Once completed in 2023, CityPlace Burlington will boast 318 apartments, a rooftop restaurant, a 174-room hotel and more than 530 parking spaces.
Construction on the much-delayed project will begin in August 2020 and is expected to wrap up 30 months later.
That’s according to new documents that project majority owner Brookfield Asset Management filed with the city late last week. The Burlington City Council’s Board of Finance reviewed them at its meeting Monday night and voted to allow the city to submit a “substantial change request” to the state body that oversees the tax-increment financing program.
The memos provide the first glimpse into the new design since Brookfield unveiled its scaled-down proposal nearly a month ago. The 14-story towers in the original design, which spurred lawsuits and financial challenges, were replaced by 10-story buildings.
The submitted designs don’t include plans for the former Macy’s building, which was not part of the original project but is now envisioned as the future home of the University of Vermont Medical Center offices.
In July, Brookfield announced that the “scope, scale, and the timing” of construction would change.
The scaled-down design uses lighter-weight steel and is now projected to cost $120 million to build, according to the documents. It should be complete by February 2023 barring any regulatory delays or legal challenges, according to Jeff Glassberg, a liaison between city and the developers.
Assistant city attorney Richard Haesler confirmed that the new project will fall slightly short of its anticipated TIF revenues. In 2016, Burlington voters approved a $21.8 million TIF bond to fix up sidewalks and rebuild streets lost to the former Burlington Town Center mall decades ago. Such debt is meant to be repaid with additional tax revenue, known as “increment,” generated by the new project.
Glassberg wrote in a memo that TIF funds from the project will pay for the reopening of Pine and St. Paul streets and “streetscape upgrades” to parts of Cherry and Bank streets that abut the project. But early estimates show the new design will only generate $19 million in increment, Glassberg said Monday.
“We haven’t reached the point where we’re concluding that $19 million is where the new budget is going to be,” the mayor said.
The city will discuss the project changes on December 19 with the Vermont Economic Progress Council, which oversees the TIF program.
The memos also outline the project’s phasing and amenities. New schematics for the hotel’s southern tower show seven retail spaces on the ground level, topped off with a rooftop restaurant, community space and observation deck.
The residential tower on the north side of the site will feature 121 studios, 142 one-bedrooms and 55 two-bedroom units. The designs don’t specify the rental rates, but Brookfield has committed to making 20 percent of them “affordable” as required by Burlington’s inclusionary zoning ordinance.
Brookfield also anticipates having to undergo state permitting under Act 250 because of the hotel concept. The developers say a hotel “is responsive to market demand and can contribute to the continued dynamism of downtown Burlington.”
After many delays, Glassberg said the recent updates from Brookfield show significant progress.
“The stuff they delivered to us … is the kind of stuff we’ve been looking for forever,” he said. “I thought it was great news.”
Correction, November 25, 2019: A previous version of this story misstated the number of parking spaces in the project proposal.
Related Stories
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
The TIF giveaways will need to be scrapped and done over. Bend over, Burlington, Miro and Brookfield are back and won’t be denied to build this playground for the better-off folks. Without a hard definition of what exactly “affordable” means no-one pushing this scam should be trusted.
Build it and they will come!
I’m just curious about something, the old mall had a lot more stores and this new plan is just calling for 7? If I’m not mistaken I thought the reason for the new one was to update the stores that were there before or was that another lie from Miro? Sounds like it to me!
There is a hard definition of what “affordable” housing.
A maximum of 30% of the adjusted gross income of someone making 65% of Area Median Income ($41,795 for 2019). So rent for a one-bedroom is $1,045, a significant discount from the $1,300-$1,700 market-rate rent.*
https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/sites/default…
That is one of the toughest and most aggressive inclusionary zoning ordinances in the country. Most cities in Mass have an affordability requirement of 120% AMI (nearly double Burlington’s income level) and require only 10% of units in project exceeding 20 units (compared to 20%-25% of units in Burlington for all projects above 4 units).
*Average market-rate rent for 1-bd: https://www.hickokandboardman.com/vermont-…
Are we saying that a person making $40,000 a year will qualify for Affordable housing?
I was thinking that the folks who would qualify were…poor. Do they know what the cut-off is for qualifying for those cheaper apartments? It will probably be less than 40K a year, meaning that the folks who need less expensive apartments will not be able to get one of these.
The problem is the “average median income in the area,” as there are some millionaires in the area. To average all the incomes does not represent the income of those who Need affordable apartments.
As a few of us have said, new buildings rarely have apartments which are affordable to those who need them, UNLESS they are poor enough to qualify for subsidized housing, and the landlord will allow renters who are subsidized.
That would make these affordable. 70% of $1,300 would make the rent $910. The $1,700 rents would become $1,190.
What a ruse.
Burlington city councilors spend tax money with reckless abandon – and cover their tracks by telling developers to supply housing for “poor” people (many of whom choose not to work, BTW).
And then the developers pass on their added costs to those who are able to pay.
What a system.
Burlington, Vermont: where the government prints money to “help” the “poor” – and then sends you a bill.
Burlington, Vermont: where property taxpayers just love paying huge, continually increasing taxes. (If they didn’t, they wouldn’t be re-electing these big-spending city councilors year after year after year.)
It’s no wonder that Burlington’s liberal welfare class would much rather yak incessantly about a non-issue such as an allegedly racist downtown mural than face what is really going on: out-of-control spending and crime in the socialist capital of urban America.
Why are premium health budget dollars being spent by UVM Medical Center on brand new downtown Triple class A Lakefront Office Space? Wouldn’t those precious dollars be better spent on Administrative and Billing Offices in a pre engineered metal building somewhere in Williston or Milton so the savings can be used on patients and reducing the already exorbitant costs of procedures?
Ted – the “socialist capital of urban America”? Yipe. “Liberal welfare class” was funny too.
How do you know that many of the homeless do not want to work? Was there a poll or something?
I agree that the mural is not as important as a few other problems we have. But sometimes a lot of things happen at the same time, in the same place.
We can’t just grumble about everything. Solutions would be better.
Wondering…under the heading of WHERE’S WALDO….if the truth will ever come out about Don Sinex.
There’s not a chance in hell that this project will be finished by 2023. This is still Burlington. It’s far more likely that it hasn’t been started yet.
@scuba
Steve (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anybody) Goodkind will make sure it will never be built.
“How do you know that many of the homeless do not want to work?”
Maybe the same way you seem to know that there are too many hotels in Burlington?
“We can’t just grumble about everything.”
And yet, whether it’s City Place, the City Hall Park redesign, the Southern Connector, the Mural, Mayor Weinberger, etc., etc., you seem to grumble — and sue — about just about everything.
Excuse me, Mr. Presumptions,
I have never sued anyone in my entire life, so you must be talking about someone else.
As far as grumbling – is the pot calling the kettle black on this? You won’t even sign your name to your grumbles.
Now let’s hear some positive suggestions (besides everyone who disagrees with you shutting up forever).
Charlie, Many of the homeless people do work and a select few don’t want to or can’t due to physical or mental health reasons. But I also agree there are to many hotels in Burlington and City Place was a disaster from the beginning. So there are some things I can agree with you on and some that I agree on with Presume.
Gil
Thank you, Gil. Nice of you.
Yes, of course we agree on some things and disagree on others – and sometimes new evidence turns up after we write a comment. I don’t disagree that much with Mr. Presumptions, but he does tend to taunt, at times.
If you want to know the truth, I regularly change my mind and object to things I’ve said myself – but I can’t take them back, I can only try to make up for them.
Some folks think I speak for a group when I write these comments, because I’m part of the Coalition for a Livable City (and boy, do they make fun of that name!).
When anyone asks where I am in the chain of command, I reply “I play left field for the CLC.”
Honestly, I just like people, parks and trees, animals, and old buildings. And history.
I have never sued anyone in my entire life.
Messing, you are a member of CLC. As such, you and your NIMBY obstructionist pals sue every day. You sued to stop City Place. You tried to stop City Hall Park. You sued to stop the Southern Connector. CLC sues. Thats what you do.
Oh fooey. Presumptions, you really just don’t get it.
No, I didn’t sue – I did petition signing though, and a few demonstrations. So sue me.
What do you do?