Boulder’s Planning Board has approved a proposal to build 45 furnished efficiency-living apartments at 2206 Pearl Street near the city’s downtown.
The project is among the first of its kind, given the size of the apartments and the limited vehicle parking. It is also an early test case of new and proposed housing policies in the City of Boulder to encourage more housing density.
The developer, stok Investment Group, a real estate firm with offices in Boulder, seeks to build 300-square-foot apartments equipped with robotic furniture to optimize limited space. For example, the bed can be manually or electronically raised from the floor to the ceiling to make space for a desk. Communal space is common throughout the property. Lockers and bike storage are provided on-site.
Moreover, the developer is seeking special permission to build about half the number of parking spaces required under city code. In exchange, it will charge up to $150 per month for a parking space and subsidize alternative modes of transportation, such as bus passes, car sharing and B-Cycle and Lime scooter rides. The building’s parking garage includes tandem spaces, where one space is shared between two cars, one behind the other, to maximize space.
The developers said they want the building to be Boulder’s first “zero-carbon” housing project certified by the Living Future Institute. This means it would be powered by renewable electricity like wind and solar, and the construction would take into account “embodied carbon” from the building’s materials.
The project includes about 2,000 square feet of ground-floor commercial space. The site at 2206 Pearl Street (between 22nd and 23rd Streets) is currently occupied by a museum and glass-blowing studio. The developer has not yet applied for demolition and building permits. The Boulder City Council will have the opportunity to weigh in on the project as soon as next month.
On paper, this type of housing project is precisely the sort the Boulder City Council has sought to encourage in recent years. Urban infill and housing density are central components of the city’s current plan to increase the housing supply.
In 2023, councilmembers adopted new zoning regulations as part of the “zoning for affordable housing” initiative. One change eliminated a requirement for Planning Board approval for efficiency-living units in certain mixed-use zoning districts. (The application for the 2206 Pearl Street project began before these changes took effect.) Councilmembers are also contemplating reducing or eliminating the city’s minimum parking requirements, which developers say drive up the cost of building housing. Plans to update energy codes requiring new homes to be all-electric are also underway.
“This is a housing type that we desperately need. It doesn’t exist in Boulder. Small apartments like this are for our workforce,” Jill Grano, a realtor, former city councilmember and researcher at CU Boulder’s Boulder Affordable Housing Initiative, told the Planning Board on April 2, during the meeting at which the board approved the project.
But projects like this one, aimed at increasing housing density, come with tradeoffs, including displacing businesses and potentially changing the character of neighborhoods. Some are skeptical that the 2206 Pearl Street project will be affordable for middle-income workers, a group the developers said they are targeting.
The developers have pitched the project as housing for employees who would otherwise have to commute into the city for work. As such, they plan to price the units so that renters earning about 100% the area median income spend no more than 30% of their income on rent. That translates to someone earning $102,000 per year spending no more than $2,555 on rent, according to the latest estimates from the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority.
Some argue that such a price point will not be affordable to many of the city’s renters who earn well below the area median income.
“I am very skeptical” the project will create affordable housing for workers, Jorge Boone, chair of the Planning Board, said during the meeting. Boone was the only member to vote against the developer’s site review plan application, although others expressed concern.
“Which workforce is making 100 grand per year and is willing to live in 300 square feet?” ml Robles, a Planning Board member, asked during the meeting. “That’s my biggest concern.”
The relatively small size of the units and the price point underscore just how challenging it is to build affordable housing for middle-income residents in Boulder.
Most of the city’s subsidized affordable housing units are priced for people earning up to 60% the area median income, or about $64,000, according to city data. Securing subsidies and tax credits for housing projects for people with higher incomes is challenging, according to housing experts and developers.
That financial reality, coupled with demand for high-end housing, means projects like the one proposed by stok Investment Group are rare in Boulder.
“This is providing a different type of housing than what has traditionally been seen down on Pearl Street and downtown on East Pearl. Recent developments have been larger, luxury for-sale condo developments,” Danica Powell, founder of Trestle Strategy Group and a consultant for the developers. She added, “Most of these units were sold for more than $2 million.”
Moreover, Powell said the project has been in the entitlement process since Dec. 2021, when the developers first submitted their pre-application to the City of Boulder. Application fees, inflation and labor costs over this time also drove up the cost of the 2206 Pearl Street project. “Site review is expensive,’ she said.
In addition to financial challenges, the project offers a glimpse into the complexities of serving renters who do not own vehicles.
As early as this year, the Boulder City Council is likely to amend city code to reduce or eliminate parking requirements as part of an effort to reduce the cost of building housing. But managing the transportation needs of residents without cars is more complicated.
Nearby residents have raised concerns about tenants simply parking their cars on streets in the adjacent Goss-Grove and Whitter neighborhoods. Transportation advocates want to ensure tenants have the ability to get around town by other means. The developer’s “transportation management plan” attempts to address both concerns.
Much of the Planning Board discussion about the project centered on how to manage these transportation needs. In the end, board members adopted a condition of approval that requires the developer to build one outdoor covered seating area with a designated rideshare pick-up spot.
It was a relatively minor suggestion in the grand scheme of the project. But it highlighted a particular attention to detail for people who do not own cars, according to Powell, a consultant for the developer.
“I thought it was a really robust conversation about where we’re headed with transportation,” Powell told Boulder Reporting Lab. “We are really on the cusp of thinking about mobility differently.”
Update: This story was update on April 22 to mention the Boulder City Council will have the opportunity to weigh in on the project as soon as next month.
The notion that the residents in these units won’t have cars is disingenuous.
I am flabbergasted that market-rate micro-homes are on the table in Boulder, CO, the affordable housing deficit community. I am sorry; this is an insult to our collective intelligence. We really can do better to address the missing middle housing!
Agree!
Agree.
This is ludicrous. $2500 for 300 sq feet? Who would want that if they had the money to rent? The concept is great and Boulder could use greater housing density for younger or single individuals in the local workforce but this is not a solution.
What an absolute absurdity. Three hundred sq. ft. for $2,500 for middle income workers. Yeah, right. How in the world do you think that is affordable for someone making $64,000 a year? Clearly your idea is not a solution but a part of the problem.
The AMI at the time the project was entertained at PB about a YEAR ago was $1700-$2600/mo., so these AMI amounts for Boulder are dated as described but not revealed by Stok, and for 300 sf. units, no parking. Ask Stok how much storage? Little if any. Prevalent expensive bikes are stored in racks within the unit. They have to have a ceiling high enough to store the robotic bed. The higher the AMI goes in town, the greater the wealth disparity and inequity, the greater the demand for affordable housing, homelessness and the greater the jobs/housing imbalance. There will be much increased congestion and gridlock for residents of not only 2206 but Stok’s next new density project at 375 sf. @ 1741 Walnut, and the precedent for many more such projects, with occupants accessing their storage lockers all over on the perimeter of town.
Thinking about mobility differently? Hauling your stuff all over town takes a car or trailer, not Lime Scooters or B-cycle. Uber is a car too, just occupying it’s space on the road rather than in a parking space. Backing out your car so the car behind it can be accessed, tandem parking, requires the added cost of management.
This is not the first place this style of residence has been tried. Seattle has been miserable with these efforts for years. From the observations of existing homeowners, where podvilles popped up next door, family homes experienced sudden massive street parking shortages throughout residential neighborhoods, schoolchildren being harassed while waiting for buses—and buses that can’t make it down their streets, a significant elevation in noise in the neighborhoods, and generally very unhappy people. The pod dwellers are equally unhappy, simply elongating their college dorm days in perpetuity, with no roommates, and full anonymity. The following Reddit conversation shows a few of the points there. And when NYC tried this decades ago, it was decried as closet living, and depression ensued.
Before committing more Boulder space to yet another pile of “hip cool new bricks” (with robotic elevating beds???) — while at the same time deciding it has to build to the east at a frantic pace, maybe consider Boulder doesn’t need to build every square foot of the city, like it seems intent on doing.
The breathless, swooning “oh my word we must build build build!!” is simply the histrionics of today — just wait 5 years. The hip Boulder that was the main attraction simply doesn’t exist anymore and the builders and equity firms will fatten their wallets anyway, and walk away counting their bank, as they always do. People will no longer come to Boulder (too crowded — too impersonal — trying too hard), and the wind will blow through empty pod canyons. Maybe the question the commissions should ask themselves: who, exactly, are we doing this for, and why?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Seattle/comments/1b4h1rz/washington_is_probably_about_to_legalize/?rdt=55237
I totally agree that most reasons to live in Boulder have gone away. I have been here for 30+ years, and I am saddened by the amount of empty retail space that can be found all around town. The retail space that is is filled has made our Pearl Street a tourist attraction. Not everyone who lives here spend their days in $600 hiking pants. We are losing our character. I have a wonderful job at the University of Colorado, but I make nowhere near the median income of $100,000 a year. I think the main problem is GREED. We can have affordable housing if developers build it, but they easily buy their way out of doing so. That is a policy that needs to change. We talk about solving the affordable housing crisis and then build 300 square homes with no parking that no one can afford! Shameful.
I agree with the previous comments about the ridiculous idea that these are affordable or aimed at middle income earners. This just isn’t a model for any part of the solution for affordability. It does provide a lucrative model for making $833 per 100 sq. feet per month from a rental. Property management companies and the developer will be ecstatic! Not sure how happy the renters, neighbors, or the city will be since these places will be for folks that are in town for a month or so, have little or no commitment to the community, and can afford to squander $2500 a month on a place that is the size of a hotel room in most places. Please please please just say no – right away……
Please, no. This is exactly what Boulder desperately does NOT need. Is it lost on people in leadership that what we need is affordable housing that can accommodate the needs of typical residents? This is not that. This is for transitioning corporate workser into Boulder, or a temporary setup for those who want to do business in Boulder short-term. Not even wealthy students would want this. Worst of all, it resets the bar for what slumlords can charge for their low end properties. 300 square feet for $2500? What do you think they will charge for 500 feet? And that makes everything else more expensive above that as well. This will not make Boulder exciting and cutting edge. It will just make it yet more unaffordable overall
Joanne, you don’t understand, these are “affordable,” whatever that means, to middle income of 80-120% AMI. It’s AMI that’s not affordable. The rent calculated to be at this range is old (probably higher by now and definitely when built-out) is $1700 for 80% and $2600 for 120 %AMI. The next question is this, will the rent fix or adjust for the AMI when it is actually rented and how so over time? My understanding is that as soon as the first person occupying it moves out, the space reverts to market rate. And they won’t be staying long in a space with 300 sf. The former Marpa House appears connected to Airbnb, as I imagine this may too.
Use every square inch of the city to squeeze in as many people as you can! Just ridiculous! 🙄
This housing plan is absurd. 300 sq ft living space in Manhattan would rent for $810.00 monthly. Boulder has an exaggerated sense entitlement
Teachers and police force and fire fighters rejoice! You can live in 300 feet of space and ride yr bike to work. But you can only do this if you have no family and earn over $100,000/year. Get in line!!
Lol! Yes, workforce housing at its finest. This is simply genius
Love it! I don’t know if this will work or not, while we absolutely do know what we’ve been doing does not work, so let’s relax, be creative and try some things.
And definitely eliminate ALL parking requirements, everywhere.
Oh, and by the way, this of course will “Change the neighborhood character”. What a bizarre thing to even think. Neighborhood character changes constantly, regardless of what is done or not done; the only question is do the changes maintain exclusivity, make it more welcoming and interesting.
“Micro apartments” are neither new to Boulder nor all that innovative. Similar proposals used to be called “Limited Living Units” and numerous such small one bedroom condos and apts were built in the 1980s and 1990s along Pearl and in Goss-Grove, and from Maxwell to Alpine near the old hospital. They range in size from 300 to 500 sf.
The LLUs are now almost universally airbnb condos or student/recent graduate apt rentals now. They turn over frequently and do not serve as stable long term workforce housing. People with more income want enough space to store their skis, bikes, backpacking gear, kayaks and so forth, and they would rather commute than fail to enjoy the Colorado outdoors.
What do you do with a desk covered with work papers when the bed comes down?
Would be interesting to learn the demographic profile of those commuting into Boulder each day. My assumption are those who have families in a single family house. Will be quite cramped quarters for a family of 4 or 5 people, esp with teenagers.
The communal space on this project has not been well defined in specific square footage and amenities. My guess is that is is not appreciable. I’m sure the bedroom spaces at Marpa House were not much smaller and the communal space included utilities, laundry, large living room, kitchen, dining room, huge outdoor patio and beautiful landscaped grounds. Plus plenty of parking and accommodated 40. In contrast, 2206 accommodates 45, if 1 per unit, has very minimal amenities and almost no open space, a foot or two used as buffer on the floor units abutting the sidewalk.
When my brother left Marpa House 5 yrs. ago he paid $900/mo. including utilities and food. If food is $350, that makes it $550/mo. for the room. I’m sure that it was an appreciable improvement in quality of life and price then to what it is now, converted to Ash House with 16 – 3 bed units rented by the bedroom, not the unit, $1700/bedroom (including utilities).
So it’s already inflated from Marpa House @ $550/mo. to Ash at $1700/mo. with less amenities. Then at 2206, there are even less amenities and a smaller space than those places for $1700-$2600 until you move out, when it reverts to market rate.
Stok, the developer, the Planning Board and City Council who approved this are on steroids at 2206 Pearl and 1741 Walnut.
Pearl Street is a sad tourist trap. I doubt it’s somewhere locals even want to go anymore. It’s probably even fairly boring for tourists because of the lack of character. This is what happens when private equity takes over. How many store fronts on Pearl Street are owned by private equity firms and then leased out for exhorbitant rents? Local arts organization downtown complain about lack of funding and bitterly attack city council for rescinding the general fund contribution, but have they ever placed blame on the outrageous rents they are forced to pay? Private equity also sets the stage for every other greedy landlord in town to jack up rents accordingly. City taxpayers should not have to put more money in their pockets. Same happens with residential. These 300 square foot micro units for $2500 will immediately exacerbate our out of control rental market. Plus, they are not even appealing.
Thanks to the five council members who voted to call up this egregious project. Not only would it exacerbate the ever growing income inequality in Boulder, but no one has identified a demographic who can benefit from it. Who is it for? It’s not real housing, it’s more like a long-term hotel room or small airbnb arrangement. I suppose it could serve wealthy people transitioning to Boulder (all those touted young professionals who won’t have cars). Maybe it’s a modern student housing situation for those who will settle for a really expensive room? The progressives can’t have it both ways. They decry increasing income inequality but then are all on board for this “diversity of housing types.” Which is it? This project will lead directly to more inflated rents for folks already struggling to stay housed in this rental market. Evidently, we need more renters on city council who can understand how this works.