2157 Green Street: Rendering (Image Source: 2157green.com)
You’ve seen the house next door. A plugged-in Sleepiguy delivered the scoop on the lot. And now, 2157 Green Street is officially on the market in all its rendered, video, and floor plan glory. From the listing:

The only vacant lot in pacific heights with an approved permit to build a 13,500 sqft single family home. Featuring roof top swimning pool…

2157 Green Street Rendering: Pool

…huge parking space, home theater, glass elevator, gym, sauna and steam showers, 6 bedrooms & 8 baths. Panoramic view of gg bridge and alcatraz and more…price includes the complete construction, to be delivered in 18 months.

Apparenty they haven’t given up on the project (and the lot split has been completed). In terms of whether or not 18 months is realistic, however, we’ll refer back to “the chagrin of the Cow Hollow Association.”
UPDATE: And to clear up any confusion, the unrendered lot (with the entrance to 2151 Green Street’s elevator behind the middle tree):
2157 Green: The unrendered lot (www.SocketSite.com)
∙ Listing: 2157 Green Street – $24,500,000 (lot, plans and construction) [2157green.com]
But Hey, $550,000 Is Simply A Rounding Error To A Proper Industrialist [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Anonymous

    What vacant lot are you talking about? Where? I’m serious.
    Are you saying that the house depicted is just an artist’s rendering? It’s computer-generated?
    [Editor's Note: Yes.]

  2. Posted by pvc

    That rendering is fugly. What a tacky house.

  3. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I like how the shadows that the foliage on 2151 Green casts on the left flank are rendered, but the foliage itself isn’t illuminated. The strange physics of SF RE photos/renderings.
    Buyers should ponder why the construction is bundled. This seems like a case of a developer who had intended to build a spec home, but can’t arrange the up-front financing to start the project. He/she doesn’t want to simply back out and sell the empty lot because they want to capture the development profit too.
    If you can be your own developer you can save big bucks. If you buy the bundle, you’re financing someone else’s profits while carrying all of the risk.

  4. Posted by eddy

    Shooting for the moon on this one.

  5. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Did anyone notice the chimney of the house next door protruding into the new house? Yeah, what can you expect for a mere $25M…

  6. Posted by brian

    Fronzi, I noticed the same thing. $25M and you’re still sharing a huge wall with your neighbor?

  7. Posted by invented

    Serious tack. thoroughly overdone. cloying. And that’s just the outside. Looks like any generic newly-landed-money development in warmhillyanywhere. Can’t get Laguna Beach out of the system eh? (as for the pool, anyone in sf see sun in past 21 days?)

  8. Posted by Katherine

    Ouch I would hate to be the house on the right when they are shoe-horning that monstrosity into the space…. they will loose all of their lovely light on the east side… that has got to suck.

  9. Posted by SocketSite

    And to clear up any confusion, a photo of the unrendered lot (with the entrance to 2151 Green Street’s elevator behind the middle tree) has been added to the article above.

  10. Posted by ex SF-er

    I’m pretty impressed with the artist’s rendering. I didn’t realize at first that this house isn’t even there!
    I personally like the North elevation (the front) and the East elevation with the glass elevator or whatever, but I hate the South elevation. you’d think they’d do better since you’ll see it from your back yard. Plus, I don’t think you’ll be able to see the East elevation due to the building next door.
    as for the layout: I’m not sure I’m big on the LR, DR etc being on the 5th floor. I know it’s “contemporary” or whatever… But I would rather they dig down and put the garage in the basement, and then you walk into the LR/DR etc… and you can have an entertainment room on the 5th/6th floor for the views
    also, 2 of the bedrooms on the 3rd floor have no closets.
    also, it’s cute to have a pool, but the pool is elevated above the level of the roof living space… why? It’s usually too cold to swim in SF anyway, so if I have a pool i want to be able to sit around in a pool chair and look at the water… but you can’t here. it looks like a big hot tub. and why not have a shower on the pool level so that you don’t have to track water all down the stairs or elevator? I would have put a pool and a sauna and steam shower and maybe even a “massage room” or “yoga room” up there… not an office… then it would be like a 6th floor spa.
    I find it interesting that people spend all this money on design, and they neglect obvious practical things, like where will people stow their clothes, and what people will do once they exit the pool.

  11. Posted by pvc

    if the primary drivers of this design were practicality or a sensible use of space, the entire rendering would look very, very different. This is a statement house and the pool on the roof is there just so you can tell people you have a pool on your roof – or at least comfort yourself knowing it’s there. It seems they’re aiming squarely for the rich-foreigner-with-no-taste market here. Who is going to spend $24mil on an unbuilt house and not design it themselves?

  12. Posted by sleepiguy

    Um… I’m confused. They’re trying to sell just the lot and plans for 24.5 million? Does it exclude the construction cost?
    Anyway, this house is an architectural abortion.
    [Editor's Note: "...price includes the complete construction..."]

  13. Posted by pvc

    here we are seeing the true cost of the weak dollar

  14. Posted by resp

    check out the last line in the SF building department’s notes on the building permit:
    “Applicant’s phone no. as listed is disconnected.”

  15. Posted by noearch

    well..keep in mind the plans shown are very conceptual..if this gets built, I know the plans will go thru many iterations before they turn into construction documents and become final.
    as for the design..well, yea it is pretty “ugly”..very faux italian/roman/venetian/whatever..lots of wealthy people love that style. it speaks of “old world” money, manor houses, and servants in the basement.
    I think it’s just a piece of crap.

  16. Posted by Mole Man

    In my experience a bedroom that appears not to have closets will be built with a wall of sliding doors for a full wall length closet on one side. Leaving the closets off the rendering allows the choice of which and how much wall to use for closet space to be left until the larger issues of plan and circulation have been worked out. This works legally for rooms as small as ten feet square, but with these large interior spaces there is less constraint.
    The pool access is standard with steps and a rail, so there isn’t a problem there except maybe with the clarity of the rendering.
    The design is tacky, especially on the exterior, but at this price level we are talking about bull headed rich people as customers, so that is hard to avoid. This is also a serious San Francisco neighborhood which means that designs will have to be old and standard looking to have any chance. What I really like about this specific design is the nicely integrated outdoor space. Both neighboring buildings are for shut ins who want the building to be remote and unreachable on the outside. The proposed structure has some kind of patio on every level, some of them quite large. There are no expanses of exterior space that are left out of reach, and looking at the plan it is easy to imagine each and every one of these patios getting daily use.

  17. Posted by Mole Man

    Stair Trek: The New Generation

  18. Posted by San FronziScheme

    I hadn’t noticed the entrance to 2151 Green’s elevator has disappeared from the rendering and appears to be integrated into 2157’s front.
    That, plus the chimney encroachment. I hope the buyers like sharing.

  19. Posted by SF

    So they have to share the same side entrance?

  20. Posted by Marina Boy

    It looks like they don’t have to share the same side entrance. The front brick stairs will be cut in half and they will build a new side door for the elevator.

  21. Posted by San FronziScheme

    I don’t think they’ll have to share the same side entrance neither. Marina Boy is right, the staircase looks narrower. Plus, If you look closely at the rendering, there seems to be another entrance to the right of the garage.
    As noearch said, this is very conceptual. The final result will have to take into account all the issues found along the way.

  22. Posted by someone

    Did this place go on foreclosure or something?
    I swear I saw the owner’s name on the list of defaults, and propertyshark shows that middle eastern name on both 2151 and 2151v (aka 2157).

  23. Posted by amused

    Very classy. If you think of a trip to Vegas as classy.
    Thank god it doesn’t have the dreaded “Dwell” aesthetic, though. That would give most readers here an aneurysm.

  24. Posted by anonfedup

    With so many talented architects and designers in the Bay Area, why do we see such extremes in bad taste? Certainly there is a better threshold for how luxury homes should be designed besides either the Dwell/Room&Board look or this “Tuscan” nightmare? It seems some of the best residential work in this area is being built in Napa-Sonoma, Marin and the Oakland-Berkeley hills, but not in always in San Francisco.

  25. Posted by Nicole

    Does anyone know who the architect is on this property?

  26. Posted by sparky

    Architect of record: Abraham Zvala, AZ design

  27. Posted by Ryan

    isnt it going to get a little annoying looking out all the west windows that look directly into your neighbors victorian?

  28. Posted by sleepiguy

    I’m just going to throw this out there, but this project should just be abandoned. I don’t understand the logic behind any of this. First, the conceptual house is priced 10 million more than available comps in the neighborhood. The houses to the south on Vallejo and Broadway are on better blocks and offer better views. The few that have been updated and sold during the last year or so fetched less than 15 million. If the owner was successful at creating the lot split and getting a building permit, why not just sell the vacant lot for, say, 4-5 million with the permit? Then he can focus on dumping 2151 Green which is now worth substantially less without the lot and the 3-4 years of construction that will take place next door.

  29. Posted by Conifer

    This really is not Pacific Heights, but Cow Hollow, and not the best block of Green by any means. This row of what may become four is good, but many of the rest of the buildings are modest, some multiunits. For this price, there are many better houses, with some history, updated, ready to go. This price is wishful-thinking.

  30. Posted by kthnxbye

    Meanwhile, the property flyer for 2151 Green still boasts of an “extra wide lot.”

  31. Posted by Hasty

    i just spent the last 30 minutes writing on this site and it didnt go through! after spending my time and energy writing for nothing, i will summarize:
    copy and paste this on your browsers, compliments of our city website:
    http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/preservation/PresBulletin18ARCHSTYLES.pdf
    i hope each of you learn the rich history of architecture style in our glorious city from this site. looks to me like the rendering/architect/designer/planner/owner/artist actually knows what they are doing. it resembles a lot of historic landmarks in SF.
    i think its brilliant and wonderful that someone was able to capture the old world charm the city is known for and combine today’s high-tech features!
    i cant believe so many of you think inside the box! i really cant believe that so many of you think its ok to slander the builder/owner just because you have a different taste in style.
    if anyone actualy had financial means to be serious about purchasing the property, this includes Mr. Sleepiguy who “broke the story”, i’m sure all the random questions would be answered if you made an appointment with the broker. for that price, there MUST be answers.
    also, did i miss the memo to update me on drastic changes in the entire city as far as architecture goes? are homes not selling? has there been a revolution here that i was not aware of? is there a new law that all homes must have acres of land if they are in SF?? i’m referring to the people that complained on the rendering that the two homes on the left and right are too close. TOO CLOSE?? do you not live in SF? every single building, structure, skyscraper and home is built on top of each other!!! look outside your window. walk down the street…ANY street. SF is historically famous for it. so why would that even be an issue with this home?
    i wish this was actually a fair blog where it was not so one-sided. its a shame the builder/owner/broker isnt asked to comment or be given a chance to respond….
    [Editor’s Note: First and foremost, we don’t know what happened on your side but there’s no record of your previous comment on ours (no comments are awaiting approval nor have any recently been removed). Regardless, we can understand your frustration. And second, we not only welcome but encourage comments from builders, owners, and brokers and many do (albeit often under a nom de plume).]

  32. Posted by SocketSite

    The listing for 2157 Green Street has been withdrawn.

  33. Posted by eddy

    Back on at a healthy $5.9 following on the recommendation of Sleepiguy above!
    Oddly listed as a SFH and not a lot.
    I’d say it’s got a shot.

  34. Posted by outoftowner

    i don’t live in san fran, but i love the city. wish i could move there. reading the above comments, however, gives me pause. are there really THAT many miserable negative fuckers there?

  35. Posted by fluj

    “i don’t live in san fran, but i love the city. wish i could move there. reading the above comments, however, gives me pause. are there really THAT many miserable negative fuckers there?”
    Honestly I gotta say that this website is probably pretty representative. That’s the only reason it has any value to me personally, for example. SF is chock full of negative nellies. Chock freaking full. I might not agree with what they have to say but they are my neighbors.

  36. Posted by SocketSite

    With 2151 Green Street headed for foreclosure, the sister listing for 2157 Green Street has expired without a sale.

  37. Posted by eddy

    Curious on the fate of this property / lot?

  38. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    ^^^ Most likely will have to go through the courts before it re-enters the market. I think I read on another thread that the owner of these two adjacent properties has skipped the country.

  39. Posted by SocketSite

    A within 24 hours of its expiration, the listing for 2157 Green Street is once again active but the asking price for the empty lot with approved plans has been reduced to $4,400,000.

  40. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    that’s what I get for drinking a whole can of wrongberry juice yesterday morning.

  41. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Coming soon: a CL listing at $6500/month for this vacant lot. BYOT (bring your own tent).

  42. Posted by eddy

    Too many threads on these houses! Cross posting:
    So both lots are now priced together = $10.3, which is still 1.3M more than was paid for the original home/lot. sleepiguy, you can’t be serious that this is jointly worth $4M? Does anyone remember what the two lots on the NE corner of Divis and Broadway sold? Those were super-premium and were the last 2 D7 lots to be sold if I’m not mistaken. I don’t think either of them went for $4M?

  43. Posted by SocketSite

    The list price for 2157 Green has been reduced from $4,400,000 to $4,200,000.
    Our last post on 2151 Green: Another District Seven Mansion Heads For Foreclosure (2151 Green).

  44. Posted by anonn

    2157 Green got an offer and is pending.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *