659 Greenwich
New construction in 2002, the four bedroom 659 Greenwich was purchased for $3,200,000. Back on the market today and asking $3,795,000.
659 Greenwich: Cottage
And wouldn’t you know it, it’s actually the 1800’s two-bedroom cottage out back (and above) that ended up catching our eye.
∙ Listing: 659 Greenwich (4/3 + 2/1) – $3,795,000 [MLS]

16 thoughts on “659 Greenwich: Two For One And A Peek Inside”
  1. Anybody know why the cottage’s bottom doors don’t line up with its top windows?
    It looks sloppy, almost like a building mistake!

  2. Nice place. The cottage is pretty cool, but I’d rather have a yard.
    What is going on with all the new listings? Aren’t we heading into the slow time of year for sales? Redfin shows 850 homes and almost 1100 condos on the MLS, and new listings being added at a furious pace. Are Alt-A resets really picking up? People want to get out while the gettin’ is good? Market holding up more strongly than I thought? (seems unlikely as price reductions are coming fast too). But something is going on.

  3. dub dub – my guess is that the cottage french doors were a retrofit. There might have been nothing but clapboard on the lower level. Positioning of support members may have influenced the positioning of the doors. It’s possible to make them line up but that may have required an expensive redo of the entire lower front panel of the house. And those are probably stock doors. To get doors with the same horizontal dimension of the existing windows may have required more expensive custom work.

  4. The French doors appear to be the same size but one has a higher threshold which is why they do not align at the head. It’s a bit odd because, by code, the threshold for an outswing door must be within 1/2 inch of the landing outside. The “taller” door is probably noncomforming.
    In addition to the difference in door heights the second floor windows are different distances from the center entry and have different relationships to the doors below.
    It’s all charmingly off kilter and symmetrical at the same time, as if drawn by hand instead of drafted. I really like it.
    The house, on the other hand, has not aged particularly well. I remember admiring it when it was first built but now it’s a bit of a yawn. But perhaps it will circle back around in 30 years.

  5. I am curious…the MLS states Known Short Sale yet socketsite is stating that it was purchased for $3.2m in 2002 and it is listed for nearly $600k over last sale price. Can someone clue me in?

  6. chuckles – MLS indicates No – REO and No – Known Short Sale. The last previous sale was the $3.2M in Nov 2002 after the new construction. The lot with cottage sold for $998K in 1999. Property Shark shows square footage at 3,603 (wonder if cottage is included?) – also that owner lives on 5th Avenue in NYC and no mortgage recorded so I doubt it is a short sale.

  7. A really unique San Francisco home…very thoughtfully done by the designer/builder. Fantastic views from pentroom and spacious outdoor garden/deck. The main house is 4BR-3BA and the cottage is a two level, 2BR-1BA. I like this property a lot.

  8. How would there be a short sale? They are selling it for 600K OVER what they bought it for. It’s an apple, a positive apple, I know it’s hard to wrap your head around.

  9. “How would there be a short sale?”
    Don’t forget about refis, HELOCs, seconds, and all the ways an owner can drain equity from a home long before selling it. Looking at Property Shark’s SF foreclosures over the last several months indicates that about 1/3 of foreclosures were the result of paying too much when buying, 1/3 are from pulling all the equity out with additional loans long after the reasonably-priced purchase, and 1/3 are a mystery to me. Lots of ways to end up in foreclosure other than overpaying.

Leave a Reply

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