Home Mortgage

Mortgage Home Mortgages loans Refinance Mortgage! Home Sell a Home Buy a Home Services Mortgages City Profiles Appraisals -- -- Discount Mortgages Select one of the options below to get started on a loan, or to speak with a live loan officer Please call 1-800-516-5524 . Home Purchase Qualify for more...before Interest rates rise! Unbiased help and advice, approval in minutes. * Home purchase * Get preapproved * Credit problems? No Money Down Mortgage Financing We have a mortgage for you! or Refinance Mortgage Even if you refinanced recently, only a 1/2% drop in your rate can save you thousands. * Search current mortgage rates * Home equity loans * Credit problems? Home Equity & Debt Consolidation Loans Home equity loans for any reason, home improvements, purchase a car, college tuition and other expenses. Consolidation loans to reduce your monthly expenses, consolidate all of your bills into one low payment. No appraisal. Mobile notary. Guarantee lowest cost. * Instant Approvals * 125% loans Local Service Providers Our Local Service Provider Search empowers you to make an informed mortgage decision. Our Mortgage partners have helped our users save thousands! Please type in your zip code to find a local provider nearest you. Zip Code: -- Mortgage Calculators Mortgage Loan Calculator Mortgage Qualifier Refinance Breakeven Refinance Interest Savings 15 Year vs. 30 Year Mortgage Mortgage Tax Savings Calculator Amortizing Loan Calculator Loan Comparison Calculator Debt Consolidation Calculator Rent vs. Buy Calculator Privacy & Disclaimer Partner With Us Career Opportunities Press Room Contact Us © 1997-2003 For Sale By Owner.com Site Map Home

Land Loans for Residential

Construction Lot Loans Construction Loans for Custom Residential Properties | 4 Contact Us | 4 About Us | 4 Disclosures | 4 Privacy | 4 Media Kit | 4 Site Map | Tips On Choosing a Contractor Stated Income Program Time Line NEW LOAN Prime Minus One Today's Rate 6.00% * *During Construction Land Loans for Residential Construction Our Lot loan program is one of our more popular products. T hese land loans are designed as purchase money loans for those borrowers who aren’t ready to begin construction at this time, and as such are not ready to obtain a construction loan, but will be ready in the near future. T he lot must be normal for the area and at least one utility must be available from the street. (Septic tanks, propane tanks, are acceptable if these features are normal for the neighborhood.) J ust like in construction loans we can fund this loan both as a Full or Alternate Doc and as a Reduced Doc (Stated income) loan. For Fully Documented Loans we offer 80% LTV/CLTV to a maximum loan amount of $500,000 for credit scores of 620, with 6 months PIT reserves and a maximum back-end debt ratio of 42%. 90% LTV/CLTV to a maximum loan amount of $300,000, for credit scores of 700, with 24 months PIT reserves and a maximum back-end ratio of 42%. 85% LTV/CLTV to a maximum loan amount of $300,000, for credit scores of 700, with 24 months PIT reserves and a maximum back-end debt ratio of 42%. For Reduced Documentation (stated Income, verified assets) loans we offer: 75% LTV/CLTV to a maximum loan amount of $300,000, for credit scores of 680, with 6 months PIT reserves. 70% LTV/CLTV to a maximum loan amount of $500,000 for credit scores of 680+/- with 6 months PIT reserves and maximum back-end debt ratio of 42%. 85% LTV/CLTV to a maximum loan amount of $300,000. for credit scores of 700+ with 24 months PIT reserves and a maximum back-end debt ratio of 42% We offer two repayment options; A 30/2 fixed rate laon. This is amortized over 30 years and all due and payable in two years. A 30/5 adjustable rate loan. This program is amortized over 30 years and all due and payable in five years. We offer two index plans for the 30/5. A 12 MAT product with a start rate that is fixed for the first 3 months and then adjusts monthly; and a 6 month LIBOR with a start rate that is fixed for the first 6 months and then adjusts every 6 months thereafter. We will lend on parcels up to 50 acres at the following LTVs; 0-20- The above guidelines apply. 20.01 – 30 –75% LTV maximum 30.01 – 40- 70% LTV maximum 40.01 – 50 – 65% LTV maximum We do not currently offer a refinance option on lot loans so pick the term that best fits your needs. In fact most lenders do not offer a refinance option and it goes without saying that if you don’t choose the loan carefully you will end up having to refinance using a very expensive loan or rush into a construction loan. Questions? Call us at 1-800-246-2468 , we Love talking construction loans. Or send an email , for a prompt reply. More Information ABOUT Home Equity Line of Credit You can borrow against the equity in your present property and use the proceeds to use for the down payment of your new homes construction loan. We offer home equity lines of credit for up to 100% of the value of your property, including both documented and stated income programs. House Plans B uilder ready house plans or architects. Search sources for professionally designed house plans from the smallest family house to the largest mansion designed by some of North Americas best architects. No Doc Construction Loans W e offer a whole range of no income documentation construction loans . Programs include stated income, limited doc, no doc and no income. Our consultants will help you pick the right one for you. Thinking of building a Modular Home and take advantage of the time saving features of this type of construction? Our construction loans will accommodate up front deposits required. Modular Homes. [ Home | Site Map | Construction | Remodeling | Lot Loans | Equity Based | Spec Loans | Application | Contact Us | Documentation ] [ Mortgage Calculator | Rates & Fees | Let 'em Know | Let Us Know | F.A.Q. | Resources | Prime Construction Loan | About Us ] [ Privacy Policy | Disclosures ] [ Contact Us | Home Plans | Media Kit | Home Equity Line | Construction Loans FAQ Home Page ] 1999-2005, Construction Loans Center at Mark 1 Mortgage. All Rights Reserved. Mark 1 Mortgage Is a California Corporation, Licensed By The Federal Housing Commissioner, and The California Department of Real Estate. For Details Please Go to the About Us Page

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

Real Estate Prices

DQNews - San Diego Union Tribune Zip Code Chart -- December 29, 2005 DQNews Home | DataQuick | Forums | -- Release | Custom Reports Search -- i Updated: December 16, 2005 -- -- -- Real Estate News -- . -- DQNEWS HOME -- RECENT RELEASES Monthly for SoCal Monthly for Bay Area New! -- CA Monthly City Chart ZIP CODE CHARTS Updated Monthly: LA Times Zip Chart SD Union Tribune Chart OC Register Chart SF Chronicle Chart Sacramento Bee Chart Annual Charts: CA 2004 City Chart LA Times 2004 Chart OC Register 2004 Chart SD Tribune 2004 Chart SF Chronicle 2004 Chart Sac Bee 2004 Chart Updated Weekly: SJ Mercury News Chart California SoCal Area Bay Area -- REGIONAL CHARTS Phoenix 3Q05 Honolulu 3Q05 Las Vegas 3Q05 Portland 3Q05 Seattle 3Q05 Nashville 3Q05 Miami/Palm Bch 3Q05 Jacksonville, FL 3Q05 Denver 3Q05 Chicago 3Q05 CURRENT HEADLINES Home Sale Trends Mortgage Trends -- Foreclosures Million Dollar Homes Building Activity Other Feature Articles NATIONAL NEWS -- WEB SITE EXTRAS ARCHIVED ARTICLES -- Customized News Services -- -- Custom Reports Archived Zip Code Charts Archived Articles -- Enter your email address to receive DQNews Headlines by email: -- Who We Are -- -- -- Find Out More About DQNews San Diego Union Tribune Zip Code Chart for Home Sales Recorded in November 2005 Back Issues are available through Custom Reports Resale New Single-Family Condominiums All Combined New Place Zip Sales Median % Chg Sales Median % Chg Sales Median % Chg Central San Diego 477 $539,000 5.7% 384 $430,000 4.4% 323 $444,500 -15.3% Allied Gardens, Del Cerro 92120 16 $589,000 7.1% 8 $367,000 -12.2% 5 $320,000 n/a City Heights 92105 28 $418,500 5.3% 17 $250,000 -5.1% 3 $224,000 -42.3% Clairemont 92117 32 $578,250 6.1% 5 $316,000 -3.5% n/a n/a n/a College 92115 29 $468,000 5.2% 16 $311,000 -11.1% 14 $234,000 -20.7% Coronado 92118 6 $1,235,000 -2.9% 17 $825,000 -37.4% n/a n/a n/a Downtown 92101 n/a n/a n/a 48 $539,250 -20.4% 147 $530,000 1.0% Encanto 92114 48 $450,000 9.5% n/a n/a n/a 4 $260,000 -45.8% Golden Hill 92102 19 $440,000 4.1% 4 $237,500 -18.1% n/a n/a n/a Hillcrest, Mission Hills 92103 12 $1,085,000 52.8% 24 $495,000 2.7% 10 $564,500 -9.7% Kensington, Normal Hts 92116 24 $504,500 -14.9% 7 $425,000 21.4% 14 $282,500 15.3% La Jolla 92037 18 $2,025,000 37.3% 35 $595,000 1.7% 22 $462,000 -13.6% Linda Vista 92111 17 $534,000 4.2% 9 $314,000 -18.1% 1 $296,000 n/a Logan Hts 92113 18 $368,500 -0.8% 1 $300,000 26.6% n/a n/a n/a Mira Mesa 92126 52 $520,000 4.0% 23 $400,000 12.7% 3 $359,500 1.3% Mission Bch, Pacific Bch 92109 13 $940,000 19.0% 25 $600,000 5.3% 10 $422,000 -22.6% Mission Valley 92108 n/a n/a n/a 25 $356,000 0.3% 1 $804,500 57.4% Morena 92110 8 $649,500 17.6% 12 $430,000 9.6% n/a n/a n/a North Park 92104 13 $575,000 13.1% 14 $318,000 1.9% 1 $360,000 n/a Ocean Beach 92107 10 $772,000 -8.0% 9 $410,000 -1.2% 4 $431,750 12.1% Paradise Hills 92139 18 $482,500 8.7% 8 $367,500 4.6% 7 $314,500 n/a Point Loma 92106 16 $870,000 15.2% 3 $605,000 24.7% n/a n/a n/a San Carlos 92119 15 $539,000 -2.0% 4 $317,000 0.3% 1 $1,350,000 n/a Scripps Rch 92131 21 $705,000 0.7% 20 $442,500 0.1% 18 $995,000 7.7% Serra Mesa 92123 15 $515,000 7.3% 12 $327,250 -27.7% 8 $517,250 2.1% Sorrento Val. 92121 4 $735,000 -7.3% 6 $422,250 -3.8% n/a n/a n/a Tierrasanta 92124 13 $675,000 -3.6% 15 $425,000 -0.6% n/a n/a n/a University Cty 92122 12 $720,000 6.4% 17 $465,000 -8.8% 50 $344,000 -28.0% East County 317 $490,000 6.5% 82 $325,000 1.7% 63 $446,000 -5.9% Alpine 91901 17 $679,000 8.6% 1 $245,000 -6.1% 5 $699,000 -17.5% Boulevard 91905 2 $353,750 114.4% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Campo 91906 4 $386,000 42.3% n/a n/a n/a 20 $395,500 n/a Descanso 91916 2 $442,500 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a El Cajon 92019 34 $545,500 4.4% 9 $356,000 1.7% 3 $275,000 -59.6% El Cajon 92020 30 $480,000 -4.0% 4 $280,000 -9.4% 2 $294,250 -25.5% El Cajon 92021 34 $466,000 -0.2% 15 $310,000 -4.6% 7 $955,500 106.1% Jacumba 91934 1 $92,000 -23.3% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Jamul 91935 10 $792,500 -2.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a La Mesa, Mt. Helix 91941 37 $524,000 17.2% 4 $321,500 7.3% 8 $873,000 -5.4% La Mesa, Grossmont 91942 8 $515,000 1.9% 5 $428,500 30.8% n/a n/a n/a Lakeside 92040 23 $540,000 11.8% 6 $301,000 36.8% n/a n/a n/a Lemon Grove 91945 17 $435,000 3.0% 1 $315,000 0.2% 3 $312,000 n/a Pine Valley 91962 3 $495,000 43.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Rancho San Diego 91978 4 $514,000 13.2% 1 $355,000 15.6% n/a n/a n/a Santee 92071 36 $470,000 8.5% 21 $350,000 11.5% 14 $474,500 1.7% Spring Valley 91977 55 $475,000 8.1% 15 $327,000 -7.2% 1 $660,000 19.3% North County Inland 547 $580,000 12.6% 134 $365,000 6.0% 218 $668,500 6.9% Bonsall 92003 6 $837,000 29.0% 3 $324,500 -20.9% n/a n/a n/a Borrego Spr. 92004 3 $125,000 -60.9% 1 $240,000 81.8% n/a n/a n/a Escondido S 92025 29 $490,000 4.8% 12 $317,500 0.8% 1 $575,000 -40.8% Escondido N 92026 41 $500,000 5.3% 6 $334,500 33.3% 12 $781,500 4.9% Escondido E 92027 46 $479,000 11.5% 2 $260,000 -3.3% 1 $948,500 50.6% Escondido W 92029 16 $664,500 6.3% n/a n/a n/a 1 $940,000 n/a Fallbrook 92028 48 $605,000 21.2% 2 $214,823 -40.3% 8 $797,250 26.6% Julian 92036 2 $271,000 48.5% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Palomar Mtn 92060 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Pauma Valley 92061 1 $220,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Penasquitos 92129 41 $686,000 5.9% 17 $340,000 -2.9% 13 $917,000 73.0% Poway 92064 42 $588,000 7.1% 5 $420,000 -0.9% 1 $255,000 -88.5% Ramona 92065 36 $575,000 17.1% 5 $302,500 -11.9% 1 $659,000 -9.4% Rancho Bernardo W 92127 20 $1,050,000 70.7% 13 $395,000 18.6% 69 $457,500 -17.9% Rancho Bernardo E 92128 41 $675,000 16.4% 28 $420,000 -2.3% 6 $322,500 11.2% Rancho Santa Fe 92067 4 $2,512,500 11.7% n/a n/a n/a 1 $1,320,500 109.6% Rancho Santa Fe post office 92091 2 $2,800,000 93.1% 1 $865,000 -3.4% n/a n/a n/a San Marcos N 92069 35 $526,000 5.2% 6 $385,000 20.9% 10 $363,500 -39.9% San Marcos S 92078 37 $650,000 13.5% 13 $378,500 -7.2% 73 $702,000 21.5% Santa Ysabel 92070 1 $206,500 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a Valley Center 92082 13 $660,000 -2.6% n/a n/a n/a 12 $840,500 5.6% Vista S 92081 20 $555,000 4.7% 5 $420,000 28.4% 1 $543,000 -41.4% Vista W 92083 25 $460,000 5.7% 9 $360,000 15.0% 5 $690,000 4.5% Vista E 92084 37 $580,000 19.6% 6 $367,000 11.4% 1 $889,000 175.2% Warner Spr 92086 1 $611,000 35.0% n/a n/a n/a 2 $53,750 n/a North County Coast 319 $645,000 9.5% 145 $455,000 5.1% 179 $807,000 19.6% Cardiff 92007 12 $677,500 -26.6% 4 $482,500 -10.6% 2 $1,232,000 n/a Carlsbad N 92008 12 $712,500 4.8% 6 $482,500 15.6% 2 $477,500 -48.9% Carlsbad S 92009 32 $770,000 10.0% 16 $447,000 6.4% 77 $890,000 -7.3% Carlsbad I 92010 11 $600,000 -8.3% 6 $410,000 -4.7% 4 $497,750 -29.4% Carlsbad II 92011 16 $865,000 10.9% 13 $645,000 -0.2% 3 $173,500 -77.4% Carmel Valley 92130 26 $970,250 7.4% 23 $645,000 20.6% 48 $791,500 -7.3% Del Mar 92014 13 $2,000,000 40.8% 4 $578,500 -20.8% 1 $2,400,000 108.7% Encinitas 92024 37 $815,000 7.2% 19 $512,500 -5.5% n/a n/a n/a Oceanside S 92054 41 $527,000 16.7% 19 $367,000 0.5% 7 $577,500 7.8% Oceanside E 92056 59 $506,000 6.8% 11 $349,000 -1.7% 11 $278,500 -55.0% Oceanside N 92057 52 $535,500 9.8% 18 $317,500 0.0% 23 $739,000 37.4% Solana Beach 92075 8 $1,047,500 -25.2% 6 $817,500 10.4% 1 $1,200,000 n/a South County 245 $602,500 13.7% 95 $385,000 6.6% 184 $506,500 -12.8% Bonita 91902 16 $703,000 0.4% 2 $385,750 -7.8% n/a n/a n/a Chula Vista N 91910 44 $611,000 15.6% 17 $385,000 2.7% 2 $737,500 n/a Chula Vista S 91911 34 $530,000 12.8% 25 $360,000 3.4% n/a n/a n/a Chula Vista - E. Lake - Otay Ran ch 91913 46 $677,500 15.4% 16 $414,000 -4.2% 21 $408,500 -37.3% Chula Vista NE 91914 14 $713,250 8.1% 5 $440,000 8.1% 37 $478,000 -45.4% Chula Vista SE 91915 23 $612,000 0.3% 8 $483,500 9.9% 87 $582,000 24.4% Imperial Beach 91932 7 $530,000 9.5% 3 $505,000 -3.8% n/a n/a n/a National City 91950 13 $444,000 9.6% 4 $312,500 0.2% 20 $495,750 n/a Nestor 92154 39 $585,000 23.2% 8 $367,500 5.8% 17 $662,000 26.5% San Ysidro 92173 9 $507,000 11.1% 7 $295,000 0.9% n/a n/a n/a ©DataQuick Information Systems This information may not be republished in any form. -- View the DQNews News editorial policy. -- Contact us at info@DQNews.com | DQNews Home | DataQuick Homepage

Real Estate Agent

Scottsdale Real Estate, Arizona Golf Properties, Phoenix and Carefree Real Estate Listings Arizona Real Estate by Judy Brickman With 18 years of experience in real estate, Judy Brickman specializes in golf course properties , Arizona luxury homes , vacation home rental and sale, second homes and residential lots in northeast Scottsdale and Carefree. With her expertise in real estate in Scottsdale, Arizona and the surrounding area, she is an excellent resource when buying or selling your home! With special emphasis on such areas as The Boulders , Desert Mountain, Estancia, Mirabel, Desert Highlands, Whisper Rock, Troon, DC Ranch, Terravita, Grayhawk and Legend Trail, Carefree and Pinnacle Peak you will be able to view the broad spectrum of real estate available ranging from luxury Arizona golf properties to regular Phoenix, Carefree, and Scottsdale real estate. Combining extensive knowledge of the Arizona real estate marketplace with a dedicated commitment to service, Judy Brickman welcomes the opportunity to work with you in locating your dream home or lot, or in marketing your property. When searching for Real Estate in Scottsdale, Arizona , Phoenix homes for sale, or other Arizona real estate - Judy Brickman is truly your number one option! Welcome to Arizona Real Estate | About Judy Brickman | Contact Judy Arizona Real Estate Listings | Golf Properties | The Boulders Resort | Arizona State Information Buyers Questionnaire | Sellers Questionnaire | Real Estate Links | Site Map Internet Marketing by VKI Studios