More than 100 people packed a presentation at Arts Riot about the draft PlanBTV South End, and many panned it. The zoning changes envisioned in the plan could lead to gentrification and displace artists and makers who have turned the neighborhood into Burlington’s own version of SoHo, many speakers proclaimed.
Burlington should not try and solve its affordable housing problem with zoning changes that could trigger rent hikes in commercial-industrial space and push artists and small businesses out, said Amey Radcliffe, co-owner of Gotham City Graphics. “We want to keep jobs strong here,” Radcliffe said.
The city should instead beef up its affordable housing regulations so new units built in other parts of Burlington are not overpriced. “We don’t need any more luxury condos,” Radcliffe said.
Maggie Standley agreed. The current zoning is fine, the artist said. “We’re a maker community. Allowing housing into the
Enterprise district is problematic.”
Burlington planning and zoning director David White responded patiently to the many criticisms. He said infill housing could be carefully done in the neighborhood to meet a range of needs, including “the missing middle” — people who earn too much to qualify for subsidized housing but can’t afford market rate apartments or homes. He emphasized that the plan is still a draft, with more public input to be gathered before it goes to the city council for final approval or rejection.
White also stressed that gentrification is happening without any zoning changes in the area, and disagreed that allowing housing would be the death of the arts district. “I don’t think we agree that it spells doom,” White said.
One speaker asked people to raise their hands if they supported zoning for new housing. A few hands went up, while arms filled the air when people were asked if they wanted to maintain current rules that prohibit new housing in the Enterprise Zone.
But some said the turnout was not reflective of Burlington’s full population, and that the show of hands was not a good measure of the proposal’s merit.
“I don’t think this room is representative,” said Dawn Moscowitz, a community organizer. The need for housing is acute and families are increasingly priced out of the South End, she said. It’s important that the process give voice to people who “are living on the margins and don’t have the opportunity to come to forums like this” Moscowitz said.
The discussion also veered off to criticism of the proposed Champlain Parkway, a long-discussed road that would help carry traffic from Interstate 89 to Pine Street and downtown.
The draft planBTV South End assumes the road, which has the support of Mayor Miro Weinberger, will be built. Several speakers said the proposal is outdated and will only increase congestion in the neighborhood. Don’t build it, said Amy Rubin. “This is ’60s thinking. This is 20th century thinking. We have to stop accommodating cars.”
Related Stories
After 40 Years and Five Mayors, Doreen Kraft Steers Burlington City Arts Into the South End
Burlington’s Property Reassessment Has Set Record-High Values. What’s the Cost to Residents?
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
When are people going to figure out that Burlington has a town line? The town can’t grow bigger without infill & rezoning, so developers will just keep building outside Burlington which will create more problems with traffic & parking for the people who live here. If you don’t want the southern connector, the best way to reduce that traffic is to build more housing in town so people don’t have to drive everywhere.
“The city should instead beef up its affordable housing regulations so new units built in other parts of Burlington are not overpriced.” – Sure, so the solution is to build it somewhere else, just not in your neighborhood? Classic NIMBY. Where exactly in town are people not opposed to new development right now?
Meanwhile, Essex, SoBurl, Winooski, Williston and every town around Burlington will continue to grow. Since there is zero new housing supply, prices here will continue to go up, and more people will move out of town. Density and development are not bad words, if done properly.
Well said, liamgriffin. NIMBY for sure. Tough road to hoe. Driving down Pine Street is a shit show. 90% of transport there is cars (and trucks). Build the Connector.
The Enterprise District is 4% of the city, 27% or the South End, and 92% of the industrial zoned use, and 20% of the jobs. Push out the industry and push out the jobs. Mixed use will raise rents for industrial and commercial space because developers can make much more money on residential than commercial. And then what? Sacrifice 4% of the city for more housing when there are plenty of spaces to build more housing even in the rest of the South End itself? This is reckless, and even Michael Monte of Champlain Housing Trust said so in a lengthy quote in this week’s VT Digger. It is not about NIMBY, it is about preserving the industrial and arts and innovation zone for the whole city and state.
Liam, have you heard of the “Google Effect”? Google’s offices outside the City proper, workers who live in the city drive to work outside the city.
Same issue, traffic, pollution, cars. Just reversed.
When are you going to get it straight and recognize the character and economy of light-manufacturing in our City proper is a cultural and an economic benefit?
I’d like to watch you to go tell Blodgett to get lost.
Mark W,
Building the connector will double the shit show of traffic you are talking about on Pine Street already.
Do you have any friends who use this route that can show you the actual plan documents – the funneling 189 traffic via this “parkway” onto Lakeside? This Parkway is nothing more than a Super Driveway, funneling traffic into the middle of Pine.
Have you seen the projected rise in population due to the housing projects going up now, and in the pipeline everywhere in the City where housing is allowed? How many of these folks moving into town, adding to our population are going to be driving a car?
I have yet to see this impact study, and here we are seeing a Supreme Court ruling based on stale numbers.