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
No one is asking him not to have ADS, we’re asking him not to sell the CONTENT.
Can you grasp the distinction?
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…
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
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.
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….
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
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.
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.
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.