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

Denver Real Estate

Denver Colorado real estate agent, Denver lofts for sale, Denver village lofts and area homes OUR COMMITMENT TO Our Real Estate BUYERS: You can expect a no worry “Hands-On-Service” during the entire process of purchasing your new home: Selection and previewing of real estate, along with investigation of neighborhoods, and comparable price analysis before making an offer to insure you will get the best price possible Choosing one of our preferred real estate lenders that can and will work within your needs and provide you the best possible programs and rates Persuasive and professional real estate negotiation Examination & interpretation of real estate contracts and disclosures & home inspections, plus facilitating a “Problem Free” transaction. To Our Real Estate SELLERS ... Follow-up is the “Key” to the successful Sale of your real property: “We Get You SO Ready To SELL...It Almost Makes You Want To Stay” We begin with a professional real estate market analysis to determine a price that will allow fair but aggressive competition A comprehensive plan of action will outline our experience-based methods for selling your home as quickly as possible and at the highest return of profit for you Our aggressive marketing programs will allow maximum exposure to potential home buyer. We have a 99.9% completion rate on all our real estate transactions...Problem free and No surprises!! Let us take the worry out of the process for you. Site Map Featured Properties Property Search Virtual Tours My Dream Home Preferred Lenders Neighborhoods Home Login Register Contact About Us

real estate investing. (And,

MSN Money - Nothing quick about getting rich with real estate MSN Home Hotmail My MSN Sign In Money S earch MSN Money: Help Home News Banking Investing Planning Taxes My Money Portfolio Loans Insurance Investing Home Portfolio Markets Stocks Funds ETFs Commentary Brokers CNBC TV MSN Money Insight Jubak's Journal SuperModels Start Investing Strategy Lab Company Focus Mutual Funds Street Patrol Other Views Contrarian Chronicles TheStreet.com Resources Commentary Index Decision Centers Start Investing Mutual Funds Find Hot Stocks Simple Strategies Power Tools Investing For Income Real Estate Related Links Expert Picks Market Dispatches CNBC Stock Picks Message Boards Print-friendly version Send this to a friend Research any REIT Find top-performing mutual funds Sortable database of SEC filings Find stock winners with our screener Personal finance bookshelf Find It! Article Index Finance Q&A Tools Index Site Map Recent articles by MP Dunleavey: • How to invest when you've got just $500 , 1/15/2004 • Your 3 worst debt consolidation moves , 1/11/2004 • Feel guilty if youre not shopping? , 1/4/2004 More... Related Sites Robert Allen Institute Millionaire Hall of Fame National Association of Realtors John T. Reeds Web site John T. Reeds reviews of the real estate gurus Carleton Sheets Web site Joe Crumps Real Estate Moneymaker.com The Basics Nothing quick about getting rich with real estate advertisement A real estate seminar promoter promised to create 1,000 new millionaires, but so far none are in sight. See what happened to his believers. By MP Dunleavey Like a lot of people these days, Marjorie Stark wouldnt mind making a little extra cash -- or even a lot of it. So when she attended an information session for Robert Allens Creating Wealth Through Real Estate seminar in New York, she was more than willing to pay $2,495 for Allens intensive three-day course on real estate investment strategies. Concerned about not having enough to retire on and wanting to pass along some wealth to her kids some day, the 62-year-old New York City educator said to me then: I am convinced that real estate is the way to go. I was there that night, too, and I could scarcely resist the mouth-watering idea that those three days could make me rich. As the guy leading the session announced: We are on a mission to create 1,000 new millionaires in 12 months! A year later, Stark isnt any closer to being a millionaire. She hasnt bought any new property nor made any money on real estate -- except for the rental property she owned before and bought the hard way (with cash and bank loans). She even admitted that when she saw Robert Allens newest venture was in vitamin sales, I thought I was going to puke. I was very disillusioned. But Stark is undaunted and still believes there are fortunes to be made in real estate. She just enrolled in another seminar at a local college on how to buy distressed and foreclosed properties, she says. With a full-time job, Im not sure how I can do it, but, boy, am I itching to go! Start investing with $100. Explore our new ETF center. Theres something about real estate Stark is not alone. The National Association of Realtors doesnt track independent real estate investment seminars or how many people attend them, but their allure springs eternal like the get-rich hopes of those who sign up for these courses. The odds of winning are not high. Robert Allens 1,000 new millionaires never materialized in the last year, for example. Allen operates whats called The Enlightened Millionaire Institute. Its Millionaire Hall of Fame Web site lists only 50 millionaires (defined as having generated gains averaging $2.6 million). A spokesman admits not all of them exclusively used the Allen method of real estate investing. (And, in a disclaimer, the site notes, No information has been verified or authenticated. Results vary. All successes are subject to one's own knowledge and effort.) Despite all that, the Robert Allen Institute still conducts two or three seminars a week in different cities and says it reaches about 1,200 people each month. (Thats 1,200 x $2,495 = $2.99 million a month, in case you left your calculator home.) Allen is just one of dozens of artful salesmen who preach fancy financing, no money down, flipping properties quickly and numerous other strategies to get rich buying and selling real estate. And the question all this preaching raises is, do these investment techniques, systems and strategies really work? Can they actually make you rich? After all, would people keep trying it if it couldnt be done? Or are hundreds of thousands of people simply seduced by expert sales pitches and swindled out of hundreds and sometimes thousands of dollars? Weighing the evidence Like so many things in life, it depends on whom you talk to. Or whose Web site you believe. John T. Reed is a real estate investment coach himself, based in Alamo, Calif. Hes also a self-appointed watchdog for this industry. He keeps the most exhaustive list I could find of dozens of so-called gurus, along with reviews of their techniques, books and other products. Although Reeds Web site , where you also can buy his various books for $29.95, reads a bit like he has a chip -- a very big chip -- on his shoulder, he was recommended by the National Association of Realtors as a serious investigator in the industry. Not that hes against real estate investment, or some of the reputable folks who teach their own hard-won wisdom. But those have been degraded by "the endless parade of B.S. artists coming into the real-estate-investment-advice field. It is an embarrassment to the good people in the business." And many people believe his grousing is justified. Norm Bour is the host of The Real Estate and Finance Hour on KLSX in Los Angeles, a top talk radio station. Hes worked in real estate as a mortgage lender and describes the proliferation of real estate seminars, workshops and scams as a major pet peeve. Case in point: foreclosures, he begins. Real estate in California has gone berserk in the last few years so people are looking for foreclosures to buy. The idea being you can buy a foreclosure more cheaply than other property and potentially gain a windfall when you sell it. But, as Bour notes, You can count on one hand how many actual foreclosure properties there are (for sale). Yet theres no lacking of people who are offering real estate foreclosure lists. One might pay $35 for a list, but it may be peppered with properties in other states. Its not fraudulent, but its certainly deceptive. The shady gray area Well-known personalities like Robert Allen or Carleton Sheets , who have extensive marketing organizations, are a little different, Bour says. They offer some very solid basics, but the number of people who can do what they propose is very small -- because they make it sound so much easier than it is. Thats what Josh Kelinson, a freelance advertising consultant in New York, found when he and two friends tried to follow the Sheets method. The three pals pooled their resources to master what Sheets preached, which is similar to the Allen method: buying property with no money down (or some other creative financing method) and flipping later on for a profit. One of his pals took the seminar, another bought the 8-CD set, etc. Thus inspired and determined, they tried to buy a building suitable for five apartments in Massachusetts, not far from where theyd all grown up. Kelinson says the actual experience of trying to buy an income property proved eye-opening. We spent a ton -- and I mean a ton -- of time on it. There was the approval process, the paperwork, getting lawyers. It took two to three hours a day, not including weekend travel time and unexpected snafus. I found it impossible to do with a full-time job. Ultimately, the project bogged down because of a major zoning problem. The building was in an area zoned for three apartments, and the building had been illegally converted into five apartments. The zoning authorities refused to grant an exception to the rules. Then, the building owner refused to return their deposit. The three were out $35,000. Still, Kelinson doesnt feel misled or duped by the Sheets method, and he and his friends are sure they can make it work with their next deal. There are a lot of other things out there that are scams, but this definitely can be done, he says. But investing in real estate is not nearly as easy as it looks, he says. Make sure you have the time to do it, he advises wannabe investors. If you dont allocate the time, it probably wont work. We want the system to work so much And therein lies the fundamental appeal, and ultimate trouble, of get-rich-quick (GRQ) strategies. Its the jackpot mentality, says psychologist Patricia Farrell, author of How to Be Your Own Therapist . Just like the schmoe who buys a winning lottery ticket -- every once in a while, someone, somewhere really does use these edgy real estate investment techniques to make millions. Its not the principles that are flawed, says Bour. Its the simplicity and ease that are overstated. Most of these courses are so seductive, Farrell says, because they operate according to a tried-and-true principle of behavioral psychology called the variable ratio reinforcement schedule. Basically, people (and rats) will persist in doing something, even with little or no return, if they are given the tiniest bit of hope of a coming reward. So the fact that some people do succeed at no money down strategies acts like a financial aphrodisiac for all those watching, waiting, hoping. So could the Starks and Kelinsons of the world be next? Is it just a matter of reapplying the Robert Allen/Carleton Sheets techniques until they work? Mark Wilson, one of the millionaires created by the Robert Allen Institute, would say yes. The president of Southeastern Housing Partners in Hickory, N.C., Wilson started investing in real estate in the late 1980s. We were doing OK, but nothing to write home about. Then in 2002, after hearing Robert Allen speak, Wilson paid $5,000 to join a one-year intensive coaching course. It changed his life, his business and, above all, his cash flow, he says. Although hed read Allen's No Money Down in college, the seminar focused more on another Allen signature strategy: developing multiple streams of income (from rentals, rehabs, buying foreclosed properties, commercial properties, etc.). Now, Wilson says, hes about to close a deal that will put his net worth at $8.5 million. He believes anyone can make big bucks from real estate if he or she is willing to take action -- not just sit on the sofa listening to tapes. Before you sign up, count to a million Of course, Wilson admits that it was easier for him to take the Robert Allen techniques and run with them. He had a lot of experience in real estate already. Most people, Bour points out, dont have those skills. And few people have the time or the diligence to acquire them. (Some skill sets you need to have -- and the course cant teach it to you, agrees Kelinson.) Bob Underwood of Stafford, Va., is one person who can testify to the fact that investing in real estate is not for those steeped in fantasy. Underwood bought an e-book from yet another author and teacher by the name of Joe Crump . Crump, who hails from Indianapolis, teaches a no-money-down technique, but he told me that he does it legally and ethically. Underwood, 43, has a wife and family and a full-time job -- and no time to muck about in real estate with no return. He paid Crump about $500 for one-on-one coaching in 2002 and, after a rocky start, has managed to buy three properties in the last two years. Hes sold one of them, made about $10,000, after taxes, in the process and is hoping to rehab and sell another this year. One deal Underwood did alone, the next was with a partner. He says theres no cookie-cutter method that works. What works, he says, is getting out into the market, investing the time to learn about the business, not neglecting your wife and kids (or day job), learning from your mistakes, making friends and getting advice from others as you move forward. Slowly, steadily and not particularly wealthily. Remember, you have to pay capital gains (taxes) on the profits, he says, so its not a lot of money in the end. But that, of course, isnt what people want to hear. People are lead to believe that all you need is the right plan and youll make a million, that if you use this system youll be rewarded, says psychologist Farrell. They dont realize that the possibility of getting that big reward is so remote. Editors' choice Don't get scammed by your mover Safeguard your Social Security number 5 ways to tap into the onshore drilling boom Your checkbook just became obsolete Turn $1 a day into $67,815 Readers' choice Ratings Top 5 Articles 9.30 Zombie debt collectors dig up your old mistakes 9.24 Keep thieves out of your bank account 9.22 Credit reports now free for entire U.S. 9.19 10 ways to avoid outrageous hospital overcharges 9.17 Tax breaks for Katrina victims -- and all of us View all top rated articles More Resources · E-mail us your comments on this article · Post on the Your Money message board · Get a daily dose of market news S earch MSN Money tips advertisement Sponsored Links Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2005. All rights reserved. Quotes supplied by ComStock , an Interactive Data company. MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances. © 2005 Microsoft MSN Privacy Legal Advertise Feedback Help

Real Estate Broker

Atlanta Real Estate: Metro Brokers/GMAC Atlanta real estate, Georgia, brokers, agent, buckhead, atlanta mortgage, cobb, midtown, homes for sale -- Atlanta Real Estate & Atlanta Homes for Sale Metro Brokers/GMAC Real Estate Community Search Builders/Developers New Home Services for Agents Order relocation kit Who's who in relocation GM Family First Quote Form Claims Dictionary FAQ's Privacy notice Services offered Businesses for sale Commercial division info Property search Agent roster Who wants to be a millionaire? Comprehensive sales training Broker support Coaching Agent Testimonials Contact us A little history Marketing Communications Technology Office locations/directions Market share comps Company News Premier Service Have a question? Ask your online guide. E-mail Metro Mike. Learn how to schedule appointments online to see properties. Order our FREE 250+ page home guide with thousands of area homes for sale. Click here to learn how to get a Georgia real estate license for free! Click here to view your shopping cart or create a new account. Metro Brokers Financial offers competitive rates on a variety of mortgage products. Click here to prequalify! Search the largest database of Atlanta homes for sale 72,310 HOMES more than any other website! Database last updated Dec 29 2005 6:58AM Market Share Comps Metro Brokers/GMAC Real Estate grew its Atlanta real estate market share by one percent in 2004, while every other local residential realty company with at least 2,000 closings lost market share – one company by 15 percent. Over the last four years, Metro Brokers has increased its metro area market share by 3.4 percent – far better than any other local company. In fact, Atlanta’s other top 10 residential real estate companies experienced market share declines over that same period by an average of 23.5 percent. Metro Brokers did even better in specific real estate submarkets of Atlanta. The company saw double-digit market share gains in Butts, Cherokee, Coweta, Dawson, Douglas, East Cobb, Forsyth, Gilmer, Gwinnett, Henry, Intown Atlanta, Newton, North Fulton, Paulding, Rockdale, Walton and West Cobb. The company remains the Atlanta market share leader south of I-20, with nearly 1 out of every 4 homebuyers represented by a Metro Brokers sales associate. According to Metro Brokers President and CEO Kevin Levent, the primary reason for the company's market-leading growth is the increased productivity of its sales associates. "Our associates sold more homes in Atlanta than any other year in the history of our company," Levent said. "Our training programs are invigorating experienced real estate sales associates and helping new real estate licensees hit the ground running." Metro Brokers is also the largest license holder in the state of Georgia. The market share study was completed by Smart Numbers, an independent, Atlanta-based company that provides residential real estate information. Smart Numbers used closing data from MLS and FMLS to compile its report. Company News ATLANTA - Once again, the Greater Atlanta Home Builders Association (HBA) has selected metrobrokers.com Best Realtor Website in the Atlanta area for the fourth consecutive year. MetroBrokers.com was chosen by HBA’s judges for its functionality, ease-of-use and overall design. The only organization recognizing Atlanta companies for excellence in website design, the HBA has been promoting, protecting and preserving homeownership in the greater area since its inception in 1945. HBA is an affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), headquartered in Washington, D.C. During the last year, Metro Brokers became the first local company to successfully launch an appointment setting tool that allows homebuyers to schedule a showing while viewing a listing online. As a result, Metro Brokers has generated more than 2,000 real estate showing requests – a figure that’s 30 percent higher than the national average of other metro realty companies. REALTORS RESPOND TO METRO BROKERS’ NEW BILLBOARDS Joyce Hay of the Gwinnett office: “Awesome! Awesome! Awesome! I love the billboards. My clients think the boards are cool, too. They say it’s better than any other billboard they’ve ever seen and that Metro Brokers is far and above any other company.” Salim Lokhandwalla of the Tucker office: “It’s very eye-catching. The locations are excellent especially the one on I-85 south. If my 11 year old daughter notices it, I’m sure others will too.“ Jamie Hook of the East Cobb office: “It’s really impressive, especially when you have clients in the car and drive by it.” Radley Reiff of the Buckhead office: “I love it. I think it’s great for brand recognition…A perfect ‘10’.” Serrie Fields of the Stone Mountain office: “The billboard can’t be beat. It’s bold, easy to read in traffic and very visible. It makes our name well known in the community and reinforces our large market presence. I envision the billboards helping me on listing presentations when I mention them to customers.” Bo Krejci of the North Fulton office: “I think the billboard is great. It really pops out at you when you drive down GA-400. I can only imagine the impact on morning commuters as the traffic crawls by the billboard.” Real Estate Atlanta, Georgia

home For Sale by

MilitarybyOwner.com - Real Estate near U.S. Military Bases Forgot your password? Email: Password: 12/29/2005 2:30:33 PM -- Live Support Chat Live Chat Hours of Operation 9:00 AM - 9:00 PM EST M-F WELCOME Welcome to MilitarybyOwner.com, your one source for advertising your home For Sale by Owner or For Rent near our Military Installations. Use the power of your military network and the web to help you find, sell or rent your next home. HOME SEARCH State - Select - AL AK AZ AR AE AP CA CO CT DE DC FL GA HI ID IL IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA MI MN MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY NC ND OH OK OR PA RI SC SD TN TX UT VT VA WA WV WI WY Military Base Select a state first City or Zipcode Price Range No Min $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $500,000 $550,000 $600,000 $650,000 $700,000 $750,000 $800,000 $850,000 $900,000 $950,000 to $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 $400,000 $450,000 $500,000 $550,000 $600,000 $650,000 $700,000 $750,000 $800,000 $850,000 $900,000 $950,000 $1,000,000 No Max Bedrooms 1 or more 2 or more 3 or more 4 or more 5 or more Availability January February March April May June July August September October November December / / 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 AD Number -- THIS SITE IS AN INVALUABLE TOOL FOR SELLING YOUR HOUSE IN A MILITARY 'SELL BY OWNER' COMMUNITY. I COULDN'T KEEP UP WITH THE PHONE CALLS AND EMAIL HITS. PEOPLE STILL CONTACTED ME AFTER THE HOUSE WAS UNDER CONTRACT. CUSTOMER SERVICE IS EXCELLENT. A SMALL INVESTMENT FOR A HUGE PAYOFF. - TOM, FORT BRAGG, FAYETTEVILLE, NC MILITARY LOANS | 50 STATES | BUSINESS ADVERTISING | MOVING RESOURCES | TESTIMONIALS | FAQ | ABOUT US | CONTACT US