Edmonton Real Estate Market Weekly Update – June 15/12

17 Responses to “Edmonton Real Estate Market Weekly Update – June 15/12”

1. 

   CMD 16. Jun, 2012 at 12:53 pm #

   I’m curious to know what building those $1-million plus condos were sold? Any idea on the size? The buyer profile? Are we seeing more Baby Boomers buying these higher-priced condos or is it young professionals?
   • 

     TSD 17. Jun, 2012 at 1:42 pm #

     Good question, I suppose two condo sales over 1 million dollars, in a city of almost 1 million people, would indicate some kind emerging trend. Not!
   • 

     old fart 17. Jun, 2012 at 2:51 pm #

     May be this: link to forum.skyscraperpage.com

     Ultima Tower. I like how it is set back from the street a bit. Should make the street feel wider under such a tall tower.
   • 

     Sara MacLennan 17. Jun, 2012 at 3:49 pm #

     It’s an older building with very large units downtown. No idea on the buyer profile…
2. 

   NWTSPAM 18. Jun, 2012 at 2:49 am #

   Would be nice to talk about buying/selling in the South/North side of Edmonton…
3. 

   John 18. Jun, 2012 at 11:21 am #

   Would be nice to talk about the real estates surrounding future LRT lines. Example, Kirkness area in the north east corner of edmonton, it will be the closest neighborhood to Gorman extension.
4. 

   wsn 18. Jun, 2012 at 4:19 pm #

   I don’t understand why would you exclude the two 1M transactions. Real data is real data, you can’t lie just to get a statistic that is closer to your own imagination of the market.

   If you think that this kind of data doesn’t make sense, at least do some consistent filtering. Like discard the top and bottom 5% for both SFH and condo for every time period. Or better still, just use the median price, or per sf price.
   • 

     Sheldon Johnston 18. Jun, 2012 at 4:45 pm #

     How are we lying about things when we point them out and give our opinion? is it becauseof your agenda? Anyways we just simply provided analysis of why the numbers were so different.
     • 

       wsn 19. Jun, 2012 at 10:01 am #

       Well, in your graph, the title is “4 week running average sale price.” If you choose to exclude two very significant data point, what’s drawn there is really no longer 4 week running average sale price. So that’s a lie.

       If, instead, you give the graph a title “4 week running Sheldon price index”, it would then be properly understood as not being origninal raw data. And thus you would not be lying.
       • 

         Sara MacLennan 19. Jun, 2012 at 1:18 pm #

         The problem is that there are fewer condo sales than single family homes, so the average is more easily influenced by a few unusual sales. In my opinion posting the chart with the two sales included is misleading, most people would look at it and think the condo market is suddenly taking off, when that is not the case. Taking the two sales out, and clearly stating what I have done is not a lie, it is a better representation of what is actually occurring in the market. If you disagree that’s fine, disagree, but calling it a lie is a bit much.
         • 

           wsn 19. Jun, 2012 at 4:08 pm #

           As I mentioned, the curve you plotted is analyzed data, while the title implies raw data.

           It’s entirely fine to post your own price index. But please label it accordingly.
5. 

   birdlady 19. Jun, 2012 at 8:54 pm #

   Maybe it’s just me but I perfectly understand the way that Sara and Sheldon present the data, and the fact that they always state what they have done in order to give a true representation of market prices. What difference would it make if they included those two sales and the average condo price went up significantly. Then the following week it would go down and there would be 100 comments asking what is happening with condo prices.

   The way that some of you carry on, you would think that you are paying for the service they provide. Here’s a good suggestion – go somewhere else to get your information – but give the rest of us a break on having to read through your constant whining and complaining about the service they provide.
   • 

     wsn 19. Jun, 2012 at 10:18 pm #

     birdlady:

     1) If you don’t want to read, you don’t have to. Like you said, go somewhere else.

     2) I don’t see Sara and Sheldon is providing me with any “service” in the sense they are doing me a favor or something. It’s just like Facebook. Facebook spent multimillion to develop a website for me to use at no cost. But I don’t regard it as service to me. I have some use of it. They get the exposure that gives them some potential to make money.
     • 

       birdlady 20. Jun, 2012 at 12:30 pm #

       WSN, whatever……….knock yourself out with your comments. Just keep in mind most of us don’t care.
   • 

     GB 20. Jun, 2012 at 9:46 am #

     say it again sam!
6. 

   A commong guy 19. Jun, 2012 at 9:10 pm #

   well said birdlady!
7. 

   Filthy Rich 21. Jun, 2012 at 7:10 am #

   I will be the judge.

   WSN has a point that the data has been manipulated ;however, Sheldon disclosed the fact that the data had been manipulated quite openly.

   I would be more concerned if they were “hiding” a lowering of prices.

   I think manipulating data is a dangerous road to go down, BUT WSN needs to respect the editorial independance of the website. Either that or join some faith based group so you can REALLY point fingers at other people and leave the rest of us alone.

   Idealy the staff at EREB will take a quick refresher course (or a course) in statistics. In the meantime continue to be open about cooking the books.

   [comment truncated]