643 Greenwich: 2001 Facade
In 2001 the listing for 643 Greenwich noted:

Tastefully rebuilt in 2001…epitomizes San Francisco-style chic…charming 1907 Victorian that has retained all its original character while affording contemporary comforts…owners have approved plans with City Permits to add two additional stories.

The 2001 façade above, 2001 kitchen below, and sales price: $1,550,000 (asking $1.9M).
643 Greenwich: Kitchen circa 2001
From the listing in 2009:

[E]xquisite contemporary green renovations throughout…open-concept kitchen/DR/LR w/ expansive ceilings, commercial range, Bosch & Meile appliances, Scavolini Italian cabinetry…

Said kitchen having been tastefully rebuilt again in 2006:
643 Greenwich: Kitchen 2009
And of course, now “4 levels…[with] Penthouse media suite & deck with Bay & Golden Gate views.” The 2009 façade below and asking $3,995,000.
643 Greenwich: 2009 Facade
∙ Listing: 643 Greenwich (5/4) – $3,995,000 [MLS] [2001 Photos and Listing]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by unearthly

    Another $300k puts the buyer into 2220 Sacramento which is right off Lafayette park. Someone needs a reality check…

  2. Posted by Joe Smith

    That 2009 kitchen was probably a lot cheaper in the 1960s when it was first tried.

  3. Posted by ex SF-er

    The place is nice enough.
    Based on the pics, it looks as though they did a good job redesigning the space and making more sense of the layout, etc.
    I’d never pay $4M for it, but it’s very very very nice.
    But it is so irksome that they can try to call this “green” when they ripped out a perfectly good products and sent them to the trash.
    the height of hypocricy.
    Just say that it’s a total remodel and leave it at that.

  4. Posted by auden

    how do you know they went to the trash?

  5. Posted by LMRiM

    [E]xquisite contemporary green renovations throughout…open-concept kitchen/DR/LR w/ expansive ceilings, commercial range, Bosch & Meile appliances, Scavolini Italian cabinetry…
    The Bay Area is a trip. They fall for everything 1000%, serially. Internet bubble, housing bubble, “green” bubble, Obama bubble, Scavolini bubble….
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Hja0XND8Ms
    (“You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything…)

  6. Posted by Foolio

    How sad. Think about all the good they could have done with the money spent remodeling a perfectly fine place.

  7. Posted by plan C-sparky

    How sad, think of all the volunteer work that could be done by people instead of posting on SS.

  8. Posted by fluj

    “The Bay Area is a trip. They fall for everything 1000%, serially. Internet bubble, housing bubble, “green” bubble, Obama bubble, Scavolini bubble….”
    “They” do? Nice illogical attribution of foolishness to your friends and neighbors based off marketing jargon. Telling.

  9. Posted by anonfedup

    I thought we were back to the era of real estate being about puchasing a “home” to live in vs. a “product” to flip? I guess I was wrong? So why is it I actually could see a family using the old kitchen more comfortably than the Scavolini Bubble kitchen? This is very 2005. Talk about being late to the party.

  10. Posted by Foolio

    @sparky: Well, you completely missed the point. This isn’t about doing something worthy with one’s time, it’s about needlessly gutting a perfectly fine place to boost its asking price (note I didn’t say value).
    As anonfedup notes, the new kitchen is flashier but probably less useable than the old.
    But the really sad thing in all of this is that some contractor will probably tear the current kitchen out in a few years and install yet another needless redo.

  11. Posted by eddy

    First poster hit the nail on the head. Except for the fact that 2200 Sac still isn’t sold and could probably be had for $3.9 if someone had the cojenes to make an offer.
    They added a floor and did what appears to be a decent remodel but this place is seriously over priced at first impression. Anyone got square footage?

  12. Posted by jlasf

    “Contemporary green renovations.” Perhaps they mean that the kitchen and many of the walls are, literally, green.

  13. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “how do you know they [cabinetry, etc.] went to the trash?”
    If you’ve ever demoed a kitchen you know how hard it is to remove cabinets without damage. Even if you get the cabinets out unscathed, what are the chances that those custom dimensions will fit another home ?
    I salvaged about 15% of the cabinets in my kitchen remod to use for utility storage. The rest went to the landfill.
    I should have donated the remainder to Urban Ore in Berkeley instead. But even Urban Ore tosses stuff out that doesn’t move.

  14. Posted by viewlover

    Both kitchens are nice although I actually prefer the warmth of the old one. Those stainless steal stoves are really nice, I have a 6 burner Bertizoni or whatever they’re called, spelling goes around in circle and I can’t read upside down. Problem is these things are for people who really know how to cook. THey don’t have timers and the oven temperatures are estimates. Not very practical. I wish these places were for normal people and not just for flash. Scavolini is expensive and so are alot of others, but they just don’t show it. Seems like name brands need to be highlighted as opposed to just stating great kitchen. Guess because it really isnt great, just expensive.

  15. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    viewlover – your Euro oven probably is marked in “gasmarks” which is standard all over France and Italy (maybe other countries too).
    Print out the following conversion table and keep it handy in the kitchen : http://www.cookingforengineers.com/article/134/Oven-Temperatures

  16. Posted by San FronziScheme

    Milkshake,
    Very precious info from a frog whose baking results will most probably improve!
    I never saw 1/4 or 1/2 though. Maybe on more expensive gear?

  17. Posted by noearch

    to me this is another design sham. look at the street facade! concrete right up to the edge of the building.
    why didnt they put in street landscape? why no trees? there is no way in hell you need that much sidewalk! sidewalk landscaping should become mandatory when a remodel of a certain size takes place. no excuses. no whining.

  18. Posted by Fishchum

    Noearch – I gotta agree you on that. Even I noticed the space between the garage door and the entryway just screams for some kind of landscaping.

  19. Posted by Laughing Millionare Dog on Greenwich

    I agree, I need a patch of green on which to do my business on Greenwich.

  20. Posted by Pritchard

    Queen Victoria died in, um, like, 1901, right?

  21. Posted by ex SF-er

    agreed noearch.
    the lack of greenery has been my crusade for some time now. now if we can only recruit a few hundred thousand more people and we can greenify this city!

  22. Posted by KAT

    It’s funny, I have a kitchen very similar to the old one pictured- and I think it is perfectly fine… and I have a degree in Interior Design, so I am not that easily pleased by just any old kitchen… but at the same time I know if I want to sell my Marina flat any time soon I better remodel it or I am going to get a lot of potential buyers sniffing that it needs updating… well, that was back when there was a decent-sized pool of potential buyers for my 1.5mil fixer upper.

  23. Posted by scorpio

    did anyone see the new listing by Pac Union on Steiner St near Duboce park, bful victorian completely redone 3/2 > 2000 sq ft for $500/sq ft. reality sinking in in some parts SF

  24. Posted by fluj

    I noticed 210 Steiner a couple weeks ago. (I like the coffee shop across the street on Steiner and Waller.) Anyway, it looked like it was all spruced up for a sale. And so here it is.
    The facade is very lovely. The remodel looks great. I’d say Victorian fans will be interested to at least have a look. It probably gets relatively little afternoon light, flanked by a taller building to the south and set back as it is. No parking. Very close to Haight street. Two bedrooms down, one up.
    This is a home that is very common all over town. Bonnie Spindler listed the pretty much the same house on I think Golden Gate @ Baker for much of last year, tax records only said 1000 for that one but it had a large downstairs, and I think it sold for 980 or something. So I don’t know if I’d seize upon it as an example of a new reality. It is pretty big, and pretty nice, for that style of home, but again, split floor bedrooms and no parking. It’s not hitting on all cylinders. But yeah, I guess I can grudgingly say it would have been likely to sell for above 1.2 a year or so ago. It bears watching. (Tho I’d be careful to not compare $psqft between houses with and without garages.)

  25. Posted by chuckie

    @fluj – an excellent critique, that!
    I dug up the following… 210 Steiner started its downward spiral in September at $1,449,000… now at $1,175,000.
    http://www.sfhouseprices.net/blog/2008/11/07/210-steiner-st-san-francisco-2/

  26. Posted by Trip

    The place at 210 Steiner does look very pretty. No parking and possible lack of good light may hurt the sale. I run by it most mornings on my way to the park. It was listed last fall and reduced once or twice, then pulled. The new listing is (I think) below the prior reduction. I seem to recall that it started at $1,495,000.
    Fluj, try out the cafe up the street at Waller and Fillmore — even better (I get to practice my pidgin French with the owner).

  27. Posted by fluj

    Wow. They did want 1.449! I guess it must have been pulled from the market when I noticed it. IMO, that house wouldn’t have sold for 1.45 in spring 2006. (Seems like they bought it for 315K in ’94 tho.)

  28. Posted by janeknowsbest

    This house will be lucky to sell at $2.8. Bye-bye the days of the buyers that can afford this. The recent comps will tell you that this house will be
    even worth $2.9…Everyone is wasting their time and money to sell this at the current list price.

  29. Posted by BobN

    “why didnt they put in street landscape?”
    Because all that sidewalk is public sidewalk, no?
    It looks like it’s four two-foot squares wide. I suppose you could squeeze a tree well between the driveway and the sewer trap.

  30. Posted by viewlover

    Probably the reason there is no greenery is the city’s department of forestry, whatever the hell that is supposed to be, but I know they can fine you for putting planters or trees on the City sidewalks. I had to remove some plants on a TIC conversion. Just another waste of taxpayer money.

  31. Posted by noearch

    update on street landscaping: there are a few wrong opinions being expressed here.
    Sidewalk landscaping, including trees and shrubbery, IS in fact allowed with a minor sidewalk encroachment. Yes, the sidewalk is public, however the property owner is allowed to cut out a certain amount of concrete squares (with a permit) and add landscaping. It’s not hard to do.. You can plant up to the curb with a walk strip, and you can plant against your building wall. In general the sidewalk width need only be 6′ wide.
    You can get much more info from DPW and the Dept. of Urban Forestry.
    Street side landscaping is happening more and more, although not enough in my opinion. Check out examples in Noe Valley on Sanchez near Duncan and Noe and Day Streets.

  32. Posted by BobN

    There’s an example of street-side landscaping in front of a building on the (I think) second block of Fillmore (Church/Market end). Enlarged tree well and a planting strip up against the house. One or the other would be fine. Having both makes walking past pedestrians going the other way a real pain.

  33. Posted by LMRiM

    643 Greenwich just cut its wishing price 3%, now $3.875M.
    http://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Francisco/643-Greenwich-St-94133/home/540589

  34. Posted by SocketSite

    The reduced listing for 643 Greenwich Street has expired without a sale.

  35. Posted by SocketSite

    We missed it in October, but as a plugged-in tipster notes, 643 Greenwich returned to the market on 10/16 asking $3,650,000.

  36. Posted by SocketSite

    The list price for 643 Greenwich has been reduced another $350,000 (10%), now asking $3,300,000.

  37. Posted by SocketSite

    The sale of 643 Greenwich closed escrow today with a reported contract price of $3,175,000 ($894 per square foot).

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles