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.

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/grand-montreal/2025-04-10/rosemont/50-logements-bloques-malgre-les-nouveaux-pouvoirs.php

  • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    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.

    • Victor Villas@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      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.

    • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • foggenbooty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

        • FireRetardant@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 days ago

          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.

    • acargitz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

    • lobut@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Warehouse@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 days ago

        Couldn’t they compromise on having underground parking for that building?

        Probably not, because underground parking is expensive.