160 Westgate Drive
Purchased for $1,295,000 in July of 2005, remodeled in 2007, and then bought back by the bank in July of 2009, 160 Westgate Drive is on the market and asking $1,025,000. From the listing:

Amazing opportunity! Bank owned, priced below neighborhood comps….Up-dated kitchen (no appliances)…Remodeled marble and tile baths.

A sale at asking would represent a 21 percent drop in value below its un-renovated year 2005 price. At 4 percent annual appreciation it’s a little less than five years to grow 21 percent.
From another perspective, if the buyers in 2005 were sold on long-term appreciation of 4 percent per year, their expectations would have been for a $1,522,000 value today (33 percent above asking). That’s not accounting for the cost or value of remodeling of course.
∙ Listing: 160 Westgate Drive (3/2.5) – $1,025,000 [MLS]
Expectation Setting: San Francisco Appreciation [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by dub dub

    Lovely work triangle! :)

  2. Posted by Brahma (incensed renter)

    The MLS listing says Style: Traditional. I really don’t know what that means.

  3. Posted by salarywoman

    When asked why something is the way it is and they haven’t a clue what do people generally say?
    “It’s traditional.”
    Same thing here. Neither the listing agent nor the owner have any idea what style this house is.
    “Traditional.”

  4. Posted by Robert

    Indeed — traditional because it always looked like that.

  5. Posted by marko1332

    My home was foreclosed and all I got was these lousy appliances.

  6. Posted by rolfsf

    So in the current market, removing all of the kitchen appliances passes for “Updated Kitchen”?

  7. Posted by Robert

    You can easily replace those from the breakrooms of closed banks.

  8. Posted by NoeValleyJim

    Of course the guy who bought in 1996 for $435,000 would have seen even better than 4% a year if he had held to today. And since he sold in 2003, he actually saw 13%/yr. Reversion to mean is a tough thing to have learn at these price levels.
    Also, they hopefully did not think that four years is a “long term” investment. It is not really in any asset class, but particularly not in Real Estate.

  9. Posted by Trip

    Bank owned, priced below neighborhood comps
    At SF’s pretty anemic sales volume in the over-one-million space, it does not take too many of these before they become the relevant comps. Not there yet, but moving in that direction — and it really does not matter if we ever get to that point except in terms of the pace of the decline.
    (From CR) See http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/home/permalink/?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20090824005549&newsLang=en

  10. Posted by FormerAptBroker

    marko1332 wrote:
    “My home was foreclosed and all I got was these lousy appliances.”
    This past weekend at a party in Orinda I was talking to a guy that was about to lose his home to the bank. When he found out I was in the apartment busines he told me that he would leave the door open and I was free to take his nearly new appliances for an apartment unit. He said that he would be happy to know that a friend of a friend was able to use them and screw the bank (that would not work with him on a loan mod) at the same time (I’m not going to get them)…

  11. Posted by EBGuy

    I think we just turned a corner here (a first in SF prime?). Wells Fargo appears to be holding an auction, or at the very least, they are willing to accept less than the amount of the foreclosure. No turning back now…

  12. Posted by sanfrantim

    “SF prime”??

  13. Posted by Mike L

    Here is the style – U.G.L.Y

  14. Posted by jaja

    It’s not a bad looking house. It’s just so foggy over there. Had it been in Noe Valley, it would have sold for the easily $1.5M. Again, location, location, location. I think the houses in the 900k-2M are going to have the toughest time. The bottom is pretty much in for the cheap stocks (Ingleside, Bayview, etc). It’s slowly moving to the slightly more expensive ones (ie. $1M-2M). I can see these houses (the ones that are listed for say $1.3M, $1.4M) selling for around 800k-1M in a year or two. Only time will tell.

  15. Posted by San FronziScheme

    The house is not ugly in itself, the reason it looks like that is a totally wrong choice of color. Sure the pastel houses around can appear a bit cheesy to an Euro-brainwashed artsy type, but they fit with the style of the area. If you don’t like 1920s cheesecake houses, easy! Just don’t buy them!
    What color is it? Ash? Dark taupe? A tone that will be outdated 2 years from now. Is it stucco that’s supposed to look like concrete?. Bad idea. It won’t age as well as concrete. Not paint does. And it won’t age well at all, just like black.
    This reminds me of matte coal color paint on chopped top 1940s low riders 10 years ago. It was meant to look cool and then 6 months later the paint would fade and show ugly nuances all over. You see a few still out there and they’re not pretty.

  16. Posted by stylewylde

    I don’t think the house itself LOOKS so bad and I for one think buyers in the 1Mil+ range can probably afford to pick up their own appliances, BUT I question ‘priced below comps in the neighborhood. Does this qualify as ingleside terrace/ the edge of St. Francis Wood?? I graduated from SF State, and lived over on that side of town for a few years, the weather sucks, muni is bad, and the hoods and most of ingleside is pretty crappy, I have trouble imagining a huge demand for higher end housing in this neighborhood.

  17. Posted by Geo

    I agree, the dark color is not so bad, and it is a nice change. If you see it in person, it looks even better.
    This is certainly not Ingleside/SFW. You are on the other side of Monterey Heights bordered by Westwood. Not sure what this area is called.
    $500/ft² is not a bad starting point, but does seem a bit rich for the location imho,
    nice staircase.

  18. Posted by Geo

    Oh, and there is certainly a melange of styles, but it seems to me at least to be predominantly art & crafts, given the window details and soffit touches.

  19. Posted by 94114

    Believe it or not, this area is called Mt. Davidson Manor. That’s what is indicated on the SF Association of Realtor’s map.

  20. Posted by Geo

    Chuckle — quite a hike from Mt. D. I think.

  21. Posted by EBGuy

    Okay, SFW and Forest Hill gatekeepers, I am slowly catching on (Mt. Davidson Manor, hehe). Here’s one within spitting distance of SFW that hits the auction block tomorrow: 260 San Benito (3bed/2bath 1983 sq.ft.) Looks to be a total of 88% financing with the first (variable) and second (fixed). Sold for $1,130,000 in Sept. 2005 with a total unpaid balance of $1,053,152.

  22. Posted by John

    I think that it’s an interesting looking 20’s house. Someone who saw it called it an Adam’s Family house, but I think they liked it.
    I’m always surprised by the aesthetics of the people on this board. I think the color is quite nice. Pastels are a stereotype of SF, but the look gets old.
    I don’t understand the Euro comment above. Is the implication that Asians, Africans, Native Americans, etc. have better taste? Sounds a bit bigoted.
    And, as long as the price reflects it, won’t most people prefer to choose their own new appliances?

  23. Posted by Geo

    160 San Benito — Ouch.
    It will be very interesting to see where that clears. Solid neighborhood — though it is across Moneterey ;)

  24. Posted by Geo

    Showing pending now…

Add a Comment

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