real estate listings! You

Colorado HomeFinder | Denver Real Estate, Search Denver Homes for Sale in the MLS Call 800.231.9153 | Contact Us If you already have an account, sign in here Denver Colorado Real Estate - find out first about the newest Denver real estate listings! You learn about Denver homes for sale the day they hit the market - before other buyers. Automated HomeAlert emails you new listings that fit your personal home search criteria and gives you access to all the Denver Colorado real estate listings. It's easy - Just submit your email address and home search criteria. Your email is not shared or sold to anyone. You incur no obligation or cost for this free Denver real estate service. Our Privacy Policy: We respect your privacy. All information provided is strictly confidential and you can unsubscribe at any time. Colorado HomeFinder will never sell or share your information with any outside parties. Click here to review our Privacy Policy . Your Automated HomeAlert Search Criteria * Required information Property Type: * Please select... Single Family Condominium or Townhome Any Property Price Range: * From Price.. 75,000 100,000 125,000 150,000 160,000 170,000 180,000 190,000 200,000 210,000 220,000 230,000 240,000 250,000 275,000 300,000 325,000 350,000 375,000 400,000 425,000 450,000 475,000 500,000 525,000 550,000 575,000 600,000 625,000 650,000 675,000 700,000 750,000 800,000 850,000 900,000 950,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 - To Price.. 100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 250,000 260,000 270,000 280,000 290,000 300,000 310,000 320,000 330,000 340,000 350,000 375,000 400,000 425,000 450,000 475,000 500,000 525,000 550,000 575,000 600,000 625,000 650,000 675,000 700,000 750,000 800,000 850,000 900,000 950,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 5,000,000 10,000,000 Min Bedrooms: 1 2 3 4 5 Min Bathrooms: 1 2 3 4 Min Square Feet: No Preference 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700 1,800 1,900 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400 2,500 2,600 2,700 2,800 2,900 3,000 3,250 3,500 3,750 4,000 4,500 5,000 6,000 Age of Home: No Age Preference New Construction Only 5 years or less 10 years or less 20 years or less Older than 50 years City Preferences: * Denver Select at least one city... Arvada Aurora Berthoud Boulder Broomfield Castle Rock Denver Englewood Erie Estes Park Evans Evergreen Firestone Fort Collins Fort Lupton Fort Morgan Frederick Golden Highlands Ranch Johnstown Lakewood Lafayette Littleton Longmont Louisville Loveland Lyons Nederland Niwot Parker Severance Superior Thornton Wellington Westminster Windsor Please select if necessary Arvada Aurora Berthoud Boulder Broomfield Castle Rock Denver Englewood Erie Estes Park Evans Evergreen Firestone Fort Collins Fort Lupton Fort Morgan Frederick Golden Highlands Ranch Johnstown Lakewood Lafayette Littleton Longmont Louisville Loveland Lyons Nederland Niwot Parker Severance Superior Thornton Wellington Westminster Windsor Please select if necessary Arvada Aurora Berthoud Boulder Broomfield Castle Rock Denver Englewood Erie Estes Park Evans Evergreen Firestone Fort Collins Fort Lupton Fort Morgan Frederick Golden Highlands Ranch Johnstown Lakewood Lafayette Littleton Longmont Louisville Loveland Lyons Nederland Niwot Parker Severance Superior Thornton Wellington Westminster Windsor Contact Information Name: * First Name: Last Name: E-mail: * (Valid email address is required to receive listings) Re-enter E-mail: * Phone Contact: * Home Phone: Work Phone: Information that will help us serve you better Your level of Interest: * I have a HIGH interest in buying a home and am ready to start visiting homes now. (Please provide your phone number) I have a MEDIUM interest in buying a home, but I just started my search and need to become more familiar with the market. I do not have any definite plans to move at this time. I am just curious about the listings that are currently on the market. I currently: * live in Colorado plan to move to Colorado Your Comments Any additional information that will help us better understand your needs I agree with Colorado HomeFinder Terms & Conditions Just getting familiar with Denver Colorado real estate? Or, do you know the exact street where you want to live? No matter what stage you are in your Denver home search, Automated HomeAlert is for you! The latest technology makes finding Denver homes for sale easier than ever ! Automatic email notification of new listings and access to all the Denver real estate listings from all the brokerages saves you time - and makes searching for homes fun. You are in control! Colorado HomeFinder lets you search for Denver real estate at your own pace. If you are just thinking about a buying a home, no problem...the Automated HomeAlert System is a great way to get familiar with the Denver Colorado real estate market. If you are ready to start seeing Denver homes in person, just let us know. Our local, licensed Denver REALTORs can show you any property on the market. Get matched with a great Denver REALTOR When you're ready for the assistance of a Denver REALTOR, we will match you with the Colorado HomeFinder REALTOR that knows your target market best. Colorado HomeFinder agents are hand-picked REMAX professionals that average over 15 years of experience. We're a Colorado company, not a national referral service with a "list of agents." Our REALTORs are some of the best in the business and are true Denver Colorado real estate market experts! Colorado HomeFinder, RE/MAX Alliance 4770 Baseline Road, Suite 200 Boulder, CO 80303 Denver HomeFinder | Buy a Denver Home | Sell a Denver Home | Denver Homes for Sale | Browse Denver Listings | Denver Realtors | Denver Mortgage | Denver Relocation Call toll free (800) 231-9153 or local (303) 543-3083 to be connected with a local expert Denver RE/MAX REALTOR. New listing emails: Denver Colorado Real Estate Denver Real Estate | Boulder Real Estate | Fort Collins Real Estate | Colorado Real Estate Broomfield Real Estate | Castle Rock Real Estate | Evergreen Real Estate | Highlands Ranch Real Estate | Littleton Real Estate We're a Colorado company with a network of hand picked RE/MAX REALTORS in 17 local offices across the state. 2005, Colorado HomeFinder , all rights reserved. Each office independently owned and operated. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use

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

Florida Real Estate

Interinvestments Realty - Pre-construction News and Florida Real Estate Information Pre-construction News & Real Estate Information in Florida! HOME | BUYING | SELLING | FINANCING | FAQ’S | RELOCATING | JOIN US | MANAGEMENT | CONTACT US Aventura Bal Harbour Brickell Coconut Grove Coral Gables Cutler Ridge Dadeland Doral Downtown Miami Fisher Island Golden Beach Homestead Key Biscayne Kendall Miami Beach Midtown Miami North Bay Village North Miami North Miami Beach Pinecrest Sunny Isles Beach Surfside South Beach Westchester Coral Springs Ft. Lauderdale-Pompano Hallandale Beach Hollywood Pembroke Pines Weston Tamarac Boca Raton West Palm Beach Palm City Delray Beach Boyton Beach Hypoluxo Royal Palm Beach Palm Beach Gardens Port St. Lucie Indian River-Vero Beach Savona-Palm Coast Solivita -- Bellalago Poinciana Reunion Lake Marion Tierra del Sol Sand Lake Arbor Lakes Heritage Key Villas Itopia -- Bradenton Parrish Palmetto Ellenton Tampa St Petersburg Sarasota Gateway Town & Country Pelican Preserve Cypress Club Oasis Royal Greens Bay Colony The Seasons Hammock Bay Tuscany Reserve The Colony Golf & Bay Club Cove Towers Tiburon St. Augustine Jacksonville Daytona Pensacola Panama City You are in > Home Isles of Bayshore - South Dade The Isles at Bayshore is now featuring the "California Collection,"showcasing distinctive west-coast architecture. Every home is filled withluxurious extras offered in Developer's signature "Everything's Included"home, featuring thousands of dollars in extras at no extra charge. [MORE] Heritage Key Villas - Kissimmee Heritage Key Villas is an idyllic community offering privately-ownedvacation town-homes in Kissimmee, Florida - one of the world's largest andmost popular resort areas. Whether you enjoy quiet, evening sunsets orlively, big-city entertainment and attractions, Heritage Key Villa offersthe best of both worlds. [MORE] Little Harbor - Bradenton Little Harbor, the biggest waterfront living experience on Tampa Bay. Thisone-of-a-kind coastal village presents an enchanting combination of beach,bay, river and harbor-front residential homes and resort-style residencesalong with a colorful mix of amenities that evoke the grace of a bygoneCaribbean lifestyle. [MORE] LATEST PRE-CONSTRUCTION NEWS december 08, 2005 TEN is an exclusive living concept [more] december 08, 2005 Cabana Cay features the best of everything [more] december 08, 2005 Nestled in the heart of South Tampa, Grand Key [more] november 05, 2005 Wind - is located in Downtown Miami! [more] november 05, 2005 Waterfront Town Home Residences [more] october 17, 2005 Bella Mare - For Immediate Occupancy! [more] october 17, 2005 Family Homes and Townhomes in South Dade [more] october 01, 2005 Trump Towers Luxury condos in Sunny Isles Beach [more] october 01, 2005 The Isles at Bayshore is a luxurious Mediterranean [more] FEATURED DEVELOPMENTS - Trump Grande - Fisher Island - Capital Towers - Axis - Bella Mare - Midtown Miami - Bellalago - Palencia - Tuscany Reserve - Venetian Golf & Country Club - Westshore Yacht Club - Silver Lake MARKET NEWS > Israelis buy up Miami land - Downtown Miami > Builder reveals Miami Makeover - Downtown Miami > New Development in Miami River - Downtown Miami > Overseas investors find South Florida to be a hot property > St. Joe chief takes his story to Wall Street International Properties - Cocos Beach - NICARAGUA - Pinos Verdes - COSTA RICA - Porton Andalucia COSTA RICA - Tamarindo Heights COSTA RICA FIND DEVELOPMENTS BY AREA Dade Aventura | Bal Harbour | Brickell | Coconut Grove | Coral Gables | Cutler Ridge | Dadeland | Doral | Downtown Miami | Fisher Island | Golden Beach | Homestead | Key Biscayne | Kendall | Miami Beach | Midtown Miami | North Bay Village | North Miami | North Miami Beach | Pinecrest | Sunny Isles Beach | Surfside | South Beach | Westchester Broward Coral Springs | Fort. Lauderdale - Pompano Beach | Hallandale Beach | Hollywood | Pembroke Pines | Weston | Tamarac Palm Beach Boca Raton | West Palm Beach | Palm City | Delray Beach | Boyton Beach | Hypoluxo | Royal Palm Beach | Palm Beach Gardens Central Florida / Space Coast Port St. Lucie | Indian River - Vero Beach | Savona - Palm Coast Orlando Solivita | -- Bellalago | Poinciana | Reunion | Lake Marion | Tierra del Sol | Sand Lake | Arbor Lakes | Heritage Key Villas Manatee Brandenton | Parrish | Palmetto | Ellenton Hillsboro Tampa Pinnellas St Petersburg Sarasota Sarasota Ft. Myers Gateway Town & Country | Pelican Preserve | Cypress Club | Oasis | Royal Greens Naples Bay Colony | The Seasons | Hammocks Bay | Tuscany Reserve | The Colony Golf & Bay Club | Cove Towers | Tiburon Northeast Florida St. Augustine | Jacksonville | Daytona Northwest Florida Pensacola | Panama City Search Here Miami-Dade Broward Palm Beach C. Florida/Spacecoast Orlando Tampa Ft. Myers Naples Northeast Florida Northwest Florida Adult Active Community Custom Homes Vintage / Re-sales Resales / MLS HUD Ask the Expert Important Links Rentals Commercial Division Offices Industrial Retail Investment Properties Businesses Development Opp. Insurance All Rights Reserved Interinvestments Realty 2003

Buy House

Buy my house, please! - Sep. 11, 2003 CNN/Money Web Autos Real Estate Money's Best Home Markets & Stocks News Jobs & Economy World Biz Technology Commentary Personal Finance College Credit and Debt Insurance Interest Rates Retirement Tax Center Ask the Expert Five Tips The Good Life Millionaire in the Making Money 101 Moneyville Retirement Planner Savings Calculator Asset Allocator Mutual Funds Money Magazine Video CNN TV Fortune 500 Best Employers Money 101 Portfolio Calculators Real-time Quotes Last 5 Quotes SPONSORED BY include virtual="/fn_adspaces/markets-stocks/last_five_quotes/sponsor.88x31.ad" -- CNN/Money Email newsletters RSS Mobile news Money archives Buy story reprints Find a Mortgage SPECIAL OFFER Your Money Your Home Buy my house, please! As the market cools, it will take more work to get that 'For Sale' sign out of your front yard. September 11, 2003: 5:10 PM EDT By Sarah Max, CNN/Money Staff Writer BEND, Ore. (CNN/Money) To say that it's been a seller's housing market is the understatement of the year. Homeowners looking to sell in most parts of the country haven't had to wait around very long for a suitable offer, and those in the best markets have seen their homes swooped up in a matter of days, even hours. In early 2003, in fact, 21 percent of all houses went into contract less than one week after going on the market, according to the National Association of Realtors (NAR). On average, houses sold in just five weeks nearly half the time it took throughout the 1990s. "I believe this may be our best year ever," said David Hemenway, a realtor in Cottage Grove, Ore., who's been in the business since 1968. On the other side of the country in Sebring, Fla., realtor Chip Boring is enjoying a record year. Yet, both are aware that great times can't last forever. "Up until the last 2 1/2 years the average time on the market was anywhere from 180 days to 210 days," Boring said. And Hemenway recalls the early 1980s when his listings lingered on the market, sometimes for years. As interest rates creep up, buyers' budgets creep down and markets return to more normal levels, sellers will discover that it takes a little more work (and patience) to unload their homes. Many already have. While there is little you can do to change the laws of supply and demand, you have some control over whether your house sits or sells. Here are the most common reasons houses don't sell, in order of importance. The price is not right Even in the best of markets, setting your price too high is a mistake -- unless you really don't want to sell your house. "Starting too high is the worst thing you can do," said Hemenway. More on Your Home • Mortgage Application Center • Beating higher rates • Mortgage demand hits 14-month low • Choosing the best mortgage now Why? Because your greatest opportunity for selling your house is immediately after it goes on the market. That's when the majority of serious buyers will see the house. "Even if you lower the price to reflect the market, you'll have fewer people coming through than if you'd just priced it right to begin with," said Hemenway. In fact, it's not until after you bring the price down below the market something few sellers want to do that interest will pick up again. To make matters worse, say real estate agents, the longer a house sits the harder it is to sell. "Everyone thinks there must be something wrong with the house if it hasn't sold," said Boring, adding that for this reason he won't take on a listing if the seller insists on asking more than the house is worth. To drum up new interest among buyers, sellers sometimes pay for extra advertising or offer to, for example, pay for closing costs as a way to get buyers' attention. "In markets where people don't have a lot of cash, paying for closing costs or buying down interest rates with points up front can put you at a huge advantage," said Ron Phipps, a realtor in Warwick, R.I. The house is in the wrong place When markets are good, buyers are more willing to buy on the outskirts of an area or turn a blind eye to busy streets, bad views and other problems. But when markets cool down, it's these spots that suffer the most, said Hemenway. Short of moving the house, there is not much you can do if it is in the wrong location. But while in the house you can take care to make sure you don't over-improve your property relative to the ones around it. "If you have a $300,000 house in a neighborhood of $100,000, be prepared to lower the price or let it sit," said Boring. Buyers can't get past the front door Realtors say that getting buyers to take a look inside a house is the biggest challenge of selling a house. Once they've stepped through the door buyers are more likely to consider a place. "I recently sold a house that from the front was not very inspired," said Phipps. "The buyers came to the open house only because they needed to kill time, but once inside they were interested." For this reason, a little time and money spent on curb appeal will go a long way. Trimming the grass, washing the windows and planting a few flowers may be all it takes. In the case of houses whose best features are inside or out back, Phipps recommends taking good interior pictures and putting 360-degree tours online. Sellers sometimes get buyers to look past their homes' imperfections with creative extras. "I've seen sellers offer decorating allowances, and pay for cleaning service and landscaping," said Phipps. "Several years ago a seller in the bakery business offered to bring the buyer a different cake every month." Too much chintz and tchotchkes Less is more when it comes to attracting buyers. "Put all of those pictures of your family and other personal treasures away," said Sheryl Gregory, a broker in Wynthrop, Maine. "It distracts buyers and makes it harder for them to picture themselves in the house." She also recommends taking down distracting curtains and putting on a fresh coat of paint. "Buyers sometimes get scared if they wander through a house and think they're going to have to do a lot of painting," she added. --* Disclaimer Selling? Buying? Click to compare top local real estate agents More on YOUR HOME • Your Home: Bracing for higher rates • Refinancing demand lags again • A rose is (not) a rose TODAY'S TOP STORIES • Most overvalued housing markets • Risks to the economy in 2006 • Which was the worst ad of all in 2005? CNN Money contact us | subscribe to Money magazine advertising -- | site map | glossary | RSS | press room OTHER NEWS: CNN | SI | Fortune | Business 2.0 | Time © 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP. A Time Warner Company ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Terms under which this service is provided to you. privacy policy Reprints of site stories are available.

Real Estate Listing

Sustainable Sources - Sustainably-Built Home Classifieds Sustainable Building Sustainable Building Sourcebook Sustainable Building Calendar Conferences Green Building Links Green Builder News -- Case Studies --Sustainable Reading Sustainable Sources Bookstore Articles Sustainable Tourism Eco Travel in Latin America Our Services Search Greenbuilder.com: Results should match with: all the words any words Go to Advanced Search Related Sites Austin and Texas Environmental Groups Catalogs & Commercial Sites Translate these pages Contact Our Webmaster Buy or Sell your Sustainably Built Home! Buy the home you have always dreamed of or sell your green home for theprice it's worth. Search The Listings List Your Property Confirm or Modify a Listing How it works: 1) List Your Property . Enter detailed information about your property. Upload a picture if you have one. Realtors are welcome. 2) Keep it current . Each month we'll send you a reminder email. Log in, find your listing, and confirm that it's still for sale. Make changes to your listing at any time. 3) What does it cost? Right now, just $10.00 per listing! 4) Tell everyone! Tell your friends, your business partners, and any other potential Green Building fans you know about your listing here. Tell your realtor, too. Put pointers to your listing on your own web site and in your email signature. It's easy to remember - www.greenbuilder.com/realestate/ Why a property listing service? Sustainably built homes are the wave of the future, and some have technologyso new that realtors may not yet be up to speed. Help your realtor getmoving fast by listing in Sustainable Sources. Your ad will be seen bypeople who know green building. As a long time leader in green building information, Sustainable Sources is uniquely positioned to connect buyers with sellers. Since we don't have the space constraints of print publications, we can allow full descriptions of your property at far less cost. A 30-word classified ad run once in one well known print quarterly would cost more than an unlimited-word ad at Sustainable Sources for a $50,000 home which will run until the property sells. Let us know when you are successful in selling or buying a sustainably built home. We love good news! Realtors - Lenders - Builders - Architects Ask us about advertising on this site!