Buy Property
Homes for Sale, Foreclosures, Real Estate Listings :: Buy a House, Sell Your Home at House.com -- "Thank you for all you did to help us get into our new home" -The Meyer Family House.com Sections Find an Agent Foreclosure search -- Check House Value Tips for Buying a House Apply for Mortgage -- Agents Sign Up Here -- Current Rates 30-year fixed: 5.78 % 15-year fixed: 5.18 % 1-year ARM: 4.06 % -- House.com is the 2nd Most Visited Real Estate Site* We are the Nationwide Leader in Connecting You to Top Real Estate Agents. Getting Started 1. Select below a state you want to buy or sell a house in. 2. Fill out our simple form to find top real estate agents. This service is absolutely free with no obligations . Click here to find an Agent » Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware 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 We are a Licensed New York State Real Estate Broker. Home | About Us | Contact Us affiliate program --| Privacy Statement | Terms And Conditions | Jobs | Agents Glossary | Site Map | Press Releases | Exclusive Leads | Census Utah Real Estate | Salt Lake City Real Estate Utah Real Estate Agent | Salt Lake City Real Estate Agent *ComScore Media Metrix Report, week ending September 26, 2004
Buy Property
Amazon.co.uk: The Complete Guide to Buying Property in France: Books BOOK SEARCH BROWSE CATEGORIES SPECIAL OFFERS TOP SELLERS AUDIO BOOKS Paperbacks 3 for £12 NEW & USED TEXTBOOKS HARRY POTTER SELL YOUR BOOKS All Products -Books -Used Books -Collectable Books All Subjects -Art, Architecture & Photography -Audio Cassettes -Audio CDs -Biography -Business, Finance & Law -Children's Books -Comics & Graphic Novels -Computers & Internet -Crime, Thrillers & Mystery -Fiction -Food & Drink -Gay & Lesbian -Health, Family & Lifestyle -History -Home & Garden -Horror -Humour -Mind, Body & Spirit -Music, Stage & Screen -Poetry, Drama & Criticism -Reference & Languages -Religion & Spirituality -Romance -Science & Nature -Science Fiction & Fantasy -Scientific, Technical & Medical -Society, Politics & Philosophy -Sports, Hobbies & Games -Travel & Holiday -Young Adult All Subjects Art, Architecture & Photography Audio Cassettes Audio CDs Biography Business, Finance & Law Children's Books Comics & Graphic Novels Computers & Internet Crime, Thrillers & Mystery Education & Languages Fiction Food & Drink Gay & Lesbian Health, Family & Lifestyle History Home & Garden Horror Humour Mind, Body & Spirit Music, Stage & Screen Poetry, Drama & Criticism Reference Religion & Spirituality Romance Science & Nature Science Fiction & Fantasy Scientific, Technical & Medical Society, Politics & Philosophy Sports, Hobbies & Games Travel & Holiday Young Adult BOOKS INFO At A Glance Reviews Customer Reviews Search Inside! See more by this author E-mail a Friend About This Item Recommendations If you already own this, rate it and improve your recommendations , Not Rated Visit the Music shop Careless Love ~ Madeleine Peyroux (Artist) Find a huge selection of books at 30% off Become an Associate Join our Associates Programme and make money from your website! The Complete Guide to Buying Property in France Charles Davey Search inside another edition of this book List Price: £10.99 Our Price: £7.69 & eligible for Free UK delivery on orders over £15 with Super Saver Delivery. See details & conditions . You Save: £3.30 (30%) Availability: usually dispatched within 24 hours. 16 Used & New from £6.54 See larger photo Edition: Paperback More Product Details Perfect Partner Buy The Complete Guide to Buying Property in France with Buy to Let in France: How to Invest in French Prop... today! Total List Price: £21.98 Buy Together Today: £15.38 Customers who bought this item also bought: The French Property Buyer's Handbook: Everything you need to know about buying a house and moving to France ;Paperback~Natalie Avella Buying a House in France: Where and How to Do It (Buying a House S.) ;Paperback~Andre de Vries Buying and Renovating a Property in France ;Paperback~Richard Whiting Going to Live in France: Your Practical Guide to Life and Work in France ;Paperback~Alan Hart Buying a Property in France: The Ultimate Guide to Buying , Selling and Letting (Red Guides) ;Paperback~Leaonne Hall, et al Explore similar items ... Product Details: Paperback 304 pages(July 3, 2005) Publisher: Kogan Page Language: English ISBN: 0749444193 Category(ies): Home & Garden Average Customer Review: | Write a review Amazon.co.uk Sales Rank: 4,522 (Publishers and authors: improve your sales ) sign in to turn on 1-Click™ ordering. 13 New from 6.54 3 used from 7.33 Have one to sell? (We'll set one up for you) View my Wish List . Reviews —The Riviera Reporter Issue, April/May 2005 "Walks the reader methodically step-by-step through topics such as location, buying, renting, selling, and settling in." —Reading Chronicle, April 2005 "Covering virtually every element you can think of…" See all reviews... New! Search Inside! ( Learn More ) Search inside another edition of this book: You can view sample pages from another edition of this book. Customer Reviews Avg. Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other shoppers! 24 of 24 people found the following review helpful: To the point and informative , March 3, 2004 Reviewer: orchardsam from FARNHAM, SURREY United Kingdom This is one of the more informative guides probably because the author is a legal brain and so understands the contract process. Additionally, there is a helpful summary of the different regions, their attractions and shortfalls and a good explanation of the considerations for running costs for a house in France. Highly recommended. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title . Was this review helpful to you? 34 of 34 people found the following review helpful: factual, easy to read , September 18, 2003 Reviewer: Mr Robert Allen from Tadley United Kingdom Avery concise and well set out book, you can pick it up and find exactly what you want. The guide and map illustrations to the different regions are clear and the information given exactly what is needed. One of the best guides to understanding living in France that I have read and I would definitely recommend it --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title . Was this review helpful to you? 108 of 108 people found the following review helpful: PRACTICAL AND COMPREHENSIVE , July 15, 2003 Reviewer: rbandrews from FRANCE Brilliant. Unlike other books on this subject the book is both thorough and easy to read. The layout is good, and information is easy to locate. More importantly it provides practical guidance and information in areas where other books are lacking. We have lived in France for a year now, and we wished we had had this book when we arrived. All the books we had read advised us to rent before buying, but none of them really explained what to do. This book has a great chapter explaining tenant's rights and telling us how to protect ourselves when we come to leave. What I like also is the information on how to settle, both the details about what is available for Brits in France, and how to settle within the French community - the author has clearly lived in France for some time. Anyone wanting to buy in France should take a look at the details about the many areas affected by flooding and termites, not to mention the subsidence in Normandy. We had not realised that one of the houses we were looking atis in fact in a risk area. This book is a must. --This text refers to an out of print or unavailable edition of this title . Was this review helpful to you? Customers who bought books by Charles Davey also bought books by these authors: David Hampshire Harry King Clive Kristen Andre de Vries Emma Gypps Look for similar books by subject: Browse for Books in: Subjects > Home & Garden > Buying & Developing Property > Property Guides Search for books by subject: Business & Economics Business / Economics / Finance France Handbooks, manuals, etc Home ownership House buying Household Management Housing & property for the individual Personal Finance Personal Finance - General Real Estate - Buying/Selling Homes i.e., each book must be in subject 1 AND subject 2 AND ... Comment on this title I have read this book and I want to review it. I am the author and I want to comment on my book. I am the publisher and I want to comment on this book. Correct errors and omissions in this listing. Where's My Stuff? • track your recent orders • view or change your orders in Your Account Delivery and Returns • see our delivery rates and policies • thinking of returning an item ? (See our Returns Policy ) Need Help? • forgot your password? Click here • redeem or buy a gift certificate • still have questions? Visit our Help Pages Search our shops All Products Books Used Books Collectable Books Electronics & Photo Popular Music Classical Music DVD Rental DVDs Video Software PC & Video Games Software & Games DIY & Tools Garden & Outdoors Kitchen & Home Personal Care Toys Auctions zShops for Text Only Top of Page : The Complete Guide to Buying Property in France International Sites: United States | Germany | France | Japan | Canada | China Join Associates | Join our staff | About Amazon.co.uk | Help pages | Contact us Our Privacy Notice , Conditions of Use & Sale © 1996-2005, Amazon.com, Inc. and its affiliates
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
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
NEW HOMES BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
News Room : ENERGY STAR What is ENERGY STAR? | Newsroom Search History Partners News Archive Awards Media Resources PRODUCTS HOME IMPROVEMENT NEW HOMES BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT PARTNER RESOURCES -- Home > News Room -- -- News Room ENERGY STAR in the News What's New: Program Highlights Half of the States Join ENERGY STAR Challenge (December 2005) Half of the states across the nation are joining with the EPA to address critical energy issues in our communities in conjunction with EPA's ENERGY STAR Challenge. Through the ENERGY STAR Challenge, state governments will offer a variety of programs to help building owners assess how much energy their buildings use now, establish efficiency improvement goals of 10 percent or greater portfolio-wide, and make efficiency improvements wherever cost effective. EPA Press Release List of Participating States (87KB) More Information Businesses: Save on Energy Bills this Winter (November 2005) American businesses are experiencing higher than ever energy prices, which are expected to continue this winter. EPA has advice almost any business can take to save 10% or more on their energy bills this winter. The advice shares lessons learned from EPA's ENERGY STAR partners who have saved through simple steps and adopted longer term energy management strategies with even greater savings. If every business in the US saved 10% on their energy bills, Americans would save about $10 billion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 15 million vehicles. EPA Press Release Advice for Saving Energy EPA Recognizes 18 Leading Organizations for Efforts to Cut Energy Bills (October 2005) On October 26, EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson recognized 18 organizations as ENERGY STAR Leaders for achieving significant energy savings and leading their industries in responding to EPA's ENERGY STAR Building Challenge. The ENERGY STAR Commercial Building Challenge, launched in Spring 2005, encourages building owners and managers to make their buildings at least 10% more efficient. EPA Press Release Fact Sheet (66KB) Leader Profiles (36KB) More Information on the ENERGY STAR Challenge Save Energy this Winter with help from ENERGY STAR (October 2005) In the face of higher energy bills this winter, the EPA encourages everyone to take action in their home to be more energy efficient. The average American household spends $1,500 annually on energy bills — a number that may go up as much as 50 percent this year. EPA offers five places to look and practical advice for home energy savings. EPA Press Release Home Energy Quiz (240KB) More Information K-12 Schools take the ENERGY STAR Challenge (October 2005) Ten leading associations representing state school boards, superintendents, principals, facility planners, parents, and teachers are joining with the EPA to address critical energy issues in our nation's K-12 schools. Currently, the nation's more than 17,000 K-12 schools spend $5 billion on energy bills each year. However, school districts can save up to 30 percent on their energy bills through cost-effective energy efficiency improvements. Through the ENERGY STAR Challenge, school decision-makers assess how much energy school districts use now, establish efficiency improvement goals of 10 percent or greater district-wide, and make efficiency improvements wherever cost effective. EPA Press Release Fact Sheet (82KB) Participants List (62KB) More Information EPA and DOE Announce ENERGY STAR Change a Light Day (October 2005) EPA and DOE, together with more than half of US Governors, declared October 5th ENERGY STAR Change a Light Day, and encouraged every American to change a light in their home to one that is more energy efficient. Lighting accounts for 20 percent of a home's electricity costs. ENERGY STAR qualified bulbs reduce household energy bills because they use one-third the energy of traditional lighting and last up to 10 times longer. This small step can make a big difference for our nation's energy resources and environment. EPA Press Release Campaign Fast Facts (98KB) Governors Declaring ENERGY STAR Change a Light Day (307KB) 250+ Participating Organizations (628KB) Take the Pledge EPA Raises the Bar for New Homes to Earn ENERGY STAR Label (September 2005) Builders of new homes in the United States will have to significantly increase the energy efficiency of their homes to meet the new ENERGY STAR requirements which take effect July 1, 2006. To qualify under the revised ENERGY STAR specifications, new homes must have higher levels of insulation inspected for proper installation; complete framing and air barrier assemblies that enable insulation to perform at its full rated value; windows that meet or exceed ENERGY STAR requirements; high-efficiency and properly sized heating and cooling equipment appropriate to the climate; and more energy-efficient water heating, lighting and appliances. EPA Press Release More information ENERGY STAR Annual Report Released (September 2005) EPA recently released its annual report summarizing the success of ENERGY STAR and other voluntary climate protection programs. The report summarizes the accomplishments of these programs for 2004. For example, Americans, with the help of the ENERGY STAR, avoided greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from 20 million automobiles – up from 18 million in 2003 – while saving $10 billion on their energy bills. EPA Press Release 2004 Annual Report (1.27MB) New Partnerships for Home Energy Efficiency Announced (July 2005) On July 11 the EPA, DOE and HUD announced a new multi-agency effort, the Partnerships for Home Energy Efficiency, to bring greater energy efficiency to the U.S. housing market to save 10 percent or more on home energy bills over the next decade. A 10 percent savings would total almost $20 billion a year, help increase the affordability and comfort of homes, reduce demand for natural gas by more than 1 quad, avoid the need for 40 power plants and avoid the greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to those from more than 25 million vehicles. Home Performance with ENERGY STAR plays a large role in delivering these savings to consumers. EPA/HUD/DOE Press Release Report: Partnerships for Home Energy Efficiency (3.00MB) Overview Fact Sheet: Partnerships for Home Energy Efficiency (247KB) Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (141KB) ENERGY STAR Products for American Homes (186KB) Quality Installation for Air Conditioning Equipment (109KB) Case Studies: Home Performance with ENERGY STAR Aurora, CO (137KB) Austin, TX (131KB) Fresno, CA (214KB) Ithaca, NY (216KB) Manlius, NY (88KB) St. Louis, MO (146KB) Suwanee, GA (108KB) EPA Announces Energy Performance Indicator for Auto Assembly Plants (June 2005) The energy efficiency of automobile assembly plants can now be rated on a national basis. EPA has recently made available a tool to help the automobile industry evaluate the energy performance of its assembly plants. This tool, the first of its kind for a manufacturing facility, compares the energy efficiency of any assembly plant producing passenger cars, light duty trucks, sport utility vehicles, and vans in the U.S. to that of the entire industry. EPA Press Release Auto Assembly Plant Energy Performance Indicator EPA Offers Smart Ways to Stay Cool this Summer (June 2005) Energy use escalates when hot summer days set in across the nation. EPA's ENERGY STAR program is offering advice this summer on how to save money, remain cool and comfortable and help reduce the risks of global warming – all at the same time. Advice includes keeping your air conditioner maintained, using a programmable thermostat, sealing up gaps and cracks in the home envelope, and replacing old equipment with products that have earned the government's ENERGY STAR for energy efficiency. EPA Press Release EPA's Guide to Energy Efficient Heating and Cooling (663KB) Cool Your World Fast Facts (English) (150KB) Cool Your World Simple Steps (English) (44KB) Cool Your World Fast Facts (Spanish) (68KB) Cool Your World Simple Steps (Spanish) (49KB) New Water and Wastewater Industry Focus Announced (May 2005) EPA is launching a new initiative to increase the energy efficiency of U.S. drinking water and wastewater systems, with participation from more than 20 leading organizations. The new ENERGY STAR Water and Wastewater Industry Focus will work over the next year to develop an energy performance rating system, a guide to assessing energy efficiency opportunities, strategies for superior energy management, and innovative approaches to financing energy efficiency projects for each of the two industries. This new ENERGY STAR focus is part of a series of efforts to improve the energy efficiency of selected industries. EPA Press Release Fact Sheet (55KB) EPA announces ENERGY STAR Building Challenge (March 2005) EPA joined with more than 20 leading associations, States, and businesses to announce a national challenge for the owners of commercial and institutional buildings across the country. The ENERGY STAR Challenge encourages building owners to improve the efficiency of their buildings by 10 percent or more and to capitalize on the environmental benefits and cost savings that will result. EPA Press Release List of organizations partnering with EPA More information 2005 ENERGY STAR Awards (March 2005) EPA and DOE are recognizing 50 organizations as winners of the 2005 ENERGY STAR Partner of the Year Awards. These organizations have made outstanding contributions to reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency. EPA and DOE sponsor these awards annually to recognize energy efficiency investments made by ENERGY STAR partners that saved consumers money while helping the environment. The Partners of the Year are selected from the over 7,000 ENERGY STAR partners based on their efforts to utilize energy-efficient technologies, communicate the benefits of energy savings to consumers and businesses, and encourage others to partner with ENERGY STAR. This year's award winners include Lowes Companies Inc., Food Lion, Pardee Homes, USAA Real Estate and 3M. EPA Press Release List of 50 award winners (15KB) More on Awards EPA's Public Service Announcement (PSA): 2005 ENERGY STAR Awards (2.84MB) International Power Supply Design Competition Winners Announced at Applied Power Electronics Conference and Exposition (APEC), Austin, TX, March 6-10, 2005 (March 2005) On March 7, 2005 at APEC's plenary session, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Energy Commission announced the winners of Efficiency Challenge 2004, an international design competition for power supply efficiency. Twelve winners were selected, including two Grand Champions: Power Integrations in the Market Ready Category and Hong Kong Polytechnic University in the Open Category. All the winning entries are more energy efficient, and in many cases radically smaller than typical power supplies on the market today, demonstrating what is possible in future consumer electronics products. Efficiency Challenge APEC Presentation (62KB) Andrew Fanara, EPA, Andy Williams, ON Semiconductor, and Peter Schwartz, representing the California Energy Commission Andrew Fanara, EPA, Balu Balakrishnan, Power Integrations, and Peter Schwartz, representing the California Energy Commission Andrew Fanara, EPA, Speaking at APEC 2005 Product Picture, Power Integrations, Winner of Best in Class A1, Market Ready Grand Champion EPA Efficiency Challenge Press Release (62KB) Judging Criteria Fact Sheet (55KB) Efficiency Challenge 2004 Judge Bios (33KB) Efficiency Challenge Winner Fact Sheets (162KB) ENERGY STAR Qualified Homes Near 10 Percent of Housing Starts Nationwide (March 2005) Nearly 10 percent of all homes built in 2004 earned the ENERGY STAR label. According to a recently released report, A Decade of Change in Home Building with ENERGY STAR (2.36MB), since 1995 over 360,000 of the Nation's new homes have earned the ENERGY STAR, saving homeowners an estimated $200 million and eliminating approximately 4 billion pounds of greenhouse gas emissions. EPA Press Advisory Report: A Decade of Change in Home Building with ENERGY STAR (2.36MB) More information on ENERGY STAR Qualified New Homes Almost 2,000 Buildings Have Earned EPA's ENERGY STAR (January 2005) As of January 1, 2005, almost 2,000 of the nation's most energy efficient buildings, representing almost 400 million square feet, have earned EPA's ENERGY STAR designation for superior energy performance. The buildings qualifying as ENERGY STAR use about 40 percent less energy than average buildings without compromising comfort or services. Press Release List of buildings (2.14MB) More information ENERGY STAR Awareness Climbs to Over 60 Percent (February 2005) Public awareness of ENERGY STAR has jumped to 64 percent of U.S. households, according to a recent nationwide survey. In many major markets where local utilities and other organizations use ENERGY STAR to promote energy efficiency to their customers, public awareness of ENERGY STAR is even higher, averaging 74 percent. EPA Press Advisory (14KB) Survey Report (1.58MB) Energy-Efficient External Power Adapters Can Now Earn the ENERGY STAR (January 2005) On January 6, 2005 EPA announced that the ENERGY STAR is now available for qualifying external power adapters. Power adapters, also known as external power supplies, are used to power many electronic products such as cell phones, PDAs, digital cameras, camcorders, MP3 players, routers and other electronics and appliances. As many as 1.5 billion power adapters are in use in the U.S. – which is about five for every person. The new guidelines for power adapters will help reduce greenhouse gas emissions; in the U.S., more efficient adapters have the potential to save over 5 billion kilowatt hours (kWh) of energy and prevent the release of more than 4 million tons of greenhouse gas emissions the equivalent to taking 800,000 cars off the road. Press Release More on Power Adapters Photos: CES Show , EPS Booth New ENERGY STAR Monitor Specification (January 2005) Beginning January 2005, computer monitors must meet more energy-efficient requirements to qualify for the ENERGY STAR label. For the first time, the specification addresses energy consumption while monitors are in use, as well as while they are idle. Many models on the market already meet EPA's new specifications. By 2010, EPA estimates that the new requirements will result in carbon emission savings of almost 5 million metric tonnes (carbon equivalent), or the equivalent of taking more than 3 million cars off the road. The previous computer monitor requirements called for only a "sleep mode" energy-saving function. Press Release More Information News Archives Press Contact: Maria T. Vargas, (202) 343-9451 Consumer Contact Information: energystar@optimuscorp.com 1-888-STAR-YES Products | Home Improvement | New Homes | Business Improvement | Partner Resources Newsroom | Privacy | Contact Us | Site Index EPA Home EPA Search DOE Home DOE Search