Edmonton Real Estate Market Update
Here is our update on the Edmonton real estate market. (Previous week’s numbers are in brackets). For the past 7 days:
New listings: 437 (427, 331, 395)
# Sales: 225 (197, 225, 235)
Ratio: 51% (46%, 68%, 59%)
# Price changes: 296 (253, 259, 243)
# Expired/Off Market Listings: 224 (470, 232, 161)
Net loss/gain in listings this week: -12 (-240, -126, -1)
Active single family home listings: 3005 (3020, 3101, 3162)
Active condo listings: 1871 (1860, 1932, 1992)
Homes 4-week running average: $387k ($389k, $395k, $399k)
Condos 4-week running average: $229k ($232k, $236k, $234k)
The REALTORS® Association of Edmonton is reporting 478 sales so far this month, which should put us around 1200 for the month – below average and well behind last year.
Edmonton real estate prices
Edmonton real estate listings and sales
Big news coming out into the public realm this week regarding sales data (another article coming shortly on that) and “zero lot lines.” City councillors approved super skinny lots this week, despite concerns from the fire department. Home are built close together across the country, according to council zoning changes requiring extra fire proofing take care of the fire safety concerns.
Personally, I don’t see why you’d want to buy a detached skinny house instead of a half duplex. Later this fall, council will debate a motion to allow homeowners in some mature areas to divide a 15-metre lot in two to make it easier to build narrower, more affordable homes. There is huge demand for new homes on old lots, and I think this decision is a long time coming. I still see duplexes as the way to go on old lots as well. Our clients have built and sold some beautiful duplexes on wider lots near the University.
Have a great weekend!
About Sara MacLennan
Sara MacLennan is the Director of Marketing at Liv Real Estate and a licensed Real Estate Associate. The bulk of Sara’s experience and wealth of expertise lies in on-line technology and marketing both for agents and consumers. Sara is the former National Director for Interactive Marketing for Coldwell Banker Canada where she was responsible for an extensive training program traveling to offices across the country training agents and brokers on marketing and technology. Find Sara on Twitter @edmontonblogger.
Client Testimonial for Nathan Mol 
Client Testimonial for Nathan Mol 
Client Testimonial for Travis Dochuk
Client Testimonial for Beverley Hasinoff
Client Testimonial for Beverley Hasinoff
Client Testimonial for Richard Widynowski
Client Testimonial for Bill Bhamra
Client Testimonial for Mira Wannous
Client Testimonial for Beverley Hasinoff
Client Testimonial for Richard Widynowski
Client Testimonial for Justin Tazi
Client Testimonial for Sheldon Johnston
Client Testimonial for Bill Bhamra
Client Testimonial for Tracy Vipond
Client Testimonial for Justin Tazi
Client Testimonial for Nathan Mol 
Client Testimonial for Bill Bhamra
About Zero Lot lines….
When new single detached homes are on par with exsiting in terms of price….why would anyone go for the super skinny lot?
I agree that a dulex is a much better solution, or even a townhouse!
How many cars can be parked in front of these new skinny lots?? What will this do to parking and congestion in these new areas?
And if my neighbors eaves overlap my own…and he doesn’t maintain his easetroughs, will resulting damage to my roof be his or my expense?
I have a feeling that later the city will re-neg on this decision, all it takes is one tragic fire or disaster like we saw in McEwan.
Thanks for the stats! Have a great weekend.
Thanks for your input
Regarding pricing – new homes are way more expensive than resale. The gap between average prices for new and resale is the biggest it’s ever been.
Regarding parking – the developer can only do zero lot lines when there is room for parking behind the home via a lane. It will still create parking congestion though.
Regarding eaves – they wont hang over the neighbour’s roof, they hang over the neighbour’s side yard.
Zero lot lines in one of the least populated places on earth…on the farthest edges of the city.
It is laughable that there is any shortage of developed land around Edmonton…the machine creating shortages.
Zero lot line cheap housing…all the downsides of density with none of the averages of living in the city.
To each their own I guess.
The new mortgage rules are starting
To have an effect now..that and debt exhaustion….no real gains on real estate again this year in Edmonton…5 full years now.
I am glad my exposure is limited!
The gain is that you save rent. $200k mortgage at 2.5% interest is $5k / year. Plus property tax and utilities, you are looking at about $800 / month in cost. A net saving of $200~$400 vs. renting. And to live in your own home.
Sorry WSN but you better take another look at your math on this. $200k mortgage @ 2.5% =$10,740 per year, now add in tax @ $2000 per year, $250 in utilities per month =$1300 per month to own..and that’s being very conservitive….not even including any maintenance costs.
Don’t forget condo fees!
That said, they may cover some of the utilities (usually, water and heat).
I think WSN was doing the math if a person had a HELOC but I don’t think there are any HELOC’s at 2.5% or mortgages at that rate so it is a moot point.
I have mortgage at prime -0.85% and prime hasn’t gone up above 3% for quite some time.
Wow, someone here can’t do grade 3 math. Use a calculator if you can:
200,000 x 0.025 = 5,000
Please elaborate which math or economic equation did you use to get the 10,740 figure.
Have you ever heard of a mortgage calculator? lol…Wow time for grade three again i see…$10,740 @ 2.5% over 25 years = $10,740…per year.
Now I see where you come from.
To make it clear: I am comparing “cost” between renting vs. owning.
A rent payment is a cost. It’s gone. Poof. Gone …
Interest in a mortgage payment is a cost (i.e. $5000). It’s also gone.
The principle amount you pay down in a mortgage (i.e. $10740 – $5000 = $5740) is NOT a cost. It’s a 25 year saving’s plan, it’s your money sitting in your bank gradually makes the property yours. If you want to take it out, you can, in the form of a HLOC.
At the end of the 25th year. A buyer don’t need to make any more mortgage payment. But a renter still need to pay rent. See the difference.
wsn, you may want to read today’s Financial Post article on all the costs of owning you neglected
link to business.financialpost.com
You guys can argue all you want about renting vs owning.
But here’s something to keep in mind…
My father paid $10,000 for his house about 50 years ago. It’s now worth around $500,000.
I suppose he could have accumulated this much by renting and investing but if had been able to do that, much of it would have been taxed away.
Profits held in a principal residence are not taxed. So it’s a sort of TFSA in a way.
Sara, regarding building duplex on an older lot, I did a little bit of research before and the currently city zoning laws state the size requirements:
The minimum Site area shall be provided as follows:
300 m2 for each Semi-detached or Duplex Dwelling;
The minimum site width shall be provided as follows:
7.5 m for each Semi-detached or Duplex Dwelling;
However, I saw a huge number of new duplexes in the Belgravia/Mckernan area that’s substantially smaller than the requirements. Like 40% narrower. It’s not even close.
They are new, and thus can’t be due to a different zoning law in the past. Could you shed some light how were they even approved? Is some kind of bribery involved?
Thank you!
Better make real sure who your neighbours are when you buy one of these skinny lot places. If they have a big loud dog it’ll make for real enjoyable evenings when it’s barking right outside your window.
You can probably hear their stereo very clearly too when you’re sitting in your living room trying to watch TV.
Sounds like an ideal kind of place to buy.
Do you think that the extra 2 feet of side yard that exists under the current bylaw would make a difference from a noise perspective….no, it’ll make no difference at all.
The rules allowing these could be part of the mature neighborhood overlay which allows things like garage and garden suites, the builders may have applied for an exemption etc.
Our maybe I am wrong and Sarah will come back and tell you who youneed to grease!
Why don’t they just make the lots shallower front to back? Yeah, that will create smaller yards, but still better than this.
Excellent idea wsn.
Nobody ever uses their front yard. It’s just a huge useless area full of grass. Kids never play in their front yard. Nobody wants to sit in their front yard and have the neighbours all stare at you.
The only thing that whole area is good for is for people walking their dogs. It gives them a great place to let their dog do its business while they look the other way, pretending not to notice.
Speak for yourself. Many people on my block use their front yards. There are a number of homes that have verandas and larger stoops which are great for lounging on.
I love your math and explanation of the way mortgages work WSN.
Did you grow up somewhere that was an early adopter of the “no zero” school policy?
Lets not even get started on true carrying costs or opportunity cost of capital….or are those not costs either?
Just a quick note to everyone here…
Insulting others on this forum does not help one’s reputation or credibility.
To be clear I am the owner of two houses and I am not anti real estate, but misleading explanations like that can be very bad for real estate newbies.
There are many costs associated with real estate…along with lots of upside if you are careful about it.
“Opportunity” costs are very opaque. On one hand the lost opportunity could mean that you lost the “opportunity” to lose half your money in the stock market or in some other investment that does not work out. On the other hand the “opportunity” cost is in fact, the loss in the ability to purchase distressed assets and or equities when they become available. Very difficult to quantify opportunity costs, I did read an article a few years back the made a very logical case for renting vs. owning, the article outlined many investments that would have been more lucrative than buying real estate. There are intangibles to owning in my opinion, that often get over looked in a pure black and white numbers assessment of the rent vs. buy debate.
In addition I very much do not like the idea of not seeing what my neighbour sold his house for. If you are looking to sell it is a great help to see what your neighbour sold his house for only a few weeks before you plan to sell. That information is valuable. It also may become difficult to gauge the current conditions of the market because you will always be looking at old data in some case to old to make current market assessments. Cheers Matthew
Well said Matt,
I own a home in Eastern Canada, purchased many years ago. I rent now b/c I want to stay mobile and liquid:
link to business.financialpost.com
Reasons 2 and 3 as well. 1 doesn’t really apply here. Just do what’s right for you. What makes me sick is this cultural expectation that youth are expected to buy real estate b/c you’re a loser if you rent. I’ve seen so many leverage themselves to the point of no return to meet this expectation. I guess it’s their own fault if they think the maximum approval level is the amount they should be borrowing.
Why is maxing out on a mortgage is a “fault”? It’s a personal choice, just as the choice to rent.
A: A bank calculates the maximum mortgage based on actuarial calculations that maximizes their profit, not what is in your best interest.
Do your own homework to decide what your maximum mortgage should be.
MT