Last fall, flyers distributed by opponents of three 14-story buildings in downtown Burlington proclaimed, “Too tall!” The proposed residential and office development would tower above the Church Street Marketplace shopping mall.
Activists involved in the Coalition for a Livable City failed to convince Queen City voters in November to reject two ballot items that would allow the 165-foot-high project to proceed. But they did succeed in perpetuating the debate about how tall is too tall in a small city where no current edifice exceeds 124 feet.
Burlington’s existential question may not have an answer. Judgments regarding height, as with beauty, are formed in the eye of the beholder. As former New York Times architecture critic Ada Louise Huxtable famously observed, “The skyscraper is Orwellian or Olympian, depending on how you look at it.”
Genese Grill, a coalition leader and now a city council candidate, is continuing to campaign against the Burlington Town Center project, calling it “vertical sprawl.” The structures would be “completely out of scale with their surroundings,” she said. Plus, Grill pointed out, high-rises “have been found in some studies to be associated with isolation, depression and alienation for those who live in them.”
One such study by Robert Gifford, a professor in the School of Environmental Studies at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, observed that high-rises “are not optimal for children, that social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less than in other housing forms, that crime and fear of crime are greater, and that they may independently account for some suicides.”
The proposed buildings would be aesthetically ruinous to Burlington’s natural as well as its built environment, warns Robert Herendeen, a fellow at the University of Vermont’s Gund Institute for Ecological Economics. “They’re going to block views of the incredibly beautiful lake and mountains,” he said. “They’ll be oppressive to people on the street because they’ll cast more shadows.”
Paul Bruhn, executive director of Preservation Trust of Vermont, agrees that 14-story buildings would be out of proportion with Burlington’s cityscape — except where developer Don Sinex wants to put them. “That location is the one place in the city that taller buildings won’t have a negative effect,” Bruhn said.
He noted that the towers would be set back from Church and Cherry streets — and thus would not be intrusively visible from those perspectives. The design has been “significantly improved” in response to some of the objections lodged by opponents, Bruhn added. He cited other elements of the project as unequivocally beneficial for Burlington, especially the planned restoration of north-south traffic corridors through downtown via Pine and St. Paul streets.
Proponents also point out that the $200 million development will help ease Burlington’s housing crunch. One-fifth of the residential units — 55 of 270 — are to be made available at below-market rates to qualified prospective tenants.
Michael Monte, an affordable-housing advocate and former director of the city’s Community & Economic Development Office, offered a perspective similar to Bruhn’s. “I’m agnostic on the issue of tall buildings,” Monte said. “They obviously wouldn’t be appropriate on the waterfront, but as they’re designed, they make sense on top of a one-story building that’s just a horrible use of land in the heart of downtown.”
Jesse Beck, the project’s architect, regards 14 stories as a reasonable height in principle for center-city Burlington. “I don’t consider this very tall at all,” he said. “It provides a perfect balance that enables the city to grow in a smart, environmentally positive way.” Besides, Beck remarked, “it’s not until you get up to the Hill Section that you’ll see how tall these buildings are.” Their height will be obvious from the lake, too.
For the past 20 years, Beck added, “the City of Burlington hasn’t had the proper regulations to allow needed density downtown.” As president of the Freeman French Freeman architectural firm, he noted, “I’ve worked with clients who haven’t been able to find a way to get sound projects to pay for themselves.
“Burlington is a city that needs to grow up,” Beck continued.
Other tall buildings will rise in downtown in the coming years and decades, Beck predicted, suggesting that such developments will be good for the city. Local urban planner Julie Campoli shares that outlook. Unless Burlington promotes urban-style growth, she warned, “it will become irrelevant.” In addition to losing population, Campoli foresees a low-density Queen City “becoming an enclave for the wealthy.” And the city can meaningfully grow only in an upward direction, she maintained.
These visions of a mid-21st-century downtown with a half dozen or more high-rises are the stuff of nightmares for Grill and others who worry that the Sinex project will set a precedent. “Once developers are able to build high, they’ll build high, and the result will be oppressive,” Grill foresees.
Huxtable, who died four years ago, wouldn’t disagree. In her 1982 essay titled “The Tall Building Artistically Reconsidered,” she observed, “From the Tower of Babel onward, the fantasies of builders have been vertical rather than horizontal.”
Opponents of the 14-story Burlington Town Center plan emphasize that they aren’t against greater density downtown. “I’d be OK with more six- or even eight-story buildings,” said Charles Simpson, a member of the Coalition for a Livable City who, like Grill, is running against a Sinex project supporter for a city council seat. “It’s good to have more people living and working downtown.”
But Simpson believes that Mayor Miro Weinberger is moving too quickly and aiming too high in facilitating large-scale residential development. “We’ve got a developer mayor rather than a mayor with a background in development,” he said.
Coalition members argue that it’s possible to make Burlington a more densely populated city by constructing three- to six-story mid-rise buildings on parcels that today languish as parking lots or function as gas stations or single-story retail establishments. Projects of this sort, known as in-fill development, “would bring in a great deal of apartments even with existing zoning regs,” Simpson said.
That generally isn’t the case, countered David White, director of Burlington’s Planning and Zoning Department. Current regs obligate developers to provide one off-street parking spot for each residential unit they build, he noted. That entails a per-parked-car cost of $20,000 to $40,000, raising the per-unit construction cost by as much as 30 percent, White said. “Depending on the size and configuration of the site, on-site parking requirements can be a deterrent to almost any kind of development,” he wrote in an email.
But with the aim of making residential construction economically feasible, the city’s zoning ordinance allows for some flexibility on the parking requirement. Developers can apply for waivers to the one-parking-space-per-unit rule while presenting a plan for how a project can be less accommodating toward automobiles. As a result of this process, reducing the parking obligation is “not an uncommon thing,” White said.
The day will come, he predicted, when Burlington follows the lead of other cities around the country in eliminating parking requirements for downtown residential and mixed-use projects. But it won’t be soon. Burlington last reformulated its zoning ordinance in 2008 — after a seven-year review.
For now, White said, the city’s parking rule remains “a disincentive to development because it adds so much cost.”
Campoli and Beck both suggested that voter approval for the Sinex project demonstrates a new willingness in Burlington to build up. The actual results could become clear within a couple of years. Approval by the city’s Development Review Board represents the final regulatory step before construction can begin, and the board could give its OK sometime next month.
But even when the Town Center high-rises are in place for all to see and judge, the local debate over tall buildings will not likely subside. Amey Radcliffe, one of the activists opposed to projects of the Sinex scale, argued, “Density is better achieved without high-rises.” Urban innovation and startups “tend not to occur in tall-building canyons but in mid-rise neighborhoods that spur interaction,” she said.
One of Radcliffe’s reference points is a 2012 article in the Atlantic by urban studies specialist Richard Florida. “You don’t find great arts districts and music scenes in high-rise districts but in older, historic residential, industrial or warehousing districts such as New York’s Greenwich Village or Soho, or San Francisco’s Mission District, which were built before elevators enabled multistory construction,” Florida wrote.
Burlington’s Pine Street art zone can be seen as another such example. And so might Boulder, Colo., a prosperous and vibrant university city of 100,000 residents with some clear similarities to Burlington.
Boulder’s building-height restrictions are even more rigorous than Burlington’s. Two buildings that rise 10 and 12 stories, respectively, were constructed in that city prior to adoption of zoning regs that for the past several years have prohibited commercial buildings taller than 55 feet and residential development of more than 35 feet.
“The general concern about tall buildings is that they’ll negatively impact the view of our unique mountain skyline,” Boulder Planning Board chair John Gerstle told Seven Days. Some residents argue, however, that Boulder has to get taller because it’s surrounded by publicly owned open space that allows for “very limited construction outward,” Gerstle noted. “That position is absolutely worth considering,” he said, pointing to Boulder’s rapidly escalating housing prices and the fact that numerous tech firms have expressed interest in locating there. “There are a lot of shades of gray on the development issue,” Gerstle acknowledged.
David Owen, author of Green Metropolis, offered a similarly ambivalent take on tall buildings as a means of achieving environmentally beneficial density. In a recent interview, Owen said he stands by his 2009 assertion in Time magazine that Manhattan is greener than Vermont. That’s due in part to the much lower rate of car ownership among Gothamites, but it also reflects the energy-saving advantages of living in a high-rise rather than an unattached single-family home, Owen observed. He conceded, though, that tall buildings constructed with glass cladding consume plenty of power for heating and cooling.
“I can actually argue this issue both ways,” he said.
Campoli’s take: “Burlington is in denial about … its status as an urban center.” In her estimation, younger residents and Queen City natives tend to be “less fearful” with regard to vertical growth than are middle-aged and elderly former flatlanders who moved to Burlington 20 or more years ago. “They found a place they think is just right,” she said. “They don’t ever want it to change.”
Related Stories
This article appears in Feb 22-27, 2017.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The waiver of parking requirements is a disaster. Parking in downtown Burlington is already difficult and has only become worse with the meter changes that have raised rates. And don’t think car ownership rate for Sinex building, etc. will be minimal like NYC. Which, BTW, even with its subway system, is still always traffic-laden. The new residents will still own cars but park them in the existing lots & on existing streets, making it even harder for everyone else to find parking. The more Burlington wants to become a mini Boston or New York City, the less reason there is for people to live here.
My observation, unlike Chris, is that the meter changes and growth in private paid parking lots has made it drastically easier to find a parking space downtown. Lots outside the downtown core with public or mini-mass transit links to downtown are the next evolution in Burlington parking.
Change is inevitable. Just like death, and the axiomatic taxes. Everyone knows this. But change can be good, bad, or indifferent.
Urban Renewal of the 60s and 70s was change, and these are acknowledged to be an unmitigated disaster today. Yet the proponents back then used the exact same arguments that opponents “were resistant to change”. They were pushed through and entire neighborhoods destroyed.
Thousands of other white-elephant projects and developer failures used the same argument, in order to get approvals and persuade officials to support them at the time.
Anyone who uses the argument that people are “against change” is intentionally trying to insult people, and shows contempt not only for them, but history, as well. Are you listening Julie? So tired of hearing this argument from people who should know better.
Thank you so much for “Manhattan is greener than Vermont.” I think it will be 2018 before I stop laughing.
The CLC and other members of the opposition should listen to Director David White. Time and time again they have said “there are ample parking lots in downtown and the Hill Section where in-fill development can create 270+ apts.” If it was financially viable to build apartment complexes on parking lots, developers would show interest in that. Between inclusionary zoning and the parking requirements it is unfeasible to develop these sites.
We can have IZ and parking requirements, or we can have small, in-fill development on parking lots and single-story retail, etc. We will not see development under current regs until market-rate rents reach the levels of Boston and SF.
Also, yes, becoming a “mini Boston or NYC” is exactly the direction we should move in as a city.
The idea that parking is what it in the way of infill development is rather short sighted. For one, Plan BTV suggests there is ample downtown parking but the challenge is letting people know where and when parking is available. This seems easily solved by a good app. Other obstacles exist as suggested by Beck and White, which has me wondering…. why weren’t those issues addressed to allow infill/density rather than a wholesale zoning bust to allow over 14 story buildings in the downtown core? I think the Weinberger administration has goals beyond infill or density or even affordable housing.
This quote from Making Cities Livable International offers some insight into what may be driving our current administration: “High-rise provides investors and developers with the biggest return on investment when the economy is strong. Shopping malls and big box retail stores similarly offer large returns. These profits go to wealthy investors, banks or multi-national corporations. [Conversely] Small footprint shops and apartments in a fine textured urban fabric yield smaller profits, spread out among many individuals and businesses in the community.”
If, as stated in this article “Coalition members argue that it’s possible to make Burlington a more densely populated city by constructing three- to six-story mid-rise buildings on parcels that today languish as parking lots or function as gas stations or single-story retail establishments.” Then why did the Coalition oppose any new housing development in the South End? There are plenty of single story retail establishments that have been redeveloped in the South End in recent years, all of which could have been multi story mixed use, but due to the continued protests from the CLC and others, there is no new housing allowed in the enterprise zone.
If the CLC supports three- to six-story mid-rise buildings, why all the opposition to the BC redevelopment, which fits right into that mixed use sweet spot?
CLC members consistently say they aren’t against density or development, but then oppose any project that arises where density changes or development happens. You can’t have it both ways…
I have no association with CLC, but I can respond to those questions.
Changing the Enterprise Zone to allow for housing development will make that area unaffordable for small businesses, start-ups, and artist groups. They will simply be pushed out and have no where to go. They are an important part of Burlington’s vibrancy. Building housing is a very profitable use for real estate, and the buildings there will be either converted to housing or torn down, displacing the businesses currently there.
The Burlington College property is not considered walkable to any amenities by planning standards. It is more than a mile from any grocery store, the downtown, a hardware store, or other types of businesses. Putting the densest project in Burlington’s history there makes little sense from a planning perspective. The vast majority of people will drive, and North Avenue is already very congested, not very safe for pedestrians, and parking is a major issue. Not to mention this land was an important natural area and the soils highly erodible.
Preserving the waterfront is one thing, but if you want to see the logical end-point of refusing to build up anywhere in the city, take a look at San Francisco, where the average 1 bedroom apartment is now around $3.5K/month. That’s also the average rent in the Mission, the much-vaunted “great arts district” Florida refers to.
That area, of course, now contains very few artists (a lucky few have rent control; the rest moved to Oakland, in dangerous and quasi-legal living spaces). Artists didn’t move to the Mission because of the shape of the buildings, they moved there because it was a walkable neighborhood close to good transit that used to have cheap rent. And of course because the Latinx immigrants who live there (but are increasingly getting evicted now that the neighborhood has gotten so ‘hot’) poured tons of hard work into making their neighborhood a livable place with local groceries, taquerias, etc.
It’s funny to me that one commenter said that the more Burlington wants to become a mini Boston or NYC, the less reason there is for people to live here – most of the young people I grew up with in Burlington don’t stay because there aren’t enough jobs and the rent is too high! But I think the comment is telling because it presumes that everyone in Burlington moved there (or continues to live there) for “lifestyle” reasons, as a sort of reaction against big cities. As far as that goes I think Julie Campoli is dead on the money here.
Ah, yes, it’s so cheap to live in NYC, Boston, or San Francisco. The argument that rents will go down the more Burlington builds is The Biggest Lie of them all. And propagated relentlessly by those tied to development.
More that 5,000 housing units have been built in Burlington, South Burlington, and Winooski in just the last six years alone. Did rents come down? Another 5,000 are already permitted or in the process.
What you have is a “if you build it, they will come scenario”. Not a “if you build it, it will become inexpensive” situation.
And the solution, one will be told, is to then build some more. It’s almost a pyramid scheme.
(1/2) My point was actually that San Francisco has failed to build enough housing to even come close to the increase in that city’s population. The rationales people give for opposing building in SF are very similar to the ones that are currently being deployed in Burlington — take a look at 48hills, for example, and you’ll see a lot of familiar arguments. That’s why I think SF is a good cautionary example; if Burlington can’t create enough housing and ordinary people can no longer afford to live there, it’ll end up as a similarly exclusive playground for wealthy, outdoorsy telecommuters and retirees.
And of course higher prices and construction booms go together — when a lot of wealthier people want to move to a given area, the housing market gets tighter and housing developers realize they can make more money by building. But to conclude from this that building more causes high rents is like concluding that umbrellas cause rain.
Smearing people who want more housing to be built as being in bed with developers is also a common strategy in SF. It’s kind of funny to me, honestly — it reminds me of the “paid protestor” meme the right wing currently favors. (If I really am a paid shill, where’s my check? Did it get lost in the mail?) It also conveniently ignores that a lot of the people opposing development have their own conflicts of interest: for example, many are small-time landlords or other property-owners who benefit from high property values.
(2/2) Building more certainly isn’t *sufficient* to get more equitable access to housing, particularly for the people who are stuck waiting around for building to catch up with demand – you also need to protect tenants in other ways. But building more is *necessary* to reduce rents, unless, I guess, you’re rooting for a population crash! And infill is great also, but if you don’t want sprawl and even greater car-dependence, you need to make efficient use of the land you have.
“Vertical sprawl” is a great phrase from a “viral marketing” standpoint — it does a great job of painting tall buildings as vaguely dystopian. But it’s actually misleading nonsense: exactly unlike actual sprawl, which involves building out, building upwards is more energy-efficient and reduces the distances people have to travel to go about their daily business, in turn reducing reliance on cars and fossil fuels. It also better preserves land outside the city limits for other uses. And if you think tall buildings are more socially alienating and stressful than the long car commutes that are caused by actual sprawl, I’d guess you probably don’t have much experience with one of the two. So some amount of building up needs to eventually happen — even if it might offend the sensibilities of some rich pseudo-hippies to have a visual reminder that they actually live in a city (oops, sorry, I’ll rein it back in).
And I mean, these buildings are seriously only three stories higher than the current tallest building in Burlington. You would think someone was airdropping in the Prudential Tower or the fricking Space Needle or something.