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

Property Search

Allegheny County Assessment ALLEGHENY COUNTY REAL ESTATE WEB SITE 12/29/2005 3:44:14 PM 1B    Help      Home   Search by Property Address Street Name: omit suffix 'St', 'Dr', 'Ave' House Number: (optional) Municipality: Aleppo Aspinwall Avalon Baldwin Boro Baldwin Twp Bell Acres Bellevue Ben Avon Ben Avon Heights Bethel Park Blawnox Brackenridge Braddock Braddock Hills Bradford Woods Brentwood Bridgeville Carnegie Castle Shannon Chalfant Cheswick Churchill Clairton - All Wards Clairton - 1st Ward Clairton - 2nd Ward Collier Coraopolis Crafton Crescent Dormont Dravosburg Duquesne - All Wards Duquesne - 1st Ward Duquesne - 2nd Ward Duquesne - 3rd Ward East Deer East McKeesport East Pittsburgh Edgewood Edgeworth Elizabeth Boro Elizabeth Twp Emsworth Etna Fawn Findlay Forest Hills Forward Fox Chapel Franklin Park Frazer Glassport Glenfield Greentree Hampton Harmar Harrison Haysville Heidelberg Homestead Indiana Ingram Jefferson Kennedy Kilbuck Leet Leetsdale Liberty Lincoln Marshall McCandless McDonald McKees Rocks McKeesport - All Wards McKeesport - 1st Ward McKeesport - 2nd Ward McKeesport - 3rd Ward McKeesport - 4th Ward McKeesport - 5th Ward McKeesport - 6th Ward McKeesport - 7th Ward McKeesport - 8th Ward McKeesport - 9th Ward McKeesport - 10th Ward McKeesport - 11th Ward McKeesport - 12th Ward Millvale Monroeville Moon Mt. Oliver Mt.Lebanon Munhall Neville North Braddock North Fayette North Versailles Oakdale Oakmont O'Hara Ohio Osborne Penn Hills Pennsbury Village Pine Pitcairn Pittsburgh - All Wards Pittsburgh - 1st Ward Pittsburgh - 2nd Ward Pittsburgh - 3rd Ward Pittsburgh - 4th Ward Pittsburgh - 5th Ward Pittsburgh - 6th Ward Pittsburgh - 7th Ward Pittsburgh - 8th Ward Pittsburgh - 9th Ward Pittsburgh - 10th Ward Pittsburgh - 11th Ward Pittsburgh - 12th Ward Pittsburgh - 13th Ward Pittsburgh - 14th Ward Pittsburgh - 15th Ward Pittsburgh - 16th Ward Pittsburgh - 17th Ward Pittsburgh - 18th Ward Pittsburgh - 19th Ward Pittsburgh - 20th Ward Pittsburgh - 21st Ward Pittsburgh - 22nd Ward Pittsburgh - 23rd Ward Pittsburgh - 24th Ward Pittsburgh - 25th Ward Pittsburgh - 26th Ward Pittsburgh - 27th Ward Pittsburgh - 28th Ward Pittsburgh - 29th Ward Pittsburgh - 30th Ward Pittsburgh - 31st Ward Pittsburgh - 32nd Ward Pleasant Hills Plum Port Vue Rankin Reserve Richland Robinson Ross Rosslyn Farms Scott Sewickley Sewickley Heights Sewickley Hills Shaler Sharpsburg South Fayette South Park South Versailles Springdale Boro Springdale Twp Stowe Swissvale Tarentum Thornburg Trafford Turtle Creek Upper St. Clair Verona Versailles Wall West Elizabeth West Homestead West Mifflin West View WestDeer Whitaker White Oak Whitehall Wilkins Wilkinsburg Wilmerding (optional) Search by Parcel ID Example 1: 123 - A - 123 - - Example 2: 0123 - A - 00123 - 0000 - 00 Parcel ID: - - - - Search by Owner Name Owner's Name: LastName FirstName (do not enter comma) Legal Disclaimer

Denver Real Estate Foreclosure

Real Estate Foreclosure Records Search The Official Site of the City and County of Denver Home About Denver Elected Officials Safety Neighborhoods Employment Doing Business Online Services Search or View Directory 48 ° Scattered Clouds City and County of Denver Real Estate Foreclosure Records Search Date last updated:Wednesday, December 28, 2005 Denver real estate foreclosure records are maintained and updated by the City and County of Denver Public Trustee's Office . You can use this page to search for records from 1996 to the present day, by granter or owner name, property address, or foreclosure number. The search results will contain foreclosure numbers, owner and/or grantor names, attorney names, and legal addresses of the properties foreclosed. The records viewed on this Web site are not official legal documents. Official legal document copies are available only from the Public Trustee's Office. For further information or to order document copies, please call 720-865-8641, or visit the Denver Clerk and Recorder/Public Trustee's Office located at 201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 101 (First Floor), Denver, Colorado 80202. Tip: Include the wildcard character (%) before or after your search words if you don't know the complete spelling of the name or address. To search using an address, please enter the street name only and leave out the street number. For example, enter %colfax% to list all foreclosure records with an addressof East or West Colfax. To search using the foreclosure number, enter the 5-digit number with a 4-digit year. For example, to search for the foreclosure number 966 for the year 2003, enter 009662003. Please be sure to include the leading zeroes. Name: (Grantor or Owner) Address: (if available) Foreclosure Number: -- -- -- Printer Friendly Version Email This Page Select Category: Resident Visitor Business Address/Intersection: -- Contact Us Search Site Info return to the top

House Rent

property Sheffield property in Sheffield to rent house rent gumtree.com > Sheffield > Flats to rent > Flat / house to rent -- Search for: Price: pw -- -- How does this work? Sheffield rent - houses / flats for rent post an ad edit/delete an ad | repost an ad | subscribe free | unsubscribe | What is RSS? Bookmark this Page Thursday 8th December 126pw 2 bedroom house wanted (Sheffield area) Available 07/12 Wednesday 7th December 45pw 1 Room To Rent (Near Netto n City Center) (sheffield) Available 24/12 Tuesday 6th December 45pw Room available in 4 bed house in Walkley (Walkley) Available 01/12 Monday 5th December 150pw 15th Century Cruck Cottage for rent (Stocksbridge) Available 01/01 Sunday 4th December 92pw Flat to rent (Heeley) Available 04/12 92pw 3 Bed-Semi to Let (Kimberworth) Available 03/12 60pw Double Bedroom City Centre (abbeydale road) Available 03/12 Wednesday 30th November 72pw Room to rent (s10) Available 01/01 Tuesday 29th November 69pw house share (granville road) Available 01/12 Sunday 27th November 55pw 2 Double Rooms for rent in Nice Postgrad 5-bed house (ECcesall Road/Hunters Bar) Available 27/11 50pw Room available immediately (ECcesall Road) Available 27/11 50pw Room available immediately (City Centre Norfolk Park-) Available 27/11 45pw 2 rooms available in 4 bed house from 1st July 2006 (Crookes) Available 01/07 Friday 25th November 65pw 1 lovely Double Bedroom in large victorian shared house , S7 (Nether Edge) Available 15/11 Wednesday 23rd November 126pw Young, modern, well furnished 2-bedroomed apartment in a quiet, exclusive Sheffield suburb (Bradway (S17)) Available 25/05 Friday 18th November 105pw Newly Decorated 2 Dble Bedroom Flat (S3) Available 17/11 Wednesday 16th November 45pw 1 double bedroom available (sharrow) Available 28/02 126pw House To Let In Whiston (Whiston, Rotherham) Available 16/11 Monday 14th November 138pw appartment for rent (sheffield city centre) Available 31/12 Saturday 12th November 50pw 2 double rooms available in friendly shared house (Hunters Bar) Available 20/11 100pw 3 Bedroom furnished decorated house, S4 area (Sheffield S4) Available 21/07 Friday 11th November 124pw Spacous 3 Double Bedroom House (Walkley) Available 05/12 55pw Student house in Crookesmoor (university) Available 10/06 Tuesday 8th November 138pw 2 bed appartment (city centre) Available 01/01 103pw 2 bedroom flat (swallownest) Available 01/01 [ Previous ] [ Next ] Sheffield rent - houses / flats for rent Search for: Price: pw -- -- How does this work? Adelaide | Auckland | Belfast | Birmingham | Bournemouth | Bradford | Brighton | Brisbane | Bristol | Cambridge | Capetown | Cardiff | Christchurch | Coventry | Dublin | Durban | Edinburgh | Exeter | Glasgow | Guildford | Johannesburg | Krakow | Leeds | Leicester | Liverpool | Lodz | London | Manchester | Melbourne | Middlesbrough | Newcastle | Norwich | Nottingham | Oxford | Perth | Plymouth | Portsmouth | Reading | Sheffield | Southampton | Swansea | Sydney | Warsaw | Wellington | Wroclaw | York |

Buy House

Amazon.com: House of Flying Daggers: DVD Your Store DVD See All 32 Product Categories Your Account | Cart | Wish List | Help | Advanced Search | Browse Genres | Top Sellers | New & Future Releases | Television Central | Life & Learning | DVD Essentials | Blowout DVDs | Movie Showtimes | Used DVDs Search Amazon.com DVD Web Search Join Amazon Prime and ship Two-Day for free and Overnight for $3.99. Already a member? Sign in . DVD Information Explore this item buying info editorial reviews customer reviews cast and crew fun facts Listmania! All Things Sexy : A list by Eliza Add your List Ready to buy? Sign in to turn on 1-Click ordering. A9.com users save 1.57% on Amazon. Learn how . MORE BUYING CHOICES 123 used & new from $7.45 Available for in-store pickup now from: $19.99 Price may vary based on availability Enter your ZIP Code Have one to sell? House of Flying Daggers (2005) Starring: Takeshi Kaneshiro , Andy Lau Director: Yimou Zhang Rating: See larger image Share your own customer images List Price: $19.94 Price: $12.99 & eligible for FREE Super Saver Shipping on orders over $25. See details You Save: $6.95 (35%) Availability: Usually ships within 24 hours. Ships from and sold by Amazon.com. Want it delivered Friday, December 30? Choose One-Day Shipping at checkout. See details 123 used & new available from $7.45 Edition: Other Versions and Languages Other Versions (DVD) List Price Price Other Offers: DVD House of Flying Daggers (UMD mini for PSP) $28.95 $25.99 36 used & new from $13.97 DVD House of Flying Daggers/Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon $36.96 $25.88 71 used & new from $17.97 Other Versions (VHS Tape) VHS Tape House of Flying Daggers $14.95 $14.20 10 used & new from $7.50 Better Together Buy this DVD with Hero DVD ~ Jet Li today! Total List Price: $39.93 Buy Together Today: $25.98 Customers who bought this DVD also bought Hero DVD ~ Jet Li The Incredibles (Widescreen 2-Disc Collector's Edition) DVD ~ Maeve Andrews Sin City DVD ~ Robert Rodriguez Batman Begins (Two-Disc Deluxe Edition with Comic Book) DVD ~ Christian Bale Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Music , and in Books Storyline Genres: Action , Drama , Romance Plot Outline: A romantic warrior breaks a beautiful member of a rebel army out of prison to help her rejoin her fellows, but things are not what they seem. Plot Synopsis: During the reign of the Tang dynasty in China, a secret organization called "The House of the Flying Daggers" rises and opposes the government. A police officer called Leo sends officer Jin to investigate a young dancer named Mei, claiming that she has ties to the "Flying Daggers". Leo arrests Mei, only to have Jin breaking her free in a plot to gain her trust and lead the police to the new leader of the secret organization. But things are far more complicated than they seem... Plot Keywords: Visually Impaired Person | Blind | Blindness | Police | Deputy | Police Officer | Martial Arts | Blind Girl | Brothel | China | Dancer | Doublecross | (Show all 22 plot keywords recommended by customers) Product Details Actors: Takeshi Kaneshiro , Andy Lau , Ziyi Zhang , Dandan Song , Yang Guang , See more Directors: Yimou Zhang Format: Ac- , Color, Dolby, Dubbed, Subtitled, Widescreen, Ntsc, Widescreen Anamorphic Region: Region 1 ( U.S. and Canada only. Read more about DVD formats. ) Number of discs: 1 Rated: Studio: Sony Pictures DVD Release Date: April 19, 2005 Run Time: 119 min (original theatrical or airing runtime) Average Customer Review: Based on 219 Reviews DVD Features: Available Subtitles: English, French Available Audio Tracks: (Dolby Digital 5.1), English (Dolby Digital 5.1) Commentary with actor Ziyi Zhang and director Zhang Yimou Creating the Visual Effects featurette "Making of" featurette Theme Song 'Lovers' Music Video Behind the Scenes Photo Gallery Costumes Gallery Storyboard Comparisons Previews From IMDb: Quotes & Trivia ASIN: B0007Q6VXC Amazon.com Sales Rank: #285 in DVD Theatrical Release Information US Theatrical Release Date: January 14, 2005 MPAA: for sequences of stylized martial arts violence, and some sexuality. Production Company: Beijing New Picture Film Co., China Film Co-Production Corporation, EDKO Film Ltd., Elite Group Enterprises, Zhang Yimou Studio USA Box Office: $11 Million Budget Estimate: $100 Million Filming Locations: Beijing, China| China| Kossiv National Park, Ukraine| Lviv, Ukraine| Sichun Province, China| Tea Mountain Bamboo Sea Scenery Park, Yongchuen, Chongqing, China| Ukraine Editorial Reviews Amazon.com No one uses color like Chinese director Zhang Yimou--movies like Raise the Red Lantern or Hero , though different in tone and subject matter, are drenched in rich, luscious shades of red, blue, yellow, and green. House of Flying Daggers is no exception; if they weren't choreographed with such vigorous imagination, the spectacular action sequences would seem little more than an excuse for vivid hues rippling across the screen. Government officers Leo and Jin (Asian superstars Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro) set out to destroy an underground rebellion called the House of Flying Daggers (named for their weapon of choice, a curved blade that swoops through the air like a boomerang). Their only chance to find the rebels is a blind women named Mei (Ziyi Zhang, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon ) who has some lethal kung fu moves of her own. In the guise of an aspiring rebel, Jin escorts Mei through gorgeous forests and fields that become bloody battlegrounds as soldiers try to kill them both. While arrows and spears of bamboo fly through the air, Mei, Jin, and Leo turn against each other in surprising ways, driven by passion and honor. Zhang's previous action/art film, Hero , sometimes sacrificed momentum for sheer visual beauty; House of Flying Daggers finds a more muscular balance of aesthetic splendor and dazzling swordplay. --Bret Fetzer Customers who viewed this DVD also viewed Star Wars, Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Ahmed Best National Treasure (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Nicolas Cage Sideways (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Paul Giamatti Kung Fu Hustle (Widescreen Edition) DVD ~ Kwok Kuen Chan Explore Similar Items : in DVD , in Music , and in Video Spotlight Reviews Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. 179 of 199 people found the following review helpful: More Romance Than 'Hero' and More Beauty of Zhang Ziyi , October 7, 2004 Reviewer: T. Nakajima (Kyoto-shi, Kyoto-hu Japan) - See all my reviews Soon following the success of 'Hero,' director Yimou Zhang made another film featuring beautiful Zhang Ziyi. One of the good news for Zhang Ziyi fans (including me) is that 'House of Flying Daggers' features her almost all through the film. And this time director's stress is clearly given to the romantic side of the story -- and as if to match his intention, 'House' looks more beautiful, colorful, and gorgeous, than 'Hero.' And there are actions, and some of them are quite unique. The film is set in 859 AD, last days of the now corrupt Tang Dynasty in China. One underground sect called House of Flying Daggers are openly challenging the authority of the government, and to crush these rebels, two officers Jin -- also known 'The Wind' (Takeshi Kaneshiro, 'Chunking Express') and Leo (Andy Lau, 'Infernal Affairs') think of a good plan. Jin goes to meet a blind courtesan Mei (Zhang Ziyi), who is suspected to be connected with the secret clan, and he gains the confidence of this beautiful dancer by some tricks -- tricks meaning 'love.' Make her love you, and you get her secret. Hopefully she will lead Jin to the hiding place of the 'House of Flying Daggers,' but before the plan starts, Leo warns Jin: 'Don't fall in love for real.' But who can resist Mei's beauty? Or Zhang Ziyi's for that matter? The rest of the story is very melodramatic, and the film sometimes needs a good amount of suspension of disbelief (especially for Western audiences, I'm afraid). But, though melodramatic, it is aptly so, as this is basically about a romance, or a love story. Those who love the romantic mood in films would understand what I say. It's all about the tension and mood, and 'House' has lots of them. Actions are done by Tony Ching Siu-Tung, whose CV includes the action director of 'A Chinese Ghost Story.' He gives superb martial arts actions here again, without using too much of now-too-trendy wire actions. As the film title shows, there are some effectively shot scenes of 'flying daggers' which, with a good use of CGIs, gives a few of thrilling moments. And like I said before, the battles in the midst of a deep bamboo forest are not to be missed, if you are a real Hong-Kong film fan. Costumes are provided by Emi Wada (as in 'Hero'), whose colorful dresses are just wonderful. Particlularly those long-sleeved dancing costumes for Zhang Ziyi not merely enhance the exotic beauty of the dancer, but things to be treasured on their own merit. And Kathleen Battle sings the theme song at the end of the film. But first and foremost, to me, the film is made for Zhang Ziyi. Did I say she is beautiful? She is, and breathtakingly so, when her character betrays her hidden emotions before the camera. And sometimes the film reveals the character's very sensual side -- I say, for a Chinese film, of course, but it was a little surprising. Of course, top-credited Andy Lau and Takeshi Kaneshiro are the stars, and they are very good. The film is always beautiful to see, from the first to the end (the snow field was shot in Ukraine). And if you're a fan of Zhang Ziyi, this one is not to be missed for it's not too much to say that it belongs to her. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 214 of 333 people found the following review helpful: Opinion of a Chinese Viewer..... , December 13, 2004 Reviewer: C. Jen "chanteuse33" (Los Angeles, CA USA) - See all my reviews To be fair, this is not a bad movie considering how many bad movies Hollywood put out there each year. As a Chinese living in US for 20+ years and someone grew up devoting to Wushia films, this is a good but not outstanding movie. Certain aspects were distracting: 1. bamboo forest and the other forest don't mix. They are apparently from two very different regions. Weird how they traversed between the two like they were next door neighbors.... 2. Mei and Jin must be really young to fall so deeply for each other after only 3 days. Also said the House of Daggers leader, Mei (Zhang Ziyi) had used her beauty for business a few times before. She's not a spring chicken who had never ventured out of her confine to be a true Juliet (if you must use the Shakespearean connection.....) 3. Once the twist was revealed, Leo(Andy Lau)'s role became very unsympathetic. He's a classic case of possessive character that stalker/abuser is made of. House of The Flying Daggers is not a Wushia movie technically because its emphasis on the love story. Everything, the story structure, fight scenes, visuals, music, and editing, are all in support of the love story. A true Wushia movie is more about good vs. evil, right vs. wrong, underdog vs. oppressor, or moral vs. greed, much like a classic Western should. As a love story/melodrama, it is good. As a Wushia movie, it is not. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon is a better representation of the Wushia genre. Just my two cents.... Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) Customer Reviews Average Customer Review: Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers. If nothing else, watch this movie for the 'Echo Game' scene... , December 28, 2005 Reviewer: Brandon Wiggins "Glass Onion Child" - See all my reviews This movie is primarily a love story that is kept mildly entertaining with some high flying martial arts and the absolutely stunning Zhiang Ziyi. What I enjoyed most about this film, however, was the choreography and wonderful use of colors throughout the movie. As mentioned before, the 'Echo Game' scene features Zhiang Ziyi performing a beautiful martial arts dance with a gown that has long flowing sleeves that are absolutely gorgeous to watch on screen as they move effortlessly around the circle hitting each specific drum. This was by far one of my favorite scenes in the entire movie. The use of colors is also wonderful to watch, especially the green theme used for the House of Flying Daggers' scenes. As far as the plot goes, this movie offers nothing spectatuclar and is a melodramatic love story at best. But the acting is superb and the film offers enough plot twists to keep your interest until the end of the film. Overall, this film is not about action so much as it is about the overall mood created with the visuals and love story. Zhiang Ziyi is spectacular in her role as Mei and I would highly reccomend this to any fan of films such as 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon', etc. (CTHD has a much better story though.) Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) Better than Crouching Tiger! , December 21, 2005 Reviewer: David Foskin (Waterford, Ireland) - See all my reviews After raising his artistic level to lofty heights in "Hero," Chinese director Zhang Yimou returns to earth with the elegiac "House of Flying Daggers." In what could be considered the second film of his third different film-making period, Zhang now freely traffics in martial arts. Bringing to the genre his own cinematic sensibilities, he renders a film that equals Hong Kong artists in action sequences, while again displaying his mastery in overall technique. Working with a script from Li Feng, Wang Bin and himself, Zhang again returns to his country's history for an action tale full of romance, deceit, betrayal and loyalty. Set in 859 China, near the end of the Tang dynasty, "Daggers" centers on an on-going conflict between the established, corrupt emperor (whom we never see) and what must be called a terrorist group, known by the film's title, sworn to overthrow the ineffectual leader. But, strangely, even when dealing with such a variety of emotions, "Daggers" is often a cold, uninvolving movie. A romance is established between Mei (Zhang Ziyi), who may or may not be blind, and Jin (Takeshi Kaneshiro), who may or may not be a double agent for the government, with Leo (Andy Lau), who may or may not be a triple agent for the government, acting as a romantic foil. In the prolonged opening scene set in a brothel, full of flowery patterns and shimmering costumes, Mei dances for Leo, suggesting that the deft Zhang Ziyi can execute any physical demands. Before leaving the scene, however, director Zhang shows his perfect eye for composition and choreography with his production of Mei's "echo dance." Mei smoothly moves through her intricate paces, provocatively stimulating the senses. Carefully choreographed drummers surround her in perfect symmetry, setting up an unlikely stage from which Mei performs her stunning dance. After this initial interior sequence, the film goes outside and stays there for several pursuits. Zhang then parades several imaginative battle sequences in which armies are outrageously mowed down by one or two people. Consequently, much of "Daggers" follows a Hong Kong film tradition by taking place in the air, as fights erupt in bamboo forests, with warriors swaying in the trees, bending, and defying gravity. Zhang's pastoral fight scenes don't originate from the Hong Kong tradition of Tsui Hark or early John Woo films, but instead are his own inventions with much more emphasis on the aesthetic. And it's for this eye that Zhang is best known, even in epic works like "Hero" or in a film like "Daggers." And that alone makes it more entertaining, and better, than 98 percent of most movies. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 1 of 3 people found the following review helpful: From another Chinese viewer... , December 19, 2005 Reviewer: F. Quan (Orem, UT USA) - See all my reviews I rented this movie over the weekend so I could decide if I was going to buy it. Decided against buying it. The movie is slow and drawn out. This is really a love story with martial arts in it. If you're looking for a martial arts movie, move on to something else. If you're looking for a love story, there are better stories out there. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) 2 of 2 people found the following review helpful: An Asian love story , December 15, 2005 Reviewer: Cory D. Slipman (Rockville Centre, N.Y.) - See all my reviews "House of Flying Daggers" directed by acclaimed Yimou Zhang is a romanntic drama disguised as a martial arts film. This visually appealing movie features terrific set designs and costuming to create 9th century China at the time of the Tang dynasty. The martial arts action sequences were choreographed beautifully as one would expect. The storyline however was merely an above average romantic plot. The Tang dynasty was in a state of decline and a clandestine underground group, the House of the Flying Daggers, was attempting to take over control of the country. The blind daughter of the recently assassinated leader of the group was purported to be working as a dancer in the lavishly decorated bordello, the Peony Pavilion. Two captains of the reigning government Jin and Leo schemed to use the girl to lead them to the secret hideout of the Flying Daggers. The girl Mei played by the ravishingly beautiful Ziyi Zhang is arrested on trumped up charges by Leo, played by Andy Lau and threatened with torture unless she reveals the secrets of the Flying Daggers. As previously, arranged Jin played by Takeshi Kaneshiro, helps her escape using an impressive array of martial arts moves. Jin and Mei, also an accomplished martial artist, are riding and running through the countryside being hunted by government soldiers. Jin is attempting to gain Mei's confidence so that he can coax her into leading him to the Flying Daggers, with Leo in hot pursuit. A funny thing happens as in their flight which includes frequent battles in that Jin and Mei fall in love. Mei had previously been Leo's love interest so this creates a muddle in the various allegiances. The film concludes in a fairly standard manner but not necessarily happily ever after. Was this review helpful to you? ( Report this ) See all 219 customer reviews... Listmania! Great Asian Movies, China, #1 ... : by Steve Vander The Best Tearjerkers : by Lyn All Things Sexy : by Eliza So You'd Like to... The Best of Eastern Directors : by Jason , Amateur Film Critic Have an awesome Movie collection like me : by kurt , Movie collector/ amatuer movie critic Get the BEST Cinema. : by Ruben , Amateur Movie Critic Fun Facts from IMDb.com: Awards Click here to see more Awards Boston Society of Film Critics Awards: BSFC Award for Best Foreign-Language Film, Best Director, Best Cinematography Golden Rooster Awards: Golden Rooster for Best Art Direction Golden Trailer Awards: Golden Trailer for Best Foreign, Best Foreign Independent Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards: LAFCA Award for Best Foreign Language Film Motion Picture Sound Editors, USA: Golden Reel Award for Best Sound Editing in Foreign Features National Board of Review, USA: NBR Award for Outstanding Production Design National Society of Film Critics Awards, USA: NSFC Award for Best Cinematography, Best Director Satellite Awards: Golden Satellite Award for Best Visual Effects, Best Cinematography Nominations Click here to see more Nominations Academy Awards, USA: Oscar for Best Achievement in Cinematography Academy of Science Fiction, Fantasy & Horror Films, USA: Saturn Award for Best Fantasy Film, Best Costumes, Best Director, Best Actress BAFTA Awards: BAFTA Film Award for Best Editing, Best Production Design, Best Film not in the English Language, Best Make Up/Hair, Best Achievement in Special Visual Effects, Best Sound, Best Costume Design, Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role, Best Cinematography Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards: BFCA Award for Best Foreign Language Film Chlotrudis Awards: Chlotrudis Award for Best Cinematography European Film Awards: Screen International Award Golden Globes, USA: Golden Globe for Best Foreign Language Film Golden Rooster Awards: Golden Rooster for Best Picture, Best Sound, Best Director Golden Trailer Awards: Golden Trailer for Best Music Hong Kong Film Awards: Hong Kong Film Award for Best Asian Film Trivia Click here to see more Trivia Director Yimou Zhang has said that he will rewrite the screenplay to remove Anita Mui's character following the veteran star's death. This is meant to be a sign of respect for Mui. It was earlier reported that Michelle Yeoh or Brigitte Lin would be cast instead. This was originally going to be Anita Mui's final appearance in film and she had already accepted the role but, because she was battling cervical cancer, her part wasn't going to be filmed until early 2004. After her death on 30 December 2003, director Yimou Zhang decided to alter the script rather than find a replacement. Anita's name will still be listed in the credits. Goofs Click here to see more Goofs The music that the live musicians play during the drum duel scene, although beautiful, is not characteristic of classical Chinese music of that era. Crazy Credits Click here to see more Crazy Credits In Memory of Anita Mui1963-2003 The Chinese theatrical release has a Chinese translation of the ending song(which has lyrics in English) on the left side of the screen during thecredits. Movie Connections Click here to see more Movie Connections Featured in: The 77th Annual Academy Awards Quotes Click here to see more Quotes [reaches for dagger in back] Leo : Yee : Do not pull this dagger out. I'm sending you back to keep spying for us. You will be more convincing with a dagger in your back. Mei : To be free like the wind. For more information about "House of Flying Daggers" visit the Internet Movie Database (IMDb) Look for similar items by category Browse similar items in: DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( K ) > Kaneshiro, Takeshi DVD > Actors & Actresses > ( L ) > Lau, Andy DVD > Directors > ( Y ) > Yimou, Zhang DVD > Genres > Action & Adventure > General DVD > Genres > Art House & International > By Country > China DVD > Genres > Art House & International > By Country > Hong Kong > General DVD > Genres > Art House & International > By Original Language > Chinese DVD > Genres > Art House & International > General DVD > Genres > Drama > General DVD > Genres > Drama > Love & Romance > Romance DVD > Genres > Drama > Love & Romance > Star-Crossed Lovers DVD > Genres > Drama > Period Piece Suggestion Box Your comments can help make our site better for everyone. If you've found something incorrect, broken, or frustrating on this page, let us know so that we can improve it. Please note that we are unable to respond directly to suggestions made via this form. If you need help with an order, please contact Customer Service . Please mark as many of the following boxes that apply: Product information is missing important details. Product information is incorrect. Propose corrections using our Online Catalog Update Form . The page contains typographical errors. The page takes too long to load. The page has a software bug in it. Content violates Amazon.com's policy on offensive language . Product offered violates Amazon.com's policy on items that can be listed for sale. Comments or Examples: Examples: Missing information such as dimensions and model number, typos, inaccuracies, etc. Where's My Stuff? • Track your recent orders . • View or change your orders in Your Account . Shipping & Returns • See our shipping rates & policies . • Return an item (here's our Returns Policy ). Need Help? • Forgot your password? Click here . • Redeem or buy a gift certificate. • Visit our Help department . Search Amazon.com Books Popular Music Music Downloads Classical Music DVD VHS Apparel Yellow Pages Movie Showtimes Toys Baby Computers Video Games Electronics Camera & Photo Software Tools & Hardware Office Products Magazines Sports & Outdoors Outdoor Living Kitchen Jewelry & Watches Beauty Gourmet Food Musical Instruments Health/Personal Care Pet Supplies Travel Cell Phones & Service Outlet Auctions zShops Everything Else Automotive for Amazon.com Home | Directory of All Stores Our International Sites: Canada | United Kingdom | Germany | Japan | France | China Help | Shopping Cart | Your Account | Sell Items | 1-Click Settings Investor Relations | Press Room | Careers Conditions of Use | Privacy Notice © 1996-2005, Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates