Fuck you (not OP, but the people complaining). Build the housing.
Was there a study made on the light impact on the surronding neighborhood?
If some people are losing the sunlight for all the day because of a 25 story building, that is a valid objection.
Otherwise, that is a great project that will give some life back to that neighborhood.
It’s on the north side of the houses and will between the neighbourhood and a highway. If anything it will be quieter after the towers go in.
Makes sense, I didn’t think about the position of Place Versailles next to the highway and the industrial/commercial neighborhood right next to it up north.
Then it feels like straight NIMBYism.
I have not seen NIMBYism taken to this extreme before.
Like, objecting to a mall I can understand.
Objecting to green spaces and high-quality neighbourhoods? Like WTF, man?
It’s becauae NIMBY groups are often headed by rich local property owners who don’t want affordable housing to bring down the value of their properties.
Its the same thought process that makes people say things like “I hate wind turbines, they’re ugly and ruin the view”
Weellll… traditional large wind turbines have a shockingly low effectiveness/cost ratio, which is why they are best used in places where wind is blowing far more frequently than not, such as out in the ocean or on mountain tops. And they aren’t the prettiest. And they have massive space requirements to avoid negatively impacting each other.
Honestly, I much prefer solar power, which can be very densely applied and hoisted high enough to permit agriculture beneath it.
But yes.
if you don’t want condos - buy the lot yourself and leave it the way you like. done.
with investment comes risk. people need homes. that outweighs all of that risk when you choose not to buy the property yourself.
A house should not be an investment. One of the reasons we’re in this mess in the first place.
To an extent, I agree, but I also disagree. At minimum, you’re going to be investing time and emotional attachment to it, if not money. Where you live is probably the one of the most important parts of your life, next to who you’re living with.
I don’t think people should be allowed to invest in property to not live in it though. It shouldn’t be purely for financial gain. Primarily the purpose should be about giving people a place to live.
I don’t think people should be allowed to invest in property to not live in it though.It shouldn’t be purely for financial gain.
I believe that’s what the person you replied to was implying.
I don’t think of it in terms of “investing” when I’m making my home my own and maintaining it properly so I can continue to live there.
Yes, I meant in a way that prioritizes monetary gain. Improving property for ones own enjoyment is totally fine. Homes should not be thought of a good monetary investment vehicle, though. In fact, they usually aren’t when all costs are properly factored in.
exactly!
‘Oh, did you expect sunlight in the house you could afford? Should’ve bought ten million in additional property!’
Be serious.
It’s north of the people complaint don’t see how it would effect their sunlight.
Didn’t realize the developers were also planning a dome of darkness over the neighborhood
The new housing minister would disagree, housing prices need to go up. Brookfield is a job creator and owns residential real estate.
Source on that?
I’ve literally been in the wilderness camping the last week and I have not seen any news really
Thanks
That’s a crappy answer to a crappy question.
If you say yes then you’re going to ruin people’s finances, and if you say no you’re going to let the crisis continue. You can’t increase supply without affecting prices, so I agree with increasing supply but doing so effectively will reduce prices, that’s the whole point of increasing supply.
oh dont get me wrong. im just saying neighbors bitching is … laughable.
lol @ dumbasses who didn’t look at how their area was zoned before buying a house.
Pound sand, crybabies.
How an area is zoned should be flexible and therefore should not be relevant for making that judgement.
This opposition to housing is bad, but that lack of zoning research is not part of what makes it bad.
Twenty-story highrises? Yeah, I get it. ‘Welcome to living in the shadow of a monolith! No sky for you.’ Perfectly reasonable for people to say, ‘can you not.’
If they were objecting to four-over-ones, nah, fuck 'em.
The new buildings will be north of the existing neighbourhood, this is just NIMBY.
What it’s probably going to look like: https://cdn.realtor.ca/listing/TS638778055790070000/reb82/highres/3/e12022233_1.jpg
What we should be building: https://mastodon.online/@BrentToderian/114519452725292215
Montreal has been building pretty good stuff lately.
- For example, on island: https://technopoleangus.com/
- For example, off island: https://solaruniquartier.com/en/
Yeah I don’t know why so many comments are just being doomerist about this. Montréal is explicitly doing this to improve urbanism (literally what they say in the article) not just to make a condo.
Exactly. These developments are never walkable spaces and are never well connected with other parts of the city, making traffic worse and people even more car dependent.
NIMBYs don’t like either option, which means we always get the worst of the two.
let them cry
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot And now these new developers, They want to tear it all up.
Don’t it always seem to go, That somebody’s always going to complain? When you put in a garden, and stick some condos on top.
