City councilors seemed torn between excitement and wariness Monday night as they discussed an agreement they’re being asked to sign with the New York developer who’s planning a massive overhaul of the downtown mall.
They heard from dozens of prominent businesspeople, architects, construction executives and even a few inveterate environmental activists, who exhorted them to go ahead and sign what’s called a pre-development agreement, spelling out the public and private responsibilities for the project.
Developer Don Sinex plans to spend $200 million to turn the struggling Burlington Town Center into a mix of housing, offices and retail stores that would total 1.25 million square feet. He and Mayor Miro Weinberger are pushing the council to approve the agreement by May 2, so Sinex can start pursuing zoning changes and assembling the financing, among other tasks.
“If there’s a place for density in Burlington, this is it,” said Kate McCarthy of the Vermont Natural Resources Council.
“If you don’t go forward, you go backwards,” said an animated Ernie Pomerleau, who runs a major real estate business with his father, Tony Pomerleau. “Don’t miss this moment.”
SymQuest founder Pat Robins and retired architect Bill Truex, who helped lead the effort to convert Church Street into a pedestrian mall, told the council that Sinex’s proposal represents a similar opportunity to transform the downtown.
The project does have skeptics: Steve Goodkind, the former Public Works director and a 2015 mayoral candidate, said the size of the project is “totally inappropriate.” Outdoor Gear Exchange owner Marc Sherman said he’s also “very concerned about the overall massing and design.” Sherman, whose store is located on Church Street next to the Town Center, added that he’s worried construction will endanger nearby businesses.
Much of the public debate about the mall project has focused on its size and design, which includes a 14-story residential tower.
But Monday night, after most of the members of the public had gone home, councilors turned to a different question: Is it financially feasible?
They made cautionary references to the EB-5 scandal — federal and state officials now allege that an extensive development project in the Northeast Kingdom, once almost universally heralded by local officials, was a “Ponzi-like scheme.”
Councilor Karen Paul asked for more detail about how Sinex planned to finance the project.
“I am a risk taker but not a foolish one. This project will be built in a very traditional way,” Sinex responded, explaining that he plans to raise about $60 million from investors, with the balance financed with institutional loans.
Multiple councilors said they want to see market studies showing that there’s demand for this kind of development, in particular the additional retail. “I think the public needs more than our gut feelings,” said councilor Joan Shannon.
Weinberger and Sinex suggested that these studies will take place at a later date, noting that lenders and investors will also want evidence of the project’s economic soundness.
The council will review the agreement with its lawyers this Wednesday.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
A bigger question needs to be asked: what are the long-term land use goals for Burlington? Is the idea for Burlington to become more like skyscraper cities such as New York and Chicago? Or is it to be like low-rise cities such as Washington, DC? The latter is lauded for its height restrictions that allow for sunlight and an airy, open feel. No one would say that about mid-town Manhattan. Both are thriving cities. The question is what does Burlington want to become? It would not happen overnight but once the precedent is set by waiving the height restriction for Sinex, the horse will be out of the barn for all future projects in the years ahead.
Note how many of the people speaking at this meeting do not even live in Burlington – Tom Torti of Colchester; Kate McCarthy of Montpelier; Don Sinex does not even live in Vermont. On the other hand, you do have to respect Ernie Pomerleau and his father because they are both long-time/life-long Burlington residents.
I certainly agree with the goals of the mayor and developer to enhance our already excellent walkable and vibrant downtown. But see no reason why those goals cannot be accomplished within the existing zoning. If we are not going to follow zoning laws and the Comprehensive Plan, why bother having any Planning and Zoning department to begin with? The taxpayers have spoken in designing these laws and plan – let’s listen to the residents!
It is absolute ridiculous hypocrisy that Tom Torti, head of the Lake Champlain Regional Chamber of Commerce, is trying to convince Burlingtonians that their payoff in this is increased tax revenue from property and business owners (see: Burlington Free Press) and yet the rest of the time organizations like LCRCC and business owners are filling our ears with the constant whining about Burlington, and Vermont in general, being an unfriendly tax-heavy location where business can’t flourish.
Just utter garbage.
I agree with Chris. It has not been demonstrated that there is a need to go to 14 stories, as no one is even building up to the 10 stories that current zoning allows. And Steve Goodkind’s comments about the overall massing of this structure are very accurrate and important. The shadows cast by this building in the Winter will be huge. There are sections of downtown north of this building that will get zero direct sunlight the entire day.
The City is falling into a pattern now of letting individual projects dictate zoning, rather than have zoning dictate the projects. The same thing is happening with the project on the Burlington College/Diocese land. This is a terrible precident, and a recipe for disaster. Not only is it unsound procedually, but it disrespects the efforts of volunteer boards and residents, who work hard to come up with a plan for how they want the City to grow.
And lastly, the City Councilors are on-the-money with their concern about finances. This is an incredibly ambitious undertaking. Unforseen circumstances occur quite often with large projects, and it is not uncommon for changes in the financial markets, economy, and other factors to derail something like this. Will the City be left with a big hole in the ground, like Newport, or with a resulting project vastly different than what is being proposed? This absolutely could happen…because it happens frequently.
Gonna be a waste of time and money at the end I think.
Hurry up and get it passed before the people of Burlington knows what hit them. Meanwhile, the mayor is lining his pockets and some guy from out of state makes millions more.
More uninformed defamatory garbage from Mt. Philo. Explain the actual facts of your accusation that the Mayor is lining his pockets.
too huge and too high…pie in the sky? decrease the size of the towers. Like the reconnection of Pine and St.Paul St.s. However it is such a huge mass, bogles the mind.
For starters, look at the list of developers that are funding Weinberger’s campaign.
Shops keep going out of business on Church St and the mall hasn’t been full for years. Where is the need for more market space, and is this just an attempt to move poorer people out of the city? It looks good for a city of 250,000 but that’s not the way we are. As it is, many locals can’t afford the shops on Church St. Unless you put a Target into this new construction, it won’t have anything for those who live in the area on a shoestring budget.
What does that have to do with “lining his pockets”? Once again you make false, uninformed statements.
The size of the building in the graphic above looks totally inappropriate for the Burlington town center area.
Most notably, the shadow of this structure is going to cast right over Church st. Church St is a little gem of a place and something like this could seriously overwhelm it.
I come from Glasgow in Scotland where large segments of the city were ruined by many over zealous ‘developments’ in th 1970s that later turned out to be missteps. I would urge caution, and a step by step approach. Try a small part first and see how it works out/what it looks like, rather than launch a massive single phase development. The risks would be minimized if it is done step by step.