Denver Real Estate

Real Property Records 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 Real Property Records Date last updated: Friday, December 23, 2005 The Denver Assessor's Office is pleased to provide you with Internet access to Denver real property data. You can obtain information about a property in Denver by entering the property address, or the property's parcel identification number. Please be aware that the Denver Assessor's Office makes every effort to provide the most current and accurate information possible on this Internet site. No warranties, expressed or implied, are provided for the data herein, or for its interpretation. Due to the normal lag time between the sales of properties and the time that those transactions are recorded and reported to the Assessor's Office, some transactions may not be reflected in this database. IS NOT TYPICALLY USED FOR ADDRESSES THAT ARE IN THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE CITY. FOR EXAMPLE, 5200 FEDERAL IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHERN SECTION OF DENVER, BUT IT IS NOT ACTUALLY CALLED NORTH FEDERAL. THUS, UNLESS YOU ARE CERTAIN THAT THE PROPERTY YOU ARE SEARCHING FOR IS FORMALLY DESIGNATED AS NORTH , YOU SHOULD NOT ENTER NORTH IN YOUR DATA SEARCH. //-- Please select a criteria by which to search: Search by address Search by name-- Search by parcel number " title="Submit" id=submit1 name=submit1 -- -- -- Printer Friendly Version Email This Page Select Category: Resident Visitor Business Address/Intersection: -- Contact Us Search Site Info return to the top

Colorado Real Estate Guide

Mountain Homes Illustrated Colorado Real Estate: Mountain Homes, Land, Ranches and Commercial Properties in Summit County, Park County, Grand County, Chaffee County and surrounding areas BROKER LOGIN | PUBLISHER LOGIN | ADD YOUR COMPANY! December 29, 2005 155 UsersOnline | 45562 LeadsToDate | © 2005 MHPI UP-TO-THE-MINUTE INFORMATION ... 42913 LISTINGS AND GROWING BY THE MINUTE ... CLICK "NEWEST LISTINGS" BELOW ... OR SEARCH BY FEATURE AT LEFT ... TODAY'S ACTIVE BROKERS ARE LISTED FIRST BELOW... FIND OTHER ADVERTISERS ALPHABETICALLY BY CLICKING ON FIRST LETTER OF COMPANY NAME ... BROKERS LOG IN AT UPPER LEFT ... NEW ACCOUNTS SELECT "JOIN" ... OR CALL 1-800-841-5185 ... THIS SITE POWERED BY XDEADLINE.COM SEARCH 5,447 COLORADO PROPERTIES You can now be automatically notified when a new property matches your search criteria NEWEST Listings in... KEYSTONE MORRISON Buena Vista Guffey Westcliffe Florissant FRISCO BRECKENRIDGE COPPER MOUNTAIN GRAND LAKE SALIDA WINTER PARK Canon City SILVERTHORNE KREMMLING Central City Condos and Townhomes Single Family Homes Lots and Acreages Homes on Acreage Log Homes Commercial Properties Mountain Living Farm and Ranch Properties Getaway Properties Resort Properties Furnished Properties Duplex-TriPlex-Multi Recreational Properties Corner Lot Affordable Bed & Breakfast Golf Course Properties Country Living NEW LISTING Fine Homes Horse Properties Motivated Seller Creekfront Properties Victorian Fixer Upper Gorgeous Views Executive Homes MAGAZINE TITLES • Roaring Fork Valley Real Estate Guide • Mountain Homes Illustrated • Evergreen Conifer Real Estate Guide • Colorado Mountain Real Estate Guides • Summit County Real Estate Guide • Chaffee County Real Estate Guide • Grand County Real Estate Guide • Park County Real Estate Guide • Steamboat Springs Real Estate Guide • Pagosa Area Real Estate Guide • San Luis Valley Real Estate Guide • Vail Valley Real Estate Guide • Custer County Real Estate Guide • Southern Colorado Real Estate Guide • Royal Gorge Real Estate Guide ADVERTISING INFO • Distribution Map • Ad Proofs • Ad Rates • Suggestion Box • Pay Bill Online MAIN MENU Home • Add Your Link • Links • USAHomes.org • Site Statistics • Legal Notice • Contact Us / FTP AD DEADLINES Mountain Homes Illustrated Ski Season V15N1 ADS DUE: Wednesday, January 4 Carbon County Real Estate Guide Spring 2006 Number 5 ADS DUE: Wednesday, February 8 Evergreen Conifer Real Estate Guide March/April Number 10 ADS DUE: Wednesday, February 15 Grand County Real Estate Guide Number 33 Spring ADS DUE: Wednesday, March 1 Mountain Homes Illustrated Memorial Day V15N2 ADS DUE: Wednesday, March 15 Chaffee County Real Estate Guide Spring NUMBER 15 ADS DUE: Wednesday, March 22 Chaffee County Real Estate Guide Spring / Summer NUMBER 15 ADS DUE: Wednesday, March 22 Evergreen Conifer Real Estate Guide May/June Number 11 ADS DUE: Wednesday, April 19 Carbon County Real Estate Guide Summer 2006 Number 6 ADS DUE: Wednesday, May 10 Mountain Homes Illustrated 4th of July V15N3 ADS DUE: Wednesday, May 31 Site Map COLORADO MOUNTAIN HOMES PUBLISHING INC CLICK HERE To See Our Other Magazine Titles Mountain Homes Illustrated (548) Evergreen Conifer Real Estate Guide (488) Grand County Real Estate Guide (107) Summit County Real Estate Guide (91) Chaffee County Real Estate Guide (62) Park County Real Estate Guide (34) Vail Valley Real Estate Guide (16) Southern Colorado Real Estate Guide (16) Royal Gorge Real Estate Guide (10) San Luis Valley Real Estate Guide (9) Custer County Real Estate Guide (9) Pagosa Area Real Estate Guide (7) Colorado Mountain Real Estate Guides (4) Steamboat Springs Real Estate Guide (2) Roaring Fork Valley Real Estate Guide (0) SEARCH PROPERTIES | | 100 NEWEST LISTINGS | | ADVERTISER LINKS | | CONTACT US [A] [B] [C] [D] [E] [F] [G] [H] [I] [J] [K] [L] [M] [N] [O] [P] [Q] [R] [S] [T] [U] [V] [W] [X] [Y] [Z] [1-9] Listings Updated December, 29 (Kremmling) (27 Properties) "Specializing in Grand & Summit Counties!" (Grand Lake) (46 Properties) "." (Silverthorne) (24 Properties) "Serving Summit County and Neighboring Areas" (Salida) (120 Properties) "3 offices to serve you in Buena Vista, Salida and South Fork" (Gunnison) (29 Properties) (Divide) (12 Properties) (Westcliffe) (68 Properties) (Alma) (39 Properties) "KNOWLEDGEABLE AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICE" (Englewood) (Conifer) (8 Properties) (Buena Vista) (137 Properties) "OUTSTANDING AGENTS, OUTSTANDING RESULTS" (Grand Lake) (29 Properties) "A GRAND REAL ESTATE EXPERIENCE" (Evergreen) (36 Properties) "Excellence in Real Estate" (Divide) (8 Properties) "Serving Teller & Park Counties" (Buena Vista) (93 Properties) "We Specialize in Dream Properties" (Frisco) (29 Properties) "Enjoying Life in Summit County for over 20 Years" (Denver) (Breckenridge) (7 Properties) "Selling Great Views and Values in Summit County" (Winter Park) (9 Properties) "The Buyer's Agent of Winter Park and Grand County" (Woodland Park) (3 Properties) "Making your dreams a Reality!" Listings Updated December, 28 (Salida) (23 Properties) "Real Results For Real People" (Buena Vista) (25 Properties) (Alma) (31 Properties) "PROFESSIONAL AND EXPERIENCED IN PARK COUNTY REAL ESTATE" (Buena Vista) (Conifer) (4 Properties) "Working hard to make your transaction smooth!" (Breckenridge) (8 Properties) (Westcliffe) (8 Properties) "Homes, ranches, and vacant land." (Canon City) (37 Properties) "Come Live Your Mountain Dream!!" (Pine) (9 Properties) "EXPERIENCE, KNOWLEDGE, RESULTS!" (Breckenridge) (59 Properties) "Rock Solid in Summit County Real Estate" (Salida) (22 Properties) "MAKING REAL ESTATE REAL EASY!" (Frisco) (8 Properties) "Joanne Hanson's Mountain Living Team" (Alma) (32 Properties) "Cabins, Homes & Land in Park County" (Golden) (6 Properties) "Your Realtor For Life" (Salida) (111 Properties) "A HALLMARK IN REAL ESTATE" (Fairplay) (27 Properties) "In the Heart of the Rockies" (Grand Lake) (41 Properties) "Grand Lake's Newest Office!" (Lakewood) (3 Properties) "Sun-sational Transactions guaranteed!" (Buena Vista) (103 Properties) "Experience is our edge" Listings Updated December, 27 Listings Updated December, 26 TODAY'S FEATURED LISTINGS Guffey,CO LARGE ACREAGE BORDERING NATIONAL FOREST Westcliffe,CO BED & BREAKFAST IN THE MOUNTAINS ,CO OLD RANCH BLUE RIVER,CO 3 HUGE BEDROOMS W/ATTACHED BATHS Evergreen,CO EVERGREEN Guffey,CO WATCH THE ELK Westcliffe,CO UTE MESA HOME Westcliffe,CO COME ENJOY COUNTRY LIVING! Florissant,CO 65 ACRES WITH PANORAMIC VIEWS Guffey,CO NEARLY NEW HOME ON 6 ACRES XDEADLINE.COM LEGAL NOTICE UPDATED Dec 26, 2005 Our associated domains: () are a compilation of ads that have appeared in current or previous issues of our participating homes and real estate magazines, properties submitted by individual brokerages, and linkssubmitted by individual Web Site Owners. To report dead links, expired information, or to request removal of a link, please send email to the administrator: Craig Baker , and every effort will be made tocorrect the information, or remove the link. Our primary domain ( XDEADLINE.COM ) provides a list of participating magazines by independent publishers, and magazine titles by member publishers of The National Association of Real Estate Publishers (N.A.R.E.P.) . The information contained for each publisher or title is from the last information available to us. Unless specifically stated otherwise, we do not formally represent any independant publisher or magazine title linked to or mentioned on this website. All real estate advertised on this Internet Site is subject to the US Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968 and all amendments.and information is from sources deemed reliable. However, no warranty as to the accuracy of any ad or the suitability regarding any property advertised is offered. Neither the broker, the local magazine publisher, nor the internet publisher will be responsible for typographical errors, computer programming errors, or errors in fact that may appear on this website. Users are hereby advised to obtain independent property reports.

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

Florida Real Estate Bubble

Florida Real Estate Bubble Stock Market Crash History Bear Market Forecasting Stock Market Crash! - The authority on the market crash phenomenon Home | Site Map | Blog | News Term Glossary | Book Review | Bear Market Sites Florida Real Estate Bubble The 1920’s, in America, were a time of great prosperity. Skilled and educated working Americans had jobs providing numerous fringe benefits, paid vacations and pensions. In addition, automobiles were becoming commonplace for the wealthy and middle class allowing cross country travel. This good fortune set the stage for the Florida real estate bubble . Starting in 1920, many Americans became enamored by the materialistic and prosperous lifestyle of the time. During this time, the stock market was moving forward at an extremely fast pace. Many investors were becoming quite wealthy. Florida became a hot spot for these newly rich people, who didn’t enjoy the cold. Many whole families took vacations to Florida. It was at this point that tourism started booming and land prices were skyrocketing. Many astute investors took notice and started buying Florida real estate. The population in Florida was growing exponentially and housing couldn’t meet the demand. Florida became the “playground of the rich and famous”. Illegal casinos and drinking parlors became widespread in Miami. At this point, almost anybody could invest in Florida, even without much money. Credit was plentiful and soon everybody in Florida was either a real estate investor or a real estate agent. In 1922, the Miami Herald became the heaviest newspaper in the world as a result of its humongous real estate advertisements. People in the North heard about the real estate prices “doubling and tripling”, causing a snowball effect. Capital was rapidly pumped into the real estate market. Whole golf communities were developed, such as Temple Terrace. Resorts and retirement communities were developed almost overnight. Mansions were sprawling in every area, as were swimming pools. As always, waterfront property was the most desirable. Florida was seen as a veritable Utopia. Real estate prices quadrupled in less than one year. An elderly man invested $1,700 in property and by 1925 the property was worth over $300,000! It seemed you could do no wrong by just buying any property in Florida and become a millionaire. By 1925, real estate prices had become so exorbitant that buying land wasn’t affordable any longer. New investors failed to arrive and old investors started to sell. Panic arrived, as it always does, and the real estate market crashed. Prices kept moving downwards as heavily indebted investors tried to sell to avoid bankruptcy . In most cases, no buyers arrived, and the investors were bankrupt from the enormous mortgages. To make matters even worse, a highly destructive hurricane ravaged South Florida in September 1926. The 125 mile an hour winds eventually turned Palm Beach County into swamp lands. After the storm, a huge tidal wave crashed upon the towns of Belle Glade and Moore Haven. Due to these horrible turn of events, over 13,000 homes were destroyed and 415 people died. Additionally, the arrival of the Mediterranean fruit fly obliterated the large citrus industry. It took years for Florida to fully recover, even through the highly prosperous time from 1925 to 1929. Florida was barely affected in the stock market crash of 1929 and the Great Depression , because of its poor financial state from the start. Market crashes always occur in the same manner. Regardless of the market, the same simple psychological underpinnings are always at work. People who are caught up in a bubble never look back for historical examples. For this folly, they become paupers. “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Links to other Florida Real Estate Bubble Websites The Biggest Market Crashes in History: The Florida Real Estate Bubble Bear Market Articles • What Exactly is a Market Crash? + The inner details • Does Everyone Lose in a Crash? + The answer may surprise you! + What it takes to be an insider • Can Crashes be Forecasted? + Learn the warning signs + Take action! • The Housing Bubble + Why it is destined to pop + How you will be affected • The Coming Crash! + Prepare for the worst Financial Crisis History 1. Tulip Bulb Mania - Read about the Dutch tulip craze in the 1630's 2. South Sea Bubble - Learn about England's disastrous stock market crash in the early 1700's 3. Mississippi Bubble - The financial scheme which caused a stock market crash in 18th-century France 4. Florida Real Estate Bubble - The speculative boom and implosion of Florida property in the 1920's 5. Stock Market Crash of 1929 - The Great Crash + Depression 6. Stock Market Crash of 1987 - Mayhem and program trading 7. The Nikkei Bubble - The downfall of the Japanese titan 8. The Collapse of Barings Bank - Read how England’s oldest, most established bank was collapsed by a single trader. 9. The Nasdaq Bubble - The mania of Silicon Valley and Wall Street Home | Site Map | Blog | News Term Glossary | Book Review Bear Market Sites

house rentals. Special places

Italy Farmhouses Vacation rentals and apartments for Rent, Italy Rentals. Vacation accommodation between Orvieto , Siena or Florence, in Tuscany , Umbria and Lazio . Not just farmhouses in Italy, but more vacation rentals in Italy, vacation rentals with pool, apartments for rent, vacation villas, vacation homes, vacation apartment rentals, flats, castles, holiday cottages, house rentals. Special places to stay in Italy. Vacation rentals directory and tourist guide to Italy. Map of Italy Tuscany rentals Umbria rentals Lazio rentals more rentals in Italy Cities of Italy Events in Italy Markets in Italy Thermal Spas Driving in Italy Travel Insurance Weather in Italy Ital y recreation Etruscan sights Italian Wines Italy information Italy people search Italian Museums Search the web site Alternative to Hotels in Italian Stay Farmhouses, Apartments Houses and Villas for sale. Italy House Rentals Affordable Farm House Rental in Siena,Tuscany Proponi la tua struttura Honeymoon flat in Tuscany. honeymoon in Umbria, Italy . Holiday Villa Useful Links Our Partners Link exchange Buy on line your Travel guide to Italy Free Links Directory Look at Italy Siena's Palio e-mail Italyfarmhousesrental 1999 -2003. All Rights Reserved disclaimer Italy Farmhouses Rental is a travel guide to Italy and vacation rentals directory for visitors to Central Italy, about Tuscany , Umbria or Lazio . Tuscany , Umbria and Lazio are the regions it covers, with particular reference to the area between Orvieto, Siena or Florence, an unforgettable hilly landscape rich in historic medieval towns and villages . Our goal is not the number, but the quality of the accommodations and the kindness of the owners. The selection of Italy vacation rentals, apartment rentals, cottages, rural retreats, house rentals, farmhouses, agritourism, holiday villas, country houses, self catering apartments, vacation homes, bed and breakfast accommodation, castles , guest houses and holiday private rentals included in this web site have been visited and tested before listing, for the maximum guest satisfaction. For visitors knowledge, we make a list of beautiful historical interesting Italian cities of art in Tuscany , Umbria and Lazio : Florence, Lucca , Arezzo, Siena, Cortona, San Gimignano , Pienza, Montalcino , Monteriggioni, Chianti, Maremma, Massa Marittima, Volterra , Montepulciano , Orvieto , Todi , Citt della Pieve, Assisi, Perugia, Spoleto, Norcia, Gubbio, Spello , Rome, Viterbo, Bolsena, Civita di Bagnoregio, Acquapendente. Need Car Rental ?