Although sales in January were quite slow, it seems as though properties in the lower price ranges are selling quite well. At our office we have noticed a marked up-tick in the number of first time buyers we are working with, and since sales in the lower prices ranges are quite strong it could be that many of the first time buyers have come off the fence and are shopping in the Edmonton market:
The other thing we've noticed is that the number of sales per day was quite low at the beginning of the month and picked up quite a bit at the end of the month which should lead to higher sales in February if the trend continues:
The overall average residential sale price increased from December ($310k) to $317,543. Go figure!
The number of new listings that came on the market in January was only slightly above normal, and way lower than what we saw last year. If this continues it suggest a return to a more balanced supply and demand:
The final numbers will be posted by the board in a few days when we'll look at inventory, days on market and more.
Looking just at Edmonton (the above numbers include the greater Edmonton area) you can see the average price of condos increased, while the average sale price of single family homes decreased:
One thing in this uncertain time is certain, we're here to help you mak sense of it all. If you want information specific to your situation, feel free to chat with Sheldon or I if we are online, give us a call or send us an email and we'll see what we can do to get you whatever you are looking for.
Good news. It will be interesting to see what happens over the next 2 quarters.
It would be nice to see an updated price per square foot graph. Average price tells only so much, since what constitutes the “average” SFH is constantly changing as well.
Cheers,
E-town
Thanks E town. I’m sure when Sara see’s the request she’ll add it to the post once the REA puts up the official numbers.
It would be interesting to know whether first-time buyers are attracted to newer construction or whether they prefer starter homes in the older, established neighborhoods.
my preference was newer areas.
Where there were other young couples.
As opposed to the older neighbourhoods developed on the old ‘grid system’ that is full of senior citizen and derelect homes.
Mind you, if you are looking for potential resale value, i would recommend going for these areas. As they have the greatest appreciation potential in my humble opinion.
Its crazy how some homes in the inner city neibourhoods close to 97st street are selling in the high 190′s.
Some require a heck of a lot of work. Some dont.
If there was ever an infill lot for sale in one of these areas for under 60k, I think I would bite. You look at calgary and how some inner city communities like Sunnyside and Kensington have taken off in popularity. (Infills and reno projects)
Proximity to the downtown core will be a major advantage in the next 20 years. Especially if a barrell of oil reaches $200 dollars by then! But then again, we might be all driving electric cars!
I really like the old architecture on homes built in the 40′s and 50′s.
It varies. Just as some prefer condos over homes. Price has alot to do with it as does location to work, friends and family.
Hey “The Greek”
Don’t judge a book by it’s cover! If you put white siding and new shingles on these “derelict” homes (bungalows from the 50s and 60s) and clean up the landscaping you have yourself a nice looking house that is built like a tank. Look at the floor construction of older homes: 2 x 10 joists with lots of cross bracing, 7-layer plywood on top of that, and hardwood cross-slats on top of THAT! In newer homes, you get joists with minimal cross-bracing and chip-board thrown down over top! In condos, you don’t even GET joists – you get these new so-called “fabricated structural members” – basically “I-beams” made of… you guessed it… CHIP BOARD! If you’ve been in the new condos in MacEwan (and I have) they are VERY loud. You have hardwood floors + open design + “new” structural bracing = listening to people walk above your head! Another home I was in recently – a half duplex in “South Hamptons” on the West side has similar issues. They’re just not *built* the same way they were! Even compared to homes built in the 80′s, I find the newest construction (done since 2000) seem to be done more… “economically
” to put it mildly.
Get an opinion from a framer. That’s the guys I talk to about home build quality. I mean, who else would know better?
)
Cheers,
E-town
E-Town,
Please re-read my comment.
I agree with you. I said that I think homes in these older areas that were built in the 40′s and 50′s offered good value and the biggest potential in re-sale gains.
When I referred to these areas being filled with derelect homes, I was referring to those MLS listings in these areas that say “Lot Value only, Home is un-habitable”. I suppose I am exaggerating when I say these areas are ‘filled with’. Probably only 1 per 20 houses would be more accurate of a guess.
We are talking about homes that have been used by squatters or drug dealers and have incurred extensive water and mold damage.
The cost to remediate these homes is far greater than the gains in most cases.
Perhaps I should look up the definition of ‘derelect’. (who knows if I am even spelling it correctly).
lol
I agree. So easy to buy a showhome or a newer house because of the look and decoration. However, a sane decision should be based on the structural quality of the house, the rest can be flipped quite easily and economically!
Cheers!
I agree. So easy to buy a showhome or a newer house because of the look and decoration. However, a sane decision should be based on the structural quality of the house, the rest can be flipped quite easily and economically!
Cheers!
Agreed – however, it is just so much more expensive to buy an older home in an established neigborhood than to buy a new one far out. I only wish I could afford an older home – instead I’m looking in Windermere, as that’s what my pockets can afford….sigh….
Hey no sweat Mr. Greek!
My bad, I misunderstood. I thought you meant older homes in older neighbourhoods were derelict… but you were talking about “truly derelict” properties that have serious damage and neglect. Yes, your word usage was fine – I just misunderstood.
Who knows. Maybe someone who strongly believes that we will be back to “boom times” here in a while might consider these to be good investment properties for a quick TV style flip. Maybe we could even get Armando Montelongo to do a special “Flip that House” episode in Edmonton! I mean, if he can’t flip those derelict properties, then nobody can!!
Cheers,
E-town