This list of MYTHS: BUSTED! was created by a team of determined and
diligent citizens — The Coalition for a Livable City. Through hours of
research, discussion, emails and attending countless city meetings, we have
done our best to dispel misinformation and speak the truth.
MYTH: PlanBTV stated the need for mall redevelopment, so the
Sinex plan is good, yes?
BUSTED! Mall redevelopment as a general theme IS supported in PlanBTV, but
that is where the connection ends. The Sinex project does not include
moderately-priced housing, senior housing, public parks, green space, parking
below ground, true street connectivity or livability in its 14-story three-towered
mega-block. Very few of the guidelines set forth by PlanBTV for the mall
redevelopment are actualized in the current proposal. A mall redevelopment
is a good thing, but the current proposal is flawed in many ways.
MYTH: St. Paul and Pine Streets will be reconnected at street level for
vehicular traffic, pedestrians and bicycles. These street “reconnections” will
look and function as city streets
BUSTED! With this Mall it will take another half century or so before the City
gets is original flat streets again. Pine Street connects through the existing Bank
Street parking entrance and tunnel down under the office building, then up a
9% grade through a new opening at the corner of the existing parking garage
nearest Pine Street onto Cherry Street—not usable by bicycles and pedestrians
because of grades. The tunnel prevents use by City buses or trucks. For
pedestrians, an always open arcade or atrium through the current corridor will
likely be shared with bicyclists. But the St. Paul St. connection requires a 12% grade
rising 15 feet up from Bank Street to the Mall entrance, then a 7 foot drop, just
under 5% grade maximum for disability access from Mall entrance to Cherry
Street. This “hump” prevents a pedestrian seeing through between Cherry and
Bank Streets. The 12% grade from Bank St. to Mall entrance makes it inaccessible to persons with a handicap and too steep for cyclists.
MYTH: The public’s consideration of how to redevelop the Burlington Town
Center has been an inclusive 2-year public process
BUSTED! The public process began in January 2015 (18 months ago), but
then almost an entire year went by without effective public engagement.) At
the next major public meeting (January 2016), the project had changed
significantly from what was presented 12 months earlier. And again, over the
past 6 months, the latest version of the Burlington Town Center project is very
different from the two versions presented in January 2015 and January 2016.
In January 2015, Public input resulted in a preliminary sketch requiring no
zoning changes. Student housing and above-ground parking were only
introduced in 2016.
MYTH: To create density we need to build “up”
BUSTED! Density can be better achieved without high-rises. One block of an
older neighborhood may contain many small businesses, studios, shops,
restaurants, and apartments with more activity throughout the day and night
than one block of a tall office style building with apartments above. Urban
innovation and start-ups tend NOT to occur in tall building canyons but in
mid-rise neighborhoods that spur interaction. High-rises are like vertical
suburbs, sterile, isolating and unlivable. After extensive study of how humans
behave in different kinds of environments, the great Danish architect and
walkability guru, Jan Gehl, concluded that the most comfortable building
height for urban pedestrians is 3 to 6 stories. In their passion for the highest
possible densities as an antidote to low-density sprawl, too many urbanist
advocates overlook the considerable benefits of still-relatively-high city density
at a human scale. Paris, with buildings under 100 feet, is feet is as dense in some
parts as Singapore with buildings 50+ stories high.
MYTH: Vertical growth helps economic diversity and vitality
BUSTED! European cities, for the most part, have maintained a human scale
continuous urban fabric of 6-8 stories with a very fine textured street grid, and
mix of uses. These planning principles reflect a different value system. Unlike
High-rise construction which provides big returns to investors and developers,
small footprint shops and apartments in a fine textured urban fabric yield
smaller profits, spread out among many individuals and businesses in the
community. Over centuries, this human scale urban fabric has proved to be
adaptable to changing political and economic times, making the community
resilient, and durable. The City of Paris, with buildings no taller than 100',
supports continuous retail along the street, making every neighborhood
walkable.
MYTH: Tall buildings are good for the environment and reduce energy and
carbon-dioxide impacts
BUSTED! High-rise buildings are not the most ecologically sustainable form of
construction. They are subject to the effects of too much sun and too much
wind. Steel and concrete construction produces a lot of greenhouse gases.
High-rise seldom meets the high sustainability goals its proponents claim.
Energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions are driven by many
consumption and lifestyle choices (food, travel, adventure sports, 2nd homes,
etc.) in addition to housing and driving. Additionally, concurrent programs,
such as increasing downtown parking, building roads, and expanding air
service, work to increase emissions. Finally, tech-fixes almost always produce
CO2 during the building phase, saving CO2 later. This applies to new
buildings, and to solar panels! What actually occurs over time can be modeled
and forecasted, but the details are critical.
MYTH: Tall buildings create livable cities
BUSTED! The impact of different forms of housing on social and mental health
shows that high-rise living has numerous negative health consequences,
especially for children, stay-at-home mothers, and elders. High-rises are less
satisfactory than other housing forms for most people, and they are not optimal
for children—social relations are more impersonal and helping behavior is less
than in other housing forms and crime and fear of crime are greater. Based on
the research relating to housing and housing and mental health, Gary Evans, professor of
environmental and developmental psychology at Cornell University, observed,
“people living in high-rises seem to have more mental health problems than
those living in low-rises or houses…..Adverse impacts of high-rise dwellings
may be due to social isolation.”
As for affordability, the higher a building rises, the more expensive the
construction. The higher cost to build taller buildings means they tend to be
luxury units, often for out-of-town investors. Tall buildings inflate the price of
adjacent land, thus making the protection of historic buildings and affordable
housing less achievable. In this way, they increase inequality. As
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren and French economist Thomas
Piketty have documented, trickle-down economics definitely do not work.
MYTH: The city must build more housing units to relieve rental scarcity and
a housing “crisis” that is indicated by a vacancy rate of about 1%
BUSTED! Since the 2010 Census, the number of Burlington apartment rental
units has increased by 14% (up from 10,000 units in 2010). Since 2014,
1,400 apartment units have been built or are under construction, or nearing
construction. Recently, two private surveys show a 2.5% rental vacancy and a
“healthy” 3% rental housing vacancy rate likely by year end. Evidence: A July
“snapshot” of apartments for rent in Burlington found 129 units available.
Also, landlords in the City say it now takes longer to rent units, more are
available, and there is more price competition on rents charged.
MYTH: The developer has no choice but to build parking above ground
BUSTED! 3 and ½ stories of Sinex’s proposed 14+ story building are made up
of above-ground parking garages. Sinex claims that he cannot put the parking
underground because of prohibitive costs and time and that he cannot
eliminate it or locate it off-site because potential renters will require parking a
stone’s throw away from their spaces.
We have only his own word for the prohibitive cost of putting the parking
underground. Furthermore the Sinex towers are right next to a public
transportation hub, and two lower-level parking garages that could conceivably
be raised a few stories each. A truly green development would take advantage
of the public transportation hub and the building’s central location and set a
precedent for decreasing car traffic within the city center. This could be a great
opportunity to establish a drop-off point connected to a park & ride facility
outside of the city center. It seems obvious that the three floors of parking
justify the height increase, enabling the possibility of building luxury units on
the 12-14th floors.
MYTH: The project’s details conform to PlanBTV and are a result of public
input meetings
BUSTED! PlanBTV explicitly states that in order to increase density in the
downtown core we must build within the permitted development envelope,
i.e, within current zoning (allowing up to 65 ft, or 105 ft in exchange for public
benefits). A projected image of a new mall shows a building approximately
6 to 8 stories (not 14), and we read that increased density need not mean
increased height. PlanBTV states that parking should be underground or
wrapped, not above ground or visible. PlanBTV indicates that we need housing
for families and mid-low-income residents. The proposed development offers
housing for students, high end single units, and only about 55 single
affordable units. The change in process for allowing height increases
eliminates the leverage for acquiring more affordable housing, effectively
blocking the fulfilment of the city’s goal of providing more, not less, affordable
housing.
MYTH: The zoning change required for the proposed plan is not illegal
spot zoning
BUSTED! Spot zoning is defined as the creation of a special zoning area that is
not in conformity with a city’s comprehensive plan, is out of character,
constitutes a major change of use for an area, and is created for just one
development instead of with a long-term vision of the future of the city. The
proposed zoning change is not in conformity with PlanBTV on a number of
counts (height increase, above-ground parking, wrong kind of housing, etc.),
includes a change of use to allow student housing and university space, is out
of character with the surroundings, and is obviously being created explicitly for
the benefit if one development. Surrounding land owners have already
challenged the city regarding spot zoning, demanding that they too be allowed to increase the height and mass of their holdings.
MYTH: All of the Planning Commissioners support the proposed zoning
amendment
BUSTED! In fact, most Planning Commissioners repeatedly said that the
timeline allowed for the vetting and approval of this major zoning change was
much too fast, noting that other much smaller projects had required much
longer time. Commissioners registered multiple reservations about the
compliance of the zoning change with PlanBTV, about public opposition to the
project, about the possibility of spot zoning, about above-ground parking, a
change of use to allow university space, and more. Planning Commissioners
agreed that they were not at all ready to approve the zoning amendment, but
agreed to pass along their comments—including multiple reservations—to the
City Council. This “passing along” has been misrepresented as an approval by
the Planning Commission.
MYTH: There's very little development in Burlington because permit
requirements are unreasonable — zoning and regulation processes are
broken and need radical changing
BUSTED! Actually, 1400 new units are either under construction or recently
built in Burlington over the last year. We have already fulfilled our proposed
quota of increased housing for the next few years without radically changing
the zoning or process of development approvals. While the head of Planning
and Zoning tells us that the practice of requiring more Inclusionary Zoning
(affordable housing) in exchange for increased height and other waivers does
not work, the real reason for this malfunction may be that the city routinely lets
developers opt out of providing inclusionary units in exchange for a fine. This
fine is only about 3% of the selling price of a condo. The developer will be
tempted by the opportunity for larger profits by not building the affordable
units, paying the city fine, and selling the 55 units that were supposed to be
affordable as high priced condos. Example: Westlake, the development project
on Battery Street, paid the city fine ($100,000/unit, 4 units) instead of
providing the required inclusionary units.
MYTH: PlanBTV and public input on the mall expressed interest in
vertical growth
BUSTED! While general concepts of increased density, infill and the zoning
changes needed to facilitate them, are supported in PlanBTV—the increased
HEIGHT of buildings is not, nor is the specific height proposed. Quite the
contrary. PlanBTV focuses on “human scale,” lake and mountain views, a
majority satisfaction with building heights as they ARE, and the idea that
“taller” is not necessarily the answer. To say PlanBTV supports 160 feet
“by right” is completely untrue. Public input meetings on the mall design
indicate that despite the fact that “staff” strongly favored a height increase,
citizens were concerned about increasing height (even when 105 ft was the
discussed maximum).
MYTH: There is a model of the project at the Fletcher Free Library
BUSTED! While presumably ordered over 4 months ago, there is still no
physical model of the project. Some City Councilors and Planning
Commissioners have said they will not vote on the zoning ordinance or the
development agreement without seeing a model. P and Z continues to stall—
currently the model is delayed for “missing data”. Meanwhile we wait patiently.
As one wise man said, if the model helped to sell this project, we would have
seen it months ago. Hmmm.
