Is the creative class ruining urban communities?

[In London:] "We've got lots of new bars ... but those who were born and bred here simply can't afford to live here anymore."

"those doing the gentrifying are fond of elaborate facial hair, artisanal food and retro kitsch."

CNN INTERNATIONAL:

For Dalston and Shoreditch in London, read Williamsburg in New York, Kreuzberg in Berlin, Mission District in San Francisco, Preston in Melbourne and many other formerly working class neighborhoods in cities around the world (with broad regional differences).

According to Loretta Lees, professor of human geography at the University of Leicester, what has happened follows a well worn pattern of urban development.

Creative, young, artistic types are enticed to move into an area by low rents or through encouragement from local councils. As time passes, more people move in attracted by what they see as the aspirational, cool vibe, hoping to become a part of this fabric themselves.

This influx brings in higher earning individuals and increases the local tax base which can lead to improved public services. But it also pushes up the cost of rent, goods and services in the area and eventually house prices too.

While this may be no bad thing for the new arrivals who can largely afford it, many of those who have lived in the area for generations can be priced out.

LOCAL NEWS: UP, UP AND AWAY

Burlington Free Press:-- Burlington’s City Council argued Monday night over a proposal to permit developers to build about 20 feet higher — to a maximum height of 127 feet (10 stories) — on commercial buildings in downtown Burlington.

The council never got around to voting on whether to vote on the proposal at its March 30 meeting. Councilor Joan Shannon, D-Ward 5, proposed to reduce the height limit to 105 feet. The council rejected Shannon’s amendment, 8-5.

Haik Bedrosian has an informal poll at BurlingtonPol.com - "Should Burliington's maximum allowed building height be raised to 127 feet?"

I didn't participate in the poll, but did comment at Haik's blog:--

To paraphrase Kurt Wright, this is not a question that can get a straightforward yes or no answer.
If I'm thinking of more affordable housing developed downtown, then I would pick "yes" (even mixed-use - businesses and housing - buildings would be a "yes" as my choice). If it's just for more business development downtown, I'd go with "no." If increased height allowances happen, we must remind city council and the governing committees/boards of their shameful role in the horrible Westlake/Marriott fiasco and its ultimate outcome with no affordable housing.

36 HOURS IN BURLINGTON

Back in September, 2007 The New York Times had a commissioned puff piece marketing Burlington's waterfront, which I discussed here. Yesterday's travel section featured Burlington again as a get-away venue - for 36 hours. There are some photos, too. Typical of the Times to focus on all the trendy places where out-of-towners may spend their cashed in 401(k)s. I guess it's the personal opinion of author Katie Zezima, but she leaves out an awful lot of other delights of Burlington. (How do certain restaurants get reviewed and others don't?) I guess it's because I live here; I am aware of the places she highlights, but the Burlington she describes is a tourist one that most residents don't experience or don't connect to. (Just as when I lived in Houston, London or NYC, I only visited touristic sites with relatives or visiting friends.)

She describes a nice little known oasis just three minutes' walk from my home.

Not sure of the time? Find out at the Burlington Earth Clock, a 43-foot-wide sundial at Oakledge Park and Beach (end of Flynn Street) made of slabs of granite from local quarries. Stand in the middle and look toward the mountains; the stones in front of you represent where the sun sets during equinoxes and solstices. On the other end of the park is a studio-size treehouse, suspended among nine large trees. It’s a childhood fantasy come true.

No doubt city councilors will praise this article (as they did the one in 2007). I guess I should be prepared to see lots of out-of-state license plates in my neighbourhood. No wonder Kiss and the councilors are urging us to vote yes tomorrow on the $5.5-million bond issue for a 3-year upgrading of Burlington's rundown streets. Fuck the tax payers: Gotta keep those tourists coming into our city so they can avoid the bumps on Flynn Avenue as they drive down to connect with nature!

'SMART DEMOLITION' FOR MORAN PLANT

After almost 8 months of petitioning Green Democratic Alliance were able to get the question of demolition on the March 2008 city election ballot. Now voters will truly have their say when it comes to the future of the Moran Plant building and surrounding site.

From the Green Democratic Alliance website---

Our goal, as the Green Democratic Alliance, is to help Burlington make that decision based on the facts and by broadening the public discussion. We are by no means opposed to many of the great ideas in the city's redevelopment plan. We simply want a healthy debate and an informed vote on redevelopment vs. smart demolition.
---
Most people think of demolition as razing a structure with one swing of a wrecking ball or a single dynamite blast and then hauling the rubble to a landfill. But times have changed. When we say demolition we mean 'smart demolition' or rather a technique known as 'deconstruction'. Smart demolition or deconstruction is environmentally beneficial because the brick, steel, concrete etc. from the Moran Plant building would be recycled enabling these materials to be re-used in the construction industry or sold to a salvaging company. This prevents the materials from being carted off to a landfill and helps reduce the amount of new virgin materials used for construction projects.
---
If the Moran Plant is deconstructed, our hope is that Burlington will choose to use the site as a multi-use public park that is free and open to all with park benches, gardens, and other basic amenities including retaining the granite Moran Sculpture and a home for the Community Sailing Center. We do not propose deconstruction as a means for any kind of future large-scale development projects on the Moran Plant site. We hope Burlington will choose to keep the waterfront accessible and green for future generations!
---
The city's large-scale redevelopment plan is expensive and is estimated to cost $21 million in which the city's share would be $7,369,996. While the city will seek federal sources to cover its share, the possibility exists that a finance vote may go to the voters, which if passed, would mean an increase in property taxes. Redevelopment would also require a significant amount of new virgin materials which will negatively impact the environment by continuing the cycle of natural resource depletion. With a development plan of this scale, there will be a significant increase in traffic on Lake Street and on the waterfront which will further complicate waterfront accessibility and negatively impact the environment.

We believe the city's plan is short-sighted as it does not take into serious consideration many of the above mentioned factors nor does it even consider the preservation of the granite Moran Sculpture which was a result from the International Sculpture Symposium, which took place on the shores of Lake Champlain in 1990. The focus of the international collaboration of eleven established sculptors was man and the natural environment, ecology, environmental change, cultural life and history of the region. The Moran Sculpture preserved a footprint on the waterfront in hopes that it would never be developed, as stated in the Burlington City Arts: Art in Public Places/Walking Art Tour Guide. It's certainly ironic that 18 years later this beautiful sculpture may be removed to make room for development.

MORAN PLANT: YOU DECIDE....

Burlington's Waterfront "Renewal"

Two commissioned articles praising the development of Burlington's waterfront appeared in the New York Times in recent months. In case you missed it, there's an article - "Finding Renewal in a Waterfront Renaissance" - in yesterday's (Sunday's - 30 September) travel section about the 'revitalised waterfront' - it's boilerplate marketing from the city's Community Economic and Development Office, and arguably, hints at a future expanded waterfront development, in addition to the revamped look of downtown's Church Street Marketplace. The article was freelanced by Marialisa Calta (website) - Vermont transplant, erstwhile newspaper reporter, journalism prof at UVM, food writer. It's a typical NYT travel piece, touting touristy venues; but it's a PR article of which the Chamber of Commerce would be proud.

IN 1974, when Art Cohn took a job as a commercial diver on the Burlington, Vt., waterfront, “it was a no man’s land: oil tanks, barbed wire everywhere, scrap yards and junk,” he said. Now, as executive director of the Lake Champlain Maritime Museum, which is dedicated to the lake’s maritime history, Mr. Cohn can stand on the deck of the museum’s schooner and survey a waterfront teaming with cyclists, joggers, boaters and tourists.

“It’s a completely different place,” he said. “The transformation is extraordinary.”

Burlington — which, with about 39,000 residents, is Vermont’s largest city — is rediscovering an asset long hidden in plain sight: Lake Champlain, a waterway that transported people and merchandise and, said Mr. Cohn, brought the city into existence.
---
In the second half of the 19th century, Mr. Cohn said, the lumber business thrived, and waterfront acreage was created with fill “just to have more land on which to pile more lumber.” But by the 1930s and ’40s, the waterfront had become primarily a storage place for oil tanks. Melinda Moulton, a local entrepreneur who bought land there in the early 1980s, remembers touring sites with a squirt gun in hand, to keep the rats at bay.
---
That all began to change around 1988, when the Waterfront Revitalization Plan — heavy on public use, environmental consciousness and careful private development — was created.

All true, but wait....

The city’s future revitalization plans may include an outdoor skating rink, a public market and public transit by rail and water. Currently, public transportation to the waterfront is limited but handy: a free bus with a route that shuttles from the lake to the Church Street Marketplace and on to the University of Vermont.

With all of the biking and jogging and dining going on, it is sometimes easy to forget that there is an entire lake out there — 120 miles long and 12 miles wide — waiting to be explored.

Not only explored, but developed...

The second article appeared last March in the NYT's real estate section, by another freelancer, Wendy Knight: A Waterfront That Has Left Its Wasteland Days Behind

She must have just C/P'd the press releases from Westlake and Marriott, eh? It's just a phony PR piece with a lot of inaccuracies.

Public and private investments have turned Burlington, Vermont’s once-dilapidated waterfront into the city’s jewel.
---
To date, 20 public or private buildings have been built or renovated on or near the waterfront for a total public-private investment that exceeds $128 million, according to Michael Monte, the director of the city’s Community and Economic Development Office.

Even from the article's title, the implication is that our waterfront, once a 'wasteland,' will be improved by the current development. (T.S. Eliot she ain't.)

[Interesting detail about the author (from her website): "Wendy Knight is a senior public relations consultant with over fifteen years of experience in developing and implementing strategic communication plans, branding strategies and press campaigns. Her clients have included pharmaceutical companies, health insurers, adventure retreats, environmental organizations and restaurant groups."] So much for investigative journalistic integrity. (And we wonder why workers are leaving the Free Press.)

No real mention of the natural lake or the natural wetlands - according to CEDO, ideal for development. Already the Westlake complex has been nearly developed, but there are inherent problems with the developers, who want to renege on their committment to building affordable housing on the property.

To date, 20 public or private buildings have been built or renovated on or near the waterfront for a total public-private investment that exceeds $128 million, according to Michael Monte, the director of the city’s Community and Economic Development Office.
---
Burlington prides itself on careful development. “Vermont has a reputation for its rigorous permitting process,” said Jay Canning, a local hotel developer and operator and one of the owners of the hotel, which is franchised by the Marriott Corporation. “You have to be very determined to get something done.”
---
“When they came to us we said 100 percent we’re with you,” said Mr. Monte, who devised an unusual financing arrangement with the Westlake developers.
---
“The city was absolutely instrumental,” Mr. Scheuer [developer/owner of Westlake] said.
---
Development along the waterfront in this city of 38,000 is often fraught with lengthy public input. “We have a very engaged citizenry,” said Sharon Bushor, a City Council member.
---
Many residents feel that they are entitled in perpetuity to water views — “so anything on the water’s edge is going to have tremendous public scrutiny,” said Melinda Moulton, co-owner of Main Street Landing, a local developer.

It's not just views, but access....the waterfront belongs to the public...so access for all is tantamount. That's why it's crucial to support Waterfront Watchdogs and Citizens for a Liveable City!

The remaining waterfront eyesore is the Moran Plant, a former coal-fired electric plant at the northern edge of Waterfront Park. Except for a nonprofit sailing center that occupies a fraction of the space, the building has been vacant for 20 years.

In March 2006, the city received more than 10,000 responses to a survey of residents on what to do with the site, Ms. Bushor said. The survey’s results, and several lively public hearings, suggested that most residents thought the Moran Plant should be used for a mixed-use project accessible to the public.

The latest vision, Mr. Monte said, encompasses a range of uses, including an outdoor skating rink, a rooftop restaurant and a museum. There is no timetable for development, and the city is reviewing the public input and determining the next steps.

Ms. Bushor said she believed that the incremental approach to development had served the community well. Because once land is developed, she said, “it’s gone.”

What's not written in this article are plans by the city and developers to move along the waterfront to the urban reserve area north of the current skatepark; I hear plans are to relocate the King Street ferry terminal and a new hotel complex there.

Burlington zoning changes don't serve public

Important City Council meeting tonight... 6:15 PM - Contois Auditorium, City Hall

Burlington Free Press by Maurice Mahoney [former city councilor and member of Citizens for a Liveable City] -

My Turn: Zoning changes don't serve public

August 4, 2007
Councilor Jane Knodell's My Turn: Zoning draft allows city to evolve (July 24) was incomplete in its facts. What was omitted was more revealing than what was stated. Her justifications for the zoning amendments offered by Councilors Kurt Wright, Tim Ashe, Knodell and Paul Decelles are misleading and suggest that Burlington will go to hell in a hand-basket if the Wright, Ashe, Knodell and Decelles amendments are not passed.

Wait just a minute, folks.

After more than four years of work by the Planning Commission, these councilors offered some 40 pages of amendments out of the blue.

In contrast, Councilors Joan Shannon and Russell Ellis offered a few amendments that reflect years of public concern and input from their constituents.

The amendments Knodell supported would have removed parking requirements for the crowded Old North End, destroyed view corridors for the people of Burlington and many visitors who don't come here to look at 10-story buildings rising straight up from the sidewalk, wiped out citizen right of appeal with on-the-record review, allowed developers to overbuild on wetland areas and open lands the city has protected and giving "bonuses" for doing what any responsible developer should be doing anyway.

And that is just a start.

The origins of the Wright, Ashe, Knodell, Decelles amendments are mysterious. Some are CEDO ideas rejected a year ago after public opposition. But all of them came from some back room. None of them came from the public's desire to maintain and preserve what is so wonderful about Burlington while encouraging responsible development.

How many members of the public said they would support losing their legal right of appeal on inappropriate building plans?

Councilor Knodell says that without her amendments, Burlington would wither away. Jane, none of us are that stupid.

Councilor Knodell bemoans the 12-foot setback requirement. She doesn't tell you that the 12-foot setback requirement is from the curb. As an example, the Roxy Cinema has a 13-foot setback on South Winooski Avenue and 15 feet on College Street. The new Westlake Condominium and hotel project on Battery Street, which has been universally panned for its hulking ugliness, has a 12-foot setback on Cherry Street. Is 12 feet too much? Would Councilor Knodell like her new high rises to cover the public sidewalk, too?

Typically, when politicians can't justify their position, they attack anyone who questions them. Councilor Knodell says opponents of her proposed amendments are afraid of any change.

Hold on here. No one I know is opposed to development in Burlington. But many people I know do not want the "radical, maximum-growth-at-any-cost approach" she advocates.

I urge the people of Burlington not to be intimidated by name-calling for their legitimate opinions. I remember when Councilor Knodell's Progressive colleagues and CEDO wanted a 200-room hotel on the waterfront where the park now stands. Opponents who said the land is public trust and should be open for the people were called flakes and loonies and against progress. I know because I was one of those people who fought hard for our Waterfront Park. Would you rather have a big hotel there?

People who wanted a public vote on the Moran/YMCA deal were called obstructionist and nay-sayers. I know because I was one of those people who demanded that the public have a voice in their property. Are you sorry you had a chance to vote on that idea?

I urge Burlington citizens to pay attention to what is being taken from them with the Wright, Ashe, Knodell, Decelles amendments. Get involved. Learn as much as you can about what some city councilors want to do to our future. Speak your mind without fear.

The true measure of a livable city is not just in what you add or change, but most importantly what you keep.

Burlington New North End - "Ward 4 under Siege by developers"

Burlington Free Press August 1, 2007 - "... The City Council is scheduled to vote on amendments 34, 37 and 38 [of the proposed zoning ordinance] -- among others -- Monday night, and the vote is crucial to Lea Terhune of Appletree Point Lane, a member of the Wards 4 and 7 Neighborhood Planning Assembly steering committee.

"The character of our existing neighborhood is at stake," she said.

She and other residents have called a meeting...

UPCOMING MEETING: Wards 4 and 7 Neighborhood Planning Assembly will meet to discuss the zoning ordinance, with New North End councilors attending, 7 p.m. Thursday, Heineberg Senior Center, 14 Heineberg Road. Call Lea Terhune, 658-1908.

Entire article: Burlington Free Press - Residents fear impact of zoning changes

Related post.