This commentary is by Colin Larsen of Burlington. He is a housing and transportation advocate and a member of Vermonters for People-Oriented Places (VPOP), a grassroots organization dedicated to building affordable, resilient communities.
As a community member who has spent considerable time and energy understanding and engaging with the Neighborhood Code process, I was disheartened by Paul Bierman’s recent editorial in opposition.
To begin, the desire to protect the health of Lake Champlain, reduce stormwater runoff, and reduce combined sewer overflow events are goals that we should all share. Urban planning in the 21st century must certainly adapt for extreme weather events and encourage climate-resilient cities. That said, Mr. Bierman’s prediction that this zoning change will “reverse years of work” is misleading, and denying suburban infill would be gravely inequitable.
Firstly, the lot coverage limits in the Code represent a modest expansion over existing limits — 10% in the Residential-Low district (the majority of residential lots) and 20% in Residential-Medium district. It is not the case that new development would uniformly displace only greenspace. Many lots, particularly in the Old North End, face constraints due to design standards and geometry. Infill there will be far more limited than the theoretical maximum allowed by the new code.
Next, we must understand that less dense, suburban neighborhoods are financial losers for the city, as they generate fewer revenues per acre yet still require significant infrastructure spending to simply maintain sidewalks, streets, and water and sewer lines. The additional property taxes and impact fees from added density in these areas should enable the city to manage, and even improve, our stormwater infrastructure over time. Indeed, as things currently stand, the city cannot support additional climate resilience investment with the existing tax base. This is particularly salient as we move into a new fiscal year facing a $9 million budget shortfall.
Limiting the capacity for meaningful infill to only downtown-area lots, as Mr. Bierman suggests, would represent an environmental and economic injustice. The cost per acre is highest in the locations Mr. Bierman has noted in his piece. This will drive the price of market-rate units up, worsening the two-tiered system of “luxury” units and subsidized, “affordable” units.
300+ unit projects like CityPlace are capital-intensive and complex, and can be undertaken only by experienced, wealthy developers. Moving toward these small-scale infill developments instead allow us to decentralize and democratize housing, empowering the citizen-developer to drive change on their block.
Furthermore, the areas of the city in which land acquisition costs are, on average, lower, also contain higher concentrations of parks and green space. The existing development patterns of these areas — particularly areas like Appletree Point and the southern Hill Section — have, by design, enabled only expensive homes on large lots, thus economically segregating them from other neighborhoods. By saving these areas from infill, we exacerbate this inequality and place them forever out of reach for average Vermonters.
Finally, we must place Mr. Bierman’s essay within the context of Burlington politics. I applaud Mr. Bierman’s willingness to advocate for taller buildings and parking removal. However, it must be acknowledged that Burlington has a long history of anti-development sentiment. Unlike Mr. Beirman, there exists a vocal and influential minority strictly opposed to nearly all development. As readers may recall, the so-called “Coalition for a Livable City” sued the original CityPlace developer to add more parking spaces.
Mr. Bierman’s essay will surely be cited in cynical attempts to drag the Neighborhood Code process out and weaken it. Those who call for delay will not return later this year to advocate for taller buildings around UVM and downtown, nor enthusiastically call on the city to build ample housing elsewhere. We cannot construct a sustainable model for housing growth with spot-zoning changes alone. We cannot afford knock-down drag-out political battles for every individual project. Such delays last years and cost millions of dollars. In the meantime, our unhoused and rent-burdened neighbors suffer.
Smart growth should be understood not as a local policy, but as a regional one. We build in Burlington, where there exists a concentration of goods, services and jobs, so that green space can be preserved in Hinesburg, Richmond and Milton. Workers should need not commute 30 miles in carbon-spewing personal vehicles that contribute substantially to toxic runoff. Instead, we must enable them to live only a few miles (at most) from work, where they can walk, bike or take the bus. While the population of Burlington has remained largely stagnant since 1970, Chittenden County’s overall population has nearly doubled. The inability to construct additional dense housing in Burlington has driven sprawl outwards, fracturing our fragile wildlands, increasing carbon consumption and damaging affordability. When we each, individually, try so desperately to preserve our own narrow slices and refuse to adapt, the macroenvironment suffers.
I call upon residents to show your support for the Neighborhood Code by emailing your Burlington city councilors, and by attending the first public hearing before the council on Feb. 26. With every month that passes, our city and state’s housing crisis worsens. We need a government that acts with urgency, not lethargy. The Neighborhood Code is a start, and one that is long overdue.
