Given an opportunity to confront the CityPlace Burlington developers on Thursday, Alexander LaVin had just one question.
“Are you for real?” he asked representatives from Brookfield Asset Management, the project’s majority owner. The crowd inside of Burlington City Hall erupted into applause.
“We wouldn’t be sitting here right now if we weren’t for real,” replied Aanen Olsen, Brookfield’s vice president of development. “We appreciate what the city has been through in the last year and a half, and we absolutely do take it for real.”
Thursday marked the first time the developers interacted with the public in the months since they announced a redesign of the downtown project last July. The company reps released renderings at a city council meeting late last October, when they pledged to begin construction this year.
That goal, they say, is still in sight. The developers are working to obtain state and local permits, a process Olsen said could take six months. Construction is scheduled to begin in August, he said; the project should be complete and occupied by 2023.
One big question mark: financing. Brookfield still doesn’t have it, Olsen said, though the Bank of the Ozarks is “interested.” The company is exploring “all avenues” to fund the project, the company exec continued.
The new design is about 25 percent smaller than the original proposal, and will top out at 10 stories tall. That’s compared to the 14 stories the developers once imagined, a height that divided city denizens.
Brookfield said in the fall that its new design would include 318 units of housing. But designs shown Thursday depicted 357 units, including 72 affordable apartments. Similarly, the proposed hotel will be bigger: 196 rooms, compared to the 174 imagined in an earlier iteration.
Despite the months of delays and extended periods of public silence, the developers received a relatively warm welcome Thursday afternoon from the audience, which spilled into the balcony. Another 90-minute presentation and question-and-answer session was planned for later Thursday.
Most of those who took the mic expressed gratitude that Brookfield appeared to be moving forward with the plans. Others offered suggestions to improve the design, particularly expanding the “green” roof. The plans call for only 10 percent of the roof to feature vegetation.
City Councilor Sharon Bushor (I-Ward 1) said she was concerned that the proposed amount of retail square footage had been reduced from the original. She said she hopes Brookfield will land commercial tenants for shoppers of all income levels.
“What will there be here to draw people from outside in, and what will there be here for the community members who once did business in Burlington that were displaced?” she asked.
Peter Calkins, Brookfield’s senior vice president of development, acknowledged Bushor’s desire for more shopping but said the company wants to keep retail storefronts on the street level. He added that Brookfield has tried to address the public’s calls for retail and housing while also staying within a smaller budget. The original proposal was too big and expensive to build, Calkins said.
Not everyone was impressed by what they saw. In an interview after Brookfield’s presentation, Nancy Kirby had doubts about whether the apartments will actually be “affordable,” and said she expects those tenants won’t be given a nice lake view.
A Queen City resident for 69 years, Kirby said she’s seen family businesses and homes razed in the name of urban renewal. She thinks Brookfield is making empty promises.
“I don’t want some fly-by-night bank coming in here and trying to fill that hole,” Kirby said. “It’s going to take more than that to fill the hole in my heart.”
Others were convinced that Brookfield will follow through.
“They’re for real,” resident Ann Taylor said.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Pretty funny that everyone thinks that the city owns this project. Brrokfield owns it! They are just playing nice and good for them.
Can’t wait for Franco, Goodkind and the Dogooders to come in and put a halt to this.
You really have to love that exactly one regional bank is “interested” in financing. But sure, construction will begin in August and everything will be complete by 2023.
LOL. Are they for real? Nope.
Is it possible to offer some sort of reduced rent to local retailers and restaurant owners within this new plan? All of Church Street has been affected by this terrible mistake and it’s so unfortunate. It would be such a shame for more national retailers to come to Burlington, taking away from the uniqueness of Vermont. I get it, a few are important and pay high rent, but entrepreneurs make Vermont a special place to visit and to live. Let’s help out our fellow Vermonter’s, who choose to live and work here, and thank them for taking the risk to open with the Church Street Marketplace adding to a vibrant community.
Expect the usual suspects to show up with a lawsuit in the coming months.
Odds of construction starting in 2020 are zero.
The notion that a politician should be *removed* from office because a private development project that he or she supported has been badly delayed because the developers were incompetent and/or not fully honest, makes no sense. Whats the standard for *removal*? How about *removal* of an official who admits he took public money he didnt earn? That actually happened, but I dont recall you calling for his *removal.*
People want to make negative comments about the project but at least they are still moving forward with a project and not just filing in the hole and walking away.
@Reenie- The classification for “Affordable” units is very clearly spelled out in city ordinance, so there is no guessing game.
Brookfield are still hedging their bets in case the economy goes in the tank. They have been less than honest during this whole procedure and shouldn’t be trusted now.
And they STILL don’t have financing??!! This doesn’t speak well for how banks view them.
Miro invited this mess, he should be removed from office.
What is the classification for the “affordable” units. 50% of median income? 80%? Or “fair market” rate which is not affordable for many in Burlington?
If financing isn’t wrapped up by now wont this potentially mean further delays?
Nancy Kirby had doubts about whether the apartments will actually be “affordable,” and said she expects those tenants won’t be given a nice lake view.
Really? There are plenty of reasons to bash this project. I’m not sure this is one of them.