Montreal City Weblog

Kate 13:36 on 2019-12-06 Permalink Reply  

• david100 20:09 on 2019-12-06 Permalink

  So, it’s a 9% increase in multi-story, 11% increase in -plex. How do you get such a huge jump in a single year?

  L’Association professionnelle des courtiers immobiliers du Québec a aussi observé que l’offre de propriétés résidentielles s’est repliée pour un 50e mois consécutif.

  Oh, the supply coming to market is shrinking.

  And then this:

  The Association professionnelle des courtiers immobiliers du Québec (APCIQ) on Friday reported that 4,084 residential sales were completed in November, up 13 per cent compared to November 2018.

  So, as the supply coming to market is shrinking, the number of sales in increasing! Ie. people moving to the region are buying more but the market is smaller.

  So prices are going up! And with them gentrification and displacement.

  But, of course, listening to our Plateau government, building new housing is the source of higher prices, gentrification, and displacement.

• Faiz imam 20:48 on 2019-12-06 Permalink

  both can be true. it’s not just “housing” there is a difference between high priced luxury condos and more affordable units.

  We are generally building more expensive new housing in the center, and often removing cheaper units to do it. that gets reflected in the numbers as well.

• Kate 11:17 on 2019-12-07 Permalink

  david100, I see one big flaw in your fetish for bigger, higher, denser buildings, which is this: our population is not growing so fast, so what you’re saying to me, and people like me, is that we should be delighted to live in 300 sq.ft. (rather than, say, the 700-750 sq.ft. we now have), on the 23rd floor of some anonymous highrise with no view except other highrises, with no access to the exterior, for twice what we pay now – and for what? So some investor somewhere can profit. Not for our good, or the good of the community, or the benefit of the environment. For profit.

• Filp 12:13 on 2019-12-07 Permalink

  The issue is always more complicated than just supply and demand, but I wish we would stop ignoring that the basis of the market is still vaguely supply and demand, regardless of other issues like Airbnb and foreign investors. Kate, new construction comes in many forms, and especially in Montreal, it rarely comes in the form of you living in 300 sq.ft on the 23rd floor. A lot of people *do* like that however, and the amenities those buildings provide, so I would prefer someone is building them. But I’m personally going to be looking for the low rise type. And that’s fine. Construction should not be opposed because you wouldn’t be delighted living in a condo. But some people really don’t mind exchanging square footage for amenities or location! If people are buying them, then clearly some part of the market is being satisfied, and if they weren’t being built, where would that market go? If you’ve been in one of these buildings it’s quite clear (despite the hand wringing) that a majority of the units are actually occupied and lived in.

  I don’t think david100 was trying to be anti regulation in his comment either. 300.sq.ft is definitely horribly small, probably the lowest limit I can imagine someone living in for a studio. I think there is a difference between imposing minimum unit sizes and social housing requirements vs being purely obstructionist because you can’t fathom people living in a condo. I fully support a regulated market. But if you attend public consultations, at least half of the comments always end up being a roundabout way of saying – “I know people need a place to live, but can’t it just be somewhere else!!!!!”

• Kate 12:55 on 2019-12-07 Permalink

  Flip, if I wanted to live like that I would’ve gone to live in a bigger city long ago. I’m mostly still arguing with david100, who has in the past championed the ideal of razing neighbourhoods like Rosemont and Villeray in favour of a more Hong Kong style cityscape.

  It may come to that, of course. But not in my time.

• Michael Black 13:05 on 2019-12-07 Permalink

  I thought that some concerned about the environment made the case for denser housing.

  Less travel, less heating compared to.isolated houses, I can’t remember what else. Probably less space for stuff so you won’t be as much of a consumer.

  Ihave no idea how valid it is, but I think it’s a school of thought. And then others can propagate it, withiut adding or subtracting from the theory.

• Faiz Imam 15:08 on 2019-12-08 Permalink

  Kate, one correction. Montréal is actually growing quite a lot, unfortunately most of that growth is unsustainable suburban housing.

  Moves like protection for agricultural lands is one part of the solution, but increasing density in the urban areas is the other to stop that spread.

  And while I accept 30 storey condo towers are part of the solution in certain areas of the CBD, it’s clear that lower scale projects are best farther out. We should be able to agree on slight increases in density without fear mongering about turning every street into Manhattan.

• Mark Côté 22:12 on 2019-12-08 Permalink

  I have a family member who is a professor of political science. Although he supports building more social housing, he pointed me at this interesting article on upzoning (allowing taller and denser buildings) and how it won’t fix housing prices alone: https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/05/housing-supply-home-prices-economic-inequality-cities/588997/

  One quote:

  As [Economist Tyler Cowen] puts it, “the gains from removing taxes/restrictions on building largely will be captured by landowners … More stuff will be built, urban output will expand, land still will be the scarce factor, and by the end of the process rents still will be high.” And a recent study by Yonah Freemark found that upzoning in Chicago led to higher, not lower, housing prices, while having no discernible impact on local housing supply.

• Faiz Imam 00:27 on 2019-12-09 Permalink

  There is up zoning, then there is up zoning.

  Taking an urban lot that fits a 4 floor walk-up or apartment block allowing a 20 floor condo tower is problematic, but an encouraging tactic that we are seeing more commonly especially in The USA is wholesale dezoning of single family suburban areas and allowing ALL those areas to build row houses, triplexes, small apartments as desired.

  It’s the sort of thing that can quickly turn a very low density area into something quite decent after a few years, and because it’s so low scale it tends not to bother folks (apart from immediate neighbours, as in the other story today)

  While straight up banning single family houses is not in the cards, allowing areas that have them to move away from that type of they want is very important.