, but the two main characters (Papass and Tommy) are easily likable, as well as 'Lady', the woman locked in the House of D. The movie unfolds the story smoothly and with some funny moments, mixed up with drama and sad scenes throughout the main character's childhood. The performances are allright, especially those of Anton Yelchin (Tommy Harshaw), perfect for the role, and Erykah Badu (Lady Bernadette), who plays wonderfully a character who's limited to speak to Tommy from the window of a female cellblock. David Duchovny's is ok, considering he's a good actor, I know he could have done better if his own role had been larger: however, it didn't need to be so. Robin Williams plays a retarded janitor, and does a good job at it but it could have been a little better. Now, on to the weak, or weakest point of the movie: the end. I think the end was stretched like rubber, unnecessarily. I was expecting it to end at a certain point, leaving a little work for my own imagination, but instead they kept going and going, and making it worse every second, boring, corny, useless. It is in my opinion about the only weak point this movie had and it wasn't enough to destroy what was built throughout the story, I enjoyed it thoroughly despite the problem I pointed out before. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 2 of 3 people found the following review helpful: It could have been so much more , November 14, 2005 Reviewer: Todd Sullivan "Todd Sullivan 'Be In the World; Not of the World" (Mount Vernon, WA) - See all my reviews This movie had everything it needed to be a great movie, except it just fell flat. I decided upon this film because of the story line of a 13 year old man and his friend who was a mentally challanged 41 year old janitor Papas played by Robin Williams. It was in my opinion a great cast and a role suited for the talented Mr. Williams, but it was far from convincing and, altough a good character, maybe one of Robin's weakest performances. I am not sure if it was some uninspired acting or if the script didn't allow for a deeper performance or if my own expectations were to high. Erykah Badu role as a prison inmate that gives young Tommy advice and an ear was spectacular and was clearly the highlight of this film. Overall I liked the film, it just that I felt like with some expanded charecter development into the mind of Papas and maybe deeper explaining from Papas to Tommy why he stole the bike could have made this a 5 star film instead of a 3 start film. This is a film that had great potential and does have some tender moments it just fell flat. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) See all 24 customer reviews... Listmania! cult faves : by ramalamaman 10/2/2005-10/8/2005 : by Jonathan Miller The David Duchovny Collection : by Kelly Garbato "www.kellygarbat... So You'd Like to... Top 50 Box Office Results of 2005 : by Jimmy , High School Student, Movie Fanatic Know What's Coming to a DVD Store Near You : by Joe , Movie Lover Know What's Coming to a DVD Store Near You - Version 2.0 : by Joe , Movie Lover Fun Facts from IMDb.com: Trivia Click here to see more Trivia Marks the film writing and directing debut of David Duchovny. David Duchovny claims to have written the screenplay in six days. Goofs Click here to see more Goofs Reverend Duncan says that the school's Bible class is being renamed "Ethics" due to requirements of church/state separation; however, it is clearly a private school, not subject to church-state issues. Movie Connections Click here to see more Movie Connections References: Soul Train | The Texas Chain Saw Massacre Quotes Click here to see more Quotes [from trailer] Pappass : I'm not retarded anymore. Tom Warshaw : Oh really? Pappass : Really. I went from retarded to challenged. For more information about "House of D" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) Look for similar items by category Browse similar items in: DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( B ) > Badu, Erykah DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( D ) > Drummond, Alice DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( D ) > Duchovny, David DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( L ) > Langella, Frank DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( M ) > Margolis, Mark DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( S ) > Spinella, Stephen DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( W ) > Williams, Robin DVD > Genres > Drama > By Theme > Buddies DVD > Genres > Drama > By Theme > Coming of Age DVD > Genres > Drama > By Theme > Urban Life DVD > Genres > Drama > Family Life > Mothers & Sons DVD > Genres > Drama > Family Life > Single Parents DVD > Genres > Drama > General DVD > Genres > Drama > Love & Romance > Young Love Suggestion Box Your comments can help make our site better for everyone. If you've found something incorrect, broken, or frustrating on this page, let us know so that we can improve it. Please note that we are unable to respond directly to suggestions made via this form. If you need help with an order, please contact Customer Service . Please mark as many of the following boxes that apply: Product information is missing important details. Product information is incorrect. Propose corrections using our Online Catalog Update Form . The page contains typographical errors. The page takes too long to load. The page has a software bug in it. Content violates Amazon.com's policy on offensive language . Product offered violates Amazon.com's policy on items that can be listed for sale. Comments or Examples: Examples: Missing information such as dimensions and model number, typos, inaccuracies, etc. Where's My Stuff? • Track your recent orders . • View or change your orders in Your Account . Shipping & Returns • See our shipping rates & policies . • Return an item (here's our Returns Policy ). Need Help? • Forgot your password? Click here . • Redeem or buy a gift certificate. • Visit our Help department . Search Amazon.com Books Popular Music Music Downloads Classical Music DVD VHS Apparel Yellow Pages Movie Showtimes Toys Baby Computers Video Games Electronics Camera & Photo Software Tools & Hardware Office Products Magazines Sports & Outdoors Outdoor Living Kitchen Jewelry & Watches Beauty Gourmet Food Musical Instruments Health/Personal Care Pet Supplies Travel Cell Phones & Service Outlet Auctions zShops Everything Else Automotive for Amazon.com Home | Directory of All Stores Our International Sites: Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | Japan | France | China Help | Shopping Cart | Your Account | Sell Items | 1-Click Settings Investor Relations | Press Room | Careers Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice © 1996-2005, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates

Buy Home

Homes and Communities - U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) HUD news Newsroom Priorities About HUD Homes Buying Owning Selling Renting Homeless Home improvements HUD homes Fair housing FHA refunds Foreclosure Consumer info Communities About communities Volunteering Organizing Economic development Working with HUD Grants Programs Contracts Work online HUD jobs Complaints Resources Library Handbooks/ forms Common questions Tools Webcasts Mailing lists Contact us Help Hurricane Information HUD's hurricane resource page How to get help Press releases and photos HUD's response to the hurricanes Progam guidance and waivers Katrina Disaster Housing Assistance Program Contact information Operating requirements Consolidated contributions contract Disaster rent subsidy contract HUD Highlights Bush Administration announces $1.33 billion in grants to house and serve thousands of homeless individuals and families $20 million aimed at increasing public housing resident self-sufficiency and aiding elderly, disabled HUD seeks nominations for second annual Woodson Awards President Bush announces Homesteading Initiative Jackson signs 'Five-Star' statement of support for National Guard and Reservists HUD announces mortgage assistance for disaster victims Avoid Predatory Lenders Web Clinics for HUD Partners National Calendar of events Daily message At Your Service Learn how to buy a HUD home Learn how to apply for public housing and Section 8 See if HUD owes you a refund on your FHA loan Find a HUD-approved lender in your area Talk to a housing counselor File a housing discrimination complaint Submit Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request Busque información en español Learn about the President's agenda to expand homeownership More services Important Links Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage Annual Performance Plan 2005 Performance Accountability Report (PAR) Equal employment opportunity data posted pursuant to the No Fear Act regulations.gov Information by State Find information about homes and communities, organized by state. Select a State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico/ Virgin Islands Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Homes for Sale Find homes for sale from HUD and other federal agencies. Information For... Citizens Homebuyers Senior citizens Veterans/Military Kids Students People with disabilities Researchers Landlords Tenants Colonias/farmworkers Native Americans Victims of Discrimination Housing Industry Lenders Brokers Housing agencies/tribes Multifamily industry Appraisers Other Partners Grantees/ non-profits Congress/ elected officials Small businesses Fair housing Faith Based and Community Organizations Hospitals Investors Auditors/ investigators Now Playing Appraisal Protocol Content updated December 23, 2005 Back to top FOIA Privacy Web Policies and Important Links Home U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 451 7th Street S.W., Washington, DC 20410 Telephone: (202) 708-1112 TTY: (202) 708-1455 Find the address of a HUD office near you

Real Estate Listing

For Sale By Owner, homes for sale, houses, real estate, for sale - ForSaleByOwner.com Sell a Home Buy a Home Services Mortgages City Profiles Appraisals Service Directory Foreclosures Mortgages Service Providers Appraise Your Home Moving & Relocation Home Improvement Title Company Search Insurance Lawyers Virtual Tours Home Builders Real Estate Agents Research What is FSBO? City Profiles City Comparisons School Reports Crime Comparisons Salary Calculator Cost of Living Comp. Home Sale Prices Tools Free eBook DIY Software Mortgage Calculators Home Selling Guide Home Buying Guide Ad Writing Tips Real Estate Forms Home Buying Checklist Utilities Connections Your Credit Report Glossary Real Estate News Edit Your Ad Modify Your Ad Cancel Your Ad Upload Photos Help/FAQ BUYING A HOME? Search the largest real estate database of For Sale By Owner homes for sale! City State AL AK AB AZ AR BC CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MB MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NB NH NJ NM NY NF NC ND NT NS OH OK ON OR PA PE PR QC RI SK SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY YT Int Zip Listing ID SELLING A HOME? "We sold two homes fsbo with your service (totaling nearly $500,000), which saved us $30,000 in commissions! We owe it to ForSaleByOwner.com - don't change a thing!" - The Chapmans, Virginia Home Selling Testimonials » For Sale By Website "When Chris Gaydos decided to sell his Baltimore home this summer, he didn't want a penny less than $263,000. After a real estate agent said $245,000 was the best he'd get, he bought a FSBO listing at ForSaleByOwner.com . A month later, he got the offer he wanted, and pocketed $7,000 by cutting out the middleman." Why use For Sale By Owner.com? For Sale By Owner makes selling a home on your own easy. We sell the most houses for sale by owner, proving our house selling strategies sell more homes than any site in home selling. Moreover, your home's selling price is determined by you, not a real estate broker who takes a 6% fee for selling your home. Proven Home Selling Record Since 1997, For Sale By Owner has helped sell thousands of houses, saving home owners billions of dollars in real estate commissions. ( click here for more details ) Unparalleled Exposure We are among the top-five most visited real estate sites in the world and the largest "For Sale By Owner" homes for sale site. ( For Sale By Owner.com statistics ) Easy to Use For Sale By Owner makes home selling a sellers dream. We provide the best customer service in the industry with 24/7 support and a comprehensive "Home Selling" guide for selling a home yourself. ( for a guide on selling your home click here ) Affordable Prices For Sale By Owner provides several packages to suit your individual needs. List your home for sale with markets starting at only $89.95. ( for prices in your area click here ) Sell Your Home Guaranteed Home Owner; if your home doesn't sell, we'll give you your money back. That's correct. Your house will sell or you'll receive a full refund! ( For Sale By Owner house selling guarantee ) Act now, and start selling your house on your own in the largest For Sale By Owner site (with up to 6 color home photos and a 1,000 word house description - try buying that in a newspaper ad). Sell your home for sale by owner and market your fsbo home to millions of home buyers that might be looking to buy a home just like yours. Want to see what your home could look like on For Sale By Owner.com ? Check out our featured Home click here What Will I Save? Calculate your savings when you use us! You save ! City Profiles Find Out more about your new location! Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Home Mortgages 30-year fixed: 5.25% 15-year fixed: 4.50% School Report Cards Get the facts on public schools before you make your move. Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware DC Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Privacy & Disclaimer Partner With Us Career Opportunities Press Room Contact Us Buying A Home Your Credit Report Terms and Conditions Home Selling Tips Selling Your Home © 1997-2005 For Sale By Owner.com Your source for selling a home on your own. We make the home selling process a cinch. Sell real estate, sell a home, and sell your house, fsbo. Real estate selling, home selling, house selling. Site Map Home

New Home

Victoria University of Wellington Site Map | Glossary | A-Z of Victoria University Sites | Planned Web Outages On Tuesday 27 September, from 8.15pm to midnight, there will be a website outage. »Read more -- Information For: › Prospective Students › Enrolling Students › Current Students › Mature Students › International Students › Māori Students › Pacific Students › Prospective Staff › Current Staff › Alumni › Donors › Employers › Media › Visitors Quick Links › Library › Online Enrolment › Timetable Information › Course Catalogue › PostgradLife › Jobs at Victoria › Marae › Staff Directory › Victoria Events › Contact Victoria Welcome to Victoria University of Wellington New Zealand Te Whare Wananga o te Upoko o te ika a Maui Aotearoa Subjects & Degrees Subjects Offered at Victoria Undergraduate Degrees Postgraduate Degrees Course Catalogue Summer Trimester Short Courses About Victoria News Publications University Calendar Maps, Transport & Parking Org Charts and FAQs Policy Faculties & Schools Architecture & Design Commerce & Administration Education Humanities & Social Sciences Law Science Toihuarewa A-Z List of Schools Research at Victoria Research Overview Recent Research Projects Māori-related Research A-Z of Centres & Institutes Studying at Victoria Admission & Enrolment Degree & Course Advice Fees 2006 Dates & Deadlines Distance Learning Scholarships & Prizes Student Notes & Textbooks Careers Student Life Student Services Facilities & Resources Student Clubs Arts & Culture -- Enrol Online Now Online enrolment for 2006 is now available. Summer Trimester 2005 Many summer trimester 2005 courses are still open for enrolment. Check out the details. PostgradLife Find out about life as a postgraduate student at Victoria. Victoria News: › More News Site Map | Glossary | A-Z of Victoria University Sites Contact Vic | Disclaimer | About This Site | Request a Change | Site Accessibility Page Updated: 22/9/04 © 2004 Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand