Purchased as a three-bedroom for $4.98 million in 2012, the full-floor Russian Hill unit #3 at 945 Green Street has been rebuilt as a two-bedroom and has just returned to the market listed for $9.95 million, “showcasing complementary elements of gracious scale & simplicity.”

945 Green #3 Floor Plan 2015

And while the website for the property currently notes, “More photos to come on April 1,” this isn’t an early April fools.  But there is a story of spite.

According to local legend, the 11-story building at 945 Green Street was developed in 1928 by the owner of a building on Vallejo whose northern views were blocked by the development of the 10-story building at 947 Green Street in 1924, with 945 Green’s L-shape was designed to maximize the loss of 947 Green Street’s eastern views.

And while not included with the listing, according to tax records, 945 Green Street #3 measures 3,880 square feet, which would price the two-bedroom at roughly $2,564 per square foot.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by BobN

    You could totally AirBNB that “Bonus room” off the service elevator to help with the mortgage.

  2. Posted by Eric Johnson

    This is a beautiful example of fine design, thoughtful touches, and expert craftsmanship. I want it so bad. It is my dream house.

  3. Posted by Zugamenzia Farnsworth

    Man o Man So high on the hog: someone call air traffic control!

    The dressing room seems a tad big…interesting to have a lil den just off the dressing room, probably just right if there’s unwanted company staying over, morning coffee, etc. And I suppose the bonus room could qualify as bedroom 3 if that was an issue. A lot of space given over to circulation, especially in the bedrooms, a few walk in closets instead: another option. And the views!

  4. Posted by Michael

    Views are not as dramatic as 1750 Taylor and 1070 Green, but I think this is the best floor plan of the three. Only (major) criticism is the placement of the kitchen – they should have kept it closer to the stairs/elevator for catering access and ease of delivering groceries/emptying the trash (without lugging bags through the gallery/foyer).

    [Editor’s Note: The Priciest Apartment In San Francisco At $3,165 Per Square Foot (1750 Taylor) and Seeking $3K Per Square Foot On Russian Hill (1070 Green).]

  5. Posted by Zugamenzia Farnsworth

    The kitchen is kind of off in right field….assuming $ and plumbing no objects, bedroom 2 and the family room could have been “switched,” getting the kitchen next to the elevator, and then, the family room where the kitchen is now (although the plan infers there might be some nice connectivity/half wall-cabinet, between the existing dining and family). The dressing room’s almost bigger than my entire apartment. Maybe they plan on exercising in there. Possibly the “den” was original, and intended as a nursery, or sewing room; I’m thinking at one time the tenants were probably more hoi polloi.

    [Editor’s Note: The building’s original floor plan for the sake of comparison: Big Views, Floor Plan And Price Atop Russian Hill.]

  6. Posted by Keep it Clean

    Two Washer/dryers, two kitchen sinks and that neat double shower, he enters from one side, she from the other.

    • Posted by BobN

      Hmmmm…. what’s a “WO” in a kitchen? There are two of the, too.

  7. Posted by jenofla

    Major change from original floor plan. A decision to go with the modern trend of open floor plan and switching the views to the kitchen and family room. Building a huge master suite. Only two bedrooms…but smaller families now, no? Definitely for entertainment. Or is this a “pied a terre” the way 2006 Washington was? Only in a place like this would rooms that are 7 x 10′ or 9 x 12′ be considered too small to be considered a bedroom.

    Ah, the foibles of the 0.1%. I wouldn’t be surprised if purchased by a larger family that switches everything all around again.

  8. Posted by Eddy

    This floor plan makes no sense. It’s a nice building, I’ve been in one of the apartments many many times and there was a reason why the kitchen as seen in the “original editor’s notes link” was facing the north was that all the utilities were on that side of the building. What is now the master suite in this new layout originally was were the help’s quarters were, service elevator, laundry facility, kitchen next to the dinning room. To have a the kitchen on the back side of the floor means all the meal/kitchen service has to trek through the entire house to get to the cooking area since there are strict rules and covenants regulative staff’s use of the main elevator. Sort of upstairs, downstairs mode or rather big shaft, small rickety shaft for the servants. Also a downside to this building in general are the upstairs neighbors. Vertical living should be suitable only for columbaria where your neighbors are no long a vital factor. Best to spend your money on a house where you have control and tranquility.

    • Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

      Yes a plumbing switcheroo could be challenging in a multi story building, especially the waste pipes because they need a minimum slope in order to flow well and not clog. Fortunately the kitchen sink is located approximately where the former south bathroom was located so they could reuse the existing waste pipes. For example it might not be possible to put the new kitchen where the LR is now: The floor cavity might not be deep enough to provide enough slope to the waste vertical.

      The old floorplan had 5 baths plus 2 powder rooms. Wow.

  9. Posted by Zugamenzia Farnsworth

    Now it’s making me wonder….regarding the bedrooms…..i’m not sure where the exterior fire escapes are…..there’s probably a code requirement for max-distance-to-exit-stairs for the bedrooms….i think 7 x 10 could be legally used as a bedroom: twin bed, tiny night table if you’re lucky, but lots of closets in this one.

Add a Comment

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