Montreal loses residents to the suburbs
It’s not a new trend, but the city keeps losing residents to the suburbs, although this explanation rather confusingly contrasts the migratory behaviour of immigrants with non‑immigrants in this regard.
-
Kate
Reply
Ephraim 09:13 on 2020-02-26 Permalink
How is the city supposed to increase residents when we aren’t building enough new places for them to move to…. we really don’t have much of a plan. Clear out some of the industrial areas that aren’t really being used anymore. Buy out areas that are single level low density… build more and higher. It’s good for the city to grow density wise… good for the businesses. And if we build more LEED certified…better all around.
Faiz Imam 09:25 on 2020-02-26 Permalink
Dude what?
There are literally multiple plans at all levels to do exactly what you describe.
It’s happening, but perhaps too slowly.
Ephraim 10:22 on 2020-02-26 Permalink
Where do you see new developments for housing in Montreal? All I’m seeing, other than Griffintown is infill… especially in the worst spots next to train tracks.
I’ll give a example, near the Olympic stadium, which is a good location because it’s right on the metro, along the far east, you have single level housing (which used to be called twelve-fives, because after the war they sold for $12,500 which was what a soldier could afford as he was being released.) The area of the Pro-Gym, which was an old Pontiac dealer, with a giant parking lot. The houses can be rebuilt with higher density. The commercial street allows for taller buildings, some greenery around it, maybe even social housing and then commercial property at the bottom.
And maybe it’s time to rethink things like… the Bordeaux jail, the SAAQ, the closed Loblaws…. all right near the Gare Bois-de-Boulogne. Government land, a great place for social housing because it has easy public transit access. Some higher density, some social housing, green space.
And finally, a rule to change zonage if a commercial/industrial property isn’t unused or abandoned for a period of time. That’s right… if you leave a building with no tenant, maybe after 5 years, you the city should be allowed to buy it and redevelop it, rather than leave it fallow.
Faiz imam 10:43 on 2020-02-26 Permalink
This is one example of what the CMM is working on.
https://cmm.qc.ca/communiques/la-cmm-propose-des-solutions-pour-freiner-letalement-urbain-et-developper-le-transport-collectif/
Recall that the government can’t force construction, all they can do is create rules and regulations, zoning, to allow for the “right” type of construction.
I know these zoning changes have happened and are still being improved, but at the end of the day its up to the owners of the places you mentioned to decide to demolish whats there are take advantage of the new rules.
Ephraim 15:23 on 2020-02-26 Permalink
There a way to expropriate, but also put in right of refusal, change taxation of zones, for example. Allow houses to be demolished and new densities required. It needs laws and interest. And ways to work with developers as well. You can look at low density and offer to move them, so you can rebuild at higher density. For example, the buildings at L’Acadie and Henri Bourassa… the apartment buildings that were there were replaced with higher density. Then look at the apartment buildings on Decarie between Poirier and Cote-Vertu…. the density could be improved, the amount of greenery could be improved and if you have ever been in those apartments…. you know they need it. (Yes, I realize this is St-Laurent and you can’t build that tall, but yet on Cote Vertu near Place Vertu, they are 6 to 8 story buildings.
Have you seen what they have done with Wilderton shopping centre? Some commercial space needs to go. And the city needs a formula for parking for commercial space…. like how much commercial space needs how much parking and after that formula, extra parking should have a higher tax rate.