102

Montreal Mall with giant parking lot to be replaced by gardens and condos. Some neighborhood residents are unhappy. They say they don't want tall condos near their single-family homes. (www.lapresse.ca)

submitted 2 days ago* (last edited 1 day ago) by dwazou@lemm.ee to c/canada@lemmy.ca

33 comments fedilink hide all child comments

What it currently looks like:

https://costar.brightspotcdn.com/dims4/default/7706ba2/2147483647/strip/true/crop/5000x3331+0+0/resize/2100x1399!/quality/100/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fcostar-brightspot.s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com%2F7f%2F04%2Feed9a1d24574ae823ff092216d18%2Faerial-2025-04-07t113800.729.jpg

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 42 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 46 points 2 days ago

A house should not be an investment. One of the reasons we're in this mess in the first place.

[-] flandish@lemmy.world 9 points 2 days ago

exactly!

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 11 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 8 points 1 day ago

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.

[-] OminousOrange@lemmy.ca 8 points 2 days ago

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.

[-] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works -3 points 1 day ago

'Oh, did you expect sunlight in the house you could afford? Should've bought ten million in additional property!'

Be serious.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago)

Didn’t realize the developers were also planning a dome of darkness over the neighborhood

[-] Auli@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

It's north of the people complaint don't see how it would effect their sunlight.

[-] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

The new housing minister would disagree, housing prices need to go up. Brookfield is a job creator and owns residential real estate.

[-] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 4 points 2 days ago

Source on that?

I’ve literally been in the wilderness camping the last week and I have not seen any news really

[-] toastmeister@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yCs7n00Xchg

[-] wise_pancake@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

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.