« Foodie Happenings at Grand and Lafayette Nothing Like A Little Lopsided Construction »

April 13, 2006

Sneak Peek at the Firehouse Condos on Dean

735dean
Remember when we said we'd let you know when we were shilling? Well, we suppose this qualifies, but we're hoping there's something in it for you. Namely, the first look that anyone's had inside the Firehouse condos at 735 Dean. What's in it for us? Listing broker Aguayo & Huebener is going to be taking out an ad next week for the property. And so the world goes round.

735deanArmed only with our camera and a healthy set of conflicts of interest, we crossed Atlantic early yesterday morning, headed up Underhill and hung a right on Dean. The original facade (not surprisingly our favorite design element of the project) is about all that remains of the old firehouse; the developer maxed out his as-of-right FAR in adding additional space atop the original structure to create seven units. In our opinion, the biggest selling points of the apartments--which include two duplexes, four simplexes and one triplex and range in size from 712 to 1,192 square feet--are light and outdoor space. We don't get too excited about the finishes and fixtures that tend to dominate new condo offering promotional literature, but these looked decent enough to us (the word "European" kept cropping up).

735deanGiven the low density of the surrounding nabe, the terraces have good views, with the shabiness of some of the neighboring lots balanced out by the beauty of the cathedral on Pacific. Another consideration is the block-long group of affordable newish townhouses with driveways across the street. They are perfectly respectable as far as these things go but certainly don't do anything to enhance the local ambience. Tavern on Dean is just a stumble away on the corner. As for convenience, if the C train is going your way, you're in good shape. The offering plan is imminent, with Sunday the 23rd being eyed hopefully for a kick-off open house. From what we gather, asking prices are going to fall in the high-$600s to high-$700s per square foot, excluding what is in most cases significant exterior space. OK, time for a shower. GMAP




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:42 AM | Comments (82)
Categories: Condos

Comments

I hope you're getting compenstaed VERY well for that advertorial. Way to compromise the content of your site! You've built a brand based on being a telling it like it is--it's a terrible mistake to dilute it by openly shilling for realtors, even with all the disclaimers.

Your comments are so obviously different from what you would normally say about a property like this. I often disagree with you, however I respect that you have a unique voice. This is a new low, but I guess you have a mortage to pay. Keep in mind that this may backfire in the long run...

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 11:03 AM

come on the guy gotta eat too :p.

Posted by: armchair warrior at April 13, 2006 11:07 AM

Well, at least it is not a Fedders building. I don't think Bstoner is "compromising" at all. I think this is a good feature, as it is highlighting some efforts to preserve and extend existing buildings.

Posted by: djr at April 13, 2006 11:13 AM

nice going, brownstoner..go for yours...

is that a cooktop i see w/ vented range hood? i'm sold.

if only the washington condos had the muted cabinets..instead of cheesy black granite countertops that they have now.

clinton hillbilly, i don't see where you're coming from. brownstoner used the word 'shabbiness' of the surrounding houses. a RE broker from a/h would never ever mention this.

how they fit 7 units into that space is beyond me, but after you see the sizes of the spaces, it becomes clear.

Posted by: ltjbukem at April 13, 2006 11:15 AM

ltjbukem,
Do you really think brownstoner would describe the place that way if he weren't being paid? Small cramped apartments for high prices on a shabby block. Do you remember all the shit he has heaped on the St. Felix condos (and at least they're in a decent location)? This place looks the same or worse.

Maybe you can get your condo report sponsored by realtors too. go for yours, bro...YAY!

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 11:28 AM

Hey, it is what it is. We're not hiding anything. As we've said before, as much as we enjoy this gig, if it can't support us within the next six months, it's not gonna be around any longer. We've spent upwards of 30-40 hours a week for 18 months working on Brownstoner to the great detriment of our day job. So when you're ready to write us a fat check every month, Hillbilly, we'll gladly stop taking advertising. Until then, you might want to climb down from that high horse of yours--or go start your own non-profit site.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 11:39 AM

That place looks like a very very very standard boring condo conversion. Ugh. I'm so sick of these blond floors and "stainless steel" + cheap vinyl kitchens and that hideaously cheap window framing. Williamsburg (55 Berry anyone?) comes to mind.

I'm really psyched about the other building you guys were featuring, on Washington and Dekald in CH/FG. That place looks like it still has some details left.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 11:41 AM

Me again. "dekalb"

And I was referring to:

http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/
2006/04/302_washington.html#comments

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 11:44 AM

ltjbukem. I think absolute black granite counters is about as muted as you can get. What would you suggest?

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 11:53 AM

clintonhillbilly,
re: Maybe you can get your condo report sponsored by realtors too. go for yours, bro...YAY!

dude, believe me, i'm trying...to no luck so far..brownstoner's got me beat.

if you want an editorially independent real estate blog, go start your own. until then, sit down and shut up. oh yeah, and read this one.

Posted by: ltjbukem at April 13, 2006 11:54 AM

I don't object to the advertising on your site (there's tons of it). I hope this become a profitable endeavor. I have a problem when the advertising oozes into the CONTENT. The content of this blog is what makes it compelling, and when you cross the line into sponsored content you are pimping your greatest asset.

Your writing is fun to read, but that entry is so obviously lame because it's paid for. Your blog always pokes fun at realtors trying to pull a fast one. When you stifle yourself because you're being paid off, it really undermines the whole project that you have obviously poured your heart and soul into. I'd hate to see brownstoner go away, but I'd also hate to see you continue down the path of paid content (vs. ads). it is a path of diminishing returns.

And now me and my high horse will ride off into the sunset.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 11:56 AM

Mr. B.: I'm all for it - the big fat disclaimer (and a long hot shower afterwards) are all you need as far as I'm concerned. I think the tearing-a-new-one we gave to the poor folks at Weichert yesterday (I really do kinda feel bad for them... but not bad enough to keep from doing the same where warranted in the future...) keeps the balance in the editorial integrity column. Realistically, I agree with Mr. B. that we have more to fear for the future of Brownstoner without this sort of thing than with it.

Second, this is what the comments are for! If you don't like this development or you don't like Mr. B.'s post on it, then tear it apart! Seems pretty "fair and balanced" to me, and eveyone's happy - a development still gets ragged on (if you want), and Brownstoner gets to keep existing.

Finally, a personal entreaty, Mr. Hillbilly, whether I've agreed, disagreed, or not even had the goddam time to read it all, I've always enjoyed your commentary. I hope you stick around to offer your insight and opinion, and reserve your 'Stoner-directed vitriol for posts like this one. Happy compromise? Thanks!

Now seriously folks, speaking of paying the bills, I GOTTA get back to work.

Posted by: Mr. Minerva at April 13, 2006 12:05 PM

It's Ms. Hillbilly.

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 12:10 PM

"It's Ms. Hillbilly" ... if you're nasty.

Naaasty blog, don't mean a thing...

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 12:12 PM

Brownstoners assesments were full of disclaimers. And overall gave a reasonable plus and minuses to the project.

But I suppose if realtors started paying and advertising more. It might get tempting to pass off shit as ice cream.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 12:25 PM

Hey Brownstoner,

I'm all for you making a living through brownstoner.com. Ever since you started letting us peak on your own reno I've been hooked. Check out your logs.. I've been hitting your server from diadian.com for a long time. I know that I've wasted away many many hours reading through your postings and commenting.

Let me make a few suggestions..

1. You should not perform the advertising for the agent. Let them write an ad and put it up on the site in the same area as you would have written your post. Make sure they identify themselves honestly.

If you make a pattern out of being a paid spokesperson, eventually your going to lose credabiliy.

2. Look into sponsors that are tangently connected to the real estate business or are looking to connect to peple who fit the brownstoner-reader profile. Carting companies, plumbers, architects, roofers, fire restoration companies (servicemaster perhaps?), alarm companies, brownstone repair companies and perhaps companies that cater to people who live in brownstone brooklyn like freshdirect or perhaps some of their newer competitors. Also consider HomeDepot, Loews or their smaller competitors that may be trying to get a grip or hold onto their turf in brownstone brooklyn. Perhaps Tillies, or the south african place on dekalb might be interested in advertising on brownstoner.

That's just what came to mind in ten minutes. I'm just thinking about companies that would want to align themselves with a honest and cool website. Look for other businesses that seem simple and cool.

Yes this way is harder to accomplish but if you align yourself with the people who you are supposed to be critizing, eventually you are going to cross the line and lose your readership. Just think about what newspapers have done in the past to seperate advertising from content and try to apply the principles to bs'er.com.

Posted by: victor at April 13, 2006 12:28 PM

I have no problem with the sponsored postings. I always wondered how you do it brownstoner, you know, work '2' full-time jobs, plus spend quality time with your family, plus renovate your home. I'm really impressed that's why I've dubbed you the rock-star.
You're providing a real service to the community. So, don't even think of closing.
If anything, I would suggest that you try to line up real-time, interactive interviews with local power brokers. Maybe once or twice a month, you can schedule an interview with personalities like Tish, Marty, managing brokers at some of the top real estate agencies, architects & developers, people from the chamber of commerce, etc.
I think it would make a great addition in terms of 'live chat with' element. Plus, it might cut down on the need to go out and forage for new stories.

Posted by: nutcase at April 13, 2006 12:28 PM

With all due respect to Mr. B., the point is that he provides a forum for everyone, including himself, to debate the merits of a particular building - his opinion, at the end of the day, is only one of many, so big deal if he shills, and even better that he discloses it.

Posted by: alex at April 13, 2006 12:32 PM

Thanks for the input, everyone. Obviously it would be cleaner to have all non-broker advertising, but not sure that is realistic. We'll see. The bigger worry, rather than the occasional clearly identified puff piece, is that we'd start toning down other posts about other listings from the brokers who are advertising. That's certainly not our intention and we're sure there are plenty of people who'll let us know if they think it is.

Interviews are a cool idea...

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 12:37 PM

"Armed only with our camera and a healthy set of conflicts of interest" HILARIOUS! anyway, they just gave you the right to look right? if you'd said it sucked would they have still held up their end of the bargain?

I see ClintonHillbilly's point and she's entitled to her opinion it could be argued that he's compromising his integrity but at the same time he addresses it by being honest. I think it was bold to say exactly how she felt and it should be just as respected as Brownstoner's practice of full disclosure whenever he's doing someone a solid or a lil' old fashion wash my back and I wash yours. I'm all about the bottom line he's gotta eat and if he can do that solely from this website by "shilling" then so be it. that being said can I have a job Browntoner? haha

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at April 13, 2006 12:37 PM

I'd rather the brokers pay the tab for this site than me. as soon as it this site becomes "only 9.99 per month" its downhill.

Posted by: stuy blkbuttrflie. at April 13, 2006 12:40 PM

Of course Hillbilly's entitled to her opinion--it's not like we've banned her from the site or anything nor would we want to stop commenting. She certainly came on strong though--hence our reply. Compare her approach to how Victor 12:28 approached the subject. Which is more likely to resonate with us? It's a good lesson in writing comments about touchy topics in general.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 12:41 PM

For the record, we didn't run anything by A&H before we printed it and the broker was very clear that we could write what we want. That said, we clearly opted to write a post that was more informational than opinionated, though we did note what we thought were some drawbacks.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 12:46 PM

If you need to take a shower after you do something, b'stoner, it's probably an indication that you shouldn't be doing it.


Posted by: lofty at April 13, 2006 12:48 PM

Good point. Things you can do WHILE you're taking a shower tend to be a little more fun ;)

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 1:03 PM

Actually Lofty some of the most fun things I have ever done required a shower after.....

B'stoner - I dont see what the hub bub is about, you got an exclusive 1st look at a new condo in an area you cover extensively; and you wrote an apparently objective piece about it, so what that A&H is an advertiser...

With your disclosures you officially have created an ethical standard higher than virtually any 'professional' journalistic entity in the country (except maybe Consumers Report) IMO you entered your shower clean.

Posted by: David at April 13, 2006 1:10 PM

I wonder, who owns the vacant lot next to this development? I would be a little concerned as a buyer if the condo didn't own a part of this lot. Otherwise, all those windows on the side could end up looking out to a brick wall that is inches away.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 1:24 PM

I agree with Victor about pursuing advertising that is relevant to this world, but not listings. Chowhound is a great example of a site that stayed true to itself by refusing to take certain types of advertising, i.e., no restaurants, but a restaurant supply store is OK. This worked and they gained in popularity until they sold for big bucks and still have editorial control. Good deal.

Try this out B'stoner and see what happens. If your page views plummet, you'll know that people disagreed with these "advertorials" and walked away. I doubt very highly that the complaints will translate to page views lost. As long as you make it clear when you are writing something because you are getting paid to do so, people can skip those posts and go to the others.

Posted by: Sam at April 13, 2006 1:24 PM

True, but Chowhound ended up having to sell out to a large company which doesn't speak to well to the success of its economic model. The founder probably made out okay though.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 1:43 PM

I don't think Mr. B crossed the line. He provided a disclaimer and the piece was strictly informational.

In the end, this site has to be financed and outside of being subscription based, advertising is the only way to raise the necessary funds to keep this wonderful site going. Victor raised some excellent points and I hope Stoner decides to follow up on them. The one thing that I would say is that broker advertisers should write their own pieces and then the readership would be free to either praise the listing or tear it apart. Seems fair to me, albeit suicidal on their part. ;-)

Posted by: BrownBomber at April 13, 2006 1:49 PM

For the record: Ms. Hillbilly, I stand corrected, and apologize for my presumption. Hopefully, no offense taken. Just glad my presumptuous assumption did not turn into a Park-Slope-Parents-style brouhaha. ;)

I think that's the second time I used "brouhaha" in a comment today. Do I get bonus points?

Posted by: Mr. Minerva at April 13, 2006 1:55 PM

my question is why did they list it with aguayo & huebner? they DO NOT co-broke. of course i know why, they undercut their commissions. isn't it best for a seller, however, to get the most people in to see an apartment? i admit i am a broker for a company that does co-broke, we are members of REBNY, but the owners of these condos, should want top dollar, i can't remember when aguayo has EVER gotten that!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 1:56 PM

I'm so glad you posted about this building. Several years ago, my husband and I actually bid on this building through HPD because it seemed like a great place to renovate and then to live in. I thought we bid fair market value but were, obviously, severely outbid by this developer. We didn't know who got it and we drove by it a few months ago and wondered who had done all the renovations. I would have never dreamed of squeezing 7 units into a former dept. of engineering/sanitation (??) building. We were thinking it'd be a nice thing to just have a place to park our car.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 1:57 PM

I'm with Hillbilly on this one. I have no problems with your taking legitimate ads. But when you give content to an advertiser as quid pro quo for an ad, you've damaged your credibility even if you disclosed it.

You've got every right to make a buck. By letting someone buy an article you've written, you've shown that you want the money enough to let it affect the content. I really, really hate to say it, but after this, I can't trust you as much. (For all I know, you're thinking, "Hey, I told them I have a conflict. Obviously the readers know I'm not going to bite the hand that feeds me. So, caveat emptor -- I've done my duty!")

Think about it: if the New York Times, or New Yorker, or Name of Print Publication You Respect Here did the exact same thing, would you still respect and trust it as much? And would it make any difference if they disclosed the conflict?

Maybe this won't hurt your page views. But is that really all that matters to you? You, who don't hesitate to say that developers shouldn't compromise the community interest just to make a couple more bucks?

Thriving publications have church-state rules for good reasons, and some of them are financial -- it's called brand equity. Let A&H write their own advertorials from now on.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at April 13, 2006 2:04 PM

by the way, it's disingenuous to say that hillbilly was asking you to forgo ads altogether. you can take ads and still separate them from editorial. that's a bedrock rule of most trustworthy journalism, at least in America. Sell ads, but sell them clean.

However, if you want to make that the choice... I pay $30 a year to read Salon ad-free. I'd be glad to PayPal you the same if you wanted to drop ads altogether.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at April 13, 2006 2:14 PM

Linus - doesnt the NYT and virtually every other publication do the same thing (without disclosure)- they review movies (movie companies advertise in same paper; they review restaurants that advertise, cars, electronics, real estate, hotels, etc....
I fail to see the distinction

Posted by: David at April 13, 2006 2:19 PM

I wouldn't dish it out if I couldn't take it.

If anything I would hope brownstoner would take my comments as constructive criticism (albeit worded in my own snarky way).

I truly enjoy the site and would love to see it continue and flourish. He is damaging his credibillity by including paid content. That will hurt the site in the long run. He should run as many ads as possible--but not pollute the content.

We all know he would be trashing these condos if he weren't getting ad dollars from A&H. $6-700 psf for shoeboxes on Dean Street???!!! This post is a perfect exampel of "If you can't say anything nice..." Clearly he is holding back.

I write advertorials for a living, believe me I know how soul-numbing it can be. Save yourself while you still can, brownstoner....

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 2:26 PM

David, Unless I read Bstoner's post wrong, the difference is this: there was an explicit quid pro quo. Bstoner is doing the article in exchange for an ad next week. No article, no ad, no $$$. Correct me if wrong, Bstoner.

People can be as cynical as they want about the press, but that absolutely would not happen at the NYT -- people would quit their jobs.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at April 13, 2006 2:34 PM

i'm sure brownstoner can leave it to the rest of us to bash anything he blogs on, which we have done and continue to do so.

so, if you think 600-700 is too expensive, than say so.

plus if every reader paid $30 to prevent ads from showing up, brownstoner wouldn't have had to go this route...

Posted by: ltjbukem at April 13, 2006 2:34 PM

Thanks for the input, Linus. We can understand your point of view and are taking all the negative feedback into serious consideration. The last thing we want to is alienate the readership--so your comment about loss of trust is disturbing. Unfortunately, we doubt there are 3,000 people who would paypal us $30 though. Kottke, who has a great deal more readers than we do, tried one of those user-supported fund drives a year ago and raised in the neighborhood of $30,000 for the year. That worked, sort of, for him, but he was single and childless at the time. Anyway, we're going to chew on it.
Thanks,
Brownstoner

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 2:36 PM

Ironically, we hear that The Times is doing a piece on this on Sunday...We guarantee you that A&H is spending more money with them! Of course the quid pro quo is a little more subtle and wink-wink and The Times RE section doesn't purport to bring a critical eye to their coverage, as we do, so we suppose it's fair to hold us to a higher standard...

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 2:42 PM

No one is asking him not to have ADS, we're asking him not to sell the CONTENT.

Can you grasp the distinction?

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 2:43 PM

Ok didnt get the quid pro quo - shame on you Brownstoner - kidding - but Linus does raise some good issues

Posted by: David at April 13, 2006 2:44 PM

One thing I will grant you is it's harder to divide church/state so cleanly at a small site, since you're both doing the writing and selling the ads. That's not your fault, but all the more reason to let advertisers write their own ad copy.

PS ... with the very select targeting of this blog, I wd think real-estate agencies wd have every incentive to advertise here, without this kind of deal. Maybe you have a reader in the ad biz who could consult with you on monetizing that?

Anyway, think of it this way: if A&H is not paying more for their ad than anyone else, then it's not worth the potential lost credibility. If they ARE paying more for the ad, to get the special consideration of an article, then that's even less credible.

Good luck. You know I love the site.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at April 13, 2006 3:04 PM

Okay. You've convinced us, Hillbilly, Linus, Victor, etc. No more advertorials. Regardless of how upfront we thought we were being, if the handful of voices commenting here are any representation of the readership at large, then there are several thousand people with whom this doesn't sit well.

But here's a question--was the site's readership not served by getting the first look at this place? Granted our Thursday would have been a heck of a lot easier if it hadn't run, but wasn't the greater good served?

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 3:06 PM

I don't think the ad is a big deal. Frankly I look at this board more to see what is going on in the neighborhood and what my neighbors think about it. I think that however he chooses to support this site and his interests is fine.

This is not meant to be offensive but I have never considered Brownstoner to have particular expertise or objectivity regarding what he posts anymore than anyone else on this site. I always looked at the posts more as a starting point for discussion.

Its a free site. If I paid for it like consumer reports I would feel differently. He stated the motivation behind his post and I think thats enough.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 3:07 PM

First off, this is a blog, not the NYT--with its premium ad rates, hundreds of thousands of paid subscribers, and well-compensated editorial staff.

Brownstoner talked about a building that is of interest to his readership--and it didn't strike me as a glowing review; just the facts. I'm happy to know about it, and it's kind of a scoop in its own way.

Now it would be scary if he started chatting up vinyl homes in Bushwick, only to have the developer advertise the following week.

Posted by: tinarina at April 13, 2006 3:12 PM

Even though there is the deal for an ad next week, this isn't an insignificant building. Its coverage is valid on Brownstoner. I've wondered about it and I'm assuming others in the area have too. Although the ad situtation is sticky, it would be much more worrisome if this entry concerned one of the many constructions already openly criticized on the blog.
Is it the quid-pro-quo aspect that bothers people? Would readers feel more comfortable if Brownstoner stipulated that they would accept invitations from advertisers but only write about buildings they consider newsworthy? That's what I believe most publications do (especially on the neighborhood level). "Sure we'll take your Ad money and listen, but don't expect anything."

Posted by: Ando at April 13, 2006 3:21 PM

"But here's a question--was the site's readership not served by getting the first look at this place? Granted our Thursday would have been a heck of a lot easier if it hadn't run, but wasn't the greater good served?"

No -- not by getting the first look in such a way that it would make people doubt whether your reports will be straight up, no chaser.

Not to cast aspersions but... what happens down the road when you take a deal like this, you hate the place, and you think, "I really need the ad $$$. Without it, I can't run the site. If I say I hate this condo, I lose the money. And *are the readers really served* if I can't afford to run Brownstoner?"

Agents like A&H should be offering you scoops like this all the time -- *without* offering to pay for it. They should also be buying ads here -- *without* your offering articles in exchange. Don't underestimate the value of yr site.

No quid pro quo is a simple, important journalistic rule and one that shouldn't cripple yr ability to make $$$. You're making the right call.

Posted by: linusvanpelt at April 13, 2006 3:42 PM

btw, i shdn't just pick on bstoner here. it's a 2-way street, and this wasn't smart brand management on a&h's part, either. not that agents tend to get a stellar rap around here, but still...

Posted by: linusvanpelt at April 13, 2006 3:48 PM

brownstoner --

What is your honest opinion of these condos? Especially since you have the real scoop.

For example, how do they compare to the ones on St. Felix or to Newswalk which you have written about previously?

Do you really think they will get the asking price or is th eagent smoking crack?

Come on -- tell it like it is. That's why we all LOVE your fabulous blog!

Posted by: clinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 3:59 PM

i'm a bug fan and daily browser of the site. the 'advertorial' was kind of deceptive since the disclaimers within the content body were sort of tongue in cheek, eg. "shilling" and "healthy set of conflicts of interest". I wouldn't mind paid ads in the 'content' column, so long as they were clearly labeled as such. Kind of like when there are faux articles about products in magazines, as if they were part of an editorial but are clearly labeled as advertisements. Pres. Bush and co. got a lot of heat for this with their Board of Ed. "paid editorials, opinion makers giving interviews on the news networks recently, didn't they?

Also, if youre gonna give us an exclusive on a new condo - go all out, not just 3 small jpegs but more and larger images, floorplans maybe, etc.

But keep the distinction clear between content and sponsored content.
All the best...

Posted by: b'stoner fan at April 13, 2006 4:14 PM

On another note, I just came across the Atlantic Yards seder haggadah. - Very funny!

http://www.leathertomato.com/

Posted by: cllinton hillbilly at April 13, 2006 4:18 PM

Brownstoner, weren't you interested in seeing this building before the ad had anything to do with it???

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 4:21 PM

brownstoner: 50
clintonhillbilly: 1

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 4:39 PM

For an advertorial, you handled it pretty well, but it's a slippery slope no matter how you look at it. I don't think you really served your audience well by giving us the first look at the project because given your stated conflict of interest, many will feel that they have to look elsewhere anyway to get the real poop. So your intentions, while entrepreneurial, may have been misguided.

It's true that print journalism is full of quid pro quo. But the major publications will rarely make such a blatant trade with an advertiser. Maybe what's really at issue here is learning how to make better deals with your advertisers.

Posted by: anon at April 13, 2006 4:46 PM

I agree with linus and clinton hillbilly on one point...that your site is worth more than the quid pro quo and that you shouldn't underestimate it's value or undersell it.

Having said that, I think that most educated fools realize that most of what is published on the web isn't scholarly research or objective, credible journalism. Like one poster said, it's a starting point with a wealth of opinions. Due diligence (i.e., kicking the tires for yourself) is always required.

I tend to disagree with the purists. I don't think that the advertorials detract from the overall credibility of the site. But I like their suggestion that you let the sponsors write their own advertorials and maybe drop by for a q&a session.

Posted by: nutcase at April 13, 2006 5:11 PM

Honestly, everything we said in the piece was true. As for what we left out...the space is too "vertical" for our taste, i.e. we think it would be more successful with more horizontal layouts and less duplexes and triplexes. Were it not for the substantial outdoor space that comes with every apartment but one, we'd say it's way overpriced. There's a nice one bedroom on the second floor in the back that is $567K and has only 712 sf of indoor space; but there's a great 450 sf terrace that has a perfect view of the church. How much is that worth? As it is, it may still be a stretch, but honestly we don't know the local condo market well enough to say for sure. Some of these would make pretty decent bachelor pads though. It'll be interesting to see how people who've been inside the Washington Condos think these stack up value-wise.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 5:17 PM

Didn't anyone find my Janet Jackson reference at 12.12pm funny? I'm hurt...
Enjoy the weekend in you have tomorrow off.

And don't be too hard on yourself brownstoner.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 5:36 PM

Thanks, Anon (if you're nasty).

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 13, 2006 5:45 PM

re: the empty lot next door, it is zoned residential. it is a 25x71.33 lot with a far of 2, so it could be conceivable that the first two floors
will have their lot line windows blocked in the future.

Posted by: ltjbukem at April 13, 2006 6:06 PM

Hey Brownstoner, next time just make it an ad and post it as such. Let the agent write the content and then everyone can agree with it or rip it to shreds. By leaving your opinion out you have no conflict of interest, it's clearly stated that it's an ad, it just happens to be in the content section and not on the side.

We see this all the time in newspapers and especially magazines. They just say "special advertising section" or something like that on top. Nothing wrong with it.

I think the area where it gets a little grey is when you are giving your editorial opinion which can be compromised. If your opinion isn't there and it's clear that the content is from elsewhere there is no confict. Additionally, people can choose to just skip that post if they want.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 13, 2006 7:14 PM

Anon 12:12pm and 5:36pm,
still cracking up at your 12:12 post.

Brownstoner, love your site.

Posted by: Ji at April 13, 2006 7:28 PM

What about a paid classified section?

Posted by: Yente at April 13, 2006 7:49 PM

Frankly I don't see what the big deal is. Brownstoner said it was a conflict of interest and basically gave just the facts. It didn't sound like an ad and it sounded gently objective. I think it's really tacky the way some posters questioned brownstoner's motives (it's not like we pay to be here- he allows it) and covering the development is part of his overall "mission." Seems to me if you're questioning his motives or honesty it's hypocritical because if you're a regular reader/poster and you really believed he lacks credibility, you wouldn't be regular. How about just thanking him once in awhile? (Thank you Mr. and Mrs B!) And having a little respect for what he does.

Posted by: Bx2Bklyn at April 13, 2006 8:07 PM

The Project looks great and you are great!! I can see why you would want to write about it regardless of the ad. Keep up the good work B. I know I will definitely be going to the open house, thanks..

Posted by: Sandy at April 13, 2006 8:09 PM

admire the way you engage the critics, b'stoner. i'm siding with hillbilly and linus on this one, albeit via david's route. it's awkward to mix ads and content---keep it clean, i say. you don't want readers to feel the neccessity to filter the posts for bias. (i'd subscribe as well, for the record).

Posted by: mcteague at April 13, 2006 8:57 PM

I was at the DCAS auction in July 2003 when the firehouse sold, and my wife (then girlfriend) and I owned it twice. At $375K and at $450K. It sold for $775K.
I was inside before the auction, and it needed a lot of work. I was hoping to build a 2-3 story building in the rear with a seperating courtyard. keeping the firehouse, pretty much as it was (renovated of course) for my own use. My father is a Firefighter and I've always wanted to live in a firehouse.

This was quite a pipe dream, as I didn't own anything yet, and had little construction experience. was worth a shot though, and the auction was exciting.
Regarding the lot next door, there was a big "For Sale" sign on it the day of the inspection before the auction.

somewhere I have a few photos of it as a firehouse in the 1890's and 1920's. will try to scan and post them.

Posted by: greenpointer at April 13, 2006 10:27 PM


Who cares about Brownstoner's shilling? There are more nerds living in Brooklyn than I thought. I'm glad I still live in Manhattan.

Folks like me check out this site every day to see what's going on real estate wise in Brooklyn. We don't care one way or the other what Brownstoner does as long as he keeps the site alive.

I agree with the poster who asked about why the seller is using A&H when they don't co-broke. It makes no sense to me either. The point of using a broker is to lure in as many potential buyers as possible. If you use a firm that doesn't co-broke, you're flat out stupid. Why limit the number of potential buyers?

Posted by: ebomb at April 13, 2006 11:27 PM

Sigh. Aguayo & Huebener no less. I guess it's not as bad as Halliburton. Great exchange of perspectives.

Posted by: PPSer at April 13, 2006 11:28 PM

re: a&h, it can be argued that at some point, a unit will sell itself regardless of whether 10 people see it or 100 people see it. the seller of these firehouse condos may have thought, why cobroke when this thing will sell out regardless?

given blogs like brownstoner, curbed and others that may cover this development, sometimes non-mainstream media is all it takes. i think ppl underestimate the wide reach of non-msm these days.

and most likely everybody who is searching for apartments will look on nytimes.com and surely this unit will be on nytimes.

Posted by: ltjbukem at April 14, 2006 12:06 AM

Brownstoner: If you can't keep this site alive by delivering content that people want (i.e. NOT advertorials), then your site is not worth sustaining artificially. That kind of sustenance will last only a very short time, just as inflated prices will sustain a real estate boom only so long before the whole thing blows up.

The problem isn't with this "honest" advertorial. The problem is with your inherent commitment to your motto: "An unhealthy obsession with historic Brooklyn brownstones and the neighborhoods and lifestyles they define." Obsession and compromise are mutually exclusive. Obsession is why you have a readership of people who could be doing way more productive things with their lives than commenting on this site. We have the bug too. If you lose that in your commitment, you lose your readership.

Have a little faith in Brownstoner. I think it will pay off without the ad-commentary.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 14, 2006 6:53 AM

Brownstoner, you have lost significant credibility. I'm also guessing you will lose significant readership. I suppose it was your business model all along to market this site as an open forum, develop a decent following, and then sell out to commercial interests. Good luck with your new business. This site is compromised beyond repair.

Posted by: joker at April 14, 2006 2:24 PM

I'd pay 29.99 a year for my brownstoner fix.

Posted by: anonnymouse at April 14, 2006 2:31 PM


CREDIBILITY?

WHAT THE HELL?

BROWNSTONER IS NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL!

HE NEVER TELLS A LIE!

Posted by: Anonymous at April 14, 2006 4:14 PM

Give the guy a break.

Posted by: putnam-denizen at April 14, 2006 5:06 PM

This site has no journalistic integrity to begin with. The ad conflict of interest is the last of my concerns. What about the fact that usually only one side of a point of view is raised, lies are told as if they are facts with no hint of fact checking and people and businesses are slandered routinely. This is not journalism. It's cowardice and laziness wrapped up in the form of a vanity project for a banker who happens to like real estate and have been fortunate enough to have bought a place he enjoys.

You should consider going to J-School my friend. It's not too late to undo your bad habits. And the fact that you have some sort of Greek chorus of people who seem to have nothing better to do than complain about real estate prices doesn't mean you are pursuing some sort of higher meaning with your site. A house is a house is a house. It's not like whether some guy is making condos and asking high prices for them is the same as say, uh, going to war in the middle east for no explainable reason. The press may want to scrutinize either subject matter, but doing it responsibly is imperative otherwise you are just some nut on a soapbox and putting other nuts on soapboxes in your comments section. This is fine (we like free speech too), but don't confuse it with journalism. It's just infotainment. Different story altogether.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 15, 2006 5:36 PM

What about the fact that dopey warren lewis has a permanent advertisement here on the site and gets written up for property that they are selling? Isn't that thwe same thing? Brownstoner doesn't disclose that when he's writing about their properties.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 15, 2006 6:44 PM

We appreciate the candid input from the regulars who weren't afraid to put their names with their criticisms, but the anonymous potshots from trolls mean very little to us. Until a blogger with a major trust fund comes along to supplant us, you're not going to get a site with this much content and regular updating without art necessarily intersecting with commerce at some point. We're going to try to walk that line as well as possible and, from what we've seen on this post, you can rest assured we've got enough virtual ombudsmen out there to staff an entire newspaper chain! Oh, and, for the record, we spent two years writing for a major business magazine in the mid-90's without going to journalism school.

Posted by: Brownstoner at April 16, 2006 11:01 AM

Nobody shills better than Business Journalists in my opinion. Henry Blodget and his ilk didn't just pop themselves in to every story and television interview in the biz press did they? Who better to run up the stocks than the serious biz journalists that aren't paid to analyze every SEC document about a company and are being fed BS from analysts prior to reg-FD. Come on.

Posted by: Anonymous at April 17, 2006 10:06 AM

Well, I'll add my two cents. I enjoy bstoner's site immensely and a bit of shilling doesn't bother me one bit as long as there is full disclosure. This site is not about "serious" journalism, it's about having some fun, lively debates & discussions, and the voyerism of sometimes getting the inside scope on what's going on in and about Bklyn r.e.

Conflicts will abound, it's unavoidable. Bigger problem is how to allocate the shilling so as not to show any favoritism, least the other broker/advertisers get offended.

The "shilling" is not going to keep me away from this wonderful resource.

Posted by: Miguel at April 17, 2006 12:28 PM

saw these today. they look really nice. unique apartments, almost all have outdoor spaces. two apts share a roofdeck on the top.

i wouldn't be surprised if by next weekend, 3 or 4 apts have signed contracts already.

but there is an entire lot next door that goes from dean to pacific that is ripe for development and may take away your lot line windows.

Posted by: ltjbukem at April 23, 2006 9:08 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions