this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2024
71 points (97.3% liked)

Canada

10329 readers
776 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Submitting for this truly astonishing quote:

" Landlords in Quebec, however, feel they need to catch up to other provinces as Quebec is still one of the most affordable places to live in the country, said Jean-Olivier Reed, a spokesperson for the Quebec Landlord Association (APQ)."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 31 points 1 year ago (3 children)

This is perfect and the various parties are surprisingly frank. For example:

Landlords in Quebec, however, feel they need to catch up to other provinces as Quebec is still one of the most affordable places to live in the country, said Jean-Olivier Reed, a spokesperson for the Quebec Landlord Association (APQ).

and:

"What we have built over the last years, the last months — it's mainly luxury condos or apartments because it's what we can afford to build right now," he said.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 year ago (2 children)

That's still good though. If there are people willing to move into those luxury places, they are probably freeing up some other capacity, and so on. More supply is never bad. As long as they are building in density, it will help with housing affordability.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

The assumption that they're freeing up other capacity isn't necessarily true. There are several counter samples on my mind and there are probably more.

In fact one of the main points of the article is that Montreal has been building faster than population growth and housing is still drastically going up in price.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago

In fact one of the main points of the article is that Montreal has been building faster than population growth and housing is still drastically going up in price.

That's because Montreal doesn't exist in a vacuum. It's maybe the only city in Canada with a remotely good approach to urbanism, and as a result one of the most affordable cities to buy housing in Canada. So there is added demand for Montreal real estate from the rest of the country, which contributes to rising prices.

[–] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

If there are people willing to move into those luxury places, they are probably freeing up some other capacity, and so on.

What about house flippers?

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How the hell does luxury=affordable to build. Affordable housing would be cheaper to build wouldn't it?

What they meant to say was "we have built luxury housing because it is more profitable"

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Those mean the same thing. Affordable for the developers = revenue - cost > 0. I think they said it explicitly a paragraph earlier, that they build what's profitable.

[–] FireRetardant@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Affordable housing can still be profitable to the land/building owner, It just isn't as profitable. Under our capitalist system line must go up and profits come before providing enough housing for all.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Of course. But if the land/labor/materials have gone so high in price, it is possible that even with zero profit the final price for units goes beyond what is considered affordable housing. I don't know if that's the case in Montreal or not.

With that said, even if affordable housing is not profitable for land/building owner, it's still "profitable" for the community around and in that future building. So from that angle, even if it's unprofitable for the land/building owner, it should be "profitable" for the public/government. And if that's the case, then it's kinda pointless to rely on the market to find it profitable enough to build affordable housing.

But then someone would say that would mean some builders won't make as much as they otherwise could which means line won't go up as much, government bad, free market good, fml... ☠️

In any case, I think we should put the market in its place and build affordable housing without waiting for it to consider it profitable. That's a perfect example where even creating new money can be a net benefit.