Mail Delivery Surprises Vancouver Average Prices


Last month it was thought that the fire breathing Chinese Dragon was the reason for Vancouver Real Estate history etching a new average price record for Vancouver homes.

In contrast, this month, you can blame the average price change on the weather as some Vancouver B.C. home sellers who, while waiting for a cheque in the mail, found themselves out in the cold!

Average Price 1977 – 2012


You Have Mail

As Vancouver home prices turned to icicles, they weighed heavy on the detached average price dropping it from February’s all time high of $1,235,244 to $1,155,521 in March 2012.


Vancouver is known for its ethnic diversity. Accordingly a parallel diversity extended to the Attached average price which ran contrary to detached homes to realize an increase from February’s $558,548 to March’s $593,139.


Vancouver Apartments average price also had its icicles as average prices trickling down from February’s $455.689 to March 2012’s $444,993.

Vancouver Real Estate Average Prices:

Detached Attached Apartment
March 12 – $1,155,521 March 12 – $593,139 March 12 – $444,993
March 11 – $1,155,007 March 11 – $573,118 March 11 – $465,997
March 10 – $1,002,020 March 10 – $533,481 March 10 – $432,754

Vancouver Real Estate Inventory – Active Listings

Detached Attached Apartment
March 12 – 6,258
+ 16%
March 12 – 2,335
+ 10%
March 12 – 6,643
+ 17%
March 11 – 5,365 March 11 – 2,111 March 11 – 5,634

Vancouver Real Estate – Units Sold

Detached Attached Apartment
March 12 – 1,187
March 12 – 500
March 12 – 1,191
March 11 – 1,799 March 11 – 663 March 11 – 1,622

*Percent = YOY

Image Credit: Flickr

About Larry Yatkowsky

Larry is a recognized real estate expert. A veteran professional, his experienced counsel leads Vancouverites in his west side community to place their trust in a man passionate about his work. Uncompromising ethics bring a balanced approach to realizing your real estate dreams.

When Life Moves You - contact Larry:

*Disclaimer: Statistics Courtesy REBGV. While believed to be accurate they are not guaranteed.
**Numbers provided may vary as they are dynamically posted by the REBGV.

Reader Comments:

vanpro Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 5:09 pm

Wow! quite a turnaround: Sales, prices plunge and inventory WAY up led by detached SFH. Condo prices are now flat for 2 years.

Btw: Larry, might be typo is your SFH inventory change: i get +22% (6,528 vs. 5,365).

McLovin Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 5:19 pm

Thanks for the stats Larry. No matter how anyone spins this, it is incredibly bearish. You have guts for even posting these numbers. A few more months like this and the board will forbid you from posting the stats!

April 1st, 2012 at 6:19 pm

re: inventory +22% – confirmed 16% is number given. checked the calc. on my abacus – it seems right.

Anybody else getting 22% ?

April 1st, 2012 at 6:30 pm


“guts” – It is what it is.
Re: “Board will forbid”. Nonsense! Their concern is that the information is accurate.
No one is held to the fire if ‘accurate’ information is published. The goal is always to help consumers make informed decisions.
Numbers as numbers are pretty cold so I admit to ‘glossing it up a bit’ but, the numbers are dead on.

calculator Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:19 pm

it should be 22% . 6528/5365 = 1.216

vangrl Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:27 pm

I’m also getting a 22% increase in detached listings from same month last year (according to the #’s you posted)

Devore Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:46 pm

The average seems to be so extremely volatile. It was up last month clearly due to a number of $8M+ sales, and it is, predictably, down this month. YoY, flat almost to the dollar, with inventory up and sales down. Things are lukewarm at best here.

Larry, do you deal with 2nd properties at all? You think the new grant will have much of an effect?

Lou Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:55 pm

Interesting! Thanks for sharing. We are hoping for some major drops in this market. We would love to buy, but think these prices are insane. Renting (and investing excess $) for us is much MUCH better financially. That said, it’s sometimes a pain in the butt. Hoping the drops continue so we can jump back into the market atsome point!

Lou Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 8:59 pm

Oh and I also get 22% increase on SFH listings. I think you were just using the wrong denominator.

It should be (6528-5365)/5365 = 22%.

Lou Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:04 pm

Actually, I’m getting different % on most of these. Maybe check your excel spreadsheet?
Seems like the num/denominator were mixed up on most….

April 1st, 2012 at 9:40 pm

@lou, Vangrl, calculator

interesting results you guys get
here is the board’s computer methodology

– last yr minus this year to get the total change between the two years
1) 5365-6258=893

– divide the ‘change result’ difference (893)by last year’s number (5365) to get 0.16
2) 893/5365=0.16

– to get the percentage, multiply .16 by 100
3) .16*100=16%

Or you can play here to get the same result:

All percentages have been calculated using the same “Percentage Change Method”
So… here is the challenge. If a qualified mathematician comes on board to dispute this I will be directing him/her/them to the RE Board to correct the board’s last 20 years of calculations. That should be fun as he/she/them will be throwing the board into calculation chaos.

**added note. these numbers come directly from board stats.

calculator Says:
April 1st, 2012 at 9:43 pm

it is 6528 and not 6258 :-). Hope that solves the mystery.

April 1st, 2012 at 9:48 pm

you are right about the post number. thanks for pointing that typo out – now corrected. It’s hard to be ‘perfect’ 🙂
what doesn’t change is the calculation method which seems to be a problem here tonight.

Leben Says:
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:59 am

Larry, thanks for posting the numbers and the interesting format you’ve done it in makes for a good read. I am no realtor but I can guess that many of you can see the “gold rush” mentatlity of the last few years in Vancouver is a temporary blip – some people will make a fortune and those who came too late will be left with a bum claim. I think realistic numbers and a price correction is actually very healthy for the long-term health of RE in Van and surrounding areas. I am bearish on RE but unlike many others, I do not want to see a crash – that will wipe out too many families and destroy the economy. I do want to see some flippers get burned badly, and I want regular Vancouverites to be able to afford a home (with sacrifice and due to hard work). Unfortunately I have 2 RE agents in my extended family who have been doing this for about 7 years and they are both multi-millionaires on paper, by this I mean they are completely leveraged to the hilt. It is a tops-turvey bizarro world where a RE agent makes more than a surgeon selling “nothing special” or even teardown bungalows, and makes millions flipping a half-dozen presale condos with “creative” financing.

April 2nd, 2012 at 11:13 am

“interesting format”
Thanks, I try and sometimes fail miserably but I view numbers without a story as just numbers.

April 2nd, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Larry, always enjoy reading your comments. You are obviously not the “typical” realtor as most would never use words that you do to describe the Vancouver market.

Another agent that I respect says that the current enviroment is like the early 80’s when price drops were very large.

The Wall Street Journal just published an article on March 30, 2012 titled “The Gretare Fool” (link attached below), that you might enjoy. The quotes from the National Association of Realtors (NAR) are particularly interesting when you read what they were saying as the ship was going down in 2007, 08, 09 and frinally 2011.

I guess, just like when the US market started to tank, we are all out of Greater Fools in the Best Place on Earth.

Looking at the long term Average Price trends, published in the REBGV graph back to 1977, tell me that the average SFH price could drop to about $650 – 700K. Looking at Reversion to Mean gets to the same number, assuming we don’t overshoot on the downside.


thetamax8 Says:
April 2nd, 2012 at 7:35 pm

Hey Larry,

Have a question for you. I value your opinion as from your blog and comments here you seem to be a honest guy.

From a Realtor’s, is it ethical to appear on television in a piece regarding condo sales and **not** reveal yourself as Realtor but instead “act’ as an “investor”?

In this situation the “investor” was actually a Realtor working for the marketing group selling the development?

I’ve heard of two such situations and it seems a bit unethical to me.

April 2nd, 2012 at 8:25 pm

I have not seen the clip you are referring to. As such it is very difficult if not impossible to make a call.

Hypothetically speaking, while your concern seems valid on the surface there is the question of whether the individual whom you recognize as a Realtor may have been there as a private individual. Note: it is not uncommon for employees of a development to purchase one of the properties that they are selling. ‘Promoting” the property without a clearly defining your position as the Realtor of record might at law be construed as misrepresentation. This is fine but very clear line and is one that is beyond my scope to judge.

If you truly are concerned about this issue I do advise the you contact the Real Estate Council. It is they who have the authority to sanction or endorse this individuals actions.

painted turtle Says:
April 2nd, 2012 at 10:08 pm

“what doesn’t change is the calculation method which seems to be a problem here tonight.”

The two methods should give the same answer.
6258 versus 6528 is the only issue.

April 3rd, 2012 at 8:56 am

we figured that out after a few iterations but thanks for your note

Comment On This Post

will not be published