SOME MYTHS oF Plan B.T.V.
South EnD–SPEAK Debunked
MYTH 1 :
The market is a monster and planners can do nothing to stop unwanted
development in parcels of space that the city does not own. The only way to protect
ourselves from “destiny and the whims of the real estate market” is to collaborate with a developer to
buy a building or to be happy with accepting the 3-5% (in some places in the plan) or 5-10% (in others)
inclusionary art space that the city “could require” (note: not “will” or “must” require) in any new
building in the district.
Reality:
The Enterprise District already has a protective zoning regulation in place that
protects artists and industry from the whims of the market. This is precisely the
protection which the planners want to remove. Furthermore, the job of planners is to implement zoning
and regulation in accordance with a long-term vision based on community values, not the whims of the
market. The protective industrial zone in the ED can, thus, be strengthened to include more incentives
for affordable rents for artist, industrial, innovator, and creative commercial space, without giving up
any of the protections already in place.
MYTH 2 :
Adding infill buildings in the ED with a 5-10% requirement for artist space will
increase artist space in the area. While the “Artists’ Tool Kit” accompanying the draft plan
does provide a few lines suggesting some practical ideas, such as providing technical assistance to
landlords to make renovations and to meet code regulations and to help with grant funding for such
costs, the basic advice is to allow more and more building that is not artist-related in order to fund a
small percentage of artist-related space or work/live space. The language suggests that allowing infill
development will increase artist space.
Reality:
If you add a bunch of new buildings which only have 5-10% of new artist space,
you are actually expanding non-artist space by 90-95%, thus proportionately
lowering artist space, destroying the nature and usage of the neighborhood, and
driving rents up all around. The way to get the alleged benefit of this measly 3-15 % is described
as follows: “Provide incentives for developers and property owners to provide new affordable artist and
maker spaces,” including floor area bonuses, the right to build housing by special permit, expedited
permitting, and a waiver of permitting fees. In other words, just what the developers want.
MYTH 3:
The B.C.A. Artists’ Housing Survey is a great way to assess what artists in
Burlington want and proves that local artists want work/live spaces. This survey is
mentioned a number of times in the draft plan as if it were a reliable measure of whether artists in the
South End want work/live housing in the Enterprise District. “The results are in” the plan proudly crows!
Reality:
The survey is practically useless as a scientific research data collector for a
number of reasons, not least of which are the lead-in questions and confusion
as to terminology and survey sample. Many people have noted that the survey read as a
thinly veiled tool to elicit the kinds of data that would favor the city’s pre-determined decision to put
housing in the ED. Leading questions asking people if they would like to live, if affordable, if
appropriate, in housing on Pine Street, are misleading when the people surveyed were not asked if they
would just as well like to live in an apartment outside the ED. More importantly, people should not
have been asked to vote on whether they would like to live in the ED without educating them first on
what that would mean for the continued prospering of jobs, industry, and the arts district. The only fair
question would have been: would you like to live in the ED if you knew that it would push out industry,
jobs, and artists from the area? Also the qualifications "if it was affordable"/ "if it was appropriate"
make the whole question moot. It will not be affordable and it will not be appropriate. Furthermore, a
great number of the survey participants do not have studios in the South End and many of them do not
even live in Burlington. There was confusion about the question of work/live space, with many people
thinking that the question merely was asking whether they wanted studio space in the South End, not
necessarily housing as well, which is clear from the answers. In any case, the survey does not represent
the views of the people who already do have studio space in the South End, because those people know
that, were housing to be introduced, they would be priced out of their studio spaces.
Myth 4:
Gentrification is already here, so we can't stop it. A number of proponents of the draft
plan have noted that there already are signs of gentrification in the neighborhood, pointing to
restaurants, bars, and high end commercial ventures. This is used as a justification for the continual
transformation of the neighborhood in the direction of market forces (see Myth 1).
Reality:
Many of these gentrifying elements have been allowed due to exceptions
granted by the city to a protective industrial zoning. Instead of continuing to allow such
exceptions, it would be in the best interest of the city to ensure the continuation of an industrial and
creative area that relies on cheap rent and the ability to make noise, emit smells, and make messes by
tightening zoning restrictions even further. Since the ED is only 4 % of the city’s space but represents
92% of the area where industrial activity is allowed, we really do need to consider where that industrial
activity could go once it is priced out by high end uses and housing. There really is nowhere else for it to
go. The city is literally ransoming off jobs, industry, and the prime incubation area for arts and
innovation in exchange for expensive apartments and tourist attractions.
More Myths to be Debunked:
Industry is a thing of the past, best replaced by new clean technology!
Housing in the ED will not adversely affect jobs, industry, artistry in the city and state!
The Champlain Parkway is a given and will reduce traffic on Pine Street!
The Barge Canal can be developed and still be cleaned up!
Housing may be able to be built on top of toxic areas!
We can keep building and also prevent Storm Water damages that require less paved areas!
Your neighborhood, Your Vision!
The City’s Housing Problem will be solved by market rate development in the ED and elsewhere!
To Be Continued….