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.
Parking is tough in Montreal. If you're building a condo, you should provide room on the property for parking for the residents.
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.
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!
Cars destroy cities.
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.