930 Chestnut Street

One of the three oldest houses on Russian Hill, 930 Chestnut Street, had its first open house on Sunday, “by appointment only”. A 3,000 square feet fixer with resplendent original ornate ceilings, fireplaces and Tommy Church garden. Not much has been done since the new kitchen was chronicled as the height of luxury in Homes & Gardens circa 1969.

Shame that the neighbor is a six-story, box-like apartment building 100 years newer than this 1861 jewel. And . . . there is no garage, which given the Planning Commission’s recent ruling, makes the $1,125 per square foot price tag seem steep. Offers by 3/19 at noon.

Editor’s Note: This open house report brought to you by Seb, a plugged-in reader just like you. Okay, considering the price point ($3.3 million) perhaps not exactly like you, but a plugged-in reader nonetheless.

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by perhaps

    Can someone enlighten me on what the “planning commission’s recent ruling” on parking is?

  2. Posted by Morgan

    Whatever happens, I hope the gardens are saved as they are a classic Thomas Church design.

  3. Posted by Seb

    No new garages explained: The planning department recently proposed a policy that makes it very difficult to add new garages. Virtually all homes built before 1913 will be deemed structures of architectural or historical merit and, as such, will have to follow tough new regulations if the home owner wants to add a garage. The policy can be found here.

    Garage installation contractors are reeling from this ruling with an 80% drop off in business.

  4. Posted by Michael

    Thanks Seb! That’s a fairly significant change that I somehow managed to completely miss. I assumed you were referring to the crackdown on illegal parking pads.

  5. Posted by Michael

    No slow down indeed. It’s in contract.

  6. Posted by prime

    Michael – Do you know what it sold for, given it’s over a month since your post? thnx

  7. Posted by john

    the eight storey box-like apartment building isn’t 100 years younger than this 1861 jewel; it’s 65 years younger.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published.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

Recent Articles