Sneak Peek at the Firehouse Condos on Dean
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…
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.
Armed 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).
Given 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
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.
Sigh. Aguayo & Huebener no less. I guess it’s not as bad as Halliburton. Great exchange of perspectives.
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?
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.
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).
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..
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.
What about a paid classified section?
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.