Purchased for $7.525 million, or roughly $1,597 per square foot in the fourth quarter of 2016, the contemporary Cow Hollow home with “a huge North Facing backyard drenched in sun” at 2764 Greenwich Street returned to the market this past January priced at $8.995 million, a sale at which would have represented total appreciation of 19.5 percent or roughly 15.5 percent per year.

Reduced to $8.495 million in March, relisted for $7.9 million in June and then relisted anew for $7.595 million as of ten days ago, the 4,712-square-foot, four-bedroom home in now in contract.

If 2764 Greenwich closes escrow with a $7.595 million contract price, it will officially be “at asking,” and quite possibly with fewer than “30 days on the market,” according to all industry stats and aggregate reports.

An “at asking” sale would also represent total appreciation of 0.9 percent for the “Exceptional Cow Hollow Home” since the end of 2016 on an apples-to-apples basis.

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

    I mean, it does have a sheep. That’s unusual if not exceptional.

  2. Posted by SF5567

    In other words, after paying the egregious commissions (most countries, a house like this would be 2% total, max, for selling and seller agent combined), the seller will actually lose money. LOTS of money. In fact, imagine the seller put down 20% to buy ($1.5), $6mn jumbo loan, and now after fees gets ~$7.2 – that $1.5m equity turned to $1.2m – the seller LOST 20% of their equity in only 2 years and to the tune of $300,000.

    • Posted by Denis

      Who knows how they bought the place, but they will likely lose quite of bit of money, but the outcome could have been worse. Like I said, in a previous thread, the streets on the edges of Pacific Heights/Cow Hollow proper don’t hold up well when the market softens.

      More telling will be another truly prime Cow Hollow house once featured here and now back on the market. Looks like some minor cosmetic upgrades, but nothing significant. Pre-MLS listing price seems to be 12% over its 2014 sale.

    • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

      2009 – A guy buys this house for 1.5mm. Eventually, decides to develop it.
      2014 – the third floor gets added added. Not sure about the next step – I think the developer owner may have passed away.
      2015 – This home was bought by an LLC connected to an executive at a construction company based in the east bay, for 4.25mm. Appears the construction was already underway. Construction company owner filed a permit for $175K of work to add an elevator.

      Then it sold for 7.525 to the current owners, who owe 4.5 to First Republic in a first deed structure. I don’t know what the fixed term of the loan is, but short term rates are going up, and this is getting more expensive.

      So 2009 to 2016, 7 years from 1.5mm to 7.5mm. When you buy the big, spruced up beautiful house on the block, it’s nice, but there may not be a lot of appreciation left on the table. Especially in our current rising rate environment.

      Owner is a CEO of public company, former Blackstone advisor, so he’ll probably be okay. Besides, renting is for plebes.

      [Editor’s Note: “This house” looked a little different in 2009 (at which point it measured closer to 1,600 square feet in need of some “updating”).]

      • Posted by Amewsed

        Emphasis on former Blackstone advisor. I own Blackstone stock, and it has been doing well since purchase.

        Coming out okay because you have a lot of money in the first place is not the same as being smart with money.

        • Posted by AbsolutPower

          If it’s a home that the owner enjoyed living in and can afford, who are you to say it’s not being smart with the money? You don’t get to take any money with you when you die and a lot of rich people don’t want to leave tons of money to their kids.

      • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

        [Editor’s Note: “This house” looked a little different in 2009 (at which point it measured closer to 1,600 square feet in need of some “updating”).]

        Right – that’s what I meant when I said the third floor was added and the intervening GC owner putlled additional permits, etc. Location etc. hasn’t changed, it just became one of the nicest homes on the block.

        Funny that Teed Haze are selling it now – this is usually one of their moves.

      • Posted by anon

        Yes, while you do outline that a floor has been added and significant work has been done, to me it is misleading to then summarize it as: “So 2009 to 2016, 7 years from 1.5mm to 7.5mm.”

        • Posted by bachman_erlich_overdrive

          That’s what I get for trying to add interesting content to a tired re-tread of a storyline mimeo-ed here on the daily.

          Newsflash folks – not everyone wins at real estate all the time. Realtors adjust prices. Days on the market is an unreliable indicator. News at 11.

    • Posted by Tipster

      He won’t get 7.2 Just the transfer tax is ~180K. His selling/staging fees are more likely in the $600K range.

      His now not-deductible property taxes also went up by nearly $45,000 this year.

      He lost a bundle.

    • Posted by SFRealist

      Unclear here. Am I supposed to feel sorry for the owner?

      Or maybe they paid cash. Or maybe they got a significant tax savings. The one thing I do know is that no one here has a detailed understanding of that person’s finances, so it’s literally impossible to know how the owner did.

      • Posted by Tipster

        There’s this thing called the Internet. He has a loan with First Republic Bank.

        • Posted by SFRealist

          You have more time on your hands than I do! Since you do, please tell us all what the owner’s incone was, so we can accurately calculate the mortgage deduction.

          Like I said before, am I supposed to feel sorry for some wealthy person? Maybe the property was bought or sold because of a marriage, or a divorce, or a death, or children, or a new job. Looking at an individual person’s circumstances doesn’t shed much light on the RE market as a whole.

  3. Posted by hundo_p

    They would have lost more if they rented a similar house for a similar period of time.

    • Posted by SocketSite

      Care to share the math or reasoning behind your analysis? Don’t forget to include the required debt service, or cost of capital, if you do.

      • Posted by oakland lover

        Don’t forget to include the opportunity cost of having all that down payment in stocks too, since I think, ummm i know the markets gone up quite a lot over the past couple years.

  4. Posted by Dandywhatsoever

    Remember those giant tubs?

  5. Posted by Miraloma Man

    That is one Ugly, overpriced house. Beige Nation.

  6. Posted by Martin

    Would this roof deck be legal under the new rules?

    • Posted by Notcom

      Well, let’s see:
      1. Size: A total maximum deck area of no greater than 1/3 of the building’s roof area. NO
      2. Setbacks: A minimum 5-foot setback of deck guardrails from all building edges except the rear building wall. NO
      3. Access: Limited to an internalized staircase or roof hatch or one minimally sized stair penthouse for multi-unit buildings if required by Building Code. YES
      4. Appliances: Fixed cooking, fire pits, hot tubs, showers and other plumbed appliances would not be allowed NO
      So based on failing 3 of 4 – I think “passing” is failing 0 of 4 – I would say “no”. If you mean will it remain legal, then I believe the answer is “yes”, only new construction is affected.

Add a Comment

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