Failing Westside SFH Flip

old
Before $200K Upgrade

new
After $200K Upgrade

3175 39TH AVE W, Vancouver Westside (Kerrisdale)
3,650 sqft SFH; built 2005; 50×130 lot

Listed 8 Feb 2012 Ask Price $2,799,000
Sold 14 Mar 2012 $2,528,000

Listed 23 Sep 2012 Ask Price $3,080,000
Price Change 13 Nov 2012 As Price $2,980,000
Price Change 25 Feb 2013 Ask Price $2,798,000

Latest promo blurb: “Owner spent over $200k to upgrade outside & inside, with City Permit.”

Of course, in Vancouver, people have only been buying properties for personal use. (/sarcasm).
This reno-flip is on the brink of being underwater, probably already there.
Imagine what’ll happen when buyers collectively realize that houses like this are worth about a million bucks and change, tops.
This is just one example that jumped out. View many other descending ask prices on VancouverPriceDrop. Check that site out if you haven’t yet seen it.
– vreaa

18 responses to “Failing Westside SFH Flip

  1. They raised the price to cover the renos and the commish (my guess is there were 200k valued renos but the out of pocket costs are less). Not sure where the PTT shows up.

  2. Bizarre. From the before and after pics, I don’t see where the reno budget went, except for the kitchen in the suite!?!
    Before: http://www.dannydeng.com/Properties.php/Details/264
    After: http://www.ecorealtyinc.ca/listing?id=259798071
    Flipping into a falling market, “Updating” a home that was only four years old in the first place… Epic fail. Or, as the lasting agent says: “won’t last!MOTIVATED SELLER,TRY OFFER”

    • Gotta love the $9,668/mth estimated mortgage payment!

    • $2.8 million and it has a rental suite for “…nice extra income”. You would think millionaires wouldn’t want rental riff-raff installed in the nether reaches of their manse, wouldn’t you…?

      But extra income is always “nice”…..

  3. $200k and they stayed with that god awful ugly early ’90s pink stucco?!!

  4. I think the saddest part is that they removed the landscaping which probably looked even nicer in the spring. The landscaping was the only part that added some visual interest to that very odd looking house.

  5. So the home was discounted by 9% between Feb and March, but the same buyer who bought at the reduced price was still convinced that they could flip for 10% more just six months later. Ignoring the example of their own purchase in March. Delusional.

  6. Yes, a shame re: the landscaping, but I’m really suspicious of the age. 2005?? More like 1995. The original picture before the “reno” looks nothing like what would have been built in 2005 – or is it just me?

    • I have to agree with NVD on the questionable “age” of the house. The pink stucco style is older than 2005. Could it be a renovation of an older bungalow where a second storey was added? Also, the red brick veneer from the earlier photos and the sloping roof over the front porch is a dated style. The windows are oddly placed as well.

    • City of Vancouver’s VanMap to the rescue…
      Year built: 2004
      Big improvement year: 2004.
      2013 assessment: land $1,835,000 + building $683,000 = $2.518M.
      2012 assessment: land $2,088,000 + building $977,000 = $3,065.
      Assessment dropped 8%.

      Comparing this to my parents’ house (old timer with major reno in the 80s), it shows the correct year built, and the big improvement year in the 80s. Comparing to their neighbours’ house, which was built in 1995, VanMap shows year built and big improvement year as 1995.

      So as unbelievable as it may seem, yes, this hideous building was built in 2004. To me, it looks like a cross between a 1960s and 1980s house, with some horrid 1990s pink stucco added for modernity.

      The flipper’s reno looks like it corrected the weird window above the entrance door, added frames around the windows, replaced the 1980s brick support posts, and replaced the 1960s wood boards with plain old ugly stucco stucco. And they tore out the landscaping (one of the things I liked about the original photos) and the unique entrance walkway (the other think I liked about the original photos). Leaving an ugly, denuded monster with strange strange strange lines. I seriously hope no self-respecting architect was involved with the original build or the renos…

      • Your figures suggest assessment dropped roughly 15% between 2012 and 2013, with the drop in the value of the building even higher.

  7. Did anyone else find the note about “with permit” hilarious. As if it should be unusual or noteworthy to do it legally. It should go without stating that a $2.5mm property is all above board. Apparently however, the fact that a building inspector actually took a look is now a marketing in Vancouver.

    CanAmerican

    • Yes, me too. You’ve only got a few words to express the features of the property, and if ‘legal’ is all you can muster…

      But I’ve seen it all in real estate listings. One bragged about Decora switches.

  8. Yeah, I agree with previous posts, it looked better before! What a waste! Goes to show what a rip off to pay 200K for that job, although who knows what they did to the inside.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s