2827%20Greenwich%20Living.jpg

Purchased for $1,635,000 in January of 2012 with two vacant units, an occupied in-law (which was leased for $500 per month), and one parking spot, the Cow Hollow building at 2827 Greenwich Street has just returned to the market having been redeveloped as a single-family home with a “guest suite” and two parking spaces on the ground floor:

2827%20Greenwich%20Street%20Floor%20Plans.gif

There’s now a total of five bedrooms and four and one-half baths across its three levels.

2827%20Greenwich%20Bath.jpg

And the designer Cow Hollow home has been listed for $5,495,000.

2827%20Greenwich%20Living%20Room.jpg

∙ Listing: 2827 Greenwich Street (5/4.5) – $5,495,000 [teedhaze.com]

Comments from Plugged-In Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    I can’t find the footage in the listing so here’s a back of the envelope estimate. From exterior dimensions (assuming a 25′ width), the total space is [~4800]. Derating for non living space (stairs, garage, decks, wall thickness, etc.) it comes to [~3000-3300].

  2. Posted by Michael

    Tax records list the building at 3,950 total square feet. Unless they expanded the footprint in the remodel that’s probably close to the existing size.

  3. Posted by observant neighbor

    I thought there were extremely stringent limits on combining residential units in multi-unit buildings. How did the developer manage to convert this from a 3- to a 2-unit building?

  4. Posted by another neighbor

    Not sure how # units was reduced. And no way is that a $250,000 “reno cost”. see permit below.
    Permit Details Report
    Report Date: 5/30/2013 2:34:45 PM
    Application Number: 201204188561
    Address(es): 0941 / 031 / 1 2825 GREENWICH ST
    0941 / 031 / 0 2827 GREENWICH ST
    Description: REDISTRIBUTE UNITS: ONE BEHIND GARAGE ONE AT UPPER LEVELS. REPLACE ALL WINDOWS WITH INSULATED WOOD WINDOWS. 2 NEW/RECONFIG KITCHENS, 4 NEW RECONFIG FULL BATHS AND 1 POWDER, RECONFIGURE STAIRS THROUGHT,CLAIM BREEZWAY AT GARAGE, INFILL ONE LIGHTWELL, RESHAPE WESTERN LIGHTWELL, INFILL UNDER REAR
    Cost: $250,000.00
    Occupancy Code: R-3
    Building Use: 28 – 2 FAMILY DWELLING

  5. Posted by lyqwyd

    I have no actual knowledge, but it may have been two official units with an illegal 3rd…

  6. Posted by Footie

    The plan of the kitchen is wrong, the fridge and faucet have been reversed. Too bad there is no full picture of the facade.

  7. Posted by anon94123

    The Teed Haze website presents many videos of the reconstruction progress of this house, as well as how they were able to expand the square footage, and deal with the two unit issue. There was originally a 2 level unit above and a 1 bedroom unit below. They are calling the lower unit an “Au Pair Suite” and I am not sure how they were able to deal with the separate entrance it may still require.
    I am a HUGE fan of their work and their success.

  8. Posted by anon94123

    Forgot to mention, the 3rd unit was an illegal “housekeeping” unit without a stove that could only be entered through the garage. They were able to convince planning that it was illegal and so they could move forward as a 2 unit project.

  9. Posted by Anon787

    There is definitely no separate entrance for the au pair suite. How did the insector miss that?

  10. Posted by Michael

    Beautiful work but how did this pass inspection as a two-unit building?
    I don’t see any separation between the upper level unit and the permitted unit “behind the garage”.
    Even if a wall/door was removed from between the two unit after inspection, there’s a giant opening between the first and second floors near the staircase!

  11. Posted by R

    Since it never was a legal 3 unit, they are not required to keep 3.. And a couple small walls torn down around the staircase after the inspector came through easily solve the separate unit issue. It’s not rocket science nor bribery.

  12. Posted by CH

    “And a couple small walls torn down around the staircase after the inspector came through easily solve the separate unit issue.”
    Would that be legal? Is there any risk to the seller or a buyer if that is what they did?

  13. Posted by BillyBalls

    The property could easily be brought back into conforming use with the re-creation of the walls. No huge downside risk there; you buy it like you see it, standard disclosures etc…
    I am also a fan of their work.

  14. Posted by Denis

    I just can’t with the facade on this place… There’s a reason it’s not used in the listing. The old facade, which is still visible on google maps (see link), was that vague mission-revival style that you find all over the Marina. Now, however, it’s this bland, soulless barn looking mess that’s so cold, sterile, and uninviting it makes the proposed Apple Store look like a Mendocino Bed & Breakfast. So, yeah, I hate it, but buyers looove it apparently. The same developers sold the house next door for 5 million last year, an astonishing price for a B- location. The interior, however, looks nice, if a bit mcmansiony. Great use of space and testament to the continuing demise of the dining room.
    As for the unit… Honestly, the city could make them change this. I’ve seen it happen. Putting the floor plans online was probably not a great idea. Personally, I think the city needs to throw in the towel on the DUM nonsense. I understand the policy logic behind it, but still… Most two-unit buildings in D7, if sold vacant, are being turned into quasi-single family homes without filing for the elusive DUM permit. Units are anathema for developers and buyers. The money is, obviously, in SFRs. Rental units are vanishing in D7 as fast as developers find creative ways of making them disappear.

  15. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    “…it makes the proposed Apple Store look like a Mendocino Bed & Breakfast”
    Best comparison of the month! Thanks Denis.
    (though I’d not be surprised if there was a minimalist B&B somewhere in Mendocino)

  16. Posted by inmycountry

    Why are there two sets of stairs going up from the ground floor that bring you to the same point on the second level opposite the dining area?

  17. Posted by Fishchum

    Denis – I’m curious, why would this be a B- location? I live a few blocks away on Chestnut, and this is where I’d start house-hunting if my lotto numbers ever hit. Is it because the further south on Baker or lyon you go you would presumably get some better views?

Add a Comment

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

Recent Articles