Real Estate Vail Real

AAArizona - Tucson Real Estate, Tucson Property, Tucson Homes for Sale Home Page Property Search Favorite Sites December 29, 2005 Welcome to Tucson, Arizona! Quick Search: To search for homes, enter a word or phrase describing a city, school, area, property type, subdivision, or community: Free Information Form: About You: Interests: First Name: Selling property Email or phone: Purchasing property Anticipated moving date: Tucson golf communities Anticipated visit date: Tucson gated communities People moving to Tucson: One Two Three Four Five or More Corporate Move Tucson school districts Tucson home price range: Select Price Range Less than $100K $100K - $150K $150K - $200K $200K - $300K $300K - $500K $500K - $700K $700K - $1M More than $1M Tucson new homes Area of Tucson: Tucson Oro Valley Marana Catalina Foothills NorthEast NorthWest SouthEast SouthWest East West Central Tucson adult communities I have a home to sell: Yes No Tucson in general Describe Your Needs: Oro Valley Homes NorthWest Tucson Homes NorthEast Tucson Homes Catalina Foothills Homes Marana Real Estate Vail Real Estate New Sub- Divisions Tucson Gated Properties Tucson Golf Properties Tucson Adult Properties Tucson Townhse/ Condos Rancho Vistoso Homes Tucson Area Schools Homes With Acreage Tucson Home Listings: Other Property Types: Tucson Real Estate by Property Type Tucson Real Estate by Subdivision Tucson Real Estate by Community Tucson Real Estate by Gated Community Tucson Real Estate by Golf Community Tucson Real Estate by Schools Tucson Real Estate by Construction Tucson Real Estate by Zoning Tucson Real Estate by Levels Tucson Real Estate by City Tucson Real Estate by Area Tucson Real Estate by Builder Tucson Retirement Property Tucson Horse Property Tucson Real Estate with Land Tucson Real Estate by Postal Code Create Your Own Tucson Home Search Favorite Sites Tucson Income Property Tucson Vacant Land Tucson Commercial Property Home Page Property Search Favorite Sites Brought to you by: RE/MAX Majestic

Colorado Real Estate Please

COLORADO SPRINGS REAL ESTATE, REMAX CONNECTIONS, ANN HEIRING - MILITARY REBATE, FREE ACCESS TO ALL AREA MLS HOME LISTINGS - RELOCATION SERVICE, FORT CARSON, PETERSON AFB, SCHRIEVER AFB, CHEYENNE MOUNTAIN, MONUMENT, WOODLAND PARK, BLACK FOREST! Select Page About Me Airlines Listings Search Calculators Auto Rental Census Info Churches Colleges & Schools Colorado Info Community Info Consumer Links Cost of Living Custom Homes El Paso County Free Reports Home Finder Hotels/Motels Gazette News Golf Jobs Links Link To Me Loan & Lender Info Military - Local Moving - REMAX Map/Neighborhoods Newsletter Outdoors Property Inquiry RE Links Report Cards Resource Center Restaurants Seller Tips Sports State Parks Tourist Info Useful Tools Visitors Bureau Europe Trip Ski Colorado Realtor Network Colorado Springs Real Estate & Relocation All Pikes Peak Area Neighborhoods & Subdivisions, incl. Black Forest, Monument, Woodland Park, Manitou Springs, Fort Carson, Peterson AFB, Schriever AFB, Cheyenne Mountain AS & the Air Force Academy Be sure to check drop-down menu above for extensive, local information (Register for free and easy access to ALL Colorado Springs regional MLS property listings) * Free Buyer Agency - Military Appreciation Rebate & On-Call Service * The Colorado Springs area is in strong growth with over 4000 new construction and resale homes on the market in all neighborhoods and price ranges. Specializing in Internet relocation (incl. corp & mil) assisting customers from around the world settle in our beautiful Rocky Mountain foothills. * * * * * Let me know what you're looking for, and I will start by emailing you MLS links to properties that match your requirements! * * * * * Presold homes or new construction - working with me guarantees you professional service provided with integrity and genuine care! * * * * * No matter what your current location may be - I will oversee every detail of your Colorado Springs property transaction from this end ! * * * * * * * * * * Send me an email if you are moving/retiring to Colorado Springs - or PCS'ing to Carson, Peterson, Schriever, Cheyenne Mountain or the Academy ! * * * * * *Dream Vacation Info* Re / Max Ann Heiring, Realtor "Heiring & Associates" GRI, ABR, Notary Public Member, Colorado Springs Chamber of Commerce Re / Max 100% Club Re / Max President's Club Re / Max Executive Club Multi-Million Dollar Producer Toll Free Cell: 800-246-8978 Local Cell: 719-440-1010 (Same day response - usually within hours !) Re / Max Connections, Inc. 6825 Silver Ponds Heights, Colorado Springs, CO 80908 * * LOAN INFO * * Hoping to Help You Find Your Dream Home ! Visit My Newsletter Real Estate Agents Directory Real Estate Agents Directory. Find Real Estate Agents, Reall-Estate-Agents.com offices and real estate related services. Colorado Real Estate Please email me at: info@annheiring.com All Copy Rights Reserved ! Relocation Network & Partners Click here to link with this site! Web Site Design and Hosting Provided By: Advanced Access © 1998-2005

real estate investing Being

Getting real about real estate investing - Nov. 17, 2004 Web CNN/Money Buying & Selling Investment Property Home Improvement Million $ Life Financing Best Places Getting real about real estate investing Being a landlord can be profitable -- or a big headache. Take some advice from these investors. November 17, 2004: 4:03 PM EST By Jon Birger , MONEY Magazine. Additional reporting by Joan Caplin and Amy Feldman. NEW YORK (MONEY Magazine) - Successful real estate investors sometimes make what they do sound almost too easy. "Rentals freed me from ever having to get a job again," says Orlando Rodriguez, a 38-year-old San Antonio landlord who makes about $100,000 a year off the 90 apartments he owns. "I'm a high school dropout -- seventh-grade dropout, actually -- so my story should tell people this isn't rocket science." Yes, landlording isn't science (which is not to say it isn't often a lot of hard work), but if you're willing to put in the time and effort, buying and operating rental properties can pay off big. Try this math on for size: You purchase a $100,000 condominium with $30,000 down and a $70,000 mortgage. If the condo rents for $1,200 a month, your net profits -- after costs such as mortgage, maintenance and property taxes -- should be in the $2,000-a-year range. Conservatively invested, that sum should earn enough to pay off the entire mortgage within 14 years. You'd have turned $30,000 in equity into $100,000, even if rents didn't go up and property values didn't appreciate. Factor in 4 percent annual rent increases and price appreciation, and the property's net value to the owner would be closer to $200,000. A stock fund would need to return 15 percent a year for 14 years to beat that performance -- and funds don't give you any of the tax breaks that can come with being a property owner. The key thing to remember, though, is that buying rental properties is not for point-and-click investors. Even landlords who hire out the plumbing, painting and rent collection to contractors and management companies typically make a big time commitment. Rick Lionhardt of Dallas, a 55-year-old retired telecom worker, owns 33 properties with wife Helen, 49, a secretary. Even when he was working full time, Lionhardt says, he spent 70 to 80 hours a week on real estate. "I'd make calls during lunch and drive around at night looking for more things to buy." For the first-time landlord, there is plenty to learn -- about taxes, financing, dealing with difficult tenants -- and usually there are many mistakes to be made. The payoff can be terrific though, even for investors who own just one or two properties. Doing it right will get you extra income now and a valuable addition to your retirement nest egg down the road. What does "doing it right" mean? Read on for some key tips and secrets -- as well as pitfalls to avoid -- from successful investors who had to learn the hard way. Know how to take your market's temperature. When considering a rental property, your top concern should be whether you can make money renting it out now, not how much its price might appreciate in the future (although that's important too). All you're doing is speculating on real estate prices if you're shelling out more than you're taking in -- and that can be dangerous, especially if you're doing it with borrowed money. "You never want to buy a property where every month you have to feed it," says Neil Binder, co-founder of New York City's Bellmarc Realty. So before you buy, add up your projected property taxes, mortgage payments and maintenance costs, and make sure the total is less than your expected rental income. Experienced real estate investors say they generally look to pay anywhere from 45 to 85 times monthly rent for a property. That means annual rental revenue should be about 15 to 25 percent of the property's value. Finding places with those kinds of yields can be difficult. Take California, probably the most bubblicious market in the country. A condominium renting for $1,200 a month in Southern California sells for $350,000 today, according to veteran California real estate investor Bruce Norris. A $1,200-a-month condo in the Dallas/Fort Worth area can be had for $95,000. To a landlord, that's the difference between an annual return on investment of 4 percent vs. 15 percent. Mortgages and home equity loans Search for rates from hundreds of lenders. No points only Select Loan: Select a Mortgage 15 Yr Fixed Jumbo - $385K 15 Yr Fixed Conforming - $165K 30 Yr Fixed Conforming - $165K 30 Yr Fixed Jumbo - $385K 1 Yr ARM Conforming - $165K 1 Yr ARM Jumbo - $385K 3/1 Yr ARM Conforming - $165K 3/1 ARM Jumbo - $385K 5/1 Yr ARM Conforming - $165K 5/1 ARM Jumbo - $385K 7/1 Yr ARM Conforming - $165K ARM Jumbo - $385K State: Select State Alaska Alabama Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Washington DC Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Iowa Idaho Illinois Indiana Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Massachusetts Maryland Maine Michigan Minnesota Missouri Mississippi Montana North Carolina North Dakota Nebraska New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico Nevada New York Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Virginia Vermont Washington Wisconsin West Virginia Wyoming "The only reason you'd be a California landlord at today's prices is because you're expecting price appreciation," says Norris, who thinks prices in the state are due for a fall. "Monthly cash flow would be almost impossible to achieve without an enormous down payment." Another tool experienced investors use to measure the profitability of a market is price-to-rent -- that is, the ratio of median home price to annual rent for three-bedroom homes. The bigger the number, the less likely you are to make money as a landlord. California has a price-to-rent ratio of 25 these days, the highest in the country. Hawaii (23) is second from the top, and Massachusetts (19) is third. Far more inviting to investors are states like Delaware, Missouri, Texas and Vermont, where the price-to-rent ratios are 11 or 12. For more information on median home prices and market rents in your area, visit realtor.org and huduser.org . Find smart ways to cut your financing costs. Borrowing to buy real estate as an investment is more expensive than borrowing to buy a home. Lenders generally think they are taking more of a risk on buildings that the owner doesn't live in. Consequently, the interest rates they charge tend to be 0.5 percentage points or more above those for traditional home mortgages. Not only that, but borrowers need excellent credit scores to qualify for the lowest rates. In addition, the minimum down payment is usually 20 or 25 percent, instead of the 10 percent for standard home mortgages. There are a couple of ways around the higher rates and steeper down payments. To qualify for a traditional mortgage, you are required by most lenders to live in the property for a minimum of one year. But there's nothing stopping you from buying a home or a condo with a traditional mortgage, living in it for a year and then renting it out afterward. YOUR E-MAIL ALERTS Mortgages Personal Debt Real Estate Loan Markets or Create your own Manage alerts | What is this? If the down payment rather than the rate is the stumbling block, ask the seller whether he's willing to self-finance the mortgage. With owner financing, the buyer signs a promissory note in which he agrees to make his mortgage payments directly to the seller. In exchange for forgoing a down payment, the seller typically gets a premium rate -- 8 to 10 percent, perhaps. Why would a seller take the additional risk implicit in skipping the down payment? "It's a lot faster to sell a house owner-financed than conventionally," says San Antonio landlord Rodriguez. (There are also brokers who buy owner-financed notes from sellers who want their money up front.) Click here to learn about interest-only mortgages and some of their advantages. Learn to take advantage of the many tax breaks. For tax purposes, what you make in rent is generally taxable as regular income. Real estate taxes and mortgage interest on an investment property are fully tax deductible though. Operating expenses such as utilities, insurance, repairs and condominium common charges are also deductible. So are rental fees paid to brokers, although they must be spread out over the life of the lease. Even better, the federal tax code entitles rental-property owners to a depreciation deduction even though housing prices usually go up, not down, over time. (There are, however, numerous conditions and catches, which is why it is essential to consult a tax adviser before you invest a cent.) Anticipate problems (they will be numerous). Reliable, prompt-paying tenants do up and leave suddenly. Minor leaks have a way of becoming expensive repair jobs. That's why it's smart to line up inspectors and contractors before you buy. And why it's important to establish rainy-day funds. Two or three months' rent is usually -- but not always -- sufficient. Just ask Marla Renee, a 55-year-old semiretired hairdresser who owns six rental properties in the Detroit area. Five years ago Renee bought a run-down duplex for $28,000. She figured the house needed $10,000 worth of work, but three months later the tally was nearly three times that. "The last tenant had turned on the water on purpose and flooded the whole place," she says. "The floor, ceiling and walls were all messed up." Finally, don't skimp on fees should you decide to hire a management company to tend to your rental property. The typical fee is 5 to 10 percent of rental income. Experienced landlords say it's not worth it to be cheap: Property managers often work harder to fill vacancies and to maximize rent when they are better compensated. Put potential tenants under the microscope. Picking tenants may ultimately be the most important real estate decision you make. This is where listening to the voices of experience really pays off -- although you should be discreet about how you apply their lessons. Elderly people are better tenants than college kids, as everyone knows, but in many states, landlords acting on that type of common sense judgment would be running afoul of fair-housing laws. Michelle Bizik, 35, of Lake Ariel, Pa. owns two small apartment buildings with her husband Goran, 30. For the most part, they've had lots of success finding good tenants. They require potential renters to provide Social Security numbers, ostensibly for criminal and credit background checks (which are a good idea), but Bizik says it's more about renters proving to her that they have nothing to hide. She also checks references with employers and prior landlords. If prospects pass those tests, she and her husband always meet them in person. "I need to get a vibe off of them," she explains. These are all good ideas for screening tenants. Here are a couple more. When checking references, don't stop with the most recent landlord. Contact the second or third most recent as well. "The current landlord may just want him out of the property," says Ellis San Jose, a 39-year-old real estate investor from Los Angeles. Also, consider making an unannounced visit to the prospect's current residence. Marcia Glantz, a Coldwell Banker broker for 27 years in Yorktown, N.Y., says, "Explain that your house is important to you, and that you want to get a sense for how they live." Saying no can be tough when a vacancy is burning a hole in your wallet. Stay strong. The one time Michelle Bizik caved proved to be a big mistake. "We were both against him," she recalls, "but the apartment was empty and he was a friend of another tenant." Soon after the guy moved in, his pregnant girlfriend, five cats and two friends did too. And he was late with the rent. "All the tenants were complaining," Bizik says. "The hall smelled like cat urine. The music was so loud, tenants were calling me at 11 o'clock at night." The Biziks offered to pay him to leave. He declined, so they had to go through the aggravation and expense of having him evicted. Think about investing in REITs instead. If you want to buy into real estate but don't want to deal with all the headaches that can come with managing it, you may want to consider a real estate investment trust (REIT). These are publicly traded building-management companies that pass the bulk of their earnings on to shareholders in the form of hefty dividends. That makes them a great choice for retirees and other income-hungry investors. One catch is that REIT dividends are taxed at higher rates than regular corporate dividends. REITs offer several advantages over buying properties on your own. First, there are economies of scale: On a per-square-foot basis, REIT maintenance costs are much lower than those of most individual landlords. The management expenses of a typical REIT are only 0.5 percent of total assets under management, says Russell Platt, manager of the Dividend Capital Realty Income fund. Another plus is diversification, since REITs typically invest in many markets and sometimes different types of property -- residential, commercial and retail. And finally, there's liquidity: You can sell a REIT whenever you want, and your brokerage commission will be a drop in the bucket compared with the 6 percent charged by most real estate brokers. A conservative REIT bet would be Equity Residential Properties ( Research ), run by Chicago mogul Sam Zell. Equity Residential is the nation's largest landlord, which makes it something like an index fund for apartment buildings. Earnings have taken a hit lately owing to, among other things, the Florida hurricanes. But occupancy rates have been ticking up, and Equity Residential still offers a juicy 5.1 percent dividend yield. A more aggressive play is Archstone-Smith Trust ( Research ), an apartment building owner with a big presence in suburban Washington, D.C. and other East Coast markets. Archstone-Smith also has a dividend yield of 5.1 percent. The company has profits from condo conversions, and high occupancy rates, which put it in a good position to raise rents. And that's a very nice position for any landlord to be in. --* Disclaimer Try an issue of MONEY magazine - FREE! More on REAL ESTATE • How to buy and build on rural land • Most overvalued housing markets • When booms go bust... 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 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

Texas Land Added to

Texas, Land Added to Endangered Bird Haven (TX): The Trust for Public Land - Select State - Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Col... Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Home View by Region Central Chicago Michigan Minnesota Ohio Oklahoma St. Louis Texas Wisconsin Mid-Atlantic New England Northwest & Rockies Southeast West About TPL Support TPL City Parks Research Conservation Services Initiatives Federal Programs Local Programs Newsroom Publications Activities Jobs TPL Store HOME View by Region Central Texas Land Added to Endangered Bird Haven (TX) Contact: Benjamin Larkin, (512) 478-4644; Deborah Holle, (512) 339-9432 Hill Country Views Photo by: AUSTIN, Texas, 3/26/04: The Trust for Public Land (TPL) announced today it has preserved 96 acres of Hill Country terrain, completing the protection of the 457-acre McKeever property. Located about 30 miles northwest of Austin, the property will be included in the Balcones Canyonlands National Wildlife Refuge. TPL transferred the property from the McKeever family to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for permanent protection and management. The latest tract is a top FWS priority because the land provides ideal habitat for two federally protected songbirds—the golden-cheeked warbler and black-capped vireo. The primary purpose of the refuge is to conserve the nesting habitat for these endangered songbirds and other bird species which visit the area during the annual migration from breeding grounds in the United States and Canada to wintering grounds in Mexico, Central and South America. The property was purchased by FWS with funds from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which was secured by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas. "We Texans are lovers of nature and the outdoors," Senator Hutchison said. "Protecting our natural habitats and wildlife is a desire we all share. I was proud to help secure these funds to enhance the Texas Hill Country and its wildlife. This effort will help protect the endangered species and unique environment of the Balcones for generations to come." "Protecting such a unique place so close to Austin, with this partnership, has been very special," said Jenny Parks, TPL project manager. "We deeply appreciate the leadership shown by Senator Hutchison, which has helped protect this special place. It is exciting that Texans now have another place where they can experience the fascinating wildlife that pass through this region." "We're thrilled to have added this ideal songbird habitat to the Balcones Canyonlands Refuge, rather than lose it to development," said Deborah Holle, refuge manager. "We value our partnership with the Trust for Public Land, and are hopeful that this relationship will continue to produce significant conservation achievements for Balcones, and allow us to provide more recreational opportunities for generations to come." The McKeever property—owned jointly by three brothers: Grant, Clark, and John, has been owned by the McKeever family for more than 50 years and has been used for ranching and family recreation. In 2002, after meeting with officials from the FWS, TPL crafted a deal with the brothers to convey shares of their property to the Balcones Refuge for permanent protection. "This has always been a special place for our family, and we're very happy that we can now share it with others," said John McKeever, part-owner of the property. "There's so much to explore out here and no other place quite like it in the state." The Balcones Canyonlands NWR was established in 1992. Currently, only 19,000 acres of the 46,000 acres needed to complete the Refuge have been preserved. Additional funds are being sought this year from the federal Land and Water Conservation Fund to purchase other significant bird habitat lands to be included in the refuge. The golden-cheeked warbler is a migratory bird that nests in only 33 counties in central Texas. Male warblers arrive in mid-March and establish territories of 3 to 6 acres. Females arrive a few days later and quickly select their mates. Male warblers sing loud and vigorously defend their territories in order to attract females. By the end of July, the warblers fly to the mountainous areas of southern Mexico and to the east-central Guatemala through Honduras to Nicaragua. During the winter, the Black-capped Vireo is found on the West Coast of Mexico. Often returning to the same area in subsequent years, male vireos arrive in Texas from late March to mid-April and set up territories that average 2 to 4 acres. Females chose mates as soon as possible after they arrive. Together, they build a single nest and participate in the incubation of the eggs. From August to September, the songbirds migrate back to Mexico for the winter. The Trust for Public Land is a national nonprofit land conservation organization that conserves land for people to enjoy as parks, gardens, and natural places, ensuring livable communities for generations to come. Since its founding in 1972, TPL has helped protect more than 1.9 million acres of land in 45 states. In Texas, TPL has protected more than 26,000 acres for communities, including areas in and around Austin, Dallas, Houston and San Antonio. The Trust for Public Land depends on the support and generosity of individuals, foundations, and businesses to achieve our land for people mission. Contact Us | Home | Donate Now | Site Map © 2005 The Trust for Public Land. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy