Homeowners in the Rosemont neighborhood of Montreal successfully killed an affordable housing project that was supposed to add 50 condos on an empty lot. This is happening despite the housing crisis that the city is facing.
The proposal looked like this.
But the local homeowners opposed it.
They feared losing a sunny view and precious parking spots for their cars.
“Our entire neighborhood is only 3-storey buildings or smaller” says Hugo Didier, the leader of the local anti-housing movement. “We do not want tall buildings here. It is just too inconvenient” he said.
Local city council members in Rosemont-La-Petite-Patrie initially supported the project. « We are facing a major housing crisis, we need to do more » said mayor Francois Limoges. What they didn’t expect was the opposition.
158 individuals signed a petition against the new project, demanding a neighborhood referendum. At least 200 people showed up at a public hearing. Under pressure, the council shut down the entire project.
Real estate developer Félix Péladeau-Langevin was behind the proposal. He planned to build 50 new condos. « The location is good. It’s close to public transit and to a bike lane. I didn’t plan to add any parking spot » he told us.
Péladeau said he was disappointed by the opposition from local homeowners. “They went door to door. They convinced everyone to put their name and signature against the proposal, demanding a referendum”
Protest leader Hugo Didier says he reached out to the developer and offered a compromise. Just build a small building.
« I look at the cost of the land and the cost of construction. If they don’t want a multi-storey building, it’s just not worth it » Péladeau said.
nimby, its almost always rich and or white people, west coast is plagued by them,.
Annoying NIMBY gentrifiers.
This development is in an area of the city where you kind of have to be a masochist to have a car anyway. Shouldn’t have given in to the Nimbys.
“We do not want tall buildings here. It is just too inconvenient” he said.
Set up homeless encampments outside then. People need to live. They can either let a building go up, or let the homeless live there instead.
People who are pro housing devleopment could protest by setting up a tent for each unit that wasn’t built, to help visualize the number of people pushed away from housing because our shiny metal boxes are somehow more important.
Parking is tough in Montreal. If you’re building a condo, you should provide room on the property for parking for the residents.
I live in this neighborhood, let me tell you, you fucking don’t. I don’t own a car, I have 0 problem getting anywhere or doing anything. If I ever need that kind of vehicle our city had an entire service to easily get one for very cheap.
If you own a 5 ton killing machine, you should be responsible to store it on your own property.
If you cant afford a garage/driveway, then you cant afford a car
Its bonkers that we spend so much city funds to make every road and sideroad and street an extra 1-2 lanes wide, then store private vehicles there… The snow storm in Toronto was fun to watch. Main streets with cars that had been parked for over a week. Not because they were trapped, I get that the first few days. But because they leave what, once or twice a month?
Speaking from experience. My mother-in-law just said “oh well I’ll walk.” For 2 weeks, before we realized she just couldn’t unbury her car on her own. So why does she own a car that lives permanently on a side street?
Listening to our Wanna-Be-Mayor shutting down our bike lanes because they block traffic, I drive (yes I’m part of the problem) daily along routes that have parking outside of morning rush hour or whatever, and I’ll count 19 cars over a 2km stretch that essentially turn 2 lanes into 1 plus sometimes a turning lane. But yes. It’s the bike lanes that are the problem…
The Japanese does this!
That’s not how to urbanize in Montréal in 2025 . As the article says it’s in an area where you have public transport, bike lanes and everything is accessible within walking distance. It’s the people that want to have a car and also live in a densely populated area that take up too much space.
Orthogonal point.
If only we could decide whether having a place for people to live was more important than dedicating public spaces for storing private vehicles
We can have both with well-placed parking garages, but I’m guessing these people wouldn’t like that either. They want their open space so bad, but they don’t realize how much more room for nature there is when you condense the cars and living spaces a bit. And you save a ton of money on things like plumbing and roofing when responsibility for the building is shared.
Look, as much as I think people should be taking transit and bikes as much as possible, for the developer not to provide a single parking lot for a building that size is silly.
Edit: I meant to say “single parking spot” not lot.
Is that sillier than forcing people who are not interested in owning a car to get a place with parking spots anyway? Because that’s where we are today. It is hard to find a building like this, and I’d love it.
It’s right next to a couple of major bus arteries, both of which take you to the metro and a major multi-use pathway (one of the best in Montreal). Given the housing shortage in the city, it really shouldn’t be hard to find 50 families willing to make that particular compromise.
So don’t rent that specific condo if you have a car. It is supposed to be an affordable development and cars are expensive. Many people who need affordable housing the most don’t own a car and the land close to transit and bike lanes should be prioritized for them instead of cars.
I never said they needed one space per unit, but say, 10 spaces for the 50 units would have likely been enough to dissuade fears of the local residents.
Downvote me all you like but the place isn’t being built now because of this decision, so the area gets nothing.
The place isnt being built because residents of other buildings are currently using the empty lot for free parking and the building was taller than others in this neighborhood. NIMBYism killed this building, not some flaw in the design.
I’m confused by this article a bit.
Couldn’t they compromise on having underground parking for that building? I wonder if it’s like, well if we have SO many people then the local parking is going to be flooded too. Although, if it’s that local would they even drive?
Maybe it’s not feasible to do underground parking in which case it would take up spots all around, which I half get. Car-based towns and stuff have really done a number on us.
Couldn’t they compromise on having underground parking for that building?
Probably not, because underground parking is expensive.
