“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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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?
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.
@Reenie- The classification for “Affordable” units is very clearly spelled out in city ordinance, so there is no guessing game.
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.
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.*
Expect the usual suspects to show up with a lawsuit in the coming months.
Odds of construction starting in 2020 are zero.
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.
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.
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.
I’ll believe it when I see it.. So far the only thing that they have really said is there will be housing, a motel, parking, office space and a restaurant. Nothing is mentioned about stores which I thought was the reason for the whole mess Miro got us into! Why should it matter if the apartments don’t have a good view of the lake? And I wish they would say what affordable prices are in Burlington.. And Miro did invite this mess so I agree he should be removed..
Some very good points made here!
I saw the 7:00 presentation, which I presume was almost identical. I was surprised to hear that Don Sinex is still peripherally involved! Thought we’d seen the last of him. Just goes to show ya.
Many questions arose – will there be public bathrooms? They say the top floor, mostly windows (observation deck, hopefully with restaurant) will have them. I can’t help but wonder if ALL of the public will be allowed to roam, or perch, up there on a regular basis. Take the elevator with a homeless person? Why not?
As far as local businesses/entrepreneurs moving in, I doubt it. Usually only chain-stores can afford the rent in a new building, because they are still paying off the bank. Cheap rentals aren’t found in new buildings.
Affordable housing is usually predicated on “median area income,” which in this area is $60,000. If they have 72 units of housing that are affordable (30% of income), it would mean rents for people who make less than that. (Undoubtedly, you’d have to qualify.)
If you made $15 an hour, you’d make it into the Affordable apartments – but to pay 30% of your income for that apartment, it would have to rent for $750 a month.
Was there any discussion if the project would be able to support the TIF bonds? If not the taxpayers could be on the hook for them.
My problem with this project is that UVM Medical Center is the proposed anchor office space tenant with a long term lease for Class AAA lake view space with top market leasing rates. Did the Green Mountain Care Board weigh-in on that and approve the use of funds for fancy Administrative office space as health care and procedure costs continue to skyrocket along with our Premiums to pay for all this excess when facilities outside of Burlington would obviously save a tremendous amount of funding that could be better spent elsewhere in the system? Our healthcare dollars in this State are precious so downtown lake view office space for hospital Administrators seems extravagant and wasteful to me.
Sinexs First Law of Development:
The larger the unfilled hole in the ground, the greater the amount of gullibility required to fill it.
Brookfields First Law of Development:
The likelihood of a project ever being completed is inversely proportional to the number of developers who show up to announce they dont have any financing.
“And they STILL don’t have financing??!! This doesn’t speak well for how banks view them.”
No. It doesn’t speak well for how banks view Burlington.
Yo Mr. Free – If you think banks don’t like Burlington, what are you saying? We are not a boom town?
We do have many banks, and obviously, a city built on credibility with many. If someone thinks Phoenix is a better bet, who could blame them? BUT we most certainly have a lively, progressive city (even if it tries to progress in opposite directions simultaneously at times). Do we want it to grow grow grow? Probably not. We want it to Work for everyone. As said at their Presentation, I wish Brookfield all the luck in the world.
For those that seem to think that Weinberger was some sort of innocent bystander in all of this… are you effing kidding me?!? The guy spent a lot of money to get the original Sinex plan railroaded down the throats of taxpayers. He sold it. He lauded it. He got his PACs and his donors and his internet PR churning out all sorts of rosy scenarios to get voters to help pay for it. He scared everyone into thinking that this was the one and only option or else Burlington was going to wither away and die. How is that working out?
Watching him try to squirm away from his role in all of this is, quite frankly, insulting.
So yeah. I think he should be removed from office by the voters of Burlington for his poor judgement and his lack of due diligence in protecting taxpayers.