The developer of one of the most ambitious building plans in Burlington history confirmed Friday the project may be a bit too ambitious.
Brookfield Asset Management, majority owner of CityPlace Burlington, released a statement confirming the obvious, that the 14-story downtown project is on hold. Brookfield also said that the “scope, scale, and the timing” of construction may change.
The delay is the latest setback for a polarizing project to transform the ailing Burlington Town Center mall property downtown into a vibrant mixture of housing, office and retail space. First approved in 2016, the repeated delays have strained relations between the developers and city leaders and frayed nerves of downtown residents and business owners alike.
Brookfield’s statement didn’t detail why it was going back to the drawing board, citing only ongoing litigation and “the complexities of the project and associated cost considerations.”
Brookfield development manager Chelsea Ziegelbaum did not immediately respond to additional questions from Seven Days.
Mayor Miro Weinberger said in a statement of his own that he hopes the redesign “would address some of the size and scale criticisms” that have dogged the project. Activists have long claimed the planned 14-story structure, which would be the tallest building in Vermont, would be out of scale for Burlington.
Brookfield said it nevertheless “remained committed to delivering a transformative project to the City of Burlington.”
“Over the next several months, we will be working collaboratively with the administration and stakeholders to refine our development plan to ensure we have a design that is consistent with the community’s values and goals,” the statement read.
The public explanation follows the private update that the Burlington City Council received Monday about the redevelopment effort. An architect working project told two city officials within earshot of reporters that the project would be redesigned.
Weinberger said at the time he would have “a lot more to say” about the status of the project. He released a lengthy statement Friday saying he was “frustrated and disappointed” by the latest delay but felt the city should continue working with the Brookfield to make a project a reality.
“Brookfield’s statement today and recent actions demonstrate that there remains a potentially very good path forward with them to transform this long-troubled site into a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood,” Weinberger said.
He said he was pleased Brookfield was now fully in control of the project. Mall owner Don Sinex, a minority partner in CityPlace, has been accused of misleading city officials about the construction timeline.
Weinberger described Brookfield as an “experienced and very well-capitalized company” whose team has been well-resourced, predictable, and responsive since they took the project lead in January.” He said be believes the company is investing in “design and other necessary pre-construction activities.”
“I am hopeful that Brookfield’s current review and design changes ultimately will lead to a better project for Burlington,” Weinberger said.
Burlington City Councilor Adam Roof (I-Ward 8) said he expected the $250 million project would need to be redesigned following the developer’s 2018 purchase of the former Macy’s building that was adjacent to the mall. That additional space may create an opportunity to accomplish some of the same project goals with less height, such as building 10 or 12 stories instead of 14, Roof said.
How much additional public input will be required depends on the scope of the changes, Roof said. He still views the project as an opportunity for the city to “repair the abysmal mistake” of the original mall. It was the result of an urban renewal effort demolished an entire neighborhood and replaced it with an “uninspired mall that divided our community,” he said.
“I don’t look at this as back to square one,” Roof said. “I sure hope it’s not.”
Under Sinex’s original timeline, CityPlace’s 288 apartments would already be occupied and its commercial and retail spaces leased out to new tenants. But signs soon emerged that the schedule was fanciful.
A group called Coalition for a Livable City sued to block voter’s November 2016 approval of tax-increment financing dollars to reconnect St. Paul and Pine streets to Cherry and Bank streets, thoroughfares that were severed when the mall was built.
Sinex told Seven Days in April 2017 that financing was nearly secure and construction could start in the summer of that year. Demolition of the old mall began in November.
In August 2018, the city allowed Sinex to begin pouring the foundation despite not having the estimated $200 million in construction financing needed to complete the project. Steel beams for the foundation were delivered in November 2018, but little else has happened since. The last crane on the site was removed this week.
Going forward, Weinberger stressed the developer needs to be more transparent with the public about the project progress. His statement said the city is “demanding Brookfield give the public a much fuller update on their plan and the project status as soon as possible.”
This includes illustrations of the proposed changes, a new construction timeline, and plan to address impacts on neighbors and traffic during the longer construction period.
Weinberger, himself a developer, stressed, however, that the city has limited control of the project. Aside from the public financing to reconnect long-severed city streets, the property is private — as is the millions of dollars that will be needed to revitalize it.
“The City cannot succeed at our goal of transforming this part of our downtown into a vibrant, mixed-use neighborhood without a strong partner,” Weinberger said.
Weinberger was not available for an interview Friday. It’s unclear how detailed an explanation he or the council has received about the financial issues the project faces.
John Franco, an attorney representing opponents of the redevelopment, said he thinks the redesign will set the project back at least a year and a half, maybe longer. He’s long been told that reducing the size of the project wasn’t possible because it could put at risk the city’s ability to pay for the $22 million worth of public infrastructure needed to support the project.
Bonds for those upgrades are supposed to be repaid with the increased taxes generated from the site. In addition to requiring another full round of public vetting and permitting, Franco said, the complex TIF agreements will also have to be reworked.
He chuckled when he read Brookfield’s claim of wanting to take a “holistic” approach to the project’s redesign that includes the Macy’s parcel. He’s been telling the city that all along, he said
The project’s lenders are likely the ones who ultimately concluded something didn’t add up, he said. “It took the bank to say what the hippies were saying all along — that this is not going to work,” Franco said.
Related Stories
Pit Happens: How Readers Would Fill the Hole That Is CityPlace Burlington
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
A little too ambitious, indeed! And the mayor is “frustrated and disappointed”?
With whom I wonder? With Brookfield perhaps, a firm that appears mercifully willing to save Burlington from itself?
The disaster embodied now in City Hole was brought to us by Miro Weinberger, his compliant councilors, and the BBA. They have no one to blame but themselves.
And now, in this dark hour, the mayor hopes that Brookfield, of all entities, will address some of the size and scale criticisms of the project.
Where was he and where were those councilors when Burlington needed them? They were wedded to Don Sinex and “leading” Burlington astray.
It’s time to eminent domain this property and return it to the people of Burlington. Reconnect the streets, build a nice park, and put a plaque “In Memoriam of the giant pit and Miro’s Political Career”
Maybe all the over 50 year old nimby’s should shoulder some of the blame for this. They were the ones who held up this project under the guise of wanting to build more parking spots.
Nice they can all go celebrate in their $400,000+ 3bdr homes they bought in the 70’s while the rest of us get priced out of town. Where are the apartments and downtown office jobs for young people?
Not sure who the most unlikable is: Miro? City Council? Sinex? Coalition for Livable Cities?
Meh…Montreal opens a brand new Champlain Bridge after only 3.5 years of construction…Burlington in the same time period has a big trench in middle of its downtown and is still not sure how long the reconstruction of a 300 yards block of St. Paul street will take…we are kicking butt for sure hahaha
One of my primary concerns is will the redesign support the TIF bonds? During the original rezoning process two years ago, I heard Jane Knodell say the design for the original project (14 stories) was needed to support the TIF calculations. That was an eye-opening clue for me since I wondered why we needed such a large-scale project. Basically, the project needed a certain square footage to generate enough revenue financially to support debt, TIF repayment and profit for Sinex. I’ll be curious if the redesign speaks to the TIF support, otherwise the taxpayers could be on the hook for that.
We were repeatedly told in 2017 that the scale of the project was essential to generating sufiicient property tax revenues to make the TIF financing work. That will certainty be a factor in the feasibility of any redesign.
Also for the record we settled all outstanding litigation concerning the property within 3 months of filing the zoning appeal in April of 2017 so that the project could go forward. Six months later, with the complicity of the City, Don Sinex gutted it with amendments made behnd our backs by reducing the floor space onsite parking by almost 40%. Since then we have been fighting only to hold them to their word enforce the benefit of our our bargain which, among other things, allowed Sinex to proceed with the project demolition.
If that’s anti development, then it’s too damned bad.
Brookfield is going to work with the administration and stakeholders? Well, if it’s the same stakeholders that created the 14 story towers, that’s not a good idea. Suggest Brookfield engage the community by attending Neighborhood Planning Assemblies and listening. https://www.burlingtonvt.gov/CEDO/Neighbor…
From stop signs to major development projects, the NPAs offer developers an opportunity to gather ideas and get feedback. Major projects are required to visit the NPA of the Ward in which the developments are proposed. If it’s a large project that may be seeking public funding, it’s considerate and smart to visit all the NPAs, early in the planning process.
Sinex skipped the Neighborhood Planning Assemblies in the planning phase of his project. We wouldn’t be where we are now if he had listened to the community instead of sequestering himself with so-called downtown stakeholders. Just watch, the changes Brookfield will propose now will be changes the Coalition for Livable Community recommended based on feedback from many people in the community.
Seems to me the comments below beg the question of whether a significant redesign will have to go back through the formal (State/public) TIF approval process. And it must be mentioned – why is the mayor referring to this as a “long-troubled” site? More on his watch than anything else. You can see the political-revisionist history wheels turning, some leadership (or at least just avoid passing the buck, for once) would be nice instead…
Well, some of us saw this coming.
As far as “Not sure who the most unlikable is: Miro? City Council? Sinex? Coalition for Livable Cities?”
I would answer “It must be the first three, as the CLC tried to warn the public about this.”
Can you consider the Coalition, who tried to reason with the other three, to be the ones to blame? You already have a scapegoat or two (or three). I think that you’ll find the CLC is on your side. Sinex would like to blame the CLC for requiring him to follow through on his promises.
But that was never the problem with this project.
Mark my words: The only reduction in size of the property will be to reduce the amount of mandated parking spaces required of the development. Brookfield now has Miro and the City over the barrel. Parking spaces are a money losing regulatory cost of development. Brookfield needs to reduce costs. It’s that simple.
Allowing development with insufficient parking does not cause people to walk, bike or ride the bus instead of driving. It only makes them park their cars in illegal and dangerous ways when they can’t find a space.
Lol yea Franco you’re such a hero. I wonder what you and your friends will sue next. Maybe you’ll get the hospital shut down because the noise from the ambulances is out of character with the community.
Also the CLC is not Burlington’s friend. They are people who feel entitled to decide what Burlington is and isn’t. They don’t mind if it means other aren’t able to enjoy the benefits of living here.
Ughhh…this comment section is about as much fun as going to an NPA meeting.
I assume the changes will include a massive reduction in the office space because there isn’t a market for it. I’m sure the housing would lease quickly.
As for parking I’m glad there will be less of it. There was no reason to increase the amount of spaces in the first place. Especially with all the empty spaces next door at Lakeview garage. Underground parking is expensive. Force rents to go up and support carbon emissions. All of that is 100% true.
Annoyed in ONE,
You said
“Also the CLC is not Burlington’s friend. They are people who feel entitled to decide what Burlington is and isn’t. They don’t mind if it means other aren’t able to enjoy the benefits of living here.”
I don’t think you even know who we are. Let’s say YOU are not Burlington’s friend. Because we are.
We ASK people what they want, we don’t tell them what we want. Thank you.
So, it was Sinex the whole time. I knew Sinex and Sinex alone was to blame. Any tough hombre who would place intimidating, larger than life images of himself all around a pit he and he alone created with his own bare hands surely is the kind of evil genius capable of ruining Christmas. That poor man in Arkansas fell victim to Sinexs wrath but not Weinberger who has been openly frustrated by Sinexs attempt to build a much too tall mall even though Weinberger fought it with his super pac. Im glad Weinberger finally came out with some vague words to clear this whole thing up. Downtown is saved.
Future obstructionist lawsuits by the Coalition of Old Anti Everythings:
vs. UVM, because it attracts young people to the state, and we dont want that
vs. the Chamber of Commerce, because it promotes business activity, and we dont want that
vs. the construction industry, because they build things, and we dont want that
vs. law enforcement, because . . . um . . . well . . . we just hate them
I see the Neo-libs are not taking this sitting down. A redesign down to 10 or 12 stories is not a redesign at all. It will just be more arrogance.
It is beyond ironic that Miro wants the developer to be “more transparent” when it is Miro who keeps holding these executive sessions so the public can only hear the lie agreed upon in the back room, and not the truth of what is really happening.
I keep thinking about the movie “Jaws” where the mayor continues to deny there is a shark in the waters off Amity because he doesn’t want to miss out on the summer tourist money. It is only after a few people get eaten and Chief Brady tells him that he is “the mayor of Shark City” that he finally snaps out of it and he realizes just how badly he has bungled the situation.
Stay cool and stay tuned . . .
I don’t know what a neo-lib is, but I’m sitting down right now.
I like your letter though – good work.
Lets put a vertical landing pad for the Marine F35 variant there.
FYI the mall is now (has been for several years?) owned by a company that supports Brasil’s fascist government under Bolsanaro and 100% wants the country to privatize hard. So glad this is the company that owns our downtown/government now.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/20…
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-…
The article with the most comments wins.
What a mess. What we need is real leadership with folks who have the energy and know-how to get things done. Please renegotiate the contract and expand the plan as follows: 1) keep the mixed use plan and connectivity to the waterfront but scale down the size to 5 stories, 2) upscale the residential aspects of the current city hole to bring in more out of town dollars, 3) tear down the dilapidated rusty Moran plant for good (save small portions for posterity and the arts sake), and bring in a large hotel conference center with large $$ in it’s place in exchange for the hotelier a) funding connectivity to the city hole (benefits both city and hotel), and b)improving outdoor park experience and connectivity along the waterfront to the north of the property in an environmentally sound manner, critical to this is having very strong clear connectivity and rapid access between Church Street and the waterfront,
What a mess. What we need is real leadership with folks who have the energy and know-how to get things done. Please renegotiate the contract and expand the plan as follows: 1) keep the mixed use plan and connectivity to the waterfront but scale down the size to 5 stories, 2) upscale the residential aspects of the current city hole to bring in more out of town dollars…
…4) build additional parking garages downtown, and substantially improve access to downtown from Main Street, Winooski, and Shelburne road, 5) overhaul and incentivize our city workforce with specific annual milestones with annual bonus tied to work performance goals, 6) actively work to establish downtown for profit businesses to ensure jobs for Burlingtonians (ideally with a 1-3 mid-size corporate entities (eg. a Morgan Stanley, a large insurance carrier, etc.)). Establish all of this with a specific driven three year plan, 7) modify the current city hall park plan to have more trees with less cement, and solve the downtown homeless problem with jobs , disallowing vagrancy in our city parks, and with providing space a few blocks removed for those who struggle with working and life, 8) have a massive city wide party fall of 2022 to celebrate our success and good fortune to be living in one of the most beautiful and most successful places in the world.
https://jpjam.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/…
@Russell Beste
Im a big No on your idea for a conference center on the waterfront… its already increasingly becoming far too privatized for my tastes … however your idea to scale back the design of BTC to five stories is a good one… Id even allow for six to seven with setbacks… but what you do is create the connectivity you seek by creating an extension of Church Street down to Battery and the hotels that already exist… four story buildings on either side lining the new extension of the pedestrian mall… street retail and restaurants… second floor businesses and third and fourth residential akin to what already is happening on Church St… and then behind them five to seven story mix of office space and more residential above… Miro is constantly spewing ad naseum about active streets and being vibrant… thats how you do it… not by stuffing rich folks up in high rise towers… take a page from the Paris playbook…
Russell – I agree with much you say, but ” disallowing vagrancy in our city parks” won’t work because in 2018, the Vermont Legislature passed a repeal of the Vagrancy Laws:
[Until this year, Vermont law allowed any person to be thrown in prison for six months for “roving from place to place and living without visible means of support” and begging, trespassing or riding a train without permission. These laws date to the late 1960s and early 1970s and are “very likely unconstitutional,” the Legislature said.]
So, while I’m in agreement about the trees (though Miro has already cut them down) I’m afraid we have to be more inventive with the people who have come to town and have no home. We must abide by the law. I think we need an agency, or some type of organization, to help sort things out for the homeless, and we have not done that yet. We are playing “Whack-a-Mole.”