Property Listing
Post a Commercial Real Estate Listing Commercial Real Estate Listings & News Home Search Advertise News Customer Service CityfeetSpaces Thursday, December 29, 2005 Post an Online Commercial Real Estate Listing "We have been impressed with the amount of hard work and dedication Cityfeet.com has put into creating maximum coverage for their clients." Stasi Martin Lofts Unlimited San Francisco, CA More reasons to use Cityfeet Testimonials FAQs More Questions? Call us at 1-866-527-0540 or Email Us DID YOU KNOW... Since 1999, over 10,000 companies have marketed their properties on Cityfeet. View testimonials See our detailed demo to learn more. -- DID YOU KNOW... Cityfeet is not a broker and doesn’t charge a commission. You simply pay a modest advertising fee, starting as low as $99/mo. Reach thousands of tenants, buyers and brokers. -- Appear on over 50 partner websites . Outstanding value, takes only minutes to post. PROPERTY FOR LEASE (please select a property type below) only $99/mo. Office Retail Industrial Medical Office Flex/R&D Lofts/Showrooms Other PROPERTY FOR SALE (please select a property type below) only $99/mo. Office Retail Industrial Multi-Family Vacant Land Hospitality Mixed Use Medical Office Flex/R&D Live/Work Lofts Income/Investment EXECUTIVE SUITE LISTING -- BUSINESS FOR SALE (e.g. franchises, restaurants for sale, etc.) prices vary BROKER PROFILE prices vary 2005 Cityfeet.com - All Rights Reserved Home | Search | Advertise | Customer Service | About Us | Privacy Statement
Land For Sale
Cottage LINK Land Lots and Acreages for Sale -- -- -- Land/Lots for Sale Click on the Cottage of your choice for more details and photos! Jump to... Prince Edward Island Nova Scotia Quebec British Columbia Ontario - Northwest Ontario - Near North Ontario - Parry Sound/Muskoka/Haliburton Ontario - East/Rideau/Lake Ontario Ontario - Lake Huron and Bruce Peninsula Ontario - Central/Lake Simcoe/South Georgian Bay Newfoundland New Brunswick Alberta USA - Florida Ontario - Kawarthas Ontario - Lake Erie and Niagara -- -- Newfoundland and Labrador Property/Location Price Sheffield Lake $56,900 -- Prince Edward Island Property/Location Price Darnley Shore Estates Various 1-acre lots near Grand Tracadie $10,500 Bothwell overlooking Northumberland Strait $16,500 Wild Duck Cove and Garden Shore Road Cottage Lots From $17,900 -- Panmure Island Lots from $25,000 Northumberland Strait/Chelton Beach $30,000 Colville Bay near Souris $55,000 French Village near Savage Harbour $65,000 North Lake (Gulf of St. Lawrence) $79,000 Charlottetown Area Waterfront $250,000 -- Nova Scotia Property/Location Price Minas Basin (Bay of Fundy) $25,000 8-Acre Building Lot $55,000 Lac Pic - 24 Acres, 590' Waterfront $79,000 55 Acres on Ricker Lake $129,000 New Brunswick Property/Location Price -- Quebec Property/Location Price Gatineau Hills Nature Park From $15,000 Lac Williams Lots from $22,000 Alberta Property/Location Price Crowsnest River near Blairemore $89,500 -- British Columbia Property/Location Price Barkley Sound Oceanfront - Island Property $125,100 Barkley Sound Oceanfront - Island Property $130,000 Barkley Sound Oceanfront - Island Property $134,100 Barkley Sound Oceanfront - Island Property $136,800 Ontario - Northwest Property/Location Price Dog Lake-Missanabie US $40,000 Ontario - Near North Property/Location Price Lake Robillard $35,000 21.7 Acres on House Lake near Kirkland Lake $39,900 41 Acres on House Lake near Kirkland Lake $39,900 75 Acres on Private Yarrow Lake $59,900 Quirke Lake near Elliot Lake $42,500 West Bay on Lake Nipissing $1,250,000 Ontario - Parry Sound/Muskokas/Haliburton Property/Location Price Muskoka River $59,000 Snake Lake near Parry Sound $129,000 Gooderham Lake near Haliburton $179,000 Horseshoe Lake, Parry Sound $230,000 Georgian Bay near Pointe au Baril $259,000 Perry Lake near Huntsville $309,000 Georgian Bay Island, Pointe Au Baril $650,000 Lake Muskoka, 300 Feet of Lake Frontage $1,850,000 200 Acres Near Hunstville $1,875,000 -- Ontario - Kawarthas Property/Location Price Stoney Lake $275,000 -- Ontario - East/Rideau/Lake Ontario Property/Location Price Big Clear Lake near Arden $45,000 Petawawa River, Ottawa Valley From $59,000 Tay River near Perth $59,000 Wood's Lake near Plevna $550,000 Ontario - Lake Huron and Bruce Peninsula Property/Location Price Miller Lake Area Building Lot $39,000 Lake Manitou, Manitoulin Island $86,900 Lake Huron Water View $150,000 Shouldice Lake near Tobermory $279,000 Ontario - Central/Lake Simcoe/South Georgian Bay Property/Location Price Talbot River Waterfront $85,000 The Rapids at Marchmont Near Orillia From $199,000 Ontario - Lake Erie and Niagara Property/Location Price -- USA - Florida Property/Location Price -- Return to the CottageLINK Home Page.
Real Estate Investment
Russ Whitney, Building Wealth, Real Estate Investment Training Free Millionaire Mentor Ezine Subscription Learn More About The Free Training · Hotel Information · FAQ REGISTER FOR FREE REAL ESTATE TRAINING BY CLICKING A DATE BELOW Jan 4-Jan 7 Houston, Houston, Sugar Land, Houston Jan 4-Jan 6 South Bend, Indianapolis, Indianapolis Jan 4-Jan 6 Boca Raton, Delray Beach, West Palm Beach Jan 4-Jan 6 Sparks, Carson City , Reno Jan 9-Jan 12 King of Prussia, Cherry Hill, Philadelphia, Wilmington Jan 9-Jan 13 Fort Collins, Westminster, Aurora, Colorado Springs, Colorado Springs Jan 10-Jan 12 Santa Fe , Albuquerque, El Paso Jan 10-Jan 12 Allentown, Reading, Langhorne Jan 16-Jan 19 Concord , Berkeley , San Jose, Union City Jan 16-Jan 18 Altamonte Springs, Kissimmee, Orlando Jan 17-Jan 19 Scranton, Lancaster, Harrisburg Jan 17-Jan 19 Burlingame, Santa Rosa, San Francisco No Cost · No Obligation · Seating Is Limited! Ask Questions - Get Answers Online Discussion Board saad7861 asks: How do I create a buyer and seller database, if I am just starting out and don't have contacts or experience? ? Join this discussion... View other discussions Register and start your own Special Offer Success Story Arlene McCormack : I just wanted to show you the check we received after our first fix and flip in March. Colm and I were so excited to see our names on the check...for [$41,045.93]. Let me tell you that it felt really good to bring this to the bank.. Read More Investor Relations | Contact Us | Careers | Sitemap | Privacy Statement © 2000-2005 Whitney Education Group, Inc. All rights reserved. -- --
Buy House
Amazon.com: House of Games: DVD Your Store DVD See All 32 Product Categories Your Account | Cart | Wish List | Help | Advanced Search | Browse Genres | Top Sellers | New & Future Releases | Television Central | Life & Learning | DVD Essentials | Blowout DVDs | Movie Showtimes | Used DVDs Search Amazon.com DVD Web Search Join Amazon Prime and ship Two-Day for free and Overnight for $3.99. Already a member? Sign in . DVD Information Explore this item buying info editorial reviews customer reviews cast and crew fun facts Listmania! 10 top-shelf thrillers, after ... : A list by A. C. Walter "awalter" Add your List Ready to buy? Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering. A9.com users save 1.57% on Amazon. Learn how . MORE BUYING CHOICES 57 used & new from $6.99 Have one to sell? House of Games (1987) Starring: Lindsay Crouse , Joe Mantegna Director: David Mamet Rating: See larger image Share your own customer images List Price: $14.95 Price: $12.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details You Save: $1.96 (13%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Only 4 left in stock--order soon (more on the way). Want it delivered Friday, December 30? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details 57 used & new available from $6.99 Edition: Other Versions and Languages Other Versions (VHS Tape) List Price Price Other Offers: VHS Tape House of Games $7.95 18 used & new from $1.63 VHS Tape House of Games 2 used & new from $7.77 Better Together Buy this DVD with Oleanna DVD ~ William H. Macy today! Total List Price: $34.93 Buy Together Today: $30.98 Customers who bought this DVD also bought The Spanish Prisoner DVD ~ Campbell Scott Oleanna DVD ~ William H. Macy Things Change DVD ~ Don Ameche Heist DVD ~ Gene Hackman Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Video , and in Books Storyline Genres: Crime , Mystery , Thriller Tagline: Where the game is never over. Plot Outline: A psychiatrist's patient is in desperate need of money, so she agrees to help him. But... Plot Synopsis: A famous psychologist, Margaret Ford, decides to try to help one of her patients get out of a gambling debt. She visits the bar where Mike, to whom the debt is owed, runs poker games. He convinces her to help him in a game: her assignment is to look for "tells", or give-away body language. What seems easy to her becomes much more complex. Plot Keywords: Independent Film | Con Artist | Con Trick | Twist In The End | Neo Noir | Sting Operation | Psychiatrist | Seattle Washington | (Show all plot keywords recommended by customers) Product Details Actors: Lindsay Crouse , Joe Mantegna , Mike Nussbaum , Lilia Skala , J.T. Walsh , See more Directors: David Mamet Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Widescreen, Ntsc, Full Screen, Widescreen Letterbox Region: Region 1 ( U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats. ) Number of discs: 1 Rated: (Not for sale to persons under age 18.) Studio: MGM (Video & DVD) DVD Release Date: December 19, 2000 Run Time: 101 minutes Average Customer Review: Based on 54 Reviews DVD Features: Available Subtitles: Spanish, French Available Audio Tracks: English (Unknown Format), French (Unknown Format), Spanish (Unknown Format) From IMDb: Quotes & Trivia ASIN: B00004ZBVL Amazon.com Sales Rank: #7,515 in DVD Theatrical Release Information US Theatrical Release Date: October 11, 1987 MPAA: Production Company: Filmhaus USA Box Office: $3 Million Filming Locations: Seattle, Washington, USA Editorial Reviews Amazon.com David Mamet's 1987 directorial debut was this mesmerizing study of control and seduction between two kinds of detached observers: a gambler who is also a con artist, and a psychotherapist who is also an emerging pop-psych guru in the book market. The latter (played by Lindsay Crouse) meets the former (Joe Mantegna) when one of her clients is driven to despair from his debts to the card shark. Mantegna's character agrees to drop the IOUs in exchange for Crouse's attention at the seedy House of Games in Seattle, a mecca for con men to talk shop and hustle unsuspecting customers. The shrink gets so caught up in the arcane rules and world view of her guide over subsequent days that she observes--with no false rapture--various stings in progress inside and outside the club. Mamet's story finally becomes a fascinating study of two people protecting and extending their respective cosmologies the way rival predators fight for the same piece of turf. The psychological challenge is compelling; so is the stylized dialogue, with its pattern of pauses and hiccups and humming meter. Mostly shooting at night, Mamet also gave Seattle a different look from previous filmmakers, turning its familiar puddles into concentrations of liquid neon and poisonous noir. --Tom Keogh Customers who viewed this DVD also viewed Spartan DVD ~ Tia Texada Glengarry Glen Ross (Special Edition) DVD ~ Jack Lemmon State and Main DVD ~ Michael Higgins The Grifters (Miramax Collector's Series) DVD ~ Anjelica Huston Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Books Spotlight Reviews Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. 17 of 18 people found the following review helpful: A STUNNING PSYCHOLOGIAL THRILLER... , August 25, 2001 Reviewer: Lawyeraau (Balmoral Castle) - See all my reviews This is an absolutely mesmerizing film. A wonderful addition to that genre known as "film noir", the movie is superlative in every way. In his directorial debut, David Mamet shows a keen understanding of the concept "less is more". The two main characters in the film are a well known psychiatrist with a best selling book, Dr. Margaret Ford, played with chilly determinism by Lindsay Crouse, and a slick con man, known only as Mike, brilliantly played by Joe Mantegna with a sinister, charismatic charm. She is stiff and formal. He is casual and seemingly easygoing. Each is involved in a field of endeavor that requires a keen understanding of human nature. They meet by virtue of what each of them does for a living. Dr. Ford is treating a young patient, who claims to be despondent over getting in over his head financially, while gambling at a disreputable and seedy locale known as the House of Games. She is worried about her patient's potential for suicide, so she decides to go to the House of Games to see if she can straighten out the whole mess. There, she meets Mike, the person to whom the debt is owed. From the moment they meet, there is a latent, sexual tension between them and an aura of danger and seduction that permeates the air. Intrigued by him, she is drawn into his world, where things are not always what they seem. There are many twists and turns in this most unusual film, which deftly manipulates the viewer. The film is tautly crafted, and the dialogue itself is highly stylized with its own peculiar cadence. This serves to add to the air of mystery and suspense which infuses this film. There is an excellent supporting cast whose strong performances contribute to the overall quality of this multi-layered film. There is even a small cameo by William H. Macy. It is with good reason that this film was touted by critics as one of the best films for 1987. It meets the high standards set for this genre of film by the late, great director, Alfred Hitchcock. It is simply a stunning tour de force. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 5 of 7 people found the following review helpful: 4 Stars for the FILM, 1 Star for the DVD , September 2, 2005 Reviewer: Ziad R. Hakim (Beirut Lebanon) - See all my reviews Of course the movie deserves 4 stars, however I wish I could say the same for the DVD. What does it take for DVD company to release each DVD enhanced for 16x9 TVs? Nothing! Recently I bought a laptop with widescreen display and I have a collection of over 600 Dvds. I learned now about "Enhanced for 16x9 TVs" and how important it is, I did not care about it or even know about it since I own a standard TV, however all my Dvds are Region 1 and in widescreen, I never buy fullscreen Dvds. So I did an inventory on my collection and realized the following: Out of 600+ Dvds, 42 are NOT enhanced for 16x9 TVs and they really look horrible when I played them on my PC. Anyway, according to my inventory, MGM and Touchstone are the worst! Universal, Columbia, Twentieth Century Fox and Warner are the best and Paramount ranks in between. Here is some details: - 3 of the 42 are Universal (Please note that many of my Dvds are Universal so 3 of them, included Tremors, is not a big deal) - 12 of them are from Touchstone (such as Ransom, The Rock, What about Bob, Good morning Vietnam etc) Which is a high number compared to my small Touchstone collection. - 2 out of 42 from Warner Home Video. Note that I have around 100 Warner Dvds. The only negative thing about Warner is most of the DVDs come in digipak. However, the latest "2-Disc Special Edition" rate among the best in terms of quality and extras. - 14 of them are from MGM. Sadly, some of my favorite MGM movies are among them such as "A fish called Wanda", "Misery", "Graduate", "Prizzi's Honor", "No way out" etc. MGM Europe has released all those DVDs (Region 2) 2-Disc in special edition including 5.1 surround, widscreen enhanced 16x9. I hope one day soon MGM USA releases them in Special edition like they did with "Fargo", "Rain Man" and "Usual suspects". - 6 out of the 42 are from Paramount including good movies such as "Breakdown", "Ghost and the darkness", "Primal fear", "Private parts", "Coming to America" and "48 Hrs". The reason why they don't release every DVD in widescreen enhanced for 16x9 is beyond me since soon Widescreen Tvs will replace standard ones. Amazon should add in the description if the DVD is enhanced from 16x9 Tvs. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) Customer Reviews Average Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. 1 of 1 people found the following review helpful: You can't bluff someone who's not paying attention. , November 27, 2005 Reviewer: A. Gyurisin "good friend, damn fool" (The Flatlands of Illinois) - See all my reviews When I first began House of Games, I hated it. I hated the language, I hated the characters, I hated the tone, but then something changed. Mamet finally took control of this film and pulled the audience in by tricking all of us into thinking this was a film about a young love and the darkness of the world, when instead it was all about something deeper. If you go into this film expecting the classic 1980s clich of woman meets man, man is a criminal, woman changes man thus leading to a sloppy wet ending, you will be utterly disappointed. This structure is initially how I envisioned this film, and with the first half an hour filmed the way it was, there was no doubt in my mind that I had been suckered into just another average crime film. Then, midway through the picture, the tones and themes dramatically change. I didn't even see it coming, but when you least expect it, like the "con" performed in this film, it will blindside you quicker than a deer on the highway. House of Games leaves you with this perfect example of just how dark David Mamet is. This is a film that most will either hate or love. The reason that I say this is because the language of the film is extremely "stagey". Before this film, David Mamet had found his success with his plays. The power of his characters, the unjustness of his plots, and the vile of his villains were key elements to packing his plays full of patrons. In House of Games he attempts to bring the stage to the screen without any changes. You can literally hear the beats between the characters when they are talking. The language that they use feel and sound as if they are acting in front of a live audience, not just for the camera. This makes the words a bit stale at times. You can visually see this film as a play because of the language that is used. Again, some will hate this about the film, while others will see it as nothing short of classic Mamet. For me, I hated it at first, but as the film developed, I began to see the logic behind it. The quickness of the conversations between the characters gave more definition to the "con" that they were trying to perform. I always felt as if they were quickly getting something by me. About the middle of the film, I began listening to every word said afraid that I would miss a key element that would unravel this tight plot. I began waiting for scenes where Margaret (Crouse) would stumble on her words, change the meaning, thus allowing us to develop the evil that was within her. Slowly and steadily this "stagey" language worked for me, and it gave just a small addition to the characters. For anyone that has ever seen most of Mamet's film versions (and some of his stage performances) you will notice that he is notorious for using the same characters throughout. I like this quite a bit. Christopher Guest uses the same technique. While I have talked to some that think that it only shows the repetition of his originality, I think that it gives Mamet definition and substance. I loved watching this early film of Mamet's and see a young William H. Macy in a scene and his use of my favorite J.T. Walsh. It is fun to watch these actors grow in Mamet's films. Many of them you can see in State & Main and Heist. Does that mean that they are necessarily good actors then? I don't think so. While I liked the continual use of the same characters, some (more than others), have trouble with the characters. For example, in House of Games, it was obvious that Lindsay Crouse did not have control over her character. She seemed fake in her scenes, and did not counter will with Mantegna (who gave a great performance). She seemed on a different beat compared to the others in this film, and I think it hurt House of Games somewhat. She wasn't the strongest actress that Mamet could have chosen. While I loved the "con" throughout the film, I did feel as if the ending was a bit on the weak side. Without giving it away, it started to feel used before it was over. I knew deep within me where it was going, but I kept waiting for the big "hurrah", but alas, there wasn't any. That is where Mamet missed his mark. The ending needed to be stronger. I loved watching this simple woman transform into evil and the entire themes that went along with that, but I needed more. I loved the anti-romantic notion of this film, but I needed more. I loved the character interactions in this film, but I needed more. That was exactly how I felt about this film. I loved House of Games, but I needed more. Mamet ended the film without giving us closure, and while the rest of the film was exciting to watch, this ending just left me soured. Overall, I loved it, but I don't think that I could watch it again. Mamet is one of the greatest writers of our generation providing us with some very "cult" anti-Hollywood cinema, but this first film was a rough-cut. It was smart, intelligent, and overall a stage version of his play onto film. A stronger transition was needed from stage to screen. The characters were somewhat developed and the plot was sensational. The darkness by the end of the film caught me unprepared. I liked this film, but a second viewing is not in my future. I love David Mamet's work and cannot wait to submerge myself into more of his films later. Grade: *** out of ***** Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 1 of 6 people found the following review helpful: One Psychiatrist In Need Of Heavy Duty Medication And Therapy!!! , September 24, 2005 Reviewer: John Baranyai "Book Nerd And Ex High School Geek Member Of The Chess Club" - See all my reviews This is a sorry excuse for a movie which stars Lindsay Crouse in a very wooden performance playing a psychiatrist who gets involved with a con man played by Joe Mantegna.These two argue about wether they had Consentual Sex or Rape because Joe took Margaret under false pretences which is a pretty dispicable thing to do to a woman. I personally consider it to be a very cowardly rape .This should give you some idea of Mantegna's character in this movie.There are then a lot of twists and turns until Ms. Crouse becomes a Compulsive Kleptomaniac which just goes to prove my Theory that most psychiatrists are more "messed up" (that's the polite word) than their patients. I give this movie 5 stars because I have always liked Joe Mantegna even though he plays a very unlikeable character in this movie. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) Con Games Within Con Games, And Nicely Done , September 10, 2005 Reviewer: C. O. DeRiemer (San Antonio, TX USA) - See all my reviews On one level, House of Games is a fascinating con game, complex and convoluted. On another level, it's a little cold-blooded. Whether you like it or not may depend on your tolerance for having the wool pulled over your eyes and your willingness to get involved with people you probably won't care for. Margaret Ford (Lindsay Crouse) is a psychiatrist who decides to provide some direct assistance to a patient who has a big gambling debt. Late one night she goes to the House of Games, meets Mike (Joe Mantegna), who holds the markers and tries to talk him into doing the right thing. He eventually agrees, but only if she'll help him in a high stakes poker game. He wants her to keep an eye on a particular player's "tells," the give-away body language that will help Mike take the guy to the cleaners. She does...and finds herself in the world of cons within cons. We find ourselves in the same place. "The basic idea is this," Mike tells her later. "It's called a confidence game. Why...because you give me your confidence? No. Because I give you mine." She's fascinated and decides to write a book about how conning people works...the psychology of it. "Everybody gets something out of the transaction," Mike says one evening when he has demonstrated how to get a mark to give him money. "I gave that guy my confidence. I asked him for help. And what he gets...he feels that he's a good man." She's hooked despite herself, and soon finds herself drawn not only to Mike but to working with him to con a big take. But is Mike conning her? She wrote a best selling book, she's got money, and she obviously is drawn to the excitement and challenge. "I gave you my trust," Margaret says at one point. "Of course you gave me your trust," Mike replies. "That's what I do." There'll be no spoilers here. The cleverness and the fun of the movie, and the surprise of the violence, depend on the cleverness and surprise of the plot twists. Let's just say that, as Mike puts it, "you shouldn't trust nobody." This was the first movie David Mamet directed, and he did a fine job. While Lindsay Crouse may not be the most versatile of actresses, Joe Mantegna more than makes up for it with a performance that is tough, interesting and full of indirection. In small parts are a young William H. Macy and J. T. Walsh. Mike Nussbaum as Joey, an associate of Mike's in the con racket, and Ricky Jay as another, are both first-rate. This is a movie that you have to stay with for awhile before it kicks in. The last 40 minutes, however, pack a punch. The DVD picture looks fine. There are no extras. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 1 of 1 people found the following review helpful: House of Games: another and evil purpose , April 6, 2005 Reviewer: John Galvin (Cincinnati,OH) - See all my reviews Margaret Ford is cool, detached, removed-an observer-traits that are the basis for her success as a psychologist and writer of well-paying pop-psychology. One of her patients, a gambler, is in debt to a fellow gambler and hustler named Mike. Confident in her powers to persuade others to act contrary to their immediate best interests, Margaret offers to talk to Mike. It is, of course, an act of hubris, an act of self-appraisal wanting correction--an act of pride inviting a fall. So that night, she makes her way to the House of Games, a seedy little bar in a dark, desolate corner of Seattle where Mike and his crew gather to play cards in a dark still--in an atmosphere resembling her own office. Mike is cool, detached, removed--an observer--traits that are the basis for his success as a gambler and con man. He makes a rather extraordinary offer: he will tear up the IOU's if Margaret will help him in the execution of his present hustle. Mike talks close, talks in a low knowing whisper. She's either in or she isn't. Then he gives her a glimpse of his method--he shows her how he watches for "tells"--little tics, twitches and hiccups, as it were, in the body language of his victim-unconscious signaling of what someone is thinking, what someone knows, what some had meant to hide from others. It must seem frighteningly familiar to a psychologist--but so very intriguing when applied to another and evil purpose. She accepts; and so begins a series of twists and turns that oblige you to wonder, till the very end, at which point the con actually began. The language of this film is characteristic of Mamet at his best. It is highly stylized, an endless succession of ellipses, faints, and echos. Every statement seems suspect, delivered in heavy quotes. There may only be a single additional second between sentences, but it seems so long, so otherworldly. Outwardly ordinary-looking statements seem busy with other meaning, with mystery and possible misdirection. It is a language befitting both psychologist and con man--observers who ultimately seek control over others, though admittedly for very different ends. But as the film gradually unfolds, you may find yourself laboring to discriminate between a con man who manipulates and controls and a psychologist who steers and directs. In the end, they only succeed in conning themselves, having forgotten that they are dealing with human beings who, possessed with powers of reason tempered and bent by emotions, often skid, slip and spin down unexpected, unintended and sometimes unlovely cul-de sacs. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) See all 54 customer reviews... Listmania! Great Movies with a great endi... : by "willrocks" 10 top-shelf thrillers, after ... : by A. C. Walter "awalter" Women Who Kill : by "reelgood" So You'd Like to... get to know the best 'conspiracy theory' movies : by Grouchy Smurf , Couch Potato Surrender to the BIZARRE!!! : by Zoogz Rift , Groovy dadaist and legendary underground rock rec... Watch Hidden Movie Gems : by jlstu9 , Movie Watcher Fun Facts from IMDb.com: Awards Click here to see more Awards London Critics Circle Film Awards: ALFS Award for Film of the Year, Screenwriter of the Year Venice Film Festival: Golden Osella for Best Original Screenplay, Best Film Nominations Click here to see more Nominations Golden Globes, USA: Golden Globe for Best Screenplay - Motion Picture Trivia Click here to see more Trivia The numeral 187 appears in the film in different instances. A license plate reads "HSX 187". Also it is the number of the airport locker used at the end. 187 is the police code for murder. The hotel room that Mike takes Margeret to is room #1138 which is yet another reference to George Lucas's THX 1138. Goofs Click here to see more Goofs Towards the end of the film, Margaret Ford returns to her private office and cuts herself. Several drops of blood fall on the cover label of a dossier lying on the desk. In subsequent shots, the blood stain jumps down the label and finally ends up on the back cover, leaving the label clean. Movie Connections Click here to see more Movie Connections Remade as: Qian wang qing ren Quotes Click here to see more Quotes Mike : I'm from the United States of kiss-my-***. Mike : Oh, you're a bad pony. And I'm not gonna bet on you. For more information about "House of Games" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) Look for similar items by category Browse similar items in: DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( C ) > Crouse, Lindsay DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( J ) > Jay, Ricky DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( M ) > Macy, William H DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( M ) > Mantegna, Joe DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( N ) > Nussbaum, Mike DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( S ) > Skala, Lilia DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( T ) > Taylor, Meshach DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( W ) > Wallace, Jack DVD > Directors > ( M ) > Mamet, David DVD > Genres > Mystery & Suspense > By Theme > Cons & Scams DVD > Genres > Mystery & Suspense > By Theme > Mind Games DVD > Genres > Mystery & Suspense > Crime > Con Artists DVD > Genres > Mystery & Suspense > General DVD > Genres > Mystery & Suspense > Mystery DVD > Genres > Mystery & Suspense > Neo-Noir DVD > Genres > Mystery & Suspense > Suspense DVD > Genres > Mystery & Suspense > Thrillers Suggestion Box Your comments can help make our site better for everyone. If you've found something incorrect, broken, or frustrating on this page, let us know so that we can improve it. Please note that we are unable to respond directly to suggestions made via this form. If you need help with an order, please contact Customer Service . Please mark as many of the following boxes that apply: Product information is missing important details. Product information is incorrect. Propose corrections using our Online Catalog Update Form . The page contains typographical errors. The page takes too long to load. The page has a software bug in it. Content violates Amazon.com's policy on offensive language . Product offered violates Amazon.com's policy on items that can be listed for sale. Comments or Examples: Examples: Missing information such as dimensions and model number, typos, inaccuracies, etc. Where's My Stuff? • Track your recent orders . • View or change your orders in Your Account . Shipping & Returns • See our shipping rates & policies . • Return an item (here's our Returns Policy ). Need Help? • Forgot your password? Click here . • Redeem or buy a gift certificate. • Visit our Help department . Search Amazon.com Books Popular Music Music Downloads Classical Music DVD VHS Apparel Yellow Pages Movie Showtimes Toys Baby Computers Video Games Electronics Camera & Photo Software Tools & Hardware Office Products Magazines Sports & Outdoors Outdoor Living Kitchen Jewelry & Watches Beauty Gourmet Food Musical Instruments Health/Personal Care Pet Supplies Travel Cell Phones & Service Outlet Auctions zShops Everything Else Automotive for Amazon.com Home | Directory of All Stores Our International Sites: Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | Japan | France | China Help | Shopping Cart | Your Account | Sell Items | 1-Click Settings Investor Relations | Press Room | Careers Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice © 1996-2005, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates
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