999 Green Exterior

Purchased for $2,325,000 in June of 2006 but touting a two year remodel by James Marzo Design, the 1,686 square foot #2604 at 999 Green just returned to the market asking $3,450,000 “completely furnished along with some rare art and Art Deco Furniture.”

999 Green #2604 Living

Two floors above, the 1,791 square foot #2804 was purchased in 2007 for what we’re assuming was $2,270,000 and then “renovated & redesigned from [floor] to ceiling w/ contemporary, custom finishes.” It returned to the market in June asking $2,575,000.

999 Green #2804 Living

Last month its list price was reduced to $2,325,000.
∙ Listing: 999 Green #2604 (2/2) 1,686 sqft – $3,450,000
∙ Listing: 999 Green #2804 (2/2.5) 1,791 sqft – $2,325,000

33 thoughts on “Two Renovated Corner Fours At (And Near) The Summit Of 999 Green”
  1. 3.45M?
    If the art and furniture are actually worth $2M, sure, why not?
    Otherwise, they’re dreaming. 2007 it is not.

  2. These condos are obviously for the upper class unaffected by things like loans, economy, gravity, etc. Personally, I expect to buy one myself once I win the lottery to have a secure SF place to sleep that wouldn’t degrade my dignity because obviously the Fairmont caters to mere 8 digit types…

  3. Huge views of course, but I do not find any of the furniture or ‘custom’ room settings to be notable or even interesting. At north of $2,000/ft² I’m thinking I do not want to see beige wall-to-wall (?) carpeting.

  4. I have never understood the premium for units in these 60s and 70s era highrises. Yes the views are 360 but the buildings themselves are starting to look incredibly dated.

  5. Eeek. 2 years of remodeling and it still looks like Boca Raton circa 1980?
    #2804 is not bad by comparison…higher floor, more sq ft, $1M cheaper, and the poor remodeling choices look easier to undo.
    What exactly does the $1717/mo HOA get you??? I don’t see a pool, fitness center, omlette station, etc…

  6. There are two other condos in this building for sale:
    #1601: 2/2, 1300 sqft for $1.495 (marked down from $1.55M in February) with Coit and Alcratraz views, but not downtown/Bay Bridge, that apparently has an updated master bathroom, after being purchased for $714.5K in 1998
    #1902: 2/2.5, 1709 sqft for $1.75M (marked down from $2.28M in 9/09) with city views, which was apparently remodeled by a designer in 2004, also with tons of beige carpet, after being purchased for 1.245M in 2002. The first picture is of the downtown/Bay Bridge view, but it’s not clear if you have that view from inside the unit.
    I’m scratching my head at how #2604 could be worth more than $1M more than #2804, unless that artwork is indeed worth a pretty penny.

  7. Sorry folks, putting in my sealed overbid tomorrow on both these properties and an unsolicided offer on 2704 and am turning this into the most awesome 3 story 5000 sqft retro pad and will be spending 3 years to reno and bringing back to market @ $12M.

  8. When they “renovated & redesigned from [floor] to ceiling” at 2804 they must’ve forgotten to get rid of those horrific track lights.
    Unless they actually picked them out and installed them ON PURPOSE???

  9. Love the views, and I suppose there is something to be said for the idea that living in it might be preferable to looking at it, but it’s a stretch.
    This is one of several buildings in town that trigger the Hawaii Five-O theme any time I see them. I’m loathe to venture a guess what a trip through the lobby might do.
    Saying they are “looking a bit dated” is mighty kind.

  10. One thing I find bizarre about this building is that owners are allowed to build out onto their balconies. Each floor looks a little different. some with partial sunrooms, others with completely built out balconies. And a few are still in the original open air state.
    Compare that to most high rise developments which go so far as to mandate the style and color of window coverings.

  11. This is the world-famous Eichler Summit tower. I’ve seen this building in design shows, architecture articles galore, etc. The ability to build-out your balcony is considered a great failure of design and supposedly has ‘ruined’ the original design.
    This building is where George and Charlotte Schultz live and throw huge ‘state’ style parties.

  12. Yes, 8 foot ceilings are tough, but won’t all of those busy metal windows in the new Soma highrises look dated and grimey in due time?
    IMHO, Unit #2804 looks earthy, not dated. And it’s located in an area that feels like a residential neighborhood. Old doesn’t alway mean dated.

  13. We are not doing better with the devloepments built in the aughts. Bring back 12 – 14 foot ceiling hieghts. Watch the DBI approve 7 foot cieling hieghts next…

  14. These units might qualify as the most overpriced units on the selling block. The owners will be paying the mortage, inflated HOA’s, and stagging fees for the next 10 yrs unless they reduce the price by 1/2. Come’on agents…. i know you want to get listings, but this is totally unrealistic.

  15. If it looks dated to you, remember that it looks vintage or nostalgic to your kids; that means that it’s on the way to being desirable. Victorians and Edwardians looked dated to your parents.

  16. “but the buildings themselves are starting to look incredibly dated”
    fine by me, really. The exterior is somebody else’s problem. The only important ambience for condo owners is the aesthetics of the garage, lobby, and perhaps ground floor anyway.
    And as for being dated, they are dated to the “Streets of San Francisco”, no? I think the styling has held up reasonably well, it’s not Brutalism or otherwise overly viewer-hostile, nor is it terminally cutesy.

  17. Even though I am not a huge fan of mid-century in general, I think this building holds its own in terms of general lines. But having bigger and more uniform volumes in the floors would have helped make it more whole and “monumental”. Low ceiling heights are squeezing more units but are making this look like South American cheap.

  18. Being 29, young enough to be a kid to at least some of the commenters ( 🙂 ), I must say it indeed “looks vintage or nostalgic”. There’s something about futuristic-for-its-time design that still speaks to me, whether it’s this building or a 1937 Cord 812 Supercharged 🙂
    That said, I don’t think I’d ever buy a place with 8-foot ceilings and an HOA higher than my current 30-year fixed mortgage payment and . But that doesn’t mean that it’s not neato on some level.

  19. I’ve posted my dislike of this building many times… I’ve looked at multiple rentals at The Summit over the years, and I always leave underwhelmed. Similar units rent here for what, 5k? It makes zero sense to buy here. The ceilings are low, the floor plans are blah, the lobby and halls are all dated. The west facing units also bake in the afternoon. I personally couldn’t imagine paying more than $800 per foot to live here.

  20. Wouldn’t low ceilings be a “green” characteristic?
    Less heating and/or cooling? Not that I am a fan, but don’t lower ceilings reduce carbon footprints?

  21. In a typical residence, ceiling heights of 9 feet are helpful; 10 feet luxurious and architectural. More exaggerated ceilings are wasteful in my opinion.

  22. Ceiling height does not exist in a vacuum. The volume created by the room shape and size is part and parcel to what is comfortable. Generally, the as the room gets larger, so should the ceiling height, up to the 9 or 10 feet mentioned above for a residence. Many victorians, for instance, would be much more comfortable with lower ceilings; where the ceiling height is higher than the room is wide, it feels about as comfortable as standing in an elevator shaft. Rooms like bedrooms, where one or two people are typically reclining or sitting, feel more comfortable with lower ceilings than say, a living room, where dozens of people may be standing in a cocktail party. An exception may be kitchens and bathrooms, where height may help on heat or odors.
    The other important characteristic is the relation of the top of the windows to the surface of the ceiling. As can be seen in these photos, where the windows more of less go up to the ceiling, the ceiling is flooded with light, making the ceiling seem higher than it actually. In an older, conventional wood frame building, with window tops a foot or more below the ceiling height, ceilings appear dark and lower than they actually are.

  23. Older houses have a good reason for having a high ceiling: people used to be lighted by candles or kerosene lamps. These required bigger volumes for smell and combustion gases dilution. Warmer spoiled air would linger close to the ceiling instead of hitting the dwellers’ nostrils.
    It’s counter-intuitive in a time when heating was quite inadequate…

  24. “It’s counter-intuitive in a time when heating was quite inadequate…”
    Indeed. High ceilings may also make sense in warmer climates, but in SF’s climate in large parts of the city, it’d be better to have lower ceilings.

Leave a Reply

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