Not that I oppose developing urban housing for those that can pay for it, but there has been practically no new development of co-ops, public housing, or other forms of social housing in the neighbourhood or anywhere in central Montréal in recent years. Grrrr.

Up in my end, l'enjeu is what is going to happen to the old municipal ateliers next to Rosemont métro, and in general, all the buildings and site earmarked for the U de M superhospital: many buildings have been left to crumble. That whole area could be redeveloped with housing in a highly desirable area to bridge the gap between Mile-End/western Plateau and La Petite Patrie/Petite Italie - it remains to be seen how much social housing will be built.

As for debator, I am SO sick of stereotyping "baby boomers" as wealthy. I'm definitely a boomer, definitely not wealthy, and I know a hell of a lot of other people my age who aren't and never will be either. If you are an engineer, you are probably wealthier than I am, even though I could be your mum.

Edited to add: As an environmentalist, I see urban densification as a very positive trend - the problem is making denser housing in areas with good access to public transport, services and amenities available to all.

[ 16 February 2006: Message edited by: lagatta ]

Actually, now that I think about it, there's talk about converting the former Canada Post sorting centre in Little Burgandy to social housing. That definitely qualifies as central Montreal. I'm not sure what stage that's at, probably "being studied."

Fact is, boomers are getting older, which means that they are consuming goods and services related to their aging (i.e. health care, easier living, etc.) This means that these types of services will be a priority item for both the marketplace and for government, simply becuase of the number of people within the population that demand those types of services.

Downsizing is something many boomers are doing, regardless of how financially well off they are. They simply don't wish to take care of yards, houses, etc. A nice side effect to this is that they move into higher density living areas, which is definitely a positive move which I agree with.

I would argue though that although many municipalities say they wish to have a higher urban population (and infrastructure), their actions run contrary to their wishes. For example, I totally agree with you that accessible and affordable public transportation is required to achieve this goal, yet instead of creating a higher demand for public transportation through lower or potentially subsidized fares, fares over the last years are increasing, providing no financial incentive to use the public system.

As far as the last owner problem goes, I would hope it's more than 30 years away. My co-op was badly built and our engineers still say it has an indefinite life with good maintainance and upgrading.