real estate prices in

Pondering Real Estate Pondering Real Estate Adam Hamilton August 23, 2002 2913 Most Americans' largest asset is their home. With chaotic and turbulent economic times upon us, how will residential real estate perform in the coming years. Some thoughts... One of the greatest blessings of writing publicly is the continual stream of feedback I am offered from folks around the world. They let me know when I am wrong, help shape my worldviews and opinions, and offer dazzling new ideas that are often absolutely brilliant. Without everyone who graciously writes in to help deepen my own understanding, my own thought processes would rapidly stagnate. I am always grateful for feedback, positive, neutral, or negative. The people who take the time to write really augment the crucial foundational base off which my thoughts articulated in these essays are formed and polished. One of the most common questions people have, especially those writing from the States, regards real estate. For Americans, real estate, in the form of their primary family home, is often the largest asset they command. The value of real estate, especially the price trend, is very important to countless folks across our great nation. Many Americans I hear from, especially those with a contrarian investor mindset, wonder what will happen to residential real estate prices in the United States. The question is a very complex and difficult one, for a whole myriad of reasons. I have been pondering this matter since the US equity bubbles burst and am finally ready to commit some tentative thoughts to paper on this vexing issue. A massive caveat is in order however. I am approaching this question about real estate price trends from the perspective of a speculator. Not having a background in real estate, these ideas may be completely worthless, so please dont act on anything in this essay without at least first discussing these concepts with a real estate professional you personally trust with decades of experience. I hope this essay will simply spur further thoughts and discussions. The primary issue that I have been wrestling with in my mind regarding residential real estate price trends in the coming years concerns inflation and deflation. Inflation and deflation are simply opposing monetary phenomena, but both seem to be attacking our fragile post-bust economy in the US with great fury from opposite sides. For some background on these two titanic forces, please see my Inflation or Deflation? essay published last December. Inflation is spawned by the hooligans at the Federal Reserve printing too much paper (or electronic) money, which they have been doing in spades in recent years in a vain and fruitless attempt to stop the normal post-bubble bust process from running its full course. In the last 12 months, the various US money supply measures have exploded up with astounding violence. The absolute year-over-year M1 inflation is 5.2%, MZM 12.7%, M2 7.9%, and M3 7.4%. These numbers are downright frightening in light of historical inflationary precedent! In an inflationary environment, relatively more money chases after relatively fewer goods, services, and real estate. If the amount of money in circulation is rising faster than available real estate in the areas in which people want to live, residential real estate prices should rise. Realtors use this inflation idea to convince their customers that land prices should perpetually rise because land is scarce. Unfortunately, thats not the whole story. While real estate professionals constantly bombard us with marketing propaganda claiming that land is scarce and no more is being made, that is a myth. One example why is evident in multi-story buildings. A 10-story structure, for example, has about 10x the usable space as a single story structure, but has the same footprint in raw land terms. Land itself is not scarce, just land in locations where people want to live. For example, the sparsely-populated state of Montana has about 147,000 square miles of area, or roughly 94m acres. Assuming that only 2/3 of Montanas land is useable (the rest might be mountains or lakes, or streets in cities), that leaves 63m acres. If the entire US population is 287m people, they could all move to Montana and each live in modest estates of almost 1/4 acre, or 9,500 square feet. If their houses took up 1/3 of their plots, and each had a basement and two aboveground stories, every American could live in Montana in individual 9,500 square feet mini-mansions! Land is not scarce in general. I have seen land sell in the North Dakota Badlands for $25 per acre. I have heard of deals involving vast tracts of land in northern Australia going for under $1 per acre. Land is relatively scarce in small areas in which lots of people want or need to live however, such as New York Citys Manhattan Island. Monetary inflation should indeed bode well for real estate prices, but where will it strike? If US monetary inflation bids on barren lands in the Western states for example, residential real estate in the big Eastern cities might not benefit. Just because the general economic environment in the US is highly inflationary thanks to the Feds obnoxious and practically criminal monetary growth, that doesnt necessarily mean real estate in a given small corner of the US will do well. And then we must consider deflation! Deflation is caused by relatively less money chasing relatively more goods, services, and real estate. In deflationary environments money supplies shrink and prices drop. As long as the American people allow the private Federal Reserve bank to continue its tyranny of inflationary theft, there will never be less money in the US economy than there is today. But, muddying the waters even further, the historical line between money and credit is now exceedingly blurry. Because Americans love going into debt, they insist on buying their houses on time, with borrowed money at high interest rates, rather than working hard, saving the funds themselves, and paying cash when they can afford to buy a house outright. While deflation in the US money supplies is probably impossible with the Fed around, deflation in debt, or credit, is already happening. With Americans not actually buying houses outright but really in effect borrowing them from banks, any contraction in available debt will leave less credit available to chase houses. With less credit chasing residential real estate, prices will be forced to fall. But, just as with inflation, it is difficult or impossible to predict how the contraction in general credit available to buy houses will affect real estate in any given small area of the United States. Confused yet? Me too. There are both titanic inflationary and monstrous deflationary forces barreling down on the United States. But, residential real estate markets are all local and many will be affected differently. Deflationary forces could win out in New York City for instance, causing home values to plummet while at the same time inflationary forces win out in Wyoming causing house prices to rise. Real estate is all local. In the stock markets, it is meaningless whether you buy a share of a publicly-traded company in New York or California. In real estate where you buy your house is everything! Location, location, location. Since all real estate markets are really local, perhaps there are some warning signs that you can watch for in your little corner of America to warn of impending real estate price drops. While national generalizations about monetary inflation or debt/credit deflation regarding real estate are tough to make, zooming in to the local level for analysis has a much higher probability of success. Stock speculators throughout history have learned to carefully monitor equity markets for danger signs of maturing bubbles. All markets, including real estate, move in great cycles throughout history, marked by rampant euphoria at the tops and popular indifference at the bottoms. Perhaps applying some common bubble warning signs in equity markets to your local real estate market will yield some interesting fruit. Three common warning signs for equity bubbles are parabolic price rises, excessive valuations, and overwhelming euphoria. In real estate, parabolic price rises happen when a local market witnesses prices rocketing up by 15%+ per year, for years in a row. If you go to your local library and look at old newspaper classified ads, or else secure local data from your hometown real estate professional, you can easily graph it in Excel. If prices of comparable homes across time are shooting up on a long-term zeroed-chart like a ballistic missile, like the bubbles in the NASDAQ 2000 and DJIA 1929, you are most likely in the belly of the beast, a local unsustainable real estate bubble. Check out bubble growth graphed, it sticks out like a central banker at a rock concert! This graph shows values indexed to 100, but you can just as easily think of them in terms of dollars, starting out at $100k. Imagine you bought a house 25 years ago for $100k, a lot of money back then. If your house price appreciated by 5% per year compounded annually, it would now be worth $339k, which is totally plausible and makes sense. On the other hand, if your house had appreciated by 15% each year, it would now be worth $3,292k, or $3.3m! This is a massive increase in price, and it ought to throw up big red warning flags all across your cranium. Does it make sense for a $100k house to become a $3.3m house in only 25 years? Absolutely not, that is just silly! As the graph above shows, abnormally high growth rates make for parabolic charts, bubbles that look just like the stock market variety. If your local real estate market is ascending parabolically like the NASDAQ of 1997-2000, you are in a bubble. History unambiguously shows that no financial trend continues in the same direction forever and all bubbles ultimately pop. Unrealistic annual growth rates are a key bubble warning sign. For a deeper discussion of unrealistic growth rates over the long-term, please see my essay The Elusive Long-Term from last August. Another warning sign of equity bubbles is excessive valuations. In the stock markets, valuations are most commonly measured by the formidable yet often scorned price-to-earnings ratio. The historical average P/E ratio for US equity markets is 13.5x earnings. We can also apply this concept to real estate holdings. While most people buy a house simply to live in, it is also possible to buy a house to use as a rental property. In a residential house used as a single-family rental, there is a price, the cash paid for the house, and an earnings stream, the rent the family pays to the owner. With a real estate P and E, we can compute a rough real estate valuation multiple. If a rental property costs $100k to buy, and rents for $1000 per month, or $12k per year, its P/E ratio is 8.3. Even though most families dont own a separate rental property, with a little legwork you can check your local newspapers and calculate some rough P/E proxies for your area. Find houses for sale similar to yours to get price data points. Find houses for rent similar to yours to get earnings data points. Divide the P by the E, and you have a rough valuation estimate. I dont know what a reasonable average long-term residential real-estate P/E is. I suspect it is probably in the 10-20 range though, as that implies a 5% to 10% return on the owners capital, which is in line with historical returns available across a broad market spectrum. If you find that houses in your area are renting for implied P/Es of under 20 or so, that is a good sign that house prices may be fair. Conversely, if you find houses in your area renting for implied P/Es of over 20, valuations are probably too high and you should be wary of a potential real estate bubble. Another common warning sign of equity bubbles is rampant and unbridled widespread euphoria. Remember the NASDAQ in 1999 and early 2000? It was unreal! All anyone ever talked about was the NASDAQ, how boring. As a hard-traveling consulting road warrior at the time, I remember even the shoeshine boys at airports were talking about their tech stock investments as they polished shoes. It was just crazy, just as brilliant historians like Charles Mackay of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds fame (written in 1841) warned us it would be. It is difficult to empirically quantify euphoria, but there is no mistaking it if you keep your ears open and pay attention to what folks are talking about in your social circles. If you find yourself in a local situation where the preferred topic of conversation at every social get-together is always residential real estate and the great wealth to be made in home ownership, chances are euphoria is setting in and you should proceed with great caution. Just as parabolic price rises, excessive valuations, and overwhelming euphoria are danger signs of bubble tops in the stock markets, they are also equally valid danger signs in local real estate markets. It is probably a wise idea to periodically monitor these three fronts. In addition to stock market-like traits, there are also other factors that affect local real estate prices. These include net local migration patterns, income trends, and interest rates. One of the most important local factors in house prices is migration. If you live in or near a community that is growing as more people move in each year, that increases the pool of potential bidders competing for local houses. Prices are far more likely to rise in an environment of net in-migration. On the other hand, if your community is shrinking, both the number of people and amount of capital available to throw at residential real estate dwindles. This is a bad omen for future real estate prices in your area. Typically cities grow and rural areas shrink as people seek the jobs available in cities. This is not always the case though. As the Information Age continues to evolve, a new population of workers is growing, the information worker. Info workers deal purely in information, like a software programmer. It is often not important where they live, as they rely on the Internet to work remotely with their colleagues and clients. Info workers often earn high salaries and have the means to bid up home prices. Zeal LLC , my company, is an example of an Information Age venture. My partners and I can research, consult, trade, and write from anywhere on Earth. It makes absolutely no difference to you whether I penned this essay in Alaska, Australia, Argentina, or the Azores. Info workers, whose ranks will grow dramatically in the coming decade, are very blessed to be able to live and work from anywhere. So, if you live in an area of exceptional natural beauty and very high quality of life, prime rural areas, an influx of urban information refugees from the decaying carcasses of the megalopoli will probably help support real estate prices in your location even through tough economic times. It may make sense to buy real estate in elite communities like the Colorado or California mountain resort towns even if the US economy faces very turbulent times ahead. The Information Age will probably totally alter the dynamics of rural real estate in prized areas. Another factor to consider is income trends in your area. Ultimately, real estate prices in a given location can never increase faster than income over the long-term. Even for the vast majority who choose to go into debt to live in a house, the level of debt service they can afford is totally dependent on their income. If general income trends in your community are rising, that is a great sign and is bullish for real estate prices. On the other hand, if general income is falling, for any reason, that suggests real estate prices will have to correct downward to adjust for the loss of debt-servicing ability necessary for folks to borrow money and buy residential real estate. Interest rate levels are also intimately tied into this whole debt service capability. As all those burdened with a mortgage know, for many years most of the monthly payments are almost totally interest. It takes a long time and a huge amount of money dumped down the mortgage black hole, into bankers pockets, before the amortization starts taking good-sized bites out of principal each month. Amazingly, in the first 2/3 of a typical 30-year mortgages lifespan, the interest portion of each monthly payment exceeds the principal portion. So, if interest rates are heading higher due to Greenspans promiscuous inflation as I have discussed in past essays including Bond Anomalies Abound , it will severely retard debt-financed residential real estate purchases nationwide. Although interest rates havent turned north yet, history suggests they will be forced higher sooner or later as the bubble excesses are painfully squeezed out of the US economy. In summary, attempting to divine real estate price trends is very difficult in a macro sense. There are a great deal of diverse variables that affect real estate prices. In addition, unlike the stock market, there is no national real estate market. All real estate is local, so national trends must be examined for your particular situation in light of the local realities in your community. Nevertheless, if you do your own due diligence and integrate local real estate data you uncover into national post-bubble trends, you should be able to emerge with a fairly good idea of where your local residential real estate prices might be heading. Adam Hamilton, CPA August 23, 2002 Do you enjoy these essays? Please subscribe to our acclaimed private Zeal Intelligence newsletter today to see the good stuff each month, including our specific stock and options trades based on our research! For more information ... Zeal Intelligence For a FREE sample ... FREE Samples! To subscribe ... Subscribe TODAY! Thank you for your generous support! Contact us at... info@zealllc.com | For optimal viewing please use 800x600 or higher resolution in Microsoft Internet Explorer 6.0 or Netscape 6.2

Denver Real Estate Site

Denver real estate; entertainment Denver entertainment Denver Weather Who ever said, "If you don't like the weather, wait a minute." must have been visiting Colorado! [ Click Here for More ] Education Denver's greatest asset as a business location is the high level of education of its citizens.. [ Click Here for More ] Newspapers The Denver area is serviced by two major newspapers and many neighborhood journals. [ Click Here for More ] Shopping Whatever you fancy, antiques, art, clothing; Denver attracts shoppers from all over the West. [ Click Here for More ] Recreation Colorado has unlimited recreational opportunities, there's something for everyone. [ Click Here for More ] Employment A list of Denver and Colorado's employers. [ Click Here for More ] Colorado Ski Mountains Enjoy the crisp, light powdery snow, only Colorado offers. [ Click Here for More ] Spectator Sports Colorado spectator sports encompass four seasons, there's always something happening. [ Click Here for More ] search Denver Real Estate Site Entertainment The Denver area is bustling with entertainment and cultural possibilities to accommodate the needs of its diverse population. Innumerable dining experiences are available to tempt nearly every palate. Movie theaters showing the latest first run films can be found in most neighborhoods. Nightclubs and dancing clubs geared to all age groups abound throughout the city, and with the development of Coors Field Stadium and Elitch's Amusement Park in lower downtown, "LoDo" has become an active location with many nightclubs, restaurants and shopping. Denver is the cultural center for the Rocky Mountain region. Covering four square blocks downtown is the city's Denver Center for the Performing Arts. Home to several resident dance, music and theater troupes, the complex has one of the nation's most unique concert halls, three theaters, an arena and a cinema. Broadway and major plays, musicals and musicians are presented throughout the year. Adjoining the center are several levels of parking and a shopping galleria. Colorado was the seventh state to require that agencies spend construction money on art. The impressive Denver Art Museum is inspiring for the treasures it exhibits and for its unique architecture. Small theaters and individual art galleries also abound in Denver, with music and dance performances an integral part of the cultural scene. Just west of Denver is Red Rocks Amphitheater, a natural wonder as well as a cultural facility, which has long been a favorite site for summer concerts featuring some of the country's most popular entertainers. Also featuring summer concerts is Fiddler's Green located southeast of the city. Denver's suburbs also contribute to the advancement of the arts. The Arvada Center for the Arts and Humanities has become a model for many other cities contemplating similar facilities for their communities. Subsidized by the City of Arvada, federal grants and private donations, the center has a wide array of classes, theater and musical events. Downtown Littleton has a similar facility, known as the Littleton Town Hall Arts Center Kristal Kraft , ABR, CIPS, CRS Licensed real estate broker selling Colorado Since 1984 The Berkshire Group Realtors, Inc. 3801 E. Florida Ave, Suite 502, Denver, Colorado U.S.A. 80210 800-319-7738 toll free | 303-589-2022 direct | 720-554-7961 fax E-mail: Kristal Kraft, Realtor 1998-2005, © Reflective Motion Inc. | Privacy Policy | Site Credits | Disclaimer | Site Map ~2 ~3 ~4 Denver Relocation | Buy a Home In Denver | Sell a Home in Denver | Denver Map | Denver Neighborhood Profiles | Denver Sales Statistics | International Real Estate | A Bio | My Favorite Places | Real Estate Resources Denver Loft Homes | The Berkshire Group | Buy and Sell Denver | We Sell Denver | Denver Colorado Real Estate | Denver Blog

Denver real estate and

Colorado real estate; relocation - real estate services Colorado real estate Find Real Estate in other areas: Alabama Alaska Arkansas Arizona California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Masschusetts 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 International Links Enjoy these real estate links Colorado Denver lofts, condos and high rises - Larry D. McGee, CRB, CRS Explore alternative living styles in downtown Denver. Also serving the areas of Lodo, Riverfront, Golden Triangle Silver Square, Ball Park, Capitol Hill, Washington Park, Cherry Creek, Hill Top, Congress Park and most Denver city areas. For relocation package go to Denver relocation kit Custer and Fremont Real Estate - John G. Johnson Southern Colorado including Custer County, Fremont County, Pueblo County, Westcliffe, Silver Cliff, Caon City, Penrose, Florence, Wetmore, Cotopaxi and Texas Creek, Pueblo and Pueblo West Denver real estate and relocation to Colorado Full service broker offering relocation advice on the major metro areas surrounding Denver, including Douglas County, Arapahoe County, Denver County, Jefferson County, Broomfield County, Adams County. click here for Denver Relocation Package Homes for sale in Denver The process of buying a home in Colorado Denver real estate and relocation information Serving the Denver metro area, providing access to the Denver MLS via e-mail Colorado Real Estate Colorado Mountain Real Estate for sale in Breckenridge, Keystone, Silverthorne, Frisco, Dillon and all of Summit County Colorado. Breckenridge Real Estate - Ted Amenda For Summit County Colorado real estate, Summit County MLS access, and more. Summit County includes Breckenridge, Keystone, Blue River, Frisco, Silverthorne, Dillon, Copper Mountain, and Wildernest. Colorado Springs Custom Homes - Monument New Homes - El Paso County Luxury Homes Custom and luxury homes for sale in Colorado Springs, Monument, Black Forest, Broadmoor, Kissing Camels, Kings Deer, High Forest Ranch, Cherry Creek Crossing, and El Paso County. View custom homes and find quality construction info! A Denver Real Estate Company The Berkshire Group, Realtors specializes in residential real estate, featuring full real estate services to the Denver metro area, including Greenwood Village, The Denver Tech Center (DTC), Highlands Ranch, Englewood, Castle Rock, Castle Pines, Parker Littleton, Aurora, Denver, Westminster, Broomfield, Arvada, Evergreen, Conifer, Lakewood, Golden, Brighton and Thornton. Call toll free for relocation assistance at 800-250-4725. Dillon Colorado Real Estate Lake Dillon offers a beautiful mountain setting for Colorado real estate. Dillon Colorado real estate listings for sale featured by Exclusively Real Estate, Inc. Kristal Kraft , ABR, CIPS, CRS Licensed real estate broker selling Colorado Since 1984 The Berkshire Group Realtors, Inc. 3801 E. Florida Ave, Suite 502, Denver, Colorado U.S.A. 80210 800-319-7738 toll free | 303-589-2022 direct | 720-554-7961 fax E-mail: Kristal Kraft, Realtor 1998-2005, © Reflective Motion Inc. | Privacy Policy | Site Credits | Disclaimer | Site Map ~2 ~3 ~4 Denver Relocation | Buy a Home In Denver | Sell a Home in Denver | Denver Map | Denver Neighborhood Profiles | Denver Sales Statistics | International Real Estate | A Bio | My Favorite Places | Real Estate Resources Denver Loft Homes | The Berkshire Group | Buy and Sell Denver | We Sell Denver | Denver Colorado Real Estate | Denver Blog

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

Colorado Real Estate -

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