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

Canada

7169 readers
320 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Regions


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social & Culture


Rules

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

https://lemmy.ca


founded 3 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 4 months 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 β€” 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 4 months 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 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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 4 months 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 4 months 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 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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 4 months 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 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months 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.