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 —
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!
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…
“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.
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.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
Ok didnt get the quid pro quo – shame on you Brownstoner – kidding – but Linus does raise some good issues