Later this week, the Boulder City Council is expected to direct city officials to begin the next phase of exploring development in the Area III-Planning Reserve, a 493-acre parcel northeast of the city. The largely undeveloped property has long been touted as a major opportunity to address Boulder’s housing shortage.
This decision marks the continuation of a yearslong process to assess the costs of urbanizing the area and gather community feedback on its preferred use. According to a city official, significant development wouldn’t begin until at least the mid-2030s.
The site represents one of Boulder’s largest opportunities for affordable housing development. That’s because the city owns some of the property and could require developers to include deed-restricted affordable housing as a condition of annexation. City planners estimate the reserve could accommodate about 8,700 housing units — more than the 5,000 estimated for East Boulder, 2,500 in Boulder Junction and 1,100 at CU South.
Following the 2021 election, the council made it a priority to explore unlocking the property as part of a broader strategy to expand Boulder’s housing supply. “This was sort of the golden egg,” Councilmember Matt Benjamin said at a meeting last week.
The property, located east of the North Foothills Highway and north of Jay Road, was first identified as a potential site for urban expansion in 1993. The city owns approximately 220 acres, much of it purchased for future city parks, while most of the rest is privately held by dozens of property owners, according to city officials. Adjacent to the site are a shooting range and Boulder Valley Ranch, a city-managed open space.
While the planning reserve offers significant housing potential, the costs of extending city services to the area are steep, prompting at least one councilmember to question whether it’s worth it. Baseline off-site infrastructure costs — such as water lines and wastewater treatment — are estimated at up to $1 billion, according to a November report by AECOM, a Denver-based consulting firm hired by the city. On-site costs, such as roads, add another $159 million, much of which would likely be paid by developers.
“As I look at those infrastructure costs, I am shocked,” Mark Wallach said at a council meeting this month. He suggested the funds could be used for other projects, such as flood mitigation or wildfire resilience.
Councilmembers have also questioned these estimates, arguing they may be inaccurate in part because they are based on current standards for water usage, street design and traffic demand — all of which are likely to change. For instance, Boulder is seeking to reduce commuting in single-occupancy vehicles and conserve water amid climate change.
On Nov. 21, the Boulder City Council will vote on whether to consider expanding city services to the Area III-Planning Reserve as part of an upcoming update to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, a joint planning document between the City of Boulder and Boulder County guiding land use and development decisions. This step would launch a process to determine how residents want to use the property and whether it’s worth the tradeoffs. The planning process could be paused at any time.
For housing advocates, the planning reserve is a rare chance to design a new type of community in Boulder. Some are pushing to fast-track the process.
“Let’s do a pilot to show how we can build a new community that is high-density, that is walkable, that is part of the 15-minute neighborhood,” Macon Cowles, a former councilmember and founder of the Boulder Housing Network, said during a public hearing last week.
A reminder to BRL readers: Boulder has already approved about 9,000 new units that are still unbuilt. The pressure from certain city council folks and external actors (who may or may not be p.r. arms of the development industry) seem perfectly happy to promise a billion dollars in taxpayer money to help fund developers profits. That’s OPM (other people’s money);to guarantee the future development opportunities for corporate developers. How about we focus on the as-yet-unbuilt 9000 units already on approved. Staff could then focus on other more immediate concerns like fixing potholes and enticing families with children to move into Boulder.
Sarah is correct. The amount of approved housing developments by City Council that continue to stack up waiting in a line to be built is extensive and will take many years, if not decades to complete. The politics behind this that Sara describes is chilling. I didn’t know the number of units was at 9,000 units. Let’s complete the building of at least half of these approved projects before jumping ahead and approving countless numbers of new developments. Some of what’s being proposed consist of thousands of more rental units. Interesting that when city council approves these developments they do so with no questions asked.
Where did you find this number, 9,000 approved but unbuilt units?
A map is worth a 1000 words
Added!
Nothing in the past has, nor will anything in the future lower Boulder housing costs. Affordable housing is merely subsidized housing. Boulder just is what it is as a result of the past 50 yrs of policies. At what point must we build new water and sewer plants to accomodate several tens of thousands of new residents? Traffic currently overloads our streets and this won’t help, despite the irrational notion that Council can legislate people out of cars.
Let’s recreate a Prospect Park neighborhood similar to that in Longmont. Where within walking distance there are parks, restaurants, coffee shops, pubs, hair salons, and many other businesses. In many ways, Prospect Park reminds me of living back in Brooklyn NY. We owned a car but for daily shopping we rarely drove as most was within walking distance and that which wasn’t was easily accessible by public transportation. If Boulder wants to decrease single occupancy vehicles they will need to improve public transportation by 200%. Current RTD routes don’t make it easy to get around the city. When a bus trip takes 45 minutes and a transfer it’s more convenient to drive. Finally, for 20 years Boulder County residents paid a tax for a train service between Longmont and Boulder. If we are building a dedicated bike route between the cities why not use the same area for a light rail system? I understand that there is cost associated with this but I fail to understand why there is so much inaction to get projects delivered. I have noticed this tendency in cities that are run by Democrats- they spend vast sums of money on consultants but never actually get projects started or completed.
Erik, the issue isn’t whether Boulder builds attractive (though less so as we go for rental buildings that could be built anywhere) faux neighborhoods, the issue is the $1 billion required to “wire” Area III for water, sewer, etc. That’s a ton of money and as time goes on, those costs will likely only increase. We have thousands and thousands and thousands of approved housing units – let’s focus on building those.
Enough already. Boulder is full and hasn’t even filled existing apartments. Whatever happened to the old hospital location? It’s been sitting vacant for years. Build there first.
You are correct that we should be building all types of new housing in Boulder before opening up new land (that I worry would just be car oriented development which contributes to traffic). However when you say things like “Boulder is full” you quash the ability of practical housing reform to meaningfully reduce costs and make Boulder more livable for all.
Sure, just keep building! I’m pretty sure we don’t have enough traffic and pollution already in Boulder. Oh, and BTW, building more houses does nothing for the housing shortage; just attracts more people to Boulder, exacerbating the so-called “shortage.”
The shortage is relative to demand for specific locations (which is why infill housing is a more viable method to reduce housing costs). Also traffic and pollution are caused by cars – if you are so worried about traffic then we need to rebuild the city to make it easier to live without a car and harder to use an automobile in the first place.
Not sure what this new area would be “walkable” to — there’s not a retail business or restaurant within 2 miles. It’s south of Boulder Ranch, north of Jay Road and is a nice open space with paths and is home to coyotes, prairie dogs and birds of prey. 8700 apartment units will contribute to suburban sprawl and congestion as everyone will have to drive to get anywhere.
“Walkable” is just one of a dozen buzzwords folks can use to euphemize until we see what’s actually going in (and you’re right there’s nothing near it right now). Sure, you’ll probably see a few coffee shops and small restaurants within the development if it goes in. But if the whole area’s going to be a gigantic amount of housing, it will be tough to find space for a real grocery store or the type of retail that people will actually frequent, things that people really need if they’re going to be socked into one area like that without driving. Funny story – 15-ish years ago someone dropped the idea that this location would be good for an IKEA, and a Planning Board member named Simon Mole laughed so hard about it that it almost delayed the meeting.
Shelly, Fortunately Mark Wallach asks questions. And, as a retired developer he, unlike some other members of the Council, actually understands the economics (and incentives) of development. All I can say is: thank goodness for Mark Wallach. I hope a majority of the current Council actually listen to his wise counsel.
Sarah, when it comes to development by BHP who are the main developers with Coburn, I have yet to hear Mark Wallach ask one question. They have never been called up. Instead he will call up smaller developers and drill down on them such as developers building smaller projects around 14 units for sale. So I disagree with you on this one. It was Mark who wanted the airport closed down in order to build thousands more units of affordable housing rentals. This was in spite of Mark having knowledge that there are already 9,000 units in line waiting to be built.
No more density please, this town is already overcrowded! How about a park instead! 🚵♂️ 🧗♂️
Can we please use this money to maintain and retain what, to those of us who have lived here long enough to remember how the mountains looked on a clear day, made Boulder the gem of a town that it was? Packing in yet more and more people will serve to overtax our already stretched thin amenities and infrastructure. For just one example: the South Boulder Recreation center is packed daily and is a central, beloved, hub of South Boulder. There are “no funds” to either refurbish the current building or build a new structure, no matter how many citizens have organized and spoken up in an attempt to save it. If the city keeps on “densifying”, our recreation centers and so many other services will be overrun to the point of becoming an undesirable experience for anyone tenacious enough to fight the crowds to use them. How much more traffic are you willing to tolerate? What good is more housing if the quality of life is diminished for all? I read an editorial by Mark Wallach that touched on some of these points and I appreciate his clarity of vision.
Anne Gifford, Couldn’t agree more. Our build-baby-build leaders seem willing to sacrifice an awful lot to advance their agenda. I expect the next idea will be to eliminate the height limit, followed by clawing back open space.
A low density city like Boulder will struggle to keep finances afloat without new development. The lack of new housing has in part meant taxes on existing residents needs to increase if we want to maintain current services. Higher density housing allows for cheaper costs (for the city and households). Sprawl and car dominated transport is super expensive for the city to maintain (more sidewalks, more roads, more parking spaces per person which is all super expensive).
It’s exactly the opposite!
Boulder is overcrowded because we haven’t built enough housing. The best way to fix overcrowding is to build infill development – that should be easy since Boulder is low density.
The constant refrain that Boulder is overcrowded with too many people and too much traffic is laughable. Anyone who has spent time in an urban area with actual density and traffic knows Boulder to be moderate in this regard. This is not to argue that a higher density Boulder is necessarily better but stop with the “it is already overbuilt” hysterics. And why are developers always called greedy? They provide a product that everyone requires, housing. Should they build it for zero profit on their part. If so why not make the same requirement of grocery sellers, doctors, retail stores, restaurants etc. Our economic system fails without profit motive so stop vilifying people, in this case housing developers, for trying to make a living. Yes some of them engage in dishonest business practices. But this is not exclusive to real estate, it happens in all forms of business. Call out the bad actors, but otherwise stop denigrating an entire sector of essential economic activity.
The dishonesty of the pro-housing forces in Boulder is they build and claim affordability, but developers primarily build expensive units that they make massive profits on. Boulder is an inelastic market, so here, more units does not make other units affordable. So it only attracts new people that can afford expensive and does not satisfy the housing needs of those already here or the interest of creating a diverse community.
Housing that would actually help service-industry Boulderites is small, ranch-style starter homes where young families could get into the market and raise a family. This would help school enrollment numbers and create social and financial diversity that is much needed in Boulder if it want to support families. If Boulder were committed to families, it could only grant building permits to contractors willing to build individual starter home subdivisions.
Richard, how funny! Of course, I can almost remember that!
Reminds me of how we lost Costco, as Superior was truly superior in extorting our sales tax revenue. And the carbon footprint of commuting to Costco. Now we have to commute to Flatirons Crossing for a department store because of “Macy’s” housing. At least the destination tennis courts failed.
Shelley, yes Mark is merely selective in his development support. And BHP and LIHTC are the real growth pushers. The more affordable, the more UNaffordable, and so on. It’s always too much for too little.
I agree. Let’s build what’s already been approved and then reevaluate. Saying there will be affordable housing in these developments is a joke. By the time they are done, oh Nevermind about the affordable housing units we promised, the developers just buy their way out of it.