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

home mortgage loans, including

FRB: Understanding the Home Mortgage Process Where to Shop and What to Look For Skip to content The Mortgage Application Process Understanding Your Rights to Fair Lending Directory of Federal Agencies Mortgage home Once you have found the home of your choice, you may think that your shopping days are over. Actually, only the first phase has been completed. Next comes finding a mortgage and payment terms that fit your budget. Where you shop and what you look for are important. You might start by looking for a mortgage at the bank where you have your checking or savings account. But don’t limit yourself. A wide variety of institutions make home mortgage loans, including savings and loan associations, commercial banks, mutual savings banks, and mortgage companies. The mortgages these institutions offer will have varying features. One way to find the creditor with the most attractively priced loan is to look in your local newspaper; check to see if it publishes a shoppers guide to mortgage credit. These shoppers guides are available in many localities and can be used to identify the lenders with low rates. But, basically, the way to find the loan with the most attractive terms is to shop around. You should have in mind some of the things to look for in a mortgage loan. For example, what types of loans are available from a given institution? Does the lender make privately or federally insured or guaranteed loans? Some lenders offer mortgage loans backed by a federal agency such as the Federal Housing Administration (FHA loans) or the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA loans). Loans that are not government-insured are called conventional mortgages. Insured mortgages may be more attractive than conventional mortgages in some ways--such as lower down payment requirements. But they may be more restrictive in other ways; for example, they may be available only for certain kinds of homes, or for properties whose value is below a specified price. Other factors important to your mortgage decision are the length of the loan and the down payment required by the lender. The longer the term and the larger the down payment, the smaller your monthly payments will be. The interest rate is important too, and in some cases the amount of the down-payment will influence the interest rate that you pay (the larger the down payment, the lower the interest rate). In addition, mortgage loans may have interest rates that will stay fixed for the life of the loan (fixed-rate mortgages), that may change (adjustable-rate mortgages, or ARMs), or that represent a combination of fixed and variable rates (convertible mortgages). The initial rate of an ARM is generally lower than the rate available on a fixed-rate mortgage; but remember, the rate may change during the lifetime of the loan. Don’t hesitate to ask the lender how one loan differs from another, how the different features of the loan will affect the mortgage, or whether your chances to qualify would improve if you made a higher down payment. When you're shopping around, you will find that some home mortgage lenders have special programs to assist veterans and low-income or first-time homebuyers. Ask the lender if such programs are available. Home | Brochures Accessibility To comment on this site, please fill out our feedback form. Last update: June 21, 2001

Buy Property

VEF - french property estate agents: properties for sale in france VEF - French Property Consultants. VEF are estate agents, based in both the UK and France, who offer property for sale in France . As a French property consultant who specialises in the sale of French properties, VEF can offer all different kinds of property in various regions of France including Charente, Dordogne, Brittany, Limousin, Languedoc, Limousin Heights, Loire, Pyrenées Atlantiques, Gers in Gascony, Aquitaine, Burgundy, Nice, Toulouse, Provence and Deux-Sèvres, Midi-Pyrenées. -- The French Property Estate Agents Offering Properties for Sale in France - VEF cheap french property property for sale in france UK-based French property estate agents , VEF , specialise in the sale of property in France . French regions we, as estate agents , have property for sale in France include Aquitaine, Brittany, Charente, Dordogne, Gers in Gascony, Burgundy, Languedoc, Pyrenées Atlantiques, Limousin, Limousin Heights, Loire, Nice, Midi-Pyrenées, Provence, Toulouse and Deux-Sevres. We are a team of professional UK estate agents who can offer the knowledge of 14 years of estate agent / property consultant experience to purchasers of French property . Based in both the UK and France , we have our main office in the UK capital of London and a branch office in Dublin, Ireland and have many regional estate agent offices around France; Deux-Sevres, Gers in Gascony, Limousin, Pyrenées Atlantiques, Burgundy, Midi-Pyrenées, Toulouse, Charente, Brittany, Aquitaine, Dordogne, Limousin Heights, Loire, Languedoc, Provence and Nice. Only property that is truly for sale and that has been personally viewed by one of our French-based staff is listed for sale on our website. The VEF website is updated daily so that there are never any sold properties on the site. The French properties which are for sale, have been inspected by a professional consultant in France and has been selected as being amongst the best the region has to offer. The French regions that our French estate agent / consultant services currently have properties for sale in are Aquitaine, Burgundy, Midi-Pyrenées, Pyrenées Atlantiques, Provence, Toulouse, Deux-Sevres, Languedoc, Gers in Gascony, Loire, Nice, Dordogne, Charente, Limousin Heights, Limousin and Brittany. VEF attend more than 30 exhibitions each year throughout the UK and Europe. Our UK estate agents and property consultants from the UK and France advise people on what type of home to buy and where to buy it (VEF currently cover many regions including Toulouse , Aquitaine , Charente , Pyrenées Atlantiques , Limousin , Loire , Nice , Provence , Languedoc , Midi-Pyrenées , Burgundy , Deux-Sevres , Brittany , Dordogne , Gers in Gascony and Limousin Heights ). VEF consultants work closely with the media to bring the latest news of France and its properties to the public. Wherever you first meet VEF, you will be met by a fully professional service. So if you're wishing to find properties for sale in France that are some of the best the country has to offer then come to VEF. VEF are UK estate agents / property consultants who can offer properties in many regions including Provence, Nice, Dordogne, Pyrenées Atlantiques, Languedoc, Gers in Gascony, Burgundy, Aquitaine, Limousin, Loire, Brittany, Toulouse, Limousin Heights, Midi-Pyrenées, Charente and Deux-Sevres. VEF can help you purchase property for sale in France New build houses across France, Italy, Span and Croatia for sale with VEF Find French mortgages with VEF VEF help people buying property for sale in france property for sale in france buying in france feeling for france property for sale in france search for international new build property for sale in france, italy and spain investing in overseas property legal services: buying french property property news from france french property exhibitions and seminars my VEF: premier french property club contact vef: french estate agents french property buying property in france feeling for france - information about french regions feeling for france - information about local offices french property for sale search for international new build development property for sale in france, italy and spain property investments legal services for buying property in france property news from france french property exhibitions and seminars my vef - register with vef online for the premier french property club contact us buying property in france french property for sale france real estate france property for sale property in france french property

Land Loan , In

LoanUniverse Community - Commercial Land Loan loanuniverse.com Help Search Members Calendar Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) LoanUniverse Community Community Forums Loanuniverse Forums Outline ·[ Standard ] · Linear+ Commercial Land Loan , In Miami Florida Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic Marnie1065 Dec 6 2005, 08:37 PM Post #1 Summer Intern Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 6-December 05 Member No.: 1,029 Hi everybody. I just found this website. I am looking for commercial loans. I have a client that owns 42 acres , it is zoned agriculture. It is a great location , next to a school and subdivision. He is looking to refi at the highest LTV possible. He does plan on building homes in the future or possible selling off individual lots. The land currently has a 2 million loan on it. The value is 6.5 million. He has owned it for 1 yr. It is actually a corporation of 4 and they all have great credit and tons of assets, their worth is in the millions They also want to purchase another piece of land for 12 million. Any ideas? Thanks -- loanuniverse Dec 7 2005, 09:27 AM Post #2 Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 1,089 Joined: 23-September 02 Member No.: 1 Is the $152M per acre value an as is value as agricultural land? Or an speculative value assuming a rezoning? Is it supported by actual sales? If the value can be supported, I am sure someone can be found to lend at least 50%. Depending on the adjusted net worth of the individuals, maybe significantly more. Many lenders are avoiding land right now in my market unless there is an existing relationship with the developer. I know that I would feel uncomfortable recommending a land loan unless the investors are experienced. -- lelting Dec 14 2005, 10:48 PM Post #3 Full-Time Teller Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 13-November 05 Member No.: 971 I can help you with the 12 million dollar purchase>I have private investors that will fund at 100 LTV -- LenderBuddy Dec 15 2005, 10:55 AM Post #4 Head-Teller Group: Members Posts: 23 Joined: 11-November 05 From: San Francisco Member No.: 968 If there are crops growing on the land or the land is zoned agricultural then we are talking agricultural land loan and that is a different beast. I haven't worked on one of them in a while but you need to speak with someone who specializes in ag loans. FarmerMac is involved in those transactions and I believe the LTV can go as high as 70%. Good credit and strong financial position are required. Drop me a personal message and I'll forward you the contact information of a guy who specializes in agricultural loans. He can give you all the information you need. -- « Next Oldest · Loanuniverse Forums · Next Newest » 2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users) 0 Members: Close Topic Options Track this topic Receive email notification when a reply has been made to this topic and you are not active on the board. Subscribe to this forum Receive email notification when a new topic is posted in this forum and you are not active on the board. Download / Print this Topic Download this topic in different formats or view a printer friendly version. Forum Home Search Help Community Forums |-- Loanuniverse Forums Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th December 2005 - 03:39 PM Invision Power Board v2.0.4 © 2005 IPS, Inc.

Home equity loans, and

Bad Credit Mortgage Refinance,Bad Credit Home Loans,California Mortgages-Home Equity Loans! BadCredit Mortgage Refinance | Bad Credit Home Loans | Mortgage Interest Rates | Debt consolidation home loans | Home Purchase Loans | Site Map Bad Credit Mortgage Refinance Bad Credit Home Loans Refinance Mortgage Interest Rates Debt Consolidation Home Loans Second Mortgage Home Purchase Loans Welcome to the home of Inexpensive loans Bad Credit Home Loans and California Mortgages Since 1992 Refinance Home Loans Alliance Mortgage has provided inexpensive Home loans and Home equity loans, and refinancing solutions for all types of credit histories. Apply now for refinancing a home loan with us and take advantage of our low mortgage interest rates. Reduce your monthly payments today. Home Equity Loans A home equity loan is an excellent source of funds, it can free up your equity in your home, and you can get cash for any purpose. This home loan can be a revolving line of credit, or a fully amortized 15 year loan. We provide competitive home equity loans rates and home equity loans. Home Purchase Loans Choose from hundreds of home loans purchase programs for the first time home buyers. You can purchase with no money down and use very little of your own cash. We provide 100% home mortgage loans and 80/20 home loans with no money down 100% financing with 600 fico scores.You can still buy and use our low fico score loan programs with more down payment.We also provide FHA loans that require 3% down payment even with bad or poor credit history. Bad Credit Home Loans We specializes in bad credit home loans and past bad credit problems with minimum 500 fico scores. Discuss your bad credit history with our loan officers who specialize in bad credit home loans. We provide higher loan to values for bad credit mortgage refinance loans than most lenders will. If you have major credit problems we can still customize a bad credit home loan. If you have bankruptcy, repossessions, charge off's and mortgages late payments Click here Second Mortgages There is no equity required for a new second mortgage loan.We provide 100% Second mortgages and loans. Pay off your bills, consolidate debts, or get cash out for any purpose you need. A simple loan application will start the process today.Minimum 600 fico scores required for second mortgages and 640 fico for stated income. Debt Consolidation Loans You can refinance your mortgage and get a loan which can payoff credit cards or any other higher interest rate debts. Consolidate all your debts into a single monthly payment with a debt consolidation home loan from Alliance Mortgage. Current Mortgage Rates Rate APR Type Points 6.00 6.05 30 fixed 0.00 5.37 5.41 15 fixed 0.00 6.50 6.55 30 jumbo 0.00 Home Loans Assumptions Why Alliance Mortgage Apply Online About Alliance Mortgage Corporate Profile Why Inexpensive loans Advantage of using us What others say Home Loans Center Contact us Home Mortgage programs Home Loans Guarantees Loan Rating Survey Privacy and Security Terms of Use Loan Calculators & Tools Home Mortgage Calculators Debt Market Commentary Our Competitors Rates Free Credit Report Mortgage Resources Home Loan Glossary Bad Credit Resources California Mortgage FAQ Site Map Bad Credit Loan Links Bad Credit Loans and Bad Credit Mortgage Refinance Company 1997- 2005 Alliance Mtg Inc. a Mortgage Brokers California Mortgages, Texas Mortgages All rights reserve,mortgage content, bad credit home loans forms, calculators graphics, logos, slogans cannot be reproduced Bad credit home loans | Home equity loans | Mortgage Interest Rate | Debt consolidation Home Loans