Major development plan for eastern Point St-Charles

[Doctor D]

This goes a bit beyond some of the industrial projects for this sector (near Victoria Bridge)

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/major-development-plan-for-eastern-point-st-charles-leaves-housing-groups-wary-1.5836735

[Rocco]

They are at it again. Now that the Baseball Stadium is dead, its another thing that makes them "scared". Those people in PSC love to beat a dead horse over and over again, as long as nothing changes. Beer cans, bag of chips, monthly check, balcony watching and fear mongering in the news when a new project "comes up" is the way of life in this neighbourhood. Ever heard of trying to turn your life around instead of criticizing success?? 

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 2 heures, Doctor D a dit :

This goes a bit beyond some of the industrial projects for this sector (near Victoria Bridge)

https://montreal.ctvnews.ca/major-development-plan-for-eastern-point-st-charles-leaves-housing-groups-wary-1.5836735

Thanks for sharing this article.  I am just amazed how such announcement is met as a bad news by  'housing groups".  It shows that they have a very poor understanding of the housing market and what drives prices up  -- which is, to a large extent, rarity/shortage.  Many people are attracted by a PSC location, and because supply is currently very limited, the few housing units  available command high prices, to the detriment of existing residents.  A substantial increase in supply, such as envisioned in this "development plan for eastern PSC", would lessen this pressure.   

[mont royal]

Current residents definitely should be wary. Everything will depend on what is actually being supplied. If the main objective is gentrification, then many will have to leave their neighbourhood and  probably will be forced to live further away from the city centre. 

Developers have a natural tendency to build units which will bring a higher return. So, in my view we are not dealing with abstract economics, we are dealing with hard core politics...and without strong political engagement by locals, they will get the short end of the stick. 

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 2 heures, mont royal a dit :

Current residents definitely should be wary. Everything will depend on what is actually being supplied. If the main objective is gentrification, then many will have to leave their neighbourhood and  probably will be forced to live further away from the city centre. 

Developers have a natural tendency to build units which will bring a higher return. So, in my view we are not dealing with abstract economics, we are dealing with hard core politics...and without strong political engagement by locals, they will get the short end of the stick. 

In my view, gentrification is already taking place, within the existing built-up residential neighborhoods of PSC, to the detriment of the remaining existing residents.  It is happening due to the recently discovered attractiveness of this location.*  People with more money want to move in, and they are prepared to pay way more than the actual residents, who are forced to move out. A perfect description of the gentrification process universally.  I agree that (quote) "Developers have a natural tendency to build units which will bring a higher return".   Let us take it as a given, something that will not change. However, consider the following points:

1) The city has the power to force developers to include a given portion of housing units offered at below market rates, and enable them to still make money overall.  Result: a net increase in the number of low cost housing units.

2)  Simultaneously, the new housing units offered at market rates can meet a substantial portion of the demand arising from weathier people: this should lessen the gentrification pressure on the existing, older and cheaper housing stock.

3) In the absence of investments from profit-seeking developers: a) gentrification pressures on the existing stock will remain; and b) the public supply of new low-cost housing will remain constrained by the limited availability of public funds devoted to that purpose. Of course, if public funding  was plentiful, this would not be an issue.   

Conclusion:  no to free-for-all, but also no to the exclusion of private developers; just yes to an intelligent mix having the potential to achieve the real goal of providing enough affordable housing to the needy residents of PSC, all the while opening a new area to regular for-profit development.  "Hard-core politics" would bear much fewer fruits.  

* If PSC was in an isolated rural location in decline, or in a truly unattractive one, but with the same local socio-economic conditions, housing costs would be much lower.  But it is not.

 

[Spiter_01]

I feel like gentrification really gets overused as a catch all term to explain rising rents in historically poorer neighbourhoods, when the simple fact of building new units shouldn't be considered as gentrification. 

It's self-evident that a modern new construction (that has more stringent construction codes to abide by) will have a higher cost basis, thus higher rents, than a low-rise units that were built over half a century ago. Now there's certainly other factors that added on could be considered gentrifying agents but at face value that argument implies we shouldn't build anything unless it's only low-rent social housing that's heavily subsidized because any other new construction inherently introduces higher rent units into the market. 

[Né entre les rapides]

Il y a 9 heures, Spiter_01 a dit :

I feel like gentrification really gets overused as a catch all term to explain rising rents in historically poorer neighbourhoods, when the simple fact of building new units shouldn't be considered as gentrification. 

It's self-evident that a modern new construction (that has more stringent construction codes to abide by) will have a higher cost basis, thus higher rents, than a low-rise units that were built over half a century ago. Now there's certainly other factors that added on could be considered gentrifying agents but at face value that argument implies we shouldn't build anything unless it's only low-rent social housing that's heavily subsidized because any other new construction inherently introduces higher rent units into the market. 

Granted.  I will note that it does not really matter whether it is called "gentrification" or not.  The latter part of your message is a fine illustration of the falsehood of arguments against new constructions, considering that the root problem of increasing housing costs is scarcity  -- insufficient supply to meet actual demand.    

[mont royal]

OI think that you are veering away from the underlying issue. This discussion began with the assertion that local residents have nothing to fear, or worse, that they are simple ne’er do wells. 

Some good points were made about how it is possible, with appropriate government support, to allay their fears, and to have a community with varying levels of wealth. I support that vision, but I think that we are in danger of minimizing the complexities of actually achieving that vision.

When low income owners go up against the wishes of developers, the odds are not in their favour. 

As to the cost of new building codes, thèse will be handled quite comfortably by the newcomers.

My guess is that over time, many many long-term residents of the Point will be forced to  to leave their community...unwillingly.

, 

[Weka 29]

Le 2022-03-27 à 21:36, Rocco a dit :

They are at it again. Now that the Baseball Stadium is dead, its another thing that makes them "scared". Those people in PSC love to beat a dead horse over and over again, as long as nothing changes. Beer cans, bag of chips, monthly check, balcony watching and fear mongering in the news when a new project "comes up" is the way of life in this neighbourhood. Ever heard of trying to turn your life around instead of criticizing success?? 

Bien dit!

[SameGuy]

Isn’t this article discussing the existing Bridge-Bonaventure proposals (for which we already have a thread)?