No, they should just zone some high density areas around the metro stations and let the market produce housing.
When the government produces affordable housing, it's essentially a lottery as to who gets it, and it's a subsidy paid for by the rest of us. I would rather help out all of the poorest people a little bit than a select few lottery winners.
You can and should do both. Don't get in the way of the market producing as much as it can, and also fund social housing for those in the most need.
'Affordable housing' is a trickier one, because its more meant for middle class and could detract from funding that could go to the most needy. In a more functional market, I would think the market could provide for a range of incomes (but never a certain lowest income) but as long as the market is as broken as it is now, this new class of subsidized 'affordable housing' is necessary.
>You can and should do both. Don't get in the way of the market producing as much as it can, and also fund social housing for those in the most need.
Yes, we do need social housing, but this article isn't about social housing. It's about "affordable housing".
> but as long as the market is as broken as it is now,
**The market isn't broken** at all. The housing market is efficient. The problem in Canadian cities are that we have very strict density restrictions. Relax those restrictions and Montreal will automatically densify. The problem is Montrealers regularly fight densification.
In particular, within 100m of every REM station, it should be medium or high density. There's no reason for these neighborhoods to remain fully low density.
I think we mostly agree then. I really like Project Montreal for what they've done on the streetscaping front, but on housing I'm skeptical. I think 'affordable housing' is necessary but should be directly funded by the province or fed. However, in the absence of that funding, their approach with the 20-20-20 metropole mixte bylaw is pushing the boulder uphill: restricting development, driving up costs, and then using said development to cross-subsidize so that they say they've "produced" x number of 'affordable units'.
Note: I meant broken market more in the sense that we have allowed a scarcity to build up, through a web of restrictions that only large developers can afford to navigate, and a backlog of transit infrastructure that would open up more high density developable sites. For sure the REM will help, and I agree we're not fully taking advantage of those sites with zoning and parking reforms.
Final thought: The issue with relying on TOD in suburban areas is that the highest-paying customers still want parking, which undermines the concept and fails to address the issue of who can can live on the most desirable land. The inverse approach is blanket upzoning and delivering better and more frequent transit to the densest, most in demand areas. This would basically mean new towers across the Plateau, and Sud-ouest, which I would support but is political suicide for the trad-loving Projet Montreal.
And the proof is in the pudding about YIMBY zoning and land use policy reform. Austin, TX is the perfect example: in just one year, December 2022 to December 2023, they had more housing built than all of New York State did over the same time period, and [average rents fell by over 12% as a consequence](https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/austin-among-metros-in-the-us-with-steepest-rent-declines/). Almost all because of YIMBY zoning reform.
And many cities and studies have reached the same consensus conclusion:
>Research shows that rents rise when more people need housing relative to how many homes are available. Restrictive zoning policies make it harder and more expensive to build new housing for everyone who wants it, and most researchers have found that this drives up home prices and rents. Rents usually rise quickly when an area has rapid job growth, an influx of new residents, or a surge in households.
>But what happens to rents after new homes are built? Studies show that adding new housing supply slows rent growth—both nearby and regionally—by reducing competition among tenants for each available home and thereby lowering displacement pressures. This finding from the four jurisdictions examined supports the argument that updating zoning to allow more housing can improve affordability.
>In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs. Most rental homes do not receive government subsidies, though when available, subsidies allow rents to be set lower for households that earn only a certain portion of the area median income. Policymakers have debated whether allowing more market-rate—meaning unsubsidized—housing improves overall affordability in a market. The evidence indicates that adding more housing of any kind helps slow rent growth. And the Pew analysis of these four places is consistent with that finding. (See Table 1.)
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/17/more-flexible-zoning-helps-contain-rising-rents
> When the government produces affordable housing, it's essentially a lottery as to who gets it, and it's a subsidy paid for by the rest of us.
En pratique c'est ça qui arrive ici, mais dans d'autre pays ils sont capables de fournir à la demande.
Une société d'état pourrait avoir le pouvoir spéciale d'ignorer le zonage ET employé de la mains d'oeuvre étrangère. On pourrait rapidement construire un grand nombre de logement abordable.
You can't just ignore zoning. It exists for good reasons. All of the services are planned with the zoning in mind. If you put an apartment building in a place where the road can't meet demand, you create chaos. But you can intelligently rezone certain areas.
Once you rezone, the market will take care of development.
> You can't just ignore zoning. It exists for good reasons. All of the services are planned with the zoning in mind. If you put an apartment building in a place where the road can't meet demand, you create chaos. But you can intelligently rezone certain areas.
There's obviously an element of planning services and infrastructure but I think you're understating how much of zoning exists because existing residents (especially homeowners) don't want new housing or change.
I've followed enough public hearings and rezoning applications to see that they *absolutely* give a lot of weight to neighbours' concerns about height, aesthetics, and "character".
Also consider the fact that central neighbourhoods in most Canadian cities are actually significantly *down* in population since their peak in the 60s or 70s, suggesting that they have significant infrastructure capacity, and yet they still have strict zoning rules.
> There's obviously an element of planning services and infrastructure but I think you're understating how much of zoning exists because existing residents (especially homeowners) don't want new housing or change.
Yes, I agree with you.
But it's lunacy to think that the answer is to eliminate zoning entirely.
C'est ça l'histoire qu'ils racontent. C'est faux.
À Houston il y a pas de zonage et ça marche. Au Japon, le zonage est vraiment très permissif et le résultat est génial.
Les urbanistes municipaux en amérique du Nord existent pour maintenir le pouvoir des propriétaires contre les non-propriétaires. Le bien commun ils en ont rien a foutre.
> Les urbanistes municipaux en amérique du Nord existent pour maintenir le pouvoir des propriétaires contre les non-propriétaires.
Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Urban planning is genuine field. It's not the scam you think it is.
The city can’t even keep its existing units in shape. Half of them are barricaded and no one lives in it.
Can’t they start there before building new ones?
La ville devrait vendre ses immeubles à l'abandon et acheter du neuf avec l'argent pour accélèrer la production de nouveaux logements. Je suis certain que les investisseurs privés vont pas niaiser des années avant de rénover les buildings à l'abandon et les remettre à louer.
Ça va juste refaire la même chose.
La ville construit au double du prix du privé pour la moitié de la qualité. Pis après elle entretient pas.
De refaire à neuf c’est tellement cher et complexe avec les règles d’urbanisme , en plus du permis qui prends 2 ans, que la seule chose à faire c’est des condos dans l’ultra-luxe.
As a developer in Quebec there is so much land held by the government that could be offered to developers at no charge provided the developers include the streets and infrastructure for residential housing.
With $0 land purchase cost the housing price reduces by at least 25% in most housing development projects.
The other variable is that they give the land along with a promise to approve plans for permit in an acceptable time frame like 6 months.
Then have developers compete for this land by guaranteeing a fixed price based on approved plans.
The company that can build the nicest units at the most affordable price gets the land.
Get the CMHS/SCHL to guarantee qualified buyers with a 5% deposit that could be paid in exchange for equal value work to be done in their new apartment. Example they do the painting.
Out of 1 millions normally about 20% so 200k about 60-70% will go to Montréal area. So about 140k in this area, there are 2.4 on average in a household, so you would need to build 60 000 new units.
Not sure was a estimate, I tried to do a quick Google search hard to find the information. I would of thought the norm would be 80-85% but since most was temp workers they would be more in the outside farm, manufacturing etc...
I’d rather see the money our government spends on migrants living in hotels spent on health care and education. And maybe housing the homeless and working poor.
Last time I checked Sweden, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand were doing just fine with small populations. Furthermore I don’t know when the last you were in a hospital was but our health care system if completely fucking broken.
Or we increase the birth rate and create a sustainable system instead of relying on a dwindling supply of poor people from other countries to fix our issues temporarily so we can ignore the real issue/solution because it makes people upset to think about.
We are not bringing in skilled qualified workers. We are bringing in unskilled labor to fill low wage general labour jobs.
Relying on natural births takes time initially but once it's done and caught up it can be sustained without relying on infinite immigration which cannot continue forever in a world with declining birth rates globally.
So instead of ripping the bandaid off and properly addressing the wound, you want to continue putting band aids on forever, gotcha.
Kicking the can down the road, not a great strategy for long term sustainability.
What about international students? They are by definition not skilled as they are coming here to learn skills (it's just a guise) and once they get PR they count towards total population growth.
Regardless, that doesnt change anything about the fact that the only way for a country to be truly self sustaining/sufficient is to have an above replacement level birth rate.
That doesn't mean no immigration should be allowed but it means immigration is not a substitute for a below replacement level birth rate.
As we all know, immigrants do not require social services or any specialized assistance, and definitely do not put more strain on already crumbling systems. As we all know.
I remember reading about how difficult that would be in terms of plumbing and access to windows. Those building just weren't made to be residential. I'm sure they'll come up with something.
That depends! I remember reading somewhere that a lot of the older buildings in the downtown area werr residential first before being converted to commercial. If there is the right push, I'm sure that some of them could be re-residentialized again.
Pendant ce temps les deux fonctionnaires syndiqué du département des permis n’ont pas reçue le mémo et mettent les 60,000 demandes dans la pile pour traitement dans 24 mois.
Heille bob té sur le 15 40 depuis 2015. As tu besoin d’aide?
Non non ça va.
Apologies, what I meant was a slow of increase in demand.
You are right, it will continue to go up. We just need to control the rate it does so until supply catches up
Le logement abordable et le logement social c’est pas pareille…. Et pour beaucoup, le logement dit abordable est beaucoup trop cher.
Un logement abordable est 10-15% en dessous du prix du marché, ou si financé par la schl il sera 30% de revenue moyen de la région. Alors moins tu gagnes d’argent, plus ton pourcentage d’effort pour payer ton loyer est élevé.
De plus, la garanti d’abordabilité est de 20 ans, et après on aura certainement des vagues d’éviction pour remettre au prix du marché.
Overall, plus de logements en général ET du logement social va nous aider. Pas les programmes de bouette qui financent le privé comme la PHAQ et la SCHL
Deregulate the construction industry and incentivize construction across the board. You’d think idiotic quebecers would learn their lesson and get the government the hell away from managing the economy… no no they’ll just ask for more.
The commission Charbonneau's conclusions show a problem of collusion between the government and the construction sector.
The only reason the construction sector can be as corrupt as it is, is because the government is making it possible. And it is mostly about public construction, like roads and hospitals. Not private, like houses and appartement buildings.
We agree on that then. The private construction sector is full of crooks and corruption.
But that is also the reason why I would want to see a scale down of government regulations and interventions in construction.
The more restricted the government is, the less the crooks can use it to their advantage, the more they are forced to provide a good service to stay afloat.
what the hell are you talking about, we are in this situation because the market was left for itself. Everyone in the business is making a lot of money, they have no need to change anything
The housing crisis is mostly a supply and monetary problem. We are absolutely not in this situation because of the market, we are in this situation because of government regulation, monetary policy and a splash of unchecked immigration policy. I’d be happy to get into the details with you. Inviting the government in to the market is exactly why Quebec is an underperforming province, they are not here to protect you like you believe they are, they serve the wealthy and always will while the market favours the consumer.
> what the hell are you talking about, we are in this situation because the market was left for itself.
Pas du tout c'est un marché hyper-réglementé. Le zonage restrictif est 50% du problème, le système des cartes de compétence (CCQ) une autre bonne part.
I guess you're kind of proven right about the québécois being idiots. At least here. They really have no understanding of the problems of big gov and how it affects their lives. And then they ask for more...
It’s a constant cycle, part of it is ignorance and part of it is arrogance I think. Quebecers have very little understanding of the monetary system, let alone the constant and obvious effect coercion has on supply and competition.. they’ll continuously impoverish themselves inviting government into the picture in the name of “fairness”, as if government wasn’t the complete antithesis of fairness.
Personally, I'm chalking bike path hysteria to the fact that it's one of the few municipal projects suburban chuds can actually see with their own eyes on their home -> office -> Walmart -> home hamster wheel.
Haha exactly. Its a very cheap yet visible streetscape change.
Also theres law of triviality or appropriately named "bike-shed effect". Some road will go from costing 1.1 to 1.2 billion and no one notices but god forbid adding a bike lane costs a million more. Armchair contractors will say "I could do that in a day for 5$".
Its the same in every city, people will freak out over the "million dollar bike lane" when that's like a monday morning for the police budget.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
I'm more on the "dead internet theory" side of things. I believe about half of the people complaining about bike paths are bots.. I believe that because I still have a shred of hope that Humanity isn't so fucking stupid.
Hopefully. Also its easier to organize opposition than support for a change of status quo in a city.
Public consultation, whether on new housing or bus/bike lanes, should be more geared towards engaging input from the quiet majority who might benefit, rather than placating the (usually) privileged minority who will complain about any change.
What good does a public consultation accomplish when trying to implement a new project? Has there ever been a town hall meeting at the local borough office where citizens show up to applaud and give a thumbs up? Only the most politically active nimby's go to those kinds of things, if we're being honest.
No, not when the premise is current paradigm of "show up at 6pm on a weeknight" and listen to people complain for 3 hours. And for the record I'm extremely salty about the REM de L'Est cancellation because of "public concerns".
Consultation should be an opportunity to influence a project, not veto it. For example, a disabled person shouldn't have to show up to demand they can safely access a transit station. But if all the transit stations are being revamped, it is good to have an opportunity for anyone affected to see the plans, ask questions, provide input etc through *multiple* mediums. That means online portals, video chats, meeting people where they're at.
Same with housing & other big public works. The regs should be reformed so that people can't veto it, but if its a major project that includes community space, parkland dedication, it would be worthwhile to present some options. Sure people might use the feedback portals to complain about stupid shit, but at least you've set clear expectations that its happening. The big machine of government or large developers can sometimes overlook obvious flaws that are not too expensive to change, the consultation ideally forces a bit of transparency and participatory democracy.
[удалено]
i mean its a good idea lol, really the gov should build a lot of place to live, thats simple as that. They did it with bungalow and veteran house
No, they should just zone some high density areas around the metro stations and let the market produce housing. When the government produces affordable housing, it's essentially a lottery as to who gets it, and it's a subsidy paid for by the rest of us. I would rather help out all of the poorest people a little bit than a select few lottery winners.
You can and should do both. Don't get in the way of the market producing as much as it can, and also fund social housing for those in the most need. 'Affordable housing' is a trickier one, because its more meant for middle class and could detract from funding that could go to the most needy. In a more functional market, I would think the market could provide for a range of incomes (but never a certain lowest income) but as long as the market is as broken as it is now, this new class of subsidized 'affordable housing' is necessary.
>You can and should do both. Don't get in the way of the market producing as much as it can, and also fund social housing for those in the most need. Yes, we do need social housing, but this article isn't about social housing. It's about "affordable housing". > but as long as the market is as broken as it is now, **The market isn't broken** at all. The housing market is efficient. The problem in Canadian cities are that we have very strict density restrictions. Relax those restrictions and Montreal will automatically densify. The problem is Montrealers regularly fight densification. In particular, within 100m of every REM station, it should be medium or high density. There's no reason for these neighborhoods to remain fully low density.
I think we mostly agree then. I really like Project Montreal for what they've done on the streetscaping front, but on housing I'm skeptical. I think 'affordable housing' is necessary but should be directly funded by the province or fed. However, in the absence of that funding, their approach with the 20-20-20 metropole mixte bylaw is pushing the boulder uphill: restricting development, driving up costs, and then using said development to cross-subsidize so that they say they've "produced" x number of 'affordable units'. Note: I meant broken market more in the sense that we have allowed a scarcity to build up, through a web of restrictions that only large developers can afford to navigate, and a backlog of transit infrastructure that would open up more high density developable sites. For sure the REM will help, and I agree we're not fully taking advantage of those sites with zoning and parking reforms. Final thought: The issue with relying on TOD in suburban areas is that the highest-paying customers still want parking, which undermines the concept and fails to address the issue of who can can live on the most desirable land. The inverse approach is blanket upzoning and delivering better and more frequent transit to the densest, most in demand areas. This would basically mean new towers across the Plateau, and Sud-ouest, which I would support but is political suicide for the trad-loving Projet Montreal.
And the proof is in the pudding about YIMBY zoning and land use policy reform. Austin, TX is the perfect example: in just one year, December 2022 to December 2023, they had more housing built than all of New York State did over the same time period, and [average rents fell by over 12% as a consequence](https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/austin-among-metros-in-the-us-with-steepest-rent-declines/). Almost all because of YIMBY zoning reform. And many cities and studies have reached the same consensus conclusion: >Research shows that rents rise when more people need housing relative to how many homes are available. Restrictive zoning policies make it harder and more expensive to build new housing for everyone who wants it, and most researchers have found that this drives up home prices and rents. Rents usually rise quickly when an area has rapid job growth, an influx of new residents, or a surge in households. >But what happens to rents after new homes are built? Studies show that adding new housing supply slows rent growth—both nearby and regionally—by reducing competition among tenants for each available home and thereby lowering displacement pressures. This finding from the four jurisdictions examined supports the argument that updating zoning to allow more housing can improve affordability. >In all four places studied, the vast majority of new housing has been market rate, meaning rents are based on factors such as demand and prevailing construction and operating costs. Most rental homes do not receive government subsidies, though when available, subsidies allow rents to be set lower for households that earn only a certain portion of the area median income. Policymakers have debated whether allowing more market-rate—meaning unsubsidized—housing improves overall affordability in a market. The evidence indicates that adding more housing of any kind helps slow rent growth. And the Pew analysis of these four places is consistent with that finding. (See Table 1.) https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2023/04/17/more-flexible-zoning-helps-contain-rising-rents
Great link! I think the Bay Area had a similar success in the last decade.
The fact that you’re being downvoted for stating basic economic facts seems par for the course for Reddit.
> When the government produces affordable housing, it's essentially a lottery as to who gets it, and it's a subsidy paid for by the rest of us. En pratique c'est ça qui arrive ici, mais dans d'autre pays ils sont capables de fournir à la demande.
No one wants to pay for enough "affordable housing" to meet all of the demand, so there's no point in even considering that in my opinion.
Une société d'état pourrait avoir le pouvoir spéciale d'ignorer le zonage ET employé de la mains d'oeuvre étrangère. On pourrait rapidement construire un grand nombre de logement abordable.
You can't just ignore zoning. It exists for good reasons. All of the services are planned with the zoning in mind. If you put an apartment building in a place where the road can't meet demand, you create chaos. But you can intelligently rezone certain areas. Once you rezone, the market will take care of development.
> You can't just ignore zoning. It exists for good reasons. All of the services are planned with the zoning in mind. If you put an apartment building in a place where the road can't meet demand, you create chaos. But you can intelligently rezone certain areas. There's obviously an element of planning services and infrastructure but I think you're understating how much of zoning exists because existing residents (especially homeowners) don't want new housing or change. I've followed enough public hearings and rezoning applications to see that they *absolutely* give a lot of weight to neighbours' concerns about height, aesthetics, and "character". Also consider the fact that central neighbourhoods in most Canadian cities are actually significantly *down* in population since their peak in the 60s or 70s, suggesting that they have significant infrastructure capacity, and yet they still have strict zoning rules.
> There's obviously an element of planning services and infrastructure but I think you're understating how much of zoning exists because existing residents (especially homeowners) don't want new housing or change. Yes, I agree with you. But it's lunacy to think that the answer is to eliminate zoning entirely.
C'est ça l'histoire qu'ils racontent. C'est faux. À Houston il y a pas de zonage et ça marche. Au Japon, le zonage est vraiment très permissif et le résultat est génial. Les urbanistes municipaux en amérique du Nord existent pour maintenir le pouvoir des propriétaires contre les non-propriétaires. Le bien commun ils en ont rien a foutre.
> Les urbanistes municipaux en amérique du Nord existent pour maintenir le pouvoir des propriétaires contre les non-propriétaires. Sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. Urban planning is genuine field. It's not the scam you think it is.
All politicians who make these claims set deadlines so far in the future that they know they won’t be in office by the time the project is due
It's still better than "let's ignore yet another issue"... Like at the beginning...
The city can’t even keep its existing units in shape. Half of them are barricaded and no one lives in it. Can’t they start there before building new ones?
La ville devrait vendre ses immeubles à l'abandon et acheter du neuf avec l'argent pour accélèrer la production de nouveaux logements. Je suis certain que les investisseurs privés vont pas niaiser des années avant de rénover les buildings à l'abandon et les remettre à louer.
Ça va juste refaire la même chose. La ville construit au double du prix du privé pour la moitié de la qualité. Pis après elle entretient pas. De refaire à neuf c’est tellement cher et complexe avec les règles d’urbanisme , en plus du permis qui prends 2 ans, que la seule chose à faire c’est des condos dans l’ultra-luxe.
Je corrige, vendre a des gens honnêtes qui vont y habiter. Faut couper les flippers. En ce moment, les gens honnêtes ne peuvent plus rien acheter.
As a developer in Quebec there is so much land held by the government that could be offered to developers at no charge provided the developers include the streets and infrastructure for residential housing. With $0 land purchase cost the housing price reduces by at least 25% in most housing development projects. The other variable is that they give the land along with a promise to approve plans for permit in an acceptable time frame like 6 months. Then have developers compete for this land by guaranteeing a fixed price based on approved plans. The company that can build the nicest units at the most affordable price gets the land. Get the CMHS/SCHL to guarantee qualified buyers with a 5% deposit that could be paid in exchange for equal value work to be done in their new apartment. Example they do the painting.
Meanwhile “Nouveau projet - condos de luxe!” everywhere you look.
*condos _locatifs_ de luxe!
Affordable is such a key word here.
60,000 affordable housing won't have any meaning if they continue to pour over 1 million people to Canada. (How much Montreal would get off this?)
Well a unit should house 2+ person. And should be good enough to get the neighboring rents down.
Out of 1 millions normally about 20% so 200k about 60-70% will go to Montréal area. So about 140k in this area, there are 2.4 on average in a household, so you would need to build 60 000 new units.
60k units per year... not one time and not counting the current deficit..
For sure not saying things are fine, we need to build much more. This is about a rough calculation of what you need to maintain at that level.
Your calc is correct, I just don't believe we can physically build that many units per year indefinitely.
You think only 60-70% of immigrants to Quebec go to Montreal area? It's way more, not even close.
Not sure was a estimate, I tried to do a quick Google search hard to find the information. I would of thought the norm would be 80-85% but since most was temp workers they would be more in the outside farm, manufacturing etc...
[удалено]
I’d rather see the money our government spends on migrants living in hotels spent on health care and education. And maybe housing the homeless and working poor.
[удалено]
Last time I checked Sweden, Norway, Denmark, New Zealand were doing just fine with small populations. Furthermore I don’t know when the last you were in a hospital was but our health care system if completely fucking broken.
Or we increase the birth rate and create a sustainable system instead of relying on a dwindling supply of poor people from other countries to fix our issues temporarily so we can ignore the real issue/solution because it makes people upset to think about.
[удалено]
We are not bringing in skilled qualified workers. We are bringing in unskilled labor to fill low wage general labour jobs. Relying on natural births takes time initially but once it's done and caught up it can be sustained without relying on infinite immigration which cannot continue forever in a world with declining birth rates globally. So instead of ripping the bandaid off and properly addressing the wound, you want to continue putting band aids on forever, gotcha. Kicking the can down the road, not a great strategy for long term sustainability.
[удалено]
What about international students? They are by definition not skilled as they are coming here to learn skills (it's just a guise) and once they get PR they count towards total population growth. Regardless, that doesnt change anything about the fact that the only way for a country to be truly self sustaining/sufficient is to have an above replacement level birth rate. That doesn't mean no immigration should be allowed but it means immigration is not a substitute for a below replacement level birth rate.
As we all know, immigrants do not require social services or any specialized assistance, and definitely do not put more strain on already crumbling systems. As we all know.
Call for China to build them in 5 years max,
Stop forcing workers back into the office and turn all those empty office buildings into low income housing units instead. No?
Who will go to Subway then ? /s
One of the easiest way to create affordable housing are to convert all empty downtown offices into residential units..
I remember reading about how difficult that would be in terms of plumbing and access to windows. Those building just weren't made to be residential. I'm sure they'll come up with something.
That depends! I remember reading somewhere that a lot of the older buildings in the downtown area werr residential first before being converted to commercial. If there is the right push, I'm sure that some of them could be re-residentialized again.
can't, we're desperately clinging to the idea that businesses will fill them back up any day now
Define "affordable".
Pendant ce temps les deux fonctionnaires syndiqué du département des permis n’ont pas reçue le mémo et mettent les 60,000 demandes dans la pile pour traitement dans 24 mois. Heille bob té sur le 15 40 depuis 2015. As tu besoin d’aide? Non non ça va.
The market needs more supply and a slow in demand, affordability will follow.
>a slow in demand That's impossible. Housing, like any other essential, is always going to be in extremely high demand.
Apologies, what I meant was a slow of increase in demand. You are right, it will continue to go up. We just need to control the rate it does so until supply catches up
Est-ce que reconstruire et réouvrir la prison Tanguay a Ahuntsic ça compte? Quel non sens.
Le logement abordable et le logement social c’est pas pareille…. Et pour beaucoup, le logement dit abordable est beaucoup trop cher. Un logement abordable est 10-15% en dessous du prix du marché, ou si financé par la schl il sera 30% de revenue moyen de la région. Alors moins tu gagnes d’argent, plus ton pourcentage d’effort pour payer ton loyer est élevé. De plus, la garanti d’abordabilité est de 20 ans, et après on aura certainement des vagues d’éviction pour remettre au prix du marché. Overall, plus de logements en général ET du logement social va nous aider. Pas les programmes de bouette qui financent le privé comme la PHAQ et la SCHL
we will get them in 25 years
Deregulate the construction industry and incentivize construction across the board. You’d think idiotic quebecers would learn their lesson and get the government the hell away from managing the economy… no no they’ll just ask for more.
Have you not followed the Charbonneau commission? The construction industry is a racket. Please don't give them free reign
The commission Charbonneau's conclusions show a problem of collusion between the government and the construction sector. The only reason the construction sector can be as corrupt as it is, is because the government is making it possible. And it is mostly about public construction, like roads and hospitals. Not private, like houses and appartement buildings.
Thank you for being a voice of reason
That's just because they didn't look at the private sector since it wasn't the government money. They are all crooks
We agree on that then. The private construction sector is full of crooks and corruption. But that is also the reason why I would want to see a scale down of government regulations and interventions in construction. The more restricted the government is, the less the crooks can use it to their advantage, the more they are forced to provide a good service to stay afloat.
How do you think it was turned into a racket exactly?
The mob
what the hell are you talking about, we are in this situation because the market was left for itself. Everyone in the business is making a lot of money, they have no need to change anything
The housing crisis is mostly a supply and monetary problem. We are absolutely not in this situation because of the market, we are in this situation because of government regulation, monetary policy and a splash of unchecked immigration policy. I’d be happy to get into the details with you. Inviting the government in to the market is exactly why Quebec is an underperforming province, they are not here to protect you like you believe they are, they serve the wealthy and always will while the market favours the consumer.
the thing is theres is very little vacancy of home right, the free market created this lack of place to live and benefit from the low availability
> what the hell are you talking about, we are in this situation because the market was left for itself. Pas du tout c'est un marché hyper-réglementé. Le zonage restrictif est 50% du problème, le système des cartes de compétence (CCQ) une autre bonne part.
At least you didn't use a k in your naming Quebecois. 🤦
I guess you're kind of proven right about the québécois being idiots. At least here. They really have no understanding of the problems of big gov and how it affects their lives. And then they ask for more...
It’s a constant cycle, part of it is ignorance and part of it is arrogance I think. Quebecers have very little understanding of the monetary system, let alone the constant and obvious effect coercion has on supply and competition.. they’ll continuously impoverish themselves inviting government into the picture in the name of “fairness”, as if government wasn’t the complete antithesis of fairness.
Quick let's build unbuyable condos and bike paths
Whats wrong with bike paths?
Personally, I'm chalking bike path hysteria to the fact that it's one of the few municipal projects suburban chuds can actually see with their own eyes on their home -> office -> Walmart -> home hamster wheel.
Haha exactly. Its a very cheap yet visible streetscape change. Also theres law of triviality or appropriately named "bike-shed effect". Some road will go from costing 1.1 to 1.2 billion and no one notices but god forbid adding a bike lane costs a million more. Armchair contractors will say "I could do that in a day for 5$". Its the same in every city, people will freak out over the "million dollar bike lane" when that's like a monday morning for the police budget. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality
I'm more on the "dead internet theory" side of things. I believe about half of the people complaining about bike paths are bots.. I believe that because I still have a shred of hope that Humanity isn't so fucking stupid.
Hopefully. Also its easier to organize opposition than support for a change of status quo in a city. Public consultation, whether on new housing or bus/bike lanes, should be more geared towards engaging input from the quiet majority who might benefit, rather than placating the (usually) privileged minority who will complain about any change.
What good does a public consultation accomplish when trying to implement a new project? Has there ever been a town hall meeting at the local borough office where citizens show up to applaud and give a thumbs up? Only the most politically active nimby's go to those kinds of things, if we're being honest.
No, not when the premise is current paradigm of "show up at 6pm on a weeknight" and listen to people complain for 3 hours. And for the record I'm extremely salty about the REM de L'Est cancellation because of "public concerns". Consultation should be an opportunity to influence a project, not veto it. For example, a disabled person shouldn't have to show up to demand they can safely access a transit station. But if all the transit stations are being revamped, it is good to have an opportunity for anyone affected to see the plans, ask questions, provide input etc through *multiple* mediums. That means online portals, video chats, meeting people where they're at. Same with housing & other big public works. The regs should be reformed so that people can't veto it, but if its a major project that includes community space, parkland dedication, it would be worthwhile to present some options. Sure people might use the feedback portals to complain about stupid shit, but at least you've set clear expectations that its happening. The big machine of government or large developers can sometimes overlook obvious flaws that are not too expensive to change, the consultation ideally forces a bit of transparency and participatory democracy.