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
Thanks, Anon (if you’re nasty).
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.
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.
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.
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.
brownstoner: 50
clintonhillbilly: 1
Brownstoner, weren’t you interested in seeing this building before the ad had anything to do with it???
On another note, I just came across the Atlantic Yards seder haggadah. – Very funny!
http://www.leathertomato.com/
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…