Good Deal or Not? “Nostalgic Facade” edition

by Prince Of Petworth April 12, 2013 at 1:00 pm 23 Comments

1704 T Street Northwest

This condo is located at 1704 T Street, NW:

View Larger Map

The listing says:

“Built 2005. Lux. Boutiq. Condo. in Dupont Area few blks to U St. Sub-Station, Restaurants & Grocery. Nostalgic Facade. Contemp. finish w 9 ft. high ceil. Hardwood flrs. Kit. w.Granite C.t., upscale S.S kit.appl. & Cont.Cab’s and Gas Stove/Oven with exh.hood. French doors to cozy little Terrace for outdoor living…Rare. Dog Park & Rental Bike Station 1/2 block. Low Condo Fees!!! Vacant & Ready!”

You can see more photos here.

This 1 bed/1 bath is going for $399,700 ($256 monthly fee.)

  • Rococo

    Dear condo market,

    Can you please implode in the next two years so I can buy without selling my children?

  • TheAssistant

    Is it just me, or does the listing have the most number of awkward, context-less closeups you’ve ever seen?

    • Anonymous

      Pretty much. Also, it would have helped to take pictures with a real camera. During the day.

  • Anonymous

    Not a fan of the exterior. Ewwwww.

  • JJ

    So the first picture of the interior of the unit is of the bathroom (which looks like a hotel bathroom)? And there’s no good shot of the living area, just bits and pieces. Get it together realtors.

    • jcm

      Sometimes I think there’s a secret realtor competition for worst listing to get a full price offer. A long series of blurry, badly lit, badly composed cellphone-camera-circa-2005 looking snapshots. Poorly written listing description with terrible abbreviations, random capitalization and punctuation, and no complete sentences.

      Why would anyone hire a person that does this to sell his house? You are really going to pay this person $12,000?

  • Anonymous

    The building is far older than 2005. It was renovated in ’05. I lived in the apartment building behind it at the time.

  • Anonymous

    realtor needs to put in a little more effort than those blurry photos

  • T
    • Anonymous

      Wow. Based on the PoPville pics, I legit thought it was a random storage room. Outdoor space? Never even occurred to me (though I did want to know where those doors off the living room went).

      • Anonymous

        Me too! Though, I’d hardly consider that outdoor space…

  • eyelessingaza

    and what’s up with the pic of the brick corner outside???

  • hahaha, thanks realtor for the good chuckle looking through these terrible photos.

  • DC20009

    Were these pictures were taken at night or does this unit get absolutely no sunlight? Either way, not good.
    (My favorite pic is the brick nook. Very inviting.)

  • I really wish people would stop taking bad pictures of the places they are selling. It does you no favors and some of these gave me a headache.

    however, great area and it’ll go before the weekend is out, I’m guessing.

  • anon
  • Anonymous

    I’ve always liked this building, even before the rehab. I’m pretty sure this building declared bankruptcy around 2006 ?, it was one of the 1st and enough owners could not sell nor make payments.

  • AMDCer

    I like the exterior, and the interior is ok (but hard to get a sense of the layout from those photos…), but this is below grade, right? That price seems too high to me – a unit about the same size/amenities just sold in my building (18th & California St – so 3 blocks away) for $330K, and it was on the top floor and very sunny. Does being off 17th St instead of 18th, and in “Dupont” instead of “Adams Morgan” make that much difference?

    • Anonymous

      no ;)

    • Exterior looks like the best part of this property.

  • AMDCer

    LOL – and I just realized that “a few blocks to U St. sub-station” means the Metro! I thought it meant a power station and couldn’t figure out why you would list that! Really terrible listing…

  • Anonymous

    I’m pretty sure I looked at this apartment when it was last for sale (and was, if I recall about $10,000 cheaper. I think they delisted it at the time). It was below grade but got a ton of light in the living room and was much nicer than the pictures do justice. (Though it was incredibly messy as wel at the timel. I think it had a renter. Those two sentences aren’t meant to imply correlation, just that it wasn’t being showed well then either. I think it is the same listing agent now.)


Subscribe to our mailing list