« Development Watch: 433 3rd Avenue, Now and Later Tuesday Blogwrap »

October 13, 2009

Closing Bell: Two beds, 11 Baths?

11-bathrooms-1009.jpg
When you gotta go, you gotta go...




Posted by Brownstoner at 4:00 PM | Comments (26)
Categories: Closing Bell

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/11820

Comments

Only in Center Slope.

Posted by: brownjokester at October 13, 2009 4:04 PM

i think this is rob's nightmare- imagine the amount of poo mist you could create with 11 bathrooms. wow.

Posted by: randolph at October 13, 2009 4:07 PM

Better than 11 beds and 2 baths. You have to put things in perspective.

***Bill Thompson for Mayor***

Posted by: Brownstones Half Off at October 13, 2009 4:28 PM

square footage: A hundred million!

Posted by: Minard Lafever at October 13, 2009 4:29 PM

LOL that's awesome. clearly it's an apartment designed for one of those in vitro freakos who wind up with 10 kids. so it works out perfectly! a bathroom for all!

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 13, 2009 4:38 PM

When you have to go!

Posted by: ou812 at October 13, 2009 4:41 PM

Think of all the poo mist. Yikes!

Posted by: brownjokester at October 13, 2009 4:42 PM

oyyyyyyyyy i realllllly have to go to the bathroom verrry baaaaaad!!!

Posted by: ftgreenepark at October 13, 2009 4:49 PM

it should be illegal to say 'pets upon approval' just like it's illegal to ask how many kids you have or say 'kids upon approval" cuz your average 5 year old will cause more damage than your average llama. and 'sorry, no smokers!' oh please, everyone who smokes lies when they rent and say they don't. granted, hopefully they'd be respectful to not smoke in the apartment and smoke outside. saying no smokers is just as bad as if they said no fatties.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 13, 2009 4:50 PM

"saying no smokers is just as bad as if they said no fatties."

No, fat people don't stink up the place, leave stained walls or potentially burn the whole place down. nice try, but big difference.

Posted by: randolph at October 13, 2009 4:53 PM

well randolph, they draw more cockroaches (due to their increased eating habits), put increased stress on floorboards and toilets, cause increased amount of air conditioning and energy needed to the amount of body heat they release (okay that's a plus for heating bills in the winter, ill give you that), have more more strangers traipsing thru your building due to increase traffic of food delivery, and sometimes they get so big you need to tear down walls to take them out of the building!

and look troll, did i not mention in my original psot that people SHOULD smoke outside, not IN the apartment if the landlord demands it?
a flat out no-smokers thing is ridiculous. people can smoke outside.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 13, 2009 5:17 PM

very convenient pad for playas - can easily hide girl when girlfriend pops in by surprise. 1 out of 11 odds girlfriend uses the bathroom where you hid the girl

Posted by: more4less at October 13, 2009 5:46 PM

Well with an asking price of $2250 a month I would get the runs too!

Posted by: hannible at October 13, 2009 6:23 PM

The biggest joke is this stupidity about the bathrooms came into public display. Doesn't the supervisor or sales director of that office review ads before they leave the office? At the very least, the office director should pick up the error before Brownstoner exposes it. What is this person being paid for? Perhaps, one does not exist at all at this brokerage; perhaps this a function left to the receptionist or agents. Brownstoner was at least decent enough not to expose the brokerage.

Posted by: foulplay at October 13, 2009 7:20 PM

just got back from viewing the place. only 9 of the bathrooms had double vanities. that's a big no-no for my lifestyle. i shall be passing on such a riff-raff abode.

*rob*

Posted by: Butterfly at October 13, 2009 7:28 PM

Yes, but what about double toilets? I saw a house in San Francisco once that had two toilets in the same bathroom.

Posted by: mopar at October 13, 2009 10:02 PM

This ad violates about 2 billion fair housing laws. But then again, so what?

Posted by: Springs at October 13, 2009 11:41 PM

An ad often runs in the NYT RE section for a $24mil place with 5 beds and 7 baths. His-and-her ensuite baths in the MB, hers with a bidet (natch.)

Posted by: cmu at October 14, 2009 9:21 AM

But how many Totos?

Posted by: BH76 at October 14, 2009 9:54 AM

The reality is a typo will get by the "editor" now and then. However, the text, as pointed out by other bloggers, is the bigger issue. Arguably, the language concerning smokers/dogs has the potential appearance of impropriety concerning the Fair Housing laws. Recently, due to problems in this area, the larger brokerages have become very sensative concerning this issue and have taken precautionary steps to educate the agents and brokers. Perhaps, this is a smaller brokerage. What an embarrassment if it is a larger brokerage; such stupidity is unexcusable since there would presumably be a Director of Sales for each office monitoring and watching for such potential problems. Salaried position to protect the company? One must pause and ask why.

Posted by: foulplay at October 14, 2009 11:03 AM

Wow, you really can't specify "No Pets / No Smokers" when renting a place? Does that apply to larger buildings or does that also apply if renting out the top floor an owner's brownstone?

Posted by: crazypants at October 14, 2009 3:23 PM

"Brownstoner was at least decent enough not to expose the brokerage."

Uh, he exposed the Broker. That and 5 seconds on Google will tell you the Brokerage.

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 15, 2009 9:46 AM

Obviously, the identity of the brokerage can be figured out. Perhaps, the agent received calls concerning the ad. I still question why such a sloppy rental ad made it past the supervisor/director.

Posted by: foulplay at October 15, 2009 11:58 AM

"I still question why such a sloppy rental ad made it past the supervisor/director. "

I'd be stunned if the supervisor/director is proof reading something that you can churn out a new copy of on your office printer in 2 minutes.

It's a funny/silly typo. Good for a laugh or two. But no big deal.

Chances are the broker didn't even see it. Was probably some office temp or the lowest level employee who was given responsibility for typing up the ads.

Posted by: northsloperenter at October 15, 2009 1:19 PM

Exactly my point. Imagine if the printed information really did put the brokerage in a vulnerable position. At least, the so called supervisor could have realized this while reviewing the window display or public ads. Brownstoner was obviously able to detect this before the supervisor/director. Remember, these questionable ads also put the owner of these rental properties in a unecessary precarious position. Glad I'm not paying someone NOT to protect my business from potential exposure.

Posted by: foulplay at October 15, 2009 2:29 PM

Many times brokers will put "1.1 baths" when they mean "1.5 baths". Why? I've no idea. I suppose they think 1/10 is the same as 1/2....


So, I'm presuming they meant "1.1" even though THAT in itself is wrong as well!

Posted by: wheredmyequitygo at October 16, 2009 3:36 PM

Post a comment

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

Latest Restaurant Additions