Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

KITTYONFYRE t1_iuhyws5 wrote

Reply to comment by Most_Expert_8080 in Accurate by seanner_vt2

> Maybe we should allow for some higher density housing in Burlington everywhere in vermont

ntoe: it should be ALLOWED everywhere (with a few exceptions for natural areas which should have basically nil development), but that doesn't mean a 6 story condo complex is gonna get built in the NEK


BrendanTFirefly t1_iui3i8e wrote

We need to increase density exclusively in our downtowns and immediate vicinities.

We need to discourage further development in undeveloped areas.


advamputee t1_iui4fk1 wrote

This. Rutland, Burlington, the upper Valley, and the Montpelier / Barre area all have under-utilized urban areas. Remove parking minimums, loosen zoning restrictions, and encourage more infill development around existing infrastructure. Rebuild and reuse what we already have before destroying what’s left of Vermont’s natural land. We don’t want to become another Connecticut or Rhode Island, where just about every inch of the state is covered in sprawling single family homes.


mojitz t1_iui8etx wrote

Throw in some smart social housing and you have a recipe for something pretty close to ideal — efficient urban centers with readily available services right out your door within a short walk/bike ride to surrounding nature.


the_ocean t1_iuifrmh wrote

I’m on a DRB and it’s infuriating how easy it (usually) is for us to approve people with 50+ acres subdividing into 3 ~15 acre parcels when it’s almost impossible to permit someone’s desperately-needed 8-unit rehab / conversion project.

We don’t need 2 new vacation homes. We need 400 units of mid-tier housing.


Mad__Vlad t1_iujovi1 wrote

Or even one acre parcels, the septic restrictions kills subdividing larger lots.


the_ocean t1_iujxt1e wrote

Much as I’d hate to see a bunch of 1-acre plots with single family homes, I’d take it over no housing options at all. And it’s still better than a subdivision of ~1/8 acres lots with single family homes, which is extremely common in MA.

Edit to add: what I mean is I want to see town center build wastewater systems so we can build denser houses than septic allows, as well as more multi family and attached houses, and not build suburban sprawl houses.


Mad__Vlad t1_iujydv5 wrote

Down in my corner of the state land is outrageously priced for anything worth building on and only sold in ten acre plus parcels. It’s really one of the main reasons our average new construction is at $400k, only the wealthy can drop $100k on a parcel then actually budget a build as well.


Aol_awaymessage t1_iuil272 wrote

Yep. Downtowns need to build up (even just 3-5 stories). Nice and dense and compact and mixed use - like European towns. That leaves lots of space for nature, and makes services easier and cheaper too.


Galadrond t1_iuk058k wrote

If you want see examples of Urban Planning done right, look at towns and cities in the Netherlands.


KITTYONFYRE t1_iui5b1o wrote

Right. Exactly. Those undeveloped areas are what I'm saying should have nil development. I think that would happen organically anyway - nobody is gonna build a gigantic housing project in the middle of nowhere, and act 250 should take care of that already - but definitely less outward spreading the better.


Distinguished_Parrot t1_iuip1z3 wrote

That same Act 250 that Scott vowed to destroy before becoming governor? The same one he attempted to take control over? Without those protections, smart development in the state will mean nothing while we see single-family houses and businesses everywhere.


thisoneisnotasbad t1_iuj82us wrote

A few people have tried. Locals did not like their politics or god or something and act 250 was weaponized to prevent it from happening.


BookieLukie t1_iuirydq wrote

The other problem though, as in Burlington and the O.N.E. as an example, is that these old houses have been subdivided so much and poorly taken care of that we have neighborhood blite along with increased density and no parking, and they're taking away even more parking as they resurface the streets. Not good for those of us with disabilities, then add in the universities and COVID pushing students into what USED to be family housing. And lets not even get taking about THE PIT downtown. Increasing wages without increasing available housing will just add to the gentrification already going on across the state. If we are going to lower housing cost, available units need to exceed density. The universities have a huge roll to play in the problem.


mountainofclay t1_iujog8z wrote

Oh, you mean landlords should have to do a better job of maintaining the properties they are making money from? What are you, some kind of Communist?



mountainofclay t1_iujkztz wrote

Else we turn into what everyone who is wanting to move here is trying to get away from. I grew up in Northern New Jersey, and lived in Philadelphia, no thanks. I was lucky to get out while the getting was good. Some Vermont small downtowns could stand some residential redevelopment. Doing that everywhere is nothing more than suburban sprawl. That means more cars and traffic, higher costs, and deteriorating environment. Gotta be a better way. I believe the act 250 laws try to address that and are the way to go unless you are on the wrong end of the restrictions. Relaxing zoning restrictions for housing makes sense until the capacity to handle waste is exceeded. People need to scale back, drive less, spend less, consume less and be satisfied not having a McMansion in the suburbs.


Divio42 t1_iuiztag wrote

Higher density residential leaves more room for nature than the equivalent average sized housing.


mountainofclay t1_iujp2b3 wrote

Yeah but only is a corresponding infrastructure is in place and maintained. That costs money. The alternative is a ghetto.


Galadrond t1_iujzt5w wrote

Southern VT is a case study in why we need dense mixed use downtowns and public housing in this State. Barely anyone can afford to pay much more than $500 in rent + utilities while maintaining a car because their apartment building is in an un-walkable location.


bob742omb t1_iuizix7 wrote

While this is the clear solution, NIMBYs will stand in the way as they always have. Our beautiful state could do so much better.