Investment Property Lisney's investment

Commercial + Investment, Property Estate Agent: Dublin–Cork–Belfast Ireland For Auction/Sale/To Let/Rent HOME CONTACT US ABOUT US NEWS PUBLICATIONS PROPERTY ALERTS SITE MAP Introduction Dublin Office Cork Office Belfast Office Financial Services Introduction Commercial Property At Lisney's offices in Dublin, Belfast and Cork you can get strategic advice on all aspects of commercial property transactions, covering office, retail, leisure, industrial and business space as well as land. Clients benefit from a wide range of services including sales, lettings, acquisitions, development and investment appraisal. Such advice is available to both landlords and tenants/occupiers. In our dealings with landlords, we act for many large, established property developers and investors. Through our alliance with Cushman & Wakefield Healey & Baker, we provide extensive corporate representation for many global companies operating in Ireland Investment Property Lisney's investment team is active in the institutional, private and tax-based investment markets. Our services include the disposal and acquisition of standing investment portfolios, valuations, advice on forward funding opportunities and joint ventures, as well as on sale and leaseback arrangements. Amongst our many clients are the majority of the large institutions, property companies, state bodies and private investors. Through our association with Cushman & Wakefield Healey & Baker, Lisney is also in a strategic position to extend and enhance our client investment services around the world. Our International Investment team provide advice to Irish clients seeking international investment opportunities in the UK, mainland Europe and across the United States Lisney has a wide range of investment properties available. For reasons of confidentiality we cannot display all of them. If you are interested in investment property, please contact Dublin office: Ann Hargaden FSCS FRICS Director Lena Clarke ASCS ARICS Divisional Director Anne-Marie Sheehan ASCS ARICS Investment Surveyor International: Duncan Lyster BSc MIAVI Divisional Director Robert Janke BSc MBA EPMIR MIAVI Investment Surveyor Belfast office: Andrew Marsden MRICS Director (Northern Ireland) Cork office: Margaret Kelleher ASCS MRICS Director © Lisney 2004. All Rights Reserved Disclaimer Privacy Statement

Las Vegas real estate

Las Vegas Real Estate - Find Realtors and Las Vegas Homes using Realtor.com LAS VEGAS REAL ESTATE Are you looking for real estate in Las Vegas or the surrounding area? Realtor.com has great information about Las Vegas real estate , Las Vegas neighborhoods and suburbs, new and existing Las Vegas homes, and Las Vegas-area Realtors. When it comes to real estate, Las Vegas is a competitive market. Realtor.com stays on top of it for you, offering you the most comprehensive and current directory of Las Vegas real estate listings you'll find anywhere. Take a look at the Las Vegas real estate information you'll find at Realtor.com: Las Vegas Homes: Realtor.com has over two million active home listings nationwide. If a Realtor is listing real estate in Las Vegas or the surrounding area, you'll find it at Realtor.com, along with relevant details like description, property photos, maps, and neighborhood information. Realtor.com's listing of Las Vegas real estate includes both existing Las Vegas homes and new construction, so no matter what your taste or budget, you'll find plenty of home options. Las Vegas Realtors: Almost anyone can sell you real estate, but only Realtors are backed by the National Association of Realtors and are bound by its strict Code of Ethics. Realtor.com is the headquarters for Las Vegas Association of Realtors and is eager to help find a Realtor near you. Home Buying Help: Realtor.com has the information you need for buying real estate in Las Vegas. For all sorts of real estate information -- ranging from how to sell your present home to real estate tax information to finding a competitive local mortgage lender or contractor -- Realtor.com helps you from start to finish.

Buy House

Amazon.com: House of Wax (Widescreen Edition): DVD: Elisha Cuthbert,Chad Michael Murray,Brian Van Holt,Paris Hilton,Jared Padalecki,Jon Abrahams,Robert Ri'chard,Dragicia Debert,Thomas Adamson,Murray Smith (VII),Sam Harkess,Damon Herriman,Andy Anderson (II),Emma Lung,Jaume Collet-Serra 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! Best of Slasher Films Part 4 : A list by Jason Voorhees "Jason V" 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 108 used & new from $6.75 Available for in-store pickup now from: $20.99 Price may vary based on availability Enter your ZIP Code Have one to sell? House of Wax (Widescreen Edition) (2005) Starring: Elisha Cuthbert , Chad Michael Murray Director: Jaume Collet-Serra Rating: See larger image Share your own customer images List Price: $20.98 Price: $15.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details You Save: $4.99 (24%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Want it delivered Friday, December 30? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details 108 used & new available from $6.75 Edition: Other Versions and Languages Other Versions (DVD) List Price Price Other Offers: DVD House of Wax / Gothika $35.98 $31.99 57 used & new from $27.78 DVD House of Wax (1953) / House of Wax $35.98 $31.99 47 used & new from $27.37 DVD House of Wax (Full Screen Edition) $20.98 $15.99 119 used & new from $6.95 Better Together Buy this DVD with The Amityville Horror (Widescreen Special Edition) DVD ~ Ryan Reynolds today! Total List Price: $49.93 Buy Together Today: $37.98 Customers who bought this DVD also bought The Amityville Horror (Widescreen Special Edition) DVD ~ Ryan Reynolds The Skeleton Key (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Kate Hudson War of the Worlds (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Tom Cruise Land of the Dead (Unrated Edition) DVD ~ Simon Baker Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Music Storyline Genres: Horror Tagline: Prey. Slay. Display. Plot Outline: Six friends are stranded in a ghost town where a towering wax museum looms ahead. And inside are two brothers who have a special way of making the wax figures look real... Plot Synopsis: A group of friends on their way to a college football game falls prey to a pair of murderous brothers in an abandoned small town. They discover that the brothers have expanded upon the area's main attraction.. the House of Wax. And created an entire town filled with the wax-coated corpses of unlucky visitors. Now the group must find a way out before they too become permanent exhibits in the House of Wax... Plot Keywords: Title Spoken By Character | Car Trouble | Remake | Museum | Wax Museum | Interracial Relationship | Child Abuse | Doctor | Sheriff | Twins | American Football | (Show all 61 plot keywords recommended by customers) Product Details Actors: Elisha Cuthbert , Chad Michael Murray , Brian Van Holt , Paris Hilton , Jared Padalecki , See more Directors: Jaume Collet-Serra Format: Ac- , Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, Dubbed, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc, Widescreen Anamorphic Region: Region 1 ( U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats. ) Rated: (Not for sale to persons under age 18.) Studio: Warner Home Video DVD Release Date: October 25, 2005 Run Time: 113 min (original theatrical or airing runtime) Average Customer Review: Based on 176 Reviews DVD Features: Available Subtitles: English, Spanish, French Available Audio Tracks: English (Dolby Digital 5.1), Spanish (Dolby Digital 5.1), French (Dolby Digital 5.1) B-roll and bloopers video cast commentary From Location: Joel Silver Reveals House of Wax Wax On: The Design of House of Wax The House Built on Wax: visual effects Alternate open: Jennifer killed Gag reel Theatrical trailer From IMDb: Quotes & Trivia ASIN: B000AM4P9K Amazon.com Sales Rank: #2,264 in DVD Theatrical Release Information US Theatrical Release Date: May 6, 2005 MPAA: for horror violence, some sexual content and language. Production Company: Warner Bros., Dark Castle Entertainment, Village Roadshow Pictures, ImageMovers, Silver Pictures USA Box Office: $32 Million Budget Estimate: $30 Million Filming Locations: Australia| Movieworld, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia| Queensland, Australia Editorial Reviews Amazon.com You know the one about the group of horny kids who get offed one by one? Yeah, so do director Jaume Collet-Serra and his screenwriters, who have updated an old Vincent Price flick and sandwiched it between hearty slices of The Blair Witch Project and various Friday the 13th films. Lots of WB and Fox network hotties--including 24 's Elisha Cuthbert, One Tree Hill 's Chad Michael Murray, and, well, Paris Hilton--have car trouble and stumble onto a town populated by real killer personalities. The R-rated result is fairly gruesome and, though no one ever quite looks frightened enough, Collet-Serra knows his way around a jolting suspense sequence or two. Cuthbert and an unintentionally funny Murray (striking ludicrous poses as some kind of real toughie) act more like angry ex-lovers than the fraternal twins they're supposed to be; Hilton acts bored while her real-life video scandal is exploited for ironic kicks; and the film heads shamelessly over-the-top with each new twist. As an exercise in bloody mayhem, it has a few novel touches, but you can easily find better scares. --Steve Wiecking Product Description: House of Wax tells the story of a group of friends who fall prey to a sinister plot while passing through a small town on their way to a college football game. Customers who viewed this DVD also viewed Sin City DVD ~ Robert Rodriguez Saw (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Leigh Whannell Mr. & Mrs. Smith (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Brad Pitt Batman Begins (Two-Disc Deluxe Edition with Comic Book) DVD ~ Christian Bale Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Music , and in Books Spotlight Reviews Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. 44 of 61 people found the following review helpful: Above Average Slasher , May 10, 2005 Reviewer: Mr. Censored - See all my reviews This new version of "House Of Wax" bears very little resemblance to the original, released over fifty years ago. That right there means certain people are gonna be angry about it. And I'm sure it must pain fans of the original to see this updated version with Paris Hilton as one of the stars. Nevertheless, if you are just looking for a good, fun slasher, with a hard R-rating (believe me, this puppy earned it), you could do much worse. Forget that this is a remake, and you will probably find yourself being pleasantly surprised. And if you still aren't sold, look at it this way: You get to watch Paris Hilton die! "House Of Wax," which stars Chad Michael Murray (from WB's...well, just the WB I guess) and Elisha Cuthbert (who is way sexier than Hilton, without even trying) tells the familiar story of a group of twenty somethings, on their way to a football game, who pull over for the night to set up camp and get a little R & R. However, an automobile problem, a broken headlight, and some damn stinky squirrels and deer, cause this group to wander into a town that time seems to have forgotten. The town, however, has one interesting feature, and that is the infamous House Of Wax. Not only is everything inside made out of wax (or is it?), the House itself is Of Wax. Of course, things go horribly wrong. Why does it feel like the wax figures can see us? Who was that outside the window? Why does that guy keep flirting and leering at my girlfriend? The movie plays out much like classic slashers such as "Texas Chainsaw Massacre," and even more like the 2003 "T.C.M." remake. Not only are both remakes extremely pumped up from the original, but you will notice many parellels between the two, from the bizarre torture scenes, to the creepy towns people, all the bases are covered with this movie. If you are a genre fan, you can't help but enjoy this movie. It does try a few different things and will take you by surprise a few times. Heck, one major surprise is Paris Hilton playing someone with moderate intellect. When someone says "What's that smell?" she doesn't want to find out. When she is being chased by the antagonist, she finds a weapon, and uses it. Not just your average teen slasher/splatter flick. As far as the gore goes, this movie has an abundance of it, but I found the wax much more effective. On a list of worst ways to die, I'd put that at the top! And when will people realize, if you keep picking at it, it won't heal (watch it and find out)? If it's possible to have a fear of wax, this movie may put it in you. So try not to let the seemingly shallow nature of this movie turn you away. Afterall, it's actually quite good, and it's refreshing, in a world of nuetered "PG-13" "horror" flicks, that a nice, solid "R" comes along and gives us the flanking we so badly needed. It's got it's flaws, and it does take a while for the film to build momentum, but if you want thrills, this one's got it. Just try not to cheer or laugh too much when Paris has her big moment... Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 20 of 30 people found the following review helpful: A TERRIFIC GOOD RIDE WITH ALL THE THINGS A SLASHER FAN WANTS!! , October 11, 2005 Reviewer: Paulo Leite (Lisbon, Portugal) - See all my reviews At first, I wasn't expecting anything from this movie... I thought "well, here we go again for another stupid slasher with nothing new to offer". But I was wrong. In fact I found this film to be a terrific new entry into the slasher genre. The screenplay is very nice. I does not start to kill people right away.. it develops the story... lets you know ter characters... and THEN... just when you are dying to see some killings... it starts. ...And never lets go. The plot is better than you'd expect. Not the usual "six kids get to a wax museum". Instead they get separated in three groups (which opens the space for three almost-independent storylines). This may not look much... but in fact it allows the screenplay to build some plausability and complications. The characters come and go separate ways and the script creates great shock moments exactly at the moment different storylines meet. And the killings... they are brutal, sadistic... and go beyond the usual "slash-and-you're-dead"... In fact (laughs) nobody dies at first. The screenplay takes the detail up to the limit. All the killings are beautifully constructed. Without wanting to spoil the fun, I just should say this film goes further on the sadistic things the killers do. Much further than what was acceptable years ago. I think this film brought new breath to the genre. Casting is good, makeup is fine. Directing is solid, art direction is discreet enough... I really liked it. Of course there are better films made 20 or 30 years ago. But this one sits along the best slashers in the last 10 years (if it is not THE best one in 10 years). But beware! This film is very cruel! Maybe you would like to pass on it if you play the piano, if you love your fingers... or if you like to walk barefooted. By the way... It has nothing to do with the 1953 Vincent Price version... just the title and what it suggests. Obviously, this DVD is a great buy. Watch it alone... or with friends... with 2 tons of popcorn. Great! Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) Customer Reviews Average Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. The cast of hotties , December 29, 2005 A Kid's Review Almost the whole cast is hot like my cousin thinks paris hilton and elisha cuthbert are both hot&sexy.but i think jon arahams,jered&chad are hot espesialy jon abrahams his hot i lllllllllllooooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeee him .oh yeah the movie its the best movie ever made .the only ugly people are bo&vincent .the movie its about 6friends on their way to a collage foot ball game but dalton and page get teird so they camp out near a abanded town. CAST:Elisha-Carly Brian van holt-Bo/Vincent Chad-Nick Jered-Wade Paris-Page Jon Abrahams-Dalton Robert-Blake Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) The cast of hotties , December 29, 2005 A Kid's Review Almost the whole cast is hot like my cousin thinks paris hilton and elisha cuthbert are both hot&sexy.but i think jon arahams,jered&chad are hot espesialy jon abrahams his hot i lllllllllllooooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvvvveeeeeeeeeeeeeee him .oh yeah the movie its the best movie ever made .the only ugly people are bo&vincent .the movie its about 6friends on their way to a collage foot ball game but dalton and page get teird so they camp out near a abanded town. CAST:Elisha-Carly Brian van holt-Bo/Vincent Chad-Nick Jered-Wade Paris-Page Jon Abrahams-Dalton Robert-Blake Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 2 of 3 people found the following review helpful: The House Isn't The Only Thing That is Wax.... , December 28, 2005 Reviewer: fra7299 "fra7299" (California, United States) - See all my reviews Call me a bit of an overachiever, but I had to wait a day for this movie to sink in before I actually sat down to write a review for House of Wax. The verdict: It still wasn't very good. A film scripted for the MTV Generation of slasher-type films, House of Wax definitely pales in comparison to the Vincent Price version with the same name (I'm still not sure if they actually meant to call it that, or if this was to be an actual remake). There is loud music every so often, horny teens, and a wannabe tough street-type guy, and a generally creepy family (brothers) in a generally creepy town. At any rate, the two movies are a separate as you can get, so you won't have much of a chance to confuse them. If there is one thing to compliment this movie on, it's those momentary points of lurking suspense. We don't see the truly evil characters for awhile, so there is at least an attempt at build up. There is an attempt at trying to introduce us to the background of the two brothers, but it really is an empty explanation. They just show a family trying to get a rambunctious child to eat his food, and an overly aggressive father yelling. Then they flash forward, as if this explains everything. The movie seemingly begins to melt (no pun intended) before your eyes at certain points, despite its efforts to scare and thrill. I think a lot of it had to do with the seriously ridiculous plot and inane motives of the characters. The teens, who decide they want to go on a road trip to make it to the football game (it is a really important game, but we never know who is playing), of course don't make it in time and decide to spend the night in the creepiest place they can possibly find. Then, once there, they decide to hang out and party until some guy in a truck comes by and flashes his lights (he never gets out though, so we don't know who or what he is). Rather than suspecting that this guy might be some sort of serial killer out in the middle of no where, one of them decides to throw something at the truck, breaking one of the headlights and, in turn, making the possible homicidal maniac a little more upset. The truck leaves, and all appears to be fine. Fast forward to the next day....One of the guys really wants to get to the game (Why exactly everyone slept in until 2:30 in the afternoon is a question I can't answer..), but then one of the guy's cars has a broken fan belt (go figure), so they must deal with that. After accidentally slipping into a big pit with dead rotting animal flesh, which, for some reason Elisha Cuthbert's character insisted on seeing, her and her boyfriend decide to into town with some crazy derelict looking guy who makes his living apparently dumping dead animals into this pit....all in the name of a fan belt...sheesh! After the teens separate, you can use your imagination to guess what happens. The couple goes into the town to find the shop with fan belts, and, while in the process, decide to go into the spookiest place in town, the House of Wax. From there they meet another crazy guy who owns the shop, but happens to have that exact fan belt at his house. You know where this is going right? Eventually, Elisha Cuthbert's character realizes that there aren't any "real" people around, and that her boyfriend has been in that house just a little too long, and so chaos ensues. In the process of trying to get back to the town to get to the couple, some of the other teens meet up with the crazy brothers as well. They make the same silly mistakes that many teens make in these movies, and so, many points become a bit predictable and cumbersome to watch. I guess it could have been worse...Paris Hilton could have said something like, "Look! Wax, that's hot." There have been worse movies made, and definitely worse horror movies made. But, this is just another lower than average horror movie to make a few bucks for Hollywood. 1 stars for an effort at suspense. For kicks, I'll even round it up to 2. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) Teen Slasher Movie with an interesting plot. , December 27, 2005 Reviewer: Ernest Hemmingway "Shawn" - See all my reviews When i first rented this movie, i was told that it was a horrible movies with some cheap scares. I was told wrong as a began to watch House of Wax. Six teenagers are on there way to a college football game when they experience car trouble, someone, overnight, had ruined one of the cars fan belts...as two of the characters venture into the seemingly empty town, they uncover a sinister plot involving the famous Trudy's House of Wax. The teenagers must fight for their lives, or they might become permanant displays... Paris Hilton's character could have been cast better, and it was fun to see her die in an ironic sort of way. The movie is interesting with it's plot twists and the final breathtaking conclusion. I enjoyed the ending of this movie because it didn't leave you hanging, you knew who was going to live or not. I doubt there will be a sequel. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) See all 176 customer reviews... Listmania! Best of Slasher Films Part 4 : by Jason Voorhees "Jason V" 2005 Is Full Of Horror! : by S. Medeiros "Gentleman_caller8... The Best B-Rate Horror Films! : by Paul So You'd Like to... Know what movies are coming out to DVD in 2005 : by Aaron Watkins , Movie Browser October is one expensive month! : by sec127 , High School Student Know What's Coming to a DVD Store Near You : by Joe , Movie Lover Fun Facts from IMDb.com: Awards Click here to see more Awards Teen Choice Awards: Teen Choice Award for Choice Movie: Thriller, Choice Movie Scream Scene, Choice Movie Actor: Action/Adventure/Thriller Nominations Click here to see more Nominations Teen Choice Awards: Teen Choice Award for Choice Movie Breakout Performance - Female, Choice Movie Rumble, Choice Movie Actress: Action/Adventure/Thriller, Choice Movie Breakout Performance - Male Trivia Click here to see more Trivia On 26 June 2004, a sound stage being used for the film burned to the ground during a test of special effects equipment. The fire was started by a candle destroying a studio where this movie was being filmed at Warner Bros Movie World on Australia's Gold Coast. One crew member was treated for burns to his arm no one else was injured. The smoke from the fire also crossed onto a nearby heavily used Highway which caused health concern's for driving motorists, the Highway was not shut down during this incident. Paris Hilton did not have to audition - she was the director's only choice for her role. The rest of the cast was built around her. Goofs Click here to see more Goofs Carly leaves the voice mail message for Paige and the whole scene with the truck gets on the voice mail. When Blake checks his phone after the music stops, the message isn't the same as earlier. Crazy Credits Click here to see more Crazy Credits Random letters in the end credits of the movie begin to melt down from thescreen as they appear. Also, some pairs of letters are joined, just like Boand Vincent when they were born. Movie Connections Click here to see more Movie Connections Remake of: Mystery of the Wax Museum | House of Wax References: Alternate Versions Click here to see more Alternate Versions The uncut version is rated R21 in Singapore. Two scenes needed to be trimmed to secure an NC16 rating. First is the body dragging scene where the head slowly detaches itself from the torso. Next is the scene where the killer graphically removes a pole that is jammed into a female victim's head. The DVD features an alternate opening: A young woman, Jennifer (Emma Lung), (the woman who is sculpted into Miss Ambrose) is stranded on the road after her car breaks down. As she calls a towing company, Bo's truck drives up. She tries to signal him, but gets no response. Then, the truck speeds up. Jennifer tried to run, but Bo grabs her by the neck and throws her face-first into her windshield, instantly killing her. Two versions are available in Germany: the uncut version with a "Not under 18" rating and an edited version (with a "Not under 16" rating) which misses ca. 3 minutes. Quotes Click here to see more Quotes [Carly hears a noise outside the tent] Carly Jones : Wade, wake up. Wade! I heard something. Wade : Yeah, it's probably the serial killers or something. [to Nick and Dalton] Blake : Hey are you two gonna have sex? Nick Jones : No... Blake : Oh, cause 'um, me and Paige ARE, so you should probably be the one to go pick up your sister. For more information about "House of Wax (Widescreen Edition)" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) Look for similar items by category Browse similar items in: DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( R ) > Richard, Robert DVD > Genres > Horror > General DVD > Genres > Horror > Slasher Flicks DVD > Genres > Horror > Teen Terror DVD > Genres > Science Fiction & Fantasy > General 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

Land For Sale

LandAndFarm.com - Land for sale, Farms for sale, Rural Property for sale Advertise here Search Properties Wanted Auctions Newsletter Quick Start Register About My Properties Number of visitors online now: 217 Thursday, December 29, 2005 Ad Prices Help Contact Login Subscribe to Rural Property Bulletin Last Few Listings Most Viewed Least Viewed Recently Updated Search by USA Map Rural Property Sites Tool Box Get new properties in your email box! Newsletter Sign-up: yourname@xyz.com HTML TEXT For fun: old listings Contact Us Community Stats Seller emails: 102,892 Property emails: 110,227 Property Views: 13,028,620 Newsletter Subscribers: 14,850 Site Statistics Property 1761 Brokerage 15 Finance & Mortgages 3 Wanted 1 Businesses For Sale 7 Livestock 1 Rural Living 16 Miscellaneous 3 By Land Use: commercial land : 117 dairy farm : 22 fish - aquaculture : 15 forest - natural : 283 forest - planted : 116 historic : 41 horse farm : 380 hospitality : 61 hunting property : 610 livestock operation : 129 mobile home park : 4 oil or minerals : 7 orchard : 17 organic uses : 20 pasture : 319 permanent crops : 43 poultry farm : 33 recreational property : 677 residential land : 844 row crops : 107 undeveloped land : 377 vegetable farm : 15 vineyard : 15 waterfront : 152 By Country: United States : 1709 Canada : 39 South Africa : 34 Zambia : 5 Botswana : 5 Chile : 4 Argentina : 2 Belize : 2 Brazil : 2 Mozambique : 2 Australia : 1 Namibia : 1 Kenya : 1 By Price Per Acre: <$100: 8 $100 to $500 : 34 $500 to $2,000 : 280 $2,000 to $5,000 : 402 >$5,000 : 734 By Acres: <50 : 991 <200 : 1460 200 to 500 : 182 500 to 1,000 : 78 >1,000 : 108 By State/Province: Alabama : 24 Arizona : 11 Arkansas : 14 California : 20 Colorado : 29 Connecticut : 4 Florida : 88 Georgia : 283 Idaho : 12 Illinois : 29 Indiana : 7 Iowa : 9 Kansas : 17 Kentucky : 58 Louisiana : 13 Maine : 32 Maryland : 6 Massachusetts : 7 Michigan : 7 Minnesota : 16 Mississippi : 14 Missouri : 76 Montana : 6 Nebraska : 4 Nevada : 6 New Hampshire : 5 New Jersey : 16 New Mexico : 7 New York : 75 North Carolina : 59 North Dakota : 38 Ohio : 61 Oklahoma : 9 Oregon : 6 Pennsylvania : 6 South Carolina : 64 South Dakota : 22 Tennessee : 293 Texas : 27 Utah : 11 Vermont : 11 Virginia : 123 Washington : 11 West Virginia : 49 Wisconsin : 18 Wyoming : 6 Alberta : 1 British Columbia : 3 Buenos Aires Capital Federal : 1 IV Coquimbo : 1 Manitoba : 1 Mendoza : 1 New Brunswick : 11 Nova Scotia : 12 Ontario : 3 Para : 1 Quebec : 3 Queensland : 1 Saskatchewan : 5 VII Maule : 1 XI Aysen : 2 Not In USA or Canada : 1 Properties by: Land Use Country State/Province Acres Price Per Acre New York RESULTS Sort by: price size Total records: 75 Showing records: 1 to 20 Go to page : 1 2 3 4 New Search Beautiful Horse Farm ( horse farm, residential land, livestock operation) A 60 acre property with an asking price of $248,500. This property is for sale. Country: Other. State/Province: New York. County: St. Lawrence. Autumn Land Sale ( recreational property, residential land) A 5.79 acre property with an asking price of $295,000. This property is for sale. Country: Other. State/Province: New York. County: Dutchess. 13acre Farm 80x40 Hbarn ( horse farm, orchard, commercial land) A 13.00 acre property. This property is for sale. Country: Other. State/Province: New York. County: Oswego. Lakefront Property ( waterfront, undeveloped land, residential land) A 4.00 acre property with an asking price of $74,900. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: Madison. New Hunting Cabin ( hunting property, recreational property) A 6.05 acre property with an asking price of $74,900. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: Chenango. 90 Acre Adirondack Mountain Retreat ( hunting property, recreational property, commercial land) A 90 acre property with an asking price of $350,000. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: St. Lawrence. Beautiful Farmland ( undeveloped land, organic uses, hunting property) A 323 acre property with an asking price of $597,000. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York 79 ( horse farm, residential land, pasture) A 79 acre property with an asking price of $899,999. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: Dutchess. Western New York (Rochester Area) ( horse farm, livestock operation, recreational property) A 82 acre property with an asking price of $465,000. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: Livingston. Old Field Farm ( horse farm, horse farm, horse farm) A 34 acre property with an asking price of $1,750,000. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: Orange County. 80 ACRES Orange NY ( horse farm, vineyard) A 80 acre property with an asking price of $1,299,000. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: Orange. rare Commercial Property ( commercial land, residential land) A 11.00 acre property with an asking price of $398,000. This property is for sale. Country: Other. State/Province: New York. County: Seneca. Horse Farm With Lake View ( commercial land, horse farm, pasture) A 12.26 acre property with an asking price of $189,000. This property is for sale. Country: Other. State/Province: New York. County: Oswego. 40 Acres Connects To Stateland ( residential land, recreational property, hunting property) A 40 acre property with an asking price of $175,000. This property is for sale. Country: Other. State/Province: New York. County: Chenango. $100 Reward for Renting an Apartment Millions of apartment listings nationwide. No application fee. No registration fee. No broker fee. $100.00 reward card when you rent an apartment. ...continued... Country: United States. State/Province: New York Unwanted Houses Do you own an unwanted house and need to sell quickly? NEW YORK. NEW JERSEY. CONNECTICUT. VACANT HOUSES. FORECLOSURE. PLAIN UGLY HOUSES. Houses in ...continued... Country: Other. State/Province: New York Dish Pronto The lowest all digital prices in America! 25 movie channels for 3 months free for $21.33/month! 60 channels plus one month free movie channels ...continued... Country: United States. State/Province: New York Catskill Wooded Hillside ( forest - natural, recreational property, undeveloped land) A 63 acre property with an asking price of $120,000. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: Schoharie. Horse Farm On 29.55 Acres ( horse farm) A 29 acre property with an asking price of $435,000. This property is for sale. Country: Other. State/Province: New York. County: Chenango. Home/Horse Barn 18.19 Acres ( horse farm) A 18.19 acre property with an asking price of $449,000. This property is for sale. Country: United States. State/Province: New York. County: Chenango. Total records: 75 Showing records: 1 to 20 Go to page : 1 2 3 4 LandAndFarm.com SPONSORED RESULTS 1. Looking For NEW YORK? Find New York and more at Lycos Search. No clutter, just answers. Lycos ? Go Get It! http://www.lycos.com 2. Find NEW YORK at eBay Looking for New York? eBay has great deals on new and used electronics, cars, apparel, collectibles, sporting goods and more. If you can?t find it on eBay, it probably doesn?t exist. http://www.ebay.com 3. Shop for NEW YORK Looking for New York? MonsterMarketplace shopping directory has New York and everything else you?re looking for at one secure online location. Click to view top selling New York. http://www.monstermarketplace.com 4. Research NEW YORK at HighBeam. View free full-text articles and free premium archive previews at HighBeam Research. Find, organize and share information from 1,000s of trusted business, consumer and reference publications. http://www.highbeam.com ©1998-2005 - LandAndFarm.com - Contact Us - Privacy Notice - Disclaimer - UserAgreement - Advertise With Us