This post was updated at 5:10 p.m. on 9/11/15 with a comment from the mayor.
Artists in Burlington’s South End scored a major victory Friday in their campaign to prevent housing gentrification that could price them out of studios along Pine Street.
Burlington Mayor Miro Weinberger announced Friday that he will not support housing in the Pine Street Enterprise Zone where it is currently prohibited. In an opinion piece published in the Burlington Free Press, Weinberger acknowledged that opposition from artists played a role in his stance on housing in PlanBTV South End, a proposed city plan for the area, which has been under discussion for months.
The Enterprise Zone’s current restrictions against housing have “allowed industry, the arts, and entrepreneurial spirit to flourish over the past two decades and slowed gentrification that has the potential to displace much of what we love about the South End, and only limited introduction of housing has been contemplated,” Weinberger wrote. “However, the focus and concern about housing is distracting the much-needed, much broader discussion of the future of the South End. Thus, after listening carefully to this debate, I will not support a final plan that recommends adding housing as an allowable use in the Enterprise Zone.”
He added: “Resolving the debate about housing will bring more focus to the many other important and exciting recommendations in the plan that will require consensus and considerable collective action to implement. “
The announcement came as artists dished out a new batch of political satire bashing what they see as the Mayor’s overemphasis on housing and other development. The throngs who attend Art Hop will see an installation called “Miroville” across from ArtsRiot on the west side of Pine Street. The six-by-14-foot cardboard house, complete with a portrait of the mayor inside, is accompanied by a sandwich board with a chirpy promotional blurb.
Miroville will offer “luxury living wedged into green spaces you never knew existed. Designer units created in spaces where real artists formerly worked,” the sign reads. It also shows a ponytailed woman, outfitted 1950s-style, holding a paintbrush and saying: “I used to have a studio in the Arts District, now I paint houses in Miroville.” For more information, the sign directs the curious to contact “Penny Monger and Nomar Greenspace.”
The mock model home was the work of about 10 or 15 artists, said Jason Weinstein, a mosaic artist who helped with effort. He was pleased to learn of the Mayor’s announcement Friday.
“That’s awesome,” he said. “It makes me feel like we’ve been heard.”
Weinstein has a studio along Pine Street in the Howard Space building. Housing isn’t compatible with the arts and industry and new residences would inevitably lead to problems, he said. “We won’t be able to work late at night…. We’ll be keeping somebody and their baby up at night.”
Should “Miroville” come down now that the Mayor is backing off housing in the Pine Street corridor? No, said Weinstein.
“Miroville” is a “little bit snarky,” but pertinent, he said, adding that he understands Weinberger and his administration have a tough job to do. “I hope they take it in fun.”
How does the mayor feel about Miroville? Asked for his opinion Friday afternoon, Weinberger confirmed that he has driven by the installation. He said he’s glad artists are participating in the planning process, but he sounded frustrated, saying he believes there has been “oversimplification and distortion” of some of his positions on development, especially housing. “What are we going to do about the fact that we have a real serious housing challenge?” the mayor asked.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The mayor is frustrated and says we have simplified the issues! Wow. I guess compared to Plan BTV’s glitzy and empty ad campaign our in-depth analysis of the threats of housing in industrial districts was just too much text for him. Not very respectful of him to dismiss our concerns and suggest that he is only capitulating because the outcry was distracting from the rest of the plan. Anyway, thanks Mayor Weinberger, for listening to the noise if not the ideas. Now we know what gets your ear: constant vigilance, good humor, and some great public art! Onward, well armed. Visit us at Southendalliance.org to see how we simplify the issues.
The mayor is frustrated and says we simplified the issues. I guess compared to the glitzy Plan BTV ad campaign our careful analysis of the threats of housing in industrial districts was just too much text for him. Not very respectful, Mayor Miro. But thanks for listening to the outcry, if not the ideas. Now we know how to get your ear: constant vigilance, good humor, and some great public art! Onward, well armed.
Considering that some of the mayor’s financial contributions came from developers, real estate brokers, construction firms, and others who spent time reviewing present day zoning laws and plat maps at city hall planning and zonning office, talked about it at business meetings and private parties, about ways of building upscale lofts, condos, high end businesses and such, we should have been concerned. We are not talking about the transparent era of Sanders and Clavelle, where the people knew in advance of developments which many of us fought, defeated, or amended. The only visibilty now is zoning changes and speculation of what can occur and the occassional ‘leak’ that gets out. The simplifying form code change, just like Montpelier’s, will keep us unprepared, knowing at the last minute of any major development. And just like the people of Montpelier, we need to be vigiliant participants.
Kudos to our local artists, and others on Pine St., for their brilliance and tenacity! The South End Enterprise District, is appealing, only because of what the arts and business community has created there. Better said, , by William S. Burroughs:
“Artists to my mind are the real architects of change, and not the political legislators who implement change after the fact. ”
Remain vigilant, oh creative ones.
Dear Mr. Mayor;
You say the Plan was designed as a community conversation, but many in the community feel that your aim is to mollify resistance. City Planning gives the city an ability to protect what is loved in the South End “during a time of growth and change”. Many feel that change should be limited, and that the key to protecting what is loved about the neighborhood lies in leaving it alone rather than giving it many new (and expensive) projects. There will always be a housing shortage in Burlington – a friend’s father remembers it as early as 1946. But it’s a desirable place to live because of the way it is.
To protect the uses that give the neighborhood “so much life,” you must avoid doing anything which kills that life. In one sentence you say the plan “re-envisions the abandoned and contaminated Barge Canal as a large, accessible open space”. Some feel that Nature has not abandoned the site, nor left it vacant. And if it’s contaminated, it seems dangerous to make it accessible.
Several years back, the City organized a campaign to keep college students from parking on lawns, since the Greenspace is badly needed for our Watershed. If that is true, doesn’t it make sense to leave these few remaining tracts of forested wilderness on Pine Street the way they are? I can understand building on the parking lot sites, but not in the dwindling Natural areas. It would be nice to see a long-term transformation that favored Nature over development.
Mr Mayor,
You ask what to do about “a real serious housing challenge”. My suggestion (and I bet many folks will agree) is to FORCE UVM to house their students. In case you missed the news while you were busy trying to understand what the artists in the South End are all worked up over, UVM is tearing down dorms and selling medical student and family housing. This is precisely what is causing the housing crunch! Forcing UVM to house all of their students can go a long way to help resolve the housing crisis.
With democrats like Miro, who needs Republicans?
Given the high-density, neighborhood-destroying developments Miro has been directly responsible for (such as the bait and switch Packard Lofts) and his endless push for parking exemptions on already crowded streets, it’s no wonder there was so much opposition. The mayor asks, apparently with a straight face, “What are we going to do about the fact that we have a real serious housing challenge?” at the same time that he supports the destruction of affordable single-family homes and entire neighborhoods in Winooski & South Burlington so his prized F-35 fighter jet can fly here. Oh, I get it, protecting existing homes and citizens does not help his 1% real estate developer cronies profit (nor his buddies in the military-industrial complex). The developers need a constant stream of new projects which Miro is only too happy to support.
In response to Mayor Weinberger’s comment:
… there has been “oversimplification and distortion” of some of his positions on development, especially housing. “What are we going to do about the fact that we have a real serious housing challenge?” the mayor asked.
What we should do is analyze the problem in order to find out exactly what the problem is. The over simplification is coming from the City. Yes, we have a housing challenge, but what has been missing is the specificity to actually solve the problem. It’s not all housing we need, it is affordable housing. It’s not just subsidy level either, but everything below market rate. Even more specifics are needed. Of those two housing types, what percentage of each is needed? How many units of each are needed to make a dent in the problem?
Instead what we are seeing is building as usual and lots of it. Every open lot is being eyed with possibility. Yes, we can build and build a build but if what is needed is not what is built, the problem will remain. It will not trickle down to the most needed housing simply by adding volume.
If the development community is reluctant to build what is needed due to their bottom line, then the city must incentive the building of needed housing. We also need to look at the problem holistically. What the the jobs that are available in the city? How can we train workers for good jobs? How can we increase wages and reduce health care costs? A “more housing, period” approach is both a distortion and an oversimplification.
There’s no reason for the artist to label what was done here as “snarky.” It implies that this was something derogatory, or the subject of it deserves less criticism than was given.
Miro is, simply put, a huckster disguised as a leader. That is all. He claims to see a “serious housing challenge” but that’s merely just spin for seeing opportunities to once more benefit his backers: the developers, real estate brokers, and construction firms that financed his path to office.