945 Green #9: Living
945 Green Street #9 hit the market two weeks ago, but we’ve been saving the eye candy for an appropriate time.
945 Green #9: Bath
While there aren’t a ton of photos (and we’ll just ignore the duplicates), we like what we see. And that goes doubly so for the collection of art and views (and floor plan to peruse).
945 Green #9: Floor Plan
∙ Listing: 945 Green #9 (4/5.5) – $6,700,000 [MLS]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by Binnings Team

    This is a prime piece of real estate in one of San Francisco’s most prestigious buildings. The one thing I wish 945 Green had were balconies. Other than that, I’m loving this place!

  2. Posted by Marcus

    I do like the floorplan but what’s up with the Ikea catalog decorating? Can’t judge the art since I think everyone born after Titian is a hack that can’t draw a straight line :) Seems a bit overpriced with the the $3k HOA dues and that oogly kitchen.
    Is that a steamroom in the second picture?

  3. Posted by Ryan

    A total if you have to ask property. Especially in reffrence to the HOA. 945 Green would be nice with balconies, but I guess it wasen’t a big deal in the era it was built. The only thing I would hesitate about is the 30 story Summit (999 Green) towering over me next door.

  4. Posted by FSBO

    Nice property – but with a $6.7M price tag, I think they could have bought a few more vowels for the remarks section in the MLS listing.

  5. Posted by schtee

    This is mildly off-topic, but I’ve not encountered a post to which it’s more apropos. In NYC, the monthly maintenance fee for a coop usually includes RE taxes (the unit owner’s portion of them). Is the same true out here? In addition, since (in theory) the building corporation owns the entire building, and individual unit “owners” actually purchase a proportionate number of corporation shares, the units individually never get sold. How does Prop. 13 factor into this if at all? Do the building’s property taxes never get adjusted when individual unit shares change hands?

  6. Posted by Morgan

    Schtee, the same is true in Chicago as well. Property taxes are part of the HOA fees for coops, and usually it is divided up by sq. ft. of each unit and floor level. I am curious how prop. 13 factors into this as well.
    Just a small note, but this is a classic floorplan from an era that only is shown in old movies now. The servants “freight” elevator, seperate entrance for staff and owners, the whole way the living area is divided up between public rooms and private areas, I wonder if anything like this will ever be built again? Compare this to the penthouses at 1RH and it is easy to see how much the world has changed, and not always for the better.

  7. Posted by Rocco

    Schtee: Unlike New York, co-operative property taxes are not included in the HOA but are assessed per unit. 945 Green #9 is currently assessed at $5,930,280 and the property taxes are $67,668.18; the property taxes will be adjusted to the new sale price. Either up of down.
    Like New York co-ops, there is a board interview and approval. Generally there’s no board financial package or letters of recommendation required, but many co-ops require all-cash purchases. So just be sure you can write a check with lots of zeros.

  8. Posted by Jake

    Personally, I think 1940 Broadway is much nicer (and 1.5 mil cheaper) especially in terms of curb appeal, of which this has little going for it beyond the view. The front “yard” is just asphalt of this akwarkdly widened (apparently for guest parking?) cul-de-sac’ed portion of Green.
    As far as Prop 13 is concerned, I’m fairly certain that historically property taxes have not been adjusted upon change of ownership. In recent years the City has been trying to address this by issuing block and lot numbers for co-ops, but this is being fought by at least one co-op building I’m aware of as that would imply “condo-ization” all without any survey, etc. process that normally takes place when a building is converted to condos.

  9. Posted by SausalitoRes

    Agree with Jake about the relative appeal of 1940 Broadway. The remodel and decor of this unit on Green is too sterile for my tastes. Not a fan of the bathroom.
    Also agree with Morgan about the floorplan. These older units are much more liveable. Probably too inefficient in terms of square footage. I also like the full-floor configuration with private elevator lobby and windows in all four directions.

  10. Posted by Frederick

    945 Green Street was designed by the same architects that designed both 1940 and 1960 Broadway and has a colorful history. Supposedly built after it’s neighbor, 947 Green St to reduce the views from 947 Green see: http://www.rhn.org/historygreenwalk.html
    The views at 1940 Broadway #6 are not panaromic as the coop’s and condo’s on Vallejo St, to the north block the GG Bridge & Bay views from the lower floors at 1940 & 1960 Broadway. Also 945 Green’s floor plans are 4,100+ (tax records say 4,800) sq ft or more while 1940 Broadway are 3,500+
    Most unique to have so many special coop apartments available at one time. Although 1940 Vallejo #8 recieved an accepatable offer on Tuesday after being on the market for only several days.
    Is the Financial Earthquake over? Senate votes 74 to 25!!
    Frederick
    [Editor’s Note: Ah, yes. The “spite” building (and great insights). But it was actually 947 Green that was built to block the views of 945.]

  11. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Is the Financial Earthquake over? Senate votes 74 to 25!!
    We wish. We said that in March already after the BS collapse. The popping of the biggest asset/debt bubble in US history is still unwinding. Creating more debt to fill the debt if just like filling a hole by digging another hole.
    Americans are spending more than they earn (earning less and less by the way), and they are grossly overpaying for housing in particular. Until this is corrected, no silver bullet will make the world rosy and dreamy again.

  12. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 945 Green #9 closed escrow on 11/18/08 but without a reported contract price.

Add a Comment

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