Boulder's elected leaders have been discussing a long-range housing policy, and the lack of ample housing suitable for middle class workers. As Boulder becomes a more urban place, what are the benefits and costs of increased density?



In the current debate about Boulder's long-range housing policy, we should be asking: What is the appropriate number of residents for our city to have and keep it a pleasant, attractive community, which is the reason most of us chose to live here?

It is commendable that some folks --read, merchants -- want to create reasonably priced housing to attract many of the estimated 40,000 who live elsewhere and drive to Boulder jobs daily. However, what might be the impact of dropping half of the Longmont population on Boulder?

What are the benefits and costs of increased density?

While most of the discussion is based on numbers, the key factor should be sustainability.

Let's look at some possible consequences of such decisions.

Would we have adequate water as well as sewage treatment for an expanded population?

What about increased air and noise pollution levels as a result of additional vehicles on our streets? Will we need more parking spaces?

Might growth lead to diminished quality of life because of overcrowded streets and roads, schools, greater demand for medical care, courts, jails?

How will travel time within the city be affected?


The promise of jobs and more interesting surroundings is attracting people to cities around the world. One estimate is that by 2050, two-thirds of the people will live in urban areas.

But cities are facing problems such as poverty, crime, and environmental degradation.

Ought we keep Boulder safe from such urbanization trends?

Marc Raizman


Many came to Boulder to be surrounded by the wonderful natural environment and yet still be close, but safely separated from, a larger urban community. Many have stayed for those reasons but also because they found that they were surrounded by like-minded people of the same or similar socio-economic strata and political mind-set.

As Boulder urbanizes, it will diversify in all respects, including some respects that may not be deemed desirable to many of those lucky enough to get here before the hoards. Of course, more urbanity means more density which means more traffic and all that comes with it in terms of its negative effects on quality of life. As for the benefits of policies that would encourage more "middle-class" housing, given Boulder's predominate values, it would seem that most would appreciate the larger tax base and would relish the opportunity to share our little piece of paradise with those who might not otherwise be so fortunate.

What started this debate was the fate of the under-utilized real estate in the vicinity of the proposed transit facility. I'll use my soapbox to propose bold community-values based solutions to that dilemma. What about a combination dog park, alternative fuel vehicle parking lot, and prairie dog preserve? Maybe even a pot super-store (WeedMart, not Walmart)? What could be more Boulder?

Rusty Staff

City Council wants to accomplish two goals. First, it seeks to limit commuting. Second, it wants to diversify the demographic mix of residents, both racially and socio-economically.

We have Manhattanized Boulder with Open Space. We can't grow out. We can grow up in height, grow up in price, or grow in density. Or we can not grow at all. If we allow market forces to rule, we will get richer and probably whiter. People will still commute to work.

The conventional solutions are indirect, and they haven't worked very well. We've discouraged business growth through down-zoning, building permitting, and regulation. We seek diversity through building permits that encourage density. We have committed ourselves to city-owned price-controlled housing and through "inclusionary zoning." We spend $5.5 Million dollars on housing programs, per the city budget.

We have made commuting more difficult by de-tuning the surface transportation system. We have done this through "traffic calming." Traffic calming means cul-de-sacs, speed bumps, and traffic circles: the things that make drivers anything but calm. After all, Boulder has about three actual streets. The rest of the system is semi-private driveways.

Here is a thought experiment. What if we paid people directly to do what we want? We would pay businesses to leave town, pay commuters to take the bus, pay high-income people to leave, and pay low-income people to enter. We could do this on an internet auction. Any volunteers for auctioneer?


Steve Fisher


In the apocalyptic views of James Howard Kunstler the suburbs will soon be a death trap in a fossil fuel starved world. Such a view makes one hunger for maximal housing in town, close to jobs and essential services.

However, till then, middle class families with children have a hard time not drifting toward the 'burbs. With a good backyard a family can build a tree house, a putting green, a permanent barbecue haven -- and this mom's favorite -- real gardens with storied landscaping, all presided over by large dogs.

For middle class families, high density living would only be acceptable if the schools are superior and the wealth-through-community is irresistible. Such housing would need on-site community gardens, child and doggie daycare, interior parks where kids are safe to play or even leave toys on the lawn, plus delectable group resources -- pool, tennis, great views from high terraces, fire pits, trees galore -- and don't forget superior sound and fireproofing plus criminal background checks. The best designers for such high end "projects" might well come from the resort industry. Imagine the freedom never to mow a lawn again, made even sweeter if there's a community woodworking shop. Some examples already exist in Boulder such as the Peloton which gets strong reviews from its residents.

We know from the resort industry that density can be glam and not always completely out of reach, so Boulder should be confident and plan for density.

Anne B. Butterfield


Boulder is not the right place for everyone. Smaller towns with a slower pace also have great appeal. There is a challenging tipping point where increased density exacerbates traffic congestion. Our problem: In order not to "Aspenize" Boulder needs to provide additional affordable housing for seniors and others with limited income who do wish to live here. Everyday 60,000 inbound/outbound commuters raise the carbon emissions into the atmosphere. We must try to capture half of these commuters as new residents in the years ahead. Increased alternative modes of transportation like transit, biking, carpooling, telecommuting must be more fully used.

We must more efficiently use our land, mitigate higher density impacts, preserve our historic and middle-income neighborhoods, and become more tolerant of diverse housing and mixed use projects. Conventional wisdom tells us that by increasing density, by building 8-10 stories in selected sites (never obstructing views of the Flatirons and Front Range), and increasing the number of accessory units, we can maintain an attractive urban quality of life that accommodates people of all incomes. The valiant efforts of city planners and operations like the Boulder Housing Partners have gained national recognition. The urban growth boundaries are sacred. Sprawl must be prevented.

I like the goal mentioned by Penny Hannegan, Director of Business Development at Boulder Housing Partners who said, "we want our kids to be able to afford to live here if they wish." Boulder can launch a national model.

Spense Havlick

