Weekly Update, Dec. 13/13

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: 170 (224, 188, 248,)
# Sales: 188 (180, 202, 212)
Ratio: 111% (80%, 107%, 85%)
# Price Changes: 85 (93, 126, 143)
# Expired/Off Market Listings: 143 (279, 114, 158)
Net loss/gain in listings this week: -161 (-235, -128, -122)
Active single family home listings: 1853 (1934, 2072, 2118)
Active condo listings: 1194 (1241, 1331, 1394)
Homes 4-week running average: $414k ($409k, $404k, $402k)
Condos 4-week running average: $241k ($247k, $243k, $236k)

More talk of increasing population, low vacancy rates and a strong market over all in Metro News today (shameless plug, I'm quoted in the article). The sales to new listings ratio is over 100% again this week, something we typically see in the last week or two of the year.

Real Estate Listings and Sales
Real Estate Prices

Have a great weekend!


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.

del.icio.us Digg

24 Responses to “Weekly Update, Dec. 13/13”

  1. Karl HungusNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 1:36 pm #

    With respect to the comments: I would give a warning to posters who you think violate your terms and conditions. After that, ban them.

  2. A commong guyNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 2:08 pm #

    wow! look at the curve and the avg price of SFH. Won’t be surprised we get to $430k avg in 2014.

    I agree with Karl. No place for trash talk.

  3. JohnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 2:28 pm #

    Crazy only 1850 single family listings, can’t remember it being that low in a long time. With exploding population growth, real estate prices can only go up. Calgary prices are above its May 2007 high or very close, we should definitely hit our all-time high very soon.

    • TonyNo Gravatar 16. Dec, 2013 at 3:24 pm #

      You forget the 4.9 percent increase in property taxes. Believe you me there’s no faster way to destroy a real estate market than to tax far beyond the inflation rate when it comes to property taxes. Look at any city in Canada and the property tax over inflation rate. Look at Toronto then look at the massive increase in property taxes over the last 3 years in Edmonton. Toronto prices straight upward, Edmonton don’t even ask. I rest my point.

  4. JohnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 2:57 pm #

    The weird thing about Edmonton is the top areas like Westmount, Glenora, Strathcona are still pretty cheap when you compare the top areas in Calgary, Mount Royal. I know Calgary has the mountains, head offices are there, executives, but Edmonton has a lot of people who make lots of money here too.
    What I can see, is that we will eventually catch up to Calgary, (huge premium) Mount Royal compared to the overall market in Calgary.
    I think 10 years from now or earlier, people that make lots of money will only want to live in the top areas and that will drive the prices further from the average.
    The biggest reason could be is that Downtown wasn’t the epicenter of Edmonton, but with 6 towers and possibly the tallest tower (70 storeys) in Western Canada, the shift will be in Downtown. Finally the Mayors in Edmonton realized to have a prosperous city, the focus had to be in downtown, not the surrounding areas.

    • wsnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 3:54 pm #

      First time hear someone referring “Westmount and Strathcona” as top areas. Most of the lots are small and buildings mediocre.

      I thought it’s Glenora/Crestwood/Parkview/Donsdale/Cameron Heights on the west side and Windsor Park/Belgravia/Grandview/Brander Garderns/Ramsay Heights/Henderson/Windermere on the south side.

  5. JohnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 6:28 pm #


    Westmount was voted number 2 (future number 1) and Strathcona number 1 by Avenue magazine.
    Not sure why you think Westmount is mediocre, they have most of the character homes there, lots are bigger, trees, and the first district to downtown. Big plus with both Westmount and Strahcona, if you don’t have a car, you’ll be fine.
    I especially like Westmount the best because the proximity to 124 street and one bus will take you to the skytrain stations.

    Most people I talk to really like to live in Westmount, but nobody likes to pay $400,000 for a old home, if you want character $500,000+, when you can buy brand new for that price.

    • wsnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 6:53 pm #

      If you restrict your definition of “top” to be 400k~500k mature neighbourhood, then you may have a point. But when I hear the term “top” by itself, I would not put a price restriction there.

    • MattNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 6:54 pm #

      You’re not paying $400,000 for the house though, you’re paying primarily for the land in a great neighbourhood. In my opinion, in just a few years the same property will cost upwards of $500,000 based on the sustained upswing in demand we’re very close to experiencing. The same goes for a lot of mature neighbourhoods, such as Westmount, Strathearn, Bonnie Doon, Forest Heights, etc.

      I think these neighbourhoods will experience the big price appreciation in the next five years as downtown is revitalized and businesses and offices relocate relocate to in order to take advantage. It will become more like Toronto in that mature neighbourhoods within a 10 minute drive of downtown will become increasingly unaffordable to your average person. And Iveson as mayor supports that, as he has saying he wants mature neighbourhoods to become increasingly attractive to families, which in my opinion that implies he wants to make houses in sprawling developments increasingly unattractive for families.

      • wsnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 6:59 pm #

        The new mayor is also of the opinion that mature neighbourhoods should see an increase of density. More 1 for 2 lot splits and apartments will be allowed. That’s a double edged sword. If you like mature neighbourhood, you will probably get better pavements and convenient infrastructure, but also a 4 storey in front of you maybe.

        • MattNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 7:08 pm #

          If you look at Strathcona or Garneau, there are quite a few low-rise apartment buildings in residential areas, and with the average house in that area priced quite high (well above the city average), I don’t think it has really hurt their value. Houses in those neighbourhoods are VERY desirable, and way out of reach for many people.

  6. JohnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 8:31 pm #


    Not sure why you don’t think Westmount is one of the best neighbourhoods to live, forget price. I think, just opinion, old charm feel, mix of young and old, very little crime, shops are right there.
    Don’t you think the newer subdivisions, the houses are stuck together, and they look similiar. I have lived on the south side, north side, but after living in Westmount, I think it’s the most convenient location (northwest).

    • wsnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 9:27 pm #

      If “forget price” is OK, Westmount is an area with tiny, similar houses stuck together on postage stamp sized lots. You can accuse me of boasting Windermere, but lots on Windermere Drive are 20000sf ~ 50000sf if they are backing onto the river, and at least 15000sf, if they are not. The architecture is amazing. What’s more? Many of them are new houses!

    • JoJoNo Gravatar 16. Dec, 2013 at 9:26 am #

      West mount is a good place to live in when I consider the environment and the amenities around there. But I think I would only buy an infill home that’s brand new versus one of the old homes there. I have a friend who bought an older home from that area because he wanted the old charm feel. He was so overwhelmed by the amount of repairs needed after moving in. After chatting with his neighbors it seems he’s not the only one with tonnes of issues in their charming house.

  7. JohnNo Gravatar 13. Dec, 2013 at 10:02 pm #


    Most lots in westmount are at least 45′ X 140′, not sure why you think newer subdivisions besides Upper Windermere are larger. Upper Windermere and Donsdales might be the exception.
    Yes, houses in Westmount tend to be smaller, but most of the houses look different, and a lot of lots are 50′, able to zone into 2 lots. If mature neighbourhoods were small lots, then you wouldn’t be able to do that.

    I have inquired about brand new houses in Windermere,(curious) even realtor told me the lots are on average are smaller compared to mature neighbourhoods. I asked him, I am looking for 50′ X 148′ same as my lot, but he said very hard.
    If you are comparing lake lots, why not compare Rexalls house on Riverside
    (15 million).

    I’m not here to argue with you, but it is a common fact that mature neighbourhoods, the lots are on average are larger than new subdivisions.

    • wsnNo Gravatar 14. Dec, 2013 at 5:20 pm #

      Don’t you realize that 45′x140′ is incredibly small, when you use the term “top”? Upper Windermere has a couple dozen remaining lots. The smallest one has a pocket of 52′ (total lot width 64′).

      No, Upper Windermere is not an exception. Windermere Grande, One at Windermere (Estate), Riverpointe at Windermere, Riverpointe at Cameron Heights (un-imaginative name huh?) are just as large or even larger.

      Not all mature neighbourhood will turn out to be a winner. Instant recap: Highlands.

      With crappy area to the north east, and a busy road to the west, and a high rise blocking the south view of the river, I don’t see Westmount becoming a winner, while at the same time the real growth direction is to the southwest.

      Again, I have totally nothing again mature neighbourhoods. Glenora and Crestwood are great. Just don’t call a wannabe like Westmount “top”.

  8. MattNo Gravatar 14. Dec, 2013 at 8:33 am #

    Can we just agree that there will always be a strong resale market for houses in good mature neighbourhoods?

    • 123kidNo Gravatar 14. Dec, 2013 at 10:26 am #

      Bottom line, if you understand and lived through the vancouver effect (1980s- onward) and assume the same thing is occurring here as it did there, you can surmise that Westmount will be some of the most prime/prized land close to the central business district- CBD as the city continues to grow and mature.

      Yet, again… the farther away you purchase from CBD, the lower the potential returns (could) be. But everything Im seeing in wsn’s Windermere, Im impressed with vis-a-vis the other outlying glitter post stamp area (ie rutherford, summerside, etc).

      Who ever has a home/land in Westmount. You’ve won. Hold on for the ride to come.

  9. Inspector GadgetNo Gravatar 14. Dec, 2013 at 7:15 pm #

    I own a rental in Parallen on a 9000 square foot pie. Best of both worlds. Awesome neighborhood, close to everything and major routes and walkable to the lrt without any traffic issues as it goes underneath all nearby roads. Walkable to the river Valley above the Equine as well… About 1km. I intend on building on that lot some day as it is in my opinion one of the best neighborhoods in the city if you have the money to reno or rebuild as the houses are from the 50s. I presently live in Lendrom which I like as well but I prefer Parkallen.

    As far as new Windermere is among the better places but boy it is far out if you have any need to be in the core regularly. If I lived my life around the ring road I might even live there.

  10. Inspector GadgetNo Gravatar 14. Dec, 2013 at 7:26 pm #

    Oh, and as for as the comments go let’s just not call people names or make insinuations. Physical non living objects are fair game but don’t make it personal.
    I may have been guilty in the past and if I was I apologize, it will be kept professional from now on and abusers will be ignored. Blog comments can be a great learning tool if personal attacks are ignored, or better yet not published.

    • ShawnNo Gravatar 15. Dec, 2013 at 6:16 pm #

      Hear hear!

  11. a common guyNo Gravatar 16. Dec, 2013 at 7:01 pm #

    a 50-60 year old house will typically need ongoing expenses to replace/repair things that are at the end of their life cycle, some of these expenses can be huge. Even ones that are renovated are unlikely to avoid this unless they have done a total renovation. Then there are the typical extra expenses you’d have to take into account (insulation is not as good as new house, windows aren’t as good, etc etc). The best of both world is to have a completely new house in an old neighborhood but they can cost you a few bucks ($1-2M).

  12. JohnNo Gravatar 17. Dec, 2013 at 9:55 pm #


    I think that is a misconception with older homes. What I have noticed is a lot of houses in Glenora, Westmount, Strathcona character houses, the structure of the houses are really solid (olden days materials more solid). The better areas, the houses are really taken care of. Every house that I have lived in has been built before 1960, never really have much problems. Obviously, have to chenge the usual, like roof after 20 years, hot water tank, but have to do that with new houses too. Once you live in an older home, huge lot, convenience, very hard to go and buy a new house. One thing with older homes is the lots are bigge, so you can always extend your house.

  13. JohnNo Gravatar 17. Dec, 2013 at 10:03 pm #

    The biggest advantage with having a larger yard like 48′ X 148′ is I can have a beautifully landscaped backyard, trees, fruits, veggys and in the winter, I don’t have to take my dog to a park, he has lots of space to run around.