Editor’s note: This commentary is by Michael J. Badamo, of Montpelier, who was editor and publisher of The Watchman. He has been in and out of Vermont politics since 1976; in 2002 he ran for governor as a Progressive.
[I]n 1910 Montpelier actually was a walking city, a description today’s planners and developers claim as a goal. One wishes it was true.
In 1910 horses still plodded down State Street, a few automobiles edged slowly through pedestrians who walked freely just about everywhere, a small trolley loop ran around town. But mostly people walked, to work, to school, to church, to the tavern.
In 1910 the population of Montpelier was 7,856 people. The most recent census put the 2010 population at 7,855 residents, one person fewer than in 1910, and it is no longer a walking city except for a few, even though that goal continues to be the stated objective of master planning and new zoning regulations currently under intense discussion at City Hall.
In 1910 there were no suburban style housing clusters on Towne Hill, upper Terrace Street, upper Berlin Street and other places. So where did everybody live? A partial answer can be seen in photos from the period. Many of them lived right downtown on land that is now consumed by parking lots. We had few building regulations and no zoning. Housing ranged from brick rooming houses to little more than shacks, conditions not acceptable today but contributory to making work, shopping and socializing all within an easy walk.
By 1950 the city’s population had ballooned to 8,599, not a very impressive increase of 743 people over 40 years. Some of the old walking city still existed on life support. Parking lots and car-crowded streets were taking over. The post World War II suburbanization of America was taking root. Montpelier attempted to follow this trend which seemed to provide such abundant profits elsewhere for big scale developers and car dealers.
Montpelier tried to follow but just couldn’t seem to pull it off. By 1980 the population was on the decline, down to 8,241. Old houses were still being pulled down to make room for parking and expensive new houses in our puny suburbs went up very slowly. The big demographic changes in town were the ever increasing numbers of daytime commuters from surrounding towns and tourists. The city’s daytime population today is over 20,000 and they all need parking spots.
The city’s population in actual residence continues to decline, down even more than the 2010 census numbers. For many years this fact has plagued and worried City Hall as mayors, city councilors, and planning commissions have come and gone. About all that has come from all this concern is words. Today we have a new set of words on the table that won’t accomplish the goal of increasing population either and may contribute to making Montpelier a less attractive living environment.
One may doubt that even the most ardent growth booster at City Hall thinks Montpelier will actually grow to 40,000 people any time soon or anytime at all.
The new set of zoning regulations, now in public hearings before the City Council, appears to double down on 1950s encouragement of suburban sprawl while paying lip service to the walking city of fond memory and future aspiration. The motive behind the proposed changes is to somehow stimulate population growth within city limits. It won’t, of course, but might very well damage our quality of life thereby decreasing Montpelier’s attractive 19th century remnants.
A consultant to the Planning Commission reports that there currently exists 4,239 dwelling units in town. That is about two people on average per house, apartment, or rental room with a few left over. The proposed new zoning allows for an additional 16,158 dwelling units. At the current average of two people per unit this proposal anticipates an additional 32,000 people living within Montpelier city limits.
One may doubt that even the most ardent growth booster at City Hall thinks Montpelier will actually grow to 40,000 people any time soon or anytime at all. We might benefit from a few hundred more, maybe even a thousand. The problem is where new growth is encouraged by use of lot size, setback reductions, and the potential destruction of some of our most attractive open space.
The new regulations make some small gestures toward increasing residential density within “walking distance” of downtown but that is the area where it is most difficult to build more units. All those parking lots, mostly in flood plain, and the historic attractiveness of surrounding nearby areas make seriously challenging design problems and are not particularly attractive for profitable development.
The major increase in density proposed in the new plan is in the peripheral areas of town, completely undeveloped in 1910, by cutting minimum lot size allowing more 1950s suburban subdivision style development, potentially more profitable for developers but not anywhere near “walkable.” Will allowing increased density on upper Terrace Street, Towne Hill Road, and Sabin’s Pasture add the desirable population increase of 500 or 1,000 people? Maybe, maybe not, but a few scattered houses and apartments on the outskirts will certainly not add to the livability or walkability of Montpelier. Rather we will be encouraging a spotty landscape of isolated eyesores dependent on cars to go anywhere.
This approach has not worked in the past to increase population and seems unlikely to work now. It’s not hard to get a picture of why.
One need only to climb to near the top of North Street, a little above Mary Hooper’s house. The view is truly wonderful and can tell us everything we need to know why walkable, livable, historic Montpelier cannot grow suburban style. We can see most of the city stretched along the Winooski and the North Branch, a thin band of flat land and including some small hills covered with houses and trees.
Diving sharply down into the river valley on all sides much higher hills confine our small valley offering easy exits only along the rivers. Then mountains rise beyond the high hills. Montpelier is a very small pocket surrounded by daunting terrain. This is the beauty of our small city but it is also the main limitation to suburban development. It would be a good idea for our city councilors to take a look at that view from upper North Street for a while before diving back into that dense book of new zoning regulations.
