1968 Greenwich
Purchased for $2,100,000 in May of 2005, 1968 Greenwich in the heart of Cow Hollow (District 7) is back on the market today. Asking $2,100,000 (with nary an alley, moldy carpet, or fire station in sight).
∙ Listing: 1968 Greenwich (3/2.5) – $2,100,000 [MLS]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by San FronziScheme

    If it sells at that price, and including inflation, that would mean a 9% decrease as opposed to 2005. Add this to the seller’s purchasing fees, opportunity cost, property taxes, maintenance cost and a probable negative rent vs. buy bill.
    But I am sure this low low price will command multiple offers and that the bidding war is already raging on.

  2. Posted by anon

    My favorite thing about busted MLS links is the title of the page, “Magic partitioning error”. Magic!
    [Editor's Note: Sorry about that (and since fixed).]

  3. Posted by Prime

    you got it. Op cost is added back, so around $8-10/K/month it would have cost to rent this place, so around $350,000 “saved” in rent by not having to rent a similar place, which doesn’t exist in the rental stock. it’s sweet. i rmemeber seeing it back in 2005. asking was $1.9mil, and the current owners bid 200K over.
    will be intersting. anybody selling in this mkt now, have to question them.

  4. Posted by Mole Man

    I found the MLS here.
    This place is strange. The kitchen has an unusual layout, and the bathrooms have those funky bowl sinks. Where exactly is the flue for the living area fireplace? The rear yard is nice enough. All the necessary features are there, except maybe a second parking spot, but for over $800/sqft this is is really plain. My guess is this will command $1.8m tops.

  5. Posted by sparky-the-bear

    So where is all the calls for “it’s not a comp. until it sells”? I’m pretty sure I heard a lot of that last week when I posted some +$ listings.
    [Editor’s Note: It's not. Please note the “on the tree” in the headline. In other words it hasn’t yet been picked (in more ways than one).]

  6. Posted by jlasf

    Nice enough place, but listing says, “a shared lot.” What does that mean?

  7. Posted by Foolio

    @jlasf: Was just trying to figure out the same thing. Looks like it’s a 2-unit building.
    [Editor’s Note: Two separate buildings on a shared lot. You can just make out the second smaller unit at the end of the lot behind the fence.]

  8. Posted by sparky-the-bear

    Editor, I wasn’t calling out your description.
    On the tree. I wonder if I had used that description last week what the response would have been.

  9. Posted by eddy

    Seems like a nice place. Is it on Liquifaction?

  10. Posted by sparky-the-bear

    No, it’s not on liquifaction

  11. Posted by ravenator

    How does this property compare to 2652 Chestnut which has been on the market for at least a month at 1.9M?

  12. Posted by tipster

    I was at a party at this house (I stood on those steps in the back – the owner is a friend of a friend) and I toured it in 2005 when it was listed for sale. It’s beautiful. It’s very very nice. One of the best in that neighborhood, and the back yard is really charming.
    And wouldn’t this be interesting if this was another financial services sale? Of course, I knew that it was. To verify I wasn’t disclosing any confidential information, I went to property shark and it stated the owner is Robert Senoff. A google search lists him as the Managing Member of New Mellenium Partners, a VC fund.
    So it’s not just the bankers who are getting clobbered: the VCs are absolutely imploding.
    And don’t look now, but Google is at three hundred fifty eight: every option they gave out in the last 30 months is underwater.

  13. Posted by spencer

    $1.95M estimated selling price

  14. Posted by Anonymous

    Dear Socket Site: Speaking of Greenwich Street, how about an update on 1501 Greenwich (corner Van Ness)? It has 29 condos–but how many are actually sold and occupied so far?

  15. Posted by SocketSite

    After three weeks on the market, the asking price for 1968 Greenwich has been reduced to $1,975,000.

  16. Posted by anon laughing renter

    So, if it sells at this newly reduced price, the owner will suffer a capital loss of at least $250K after costs.
    That sure was a fast price reduction. The owner is a VC? Can you say “margin call”? Nice “investment”.
    Gotta redraw those maps. This isn’t the real SF, obviously.

  17. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Who knows at what price it will sell? But so far, the market seems to be adjusting to the general slump. The notion that people here are wealthy enough to “wait it out” erodes little by little in view of prospective diminishing wealth from the seller side.
    In short, people have better thing to do with your equity than to wait 5-10-15 years for the prices to go down and come back up. Uncertainty is the key here. Sell now or you might sell lower tomorrow under stress.

  18. Posted by chuckie

    Bulls eye Spencer :)

  19. Posted by SocketSite

    After four weeks on the market the asking price for 1968 Greenwich has been reduced once again. This time by $175,000. Now asking $1,800,000.

  20. Posted by chuckie

    Spencer guessed too high!
    Bulls eye Mole Man :)
    Now we need someone “more better” plugged-in than I to look into this place. It sold in 6/2001 for $1,775,000. They did a bunch of work/remodelling in 2004 and sold in 5/2005 for $2,100,000. So the new price puts it waaay below its 2001 price. It does not make sense to me, and I am not being sarcastic or facetious. Are they just angling for bids? Did they already sell and want to record “over list” sale?
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/1968-Greenwich-St-94123/home/1483272
    [Editor's Note: The sale in 2001 was for both buildings on the one lot. The sale in 2005 was just for this one.]

  21. Posted by chuckie

    Ah! Makes sense…
    Thanks Editor.

  22. Posted by Apple Picking

    I’ve gone apple picking in district 7 (1968 Greenwhich) and would like all of you interested parties to know that you’re ALL wrong on your guesses. I’ve found this sites information very useful and many of you are right on with the correction that is happening. This house is awesome. It’s detached on the second floor and on the right side. It feels like a single family home. It has 11 foot high ceilings and celestial windows in every room. As for the chick commenting on the kitchen…? The kitchen is amazing…and as for the flute, I can assure you it doesn’t exhaust into the living room !! the garage has plenty of room for two cars on my side, and the only “bowl” sink is in the 1/2 bath in the hallway….and I like it. As for the price, well….I think you’ll see that I’m right on where the ‘correction’ is and that I’m paying what the place is worth. it’s been renovated tastefully and is well maintained and turnkey. Frankly, I’m very excited. I’ve seen a lot of stuff and I can say I’ve seen a lot of Sh*@t. in the past 3 months. And not to mention, I go to Balboa about 5 times a week….and although I’ve had some luck with the ‘cougars’….there are a lot of other ages at the BC…now, just a hop-skip-and a stumble home. The pro’s in this house vastly out weigh the cons. The pictures tell you the pros…my only cons are there is no bathroom in the master upstairs. I don’t care as a single guy, but for resale in the future it may turn some off. The other, is the size of the living room. One thing I haven’t heard on this forum is how good of a time it is to remodel with soooo many contractors looking for work and the prices of materials dropping with the gas. If I wanted, I could add a bathroom in the Master (on the deck off the master)…and in the living room, knock out that back wall of glass and push it back 10 feet (where the current deck is) and build a new deck on top of that section for the master, and put the old deck back off the living room….I’d loose about 10 – 15 feet of the back yard, but there is plenty to spare. There is also permits already to put on a roof deck on top of the master…I could have stairs off the master deck going up to the roof….I haven’t seen it up there yet, but I’m assuming I could get some bay and bridge views….of course, all of this is just in my mind right now, but very possible. I think this stuff could be done for less than $200k…and I still wont be at the price they paid in ’05. Again, just thoughts in my head, but possible. I’ll be curious to hear any comments about my purchase next week. This will be done by Friday. Until then….keep up the good work…. How do you like them apples ?

  23. Posted by Pala

    Well apple picker, it’s in contract already. How about them apples.

  24. Posted by Apple Picking

    yeah….I know….in contract WITH ME

  25. Posted by Pala

    That’s what I get for reading comments at 4AM. I like your house, and I think you got a good deal for it.

  26. Posted by Apple Picking

    thanks…..even though you don’t know the price…it is a good deal….I’m happy….I don’t think it could go much lower…it’s just too much house….but like I said, I looked at a lot of stuff in the same price range and this was by far the best…and it’s not on liquefaction, and is seismically upgraded with three huge steel beams in the garage. There really isn’t anything to do but furnish the place and throw up some plasmas. I’m curious to read the comments next week if, and when the deal goes through…thanks for your input!

Add a Comment

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