The Boulder City Council on Thursday, Feb. 6, approved zoning reforms designed to increase housing density and help lower the city’s housing costs. The changes, set to take effect in March 2025, aim to make it easier for property owners to convert single-family homes into duplexes and triplexes, particularly near transit corridors.
The primary goal is to expand Boulder’s stock of “middle housing” — duplexes, triplexes and townhomes that tend to be more affordable than detached single-family homes. Currently, middle housing makes up just 9% of the city’s housing stock, according to city officials.
Mayor Aaron Brockett, Mayor Pro Tem Lauren Folkerts, and Councilmembers Ryan Schuchard, Nicole Speer, Taishya Adams, Matt Benjamin and Tara Winer voted for the ordinance, while Tina Marquis and Mark Wallach opposed it.
“It is modest, and I think the change we will see over time will be gradual,” Mayor Brockett said in January when the ordinance was discussed. “But then, we will have an additional housing option going forward that we have not had in the past.”
While the policy changes are incremental, they signal a broader shift in the city’s approach to housing. Previous councils sought to limit residential density through zoning laws and occupancy limits. In the 1970s, voters approved height restrictions and limits on overall growth. Among their goals were preserving the city’s character and scenic surroundings.
The sentiment remains strong among many in Boulder. During a public hearing last month, several people warned the new ordinance would bring noise, cars and crowding to their neighborhoods to the benefit of private developers. One speaker even likened the zoning reforms to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
But for several councilmembers, the changes reflect the kind of community they want to live in.
Councilmember Speer said her South Boulder neighborhood — which includes a mix of apartments, condos and single-family homes — was likely once seen by some as a threat to the city’s character. Now, she often hears children laughing, neighbors talking to each other and sharing fruit from their trees, people playing with their dogs, students grilling on their patios and residents hosting backyard concerts.
“So I’m really confused about what is so scary and destructive to the character of a neighborhood to have people with a wide range of incomes, ages, household sizes and types,” she said. “I would argue that my neighborhood enhances the quality of life in the city, and it is a gift that I wish for everyone in our future to have.”
The ordinance allows homes within 350 feet of a bus line to be converted to duplexes, regardless of lot size, in lower-density areas like parts of Newlands, Old North Boulder and South Boulder.
Councilmember Schuchard cited the example of his six-year old daughter being able to walk to her friend’s house as a reason he enjoys his neighborhood. He said the new policy is a step toward reducing car dependence by making communities more walkable and connected.
“It helps to alleviate the car dependence that is problematic for so many of us and also to turn back the traffic woes that are largely what make people feel like Boulder is too crowded,” Schuchard said.
Mayor Pro Tem Folkerts said she has received emails in opposition to the ordinance arguing that Boulder is already full.
“I do not think Boulder is full,” she said. “What we are experiencing is a lack of accessible housing for middle-income families, younger generations and essential workers who keep our city running. And when people who work in our community can’t afford to live in our community that forces them to commute from long distances and forces them into car-dependent lifestyles.”
Councilmember Winer said she recognizes the need for more housing options, particularly for young families like her daughter’s and those who have outgrown a condo but can’t afford a single-family home in Boulder.
“So a duplex for her would work really well,” she said. “We do not have a step from going from the old condo to somewhere else before somebody, if ever, can afford a single family-home, especially west of Broadway.”
A city survey found most respondents opposed increasing density in the city’s lowest-density neighborhoods. Several residents cited this survey during a hearing last month to object to the zoning reforms. But many councilmembers have criticized such non-statistically valid surveys for failing to capture a representative sample of Boulder’s population.
“What our current research approaches have indicated is that white, wealthy, single homeowners tend to be overrepresented in our qualitative efforts,” Councilmember Adams said.
Several councilmembers who voted against the measure argued that any increase in occupancy associated with converting a single-family home to a duplex should require an affordability agreement. But officials said mandating affordability requirements would require additional time to draft.
“I strongly support incentives for duplexes that have an affordability piece or some kind of owner-occupancy” requirement, Councilmember Marquis said.
“I’m not against duplexes and appropriate density,” Councilmember Mark Wallach said. “I am against duplexes and density that come without a hint of affordability or other community benefit.”
Councilmember Benjamin said the goal of the ordinance was not to create deed-restricted affordable housing — homes legally required to stay affordable for lower-income residents. But he agreed with his skeptical colleagues that further action may be needed to prevent investors from buying up properties and turning them into rentals.
“What’s key here is we need to start really thinking about the speculative market and the investors that are coming in and artificially inflating our housing market,” Benjamin said, suggesting the city explore a rental-ownership ratio that could limit rental licenses.
Benjamin also cited another consequence of Boulder’s high housing costs: declining school enrollment.
“And we’ve seen what happens when a neighborhood loses their schools,” he said. “They’re not as vibrant as they used to be.”
How much will one of these duplexes cost?
A. They won’t be cheaper. Just more miserable. B none of the council are living in a triplex.
I would like to know the location of Nicole Speer’s South Boulder neighborhood.
Exactly. Just drives up the Area Median Income for missing middle, the ultimate cause for the spreading spectrum of the wealth discrepancy itself. There is no missing middle. That’s WHY they are missing in action. They don’t exist.
Rather than limit the rental licenses, requiring owner occupation is really the only safeguard against corporate takeover of the housing stock.
Speaking as one who was born and raised in South Boulder, my first reaction is sadness. But then I think about the reality of the situation. The Boulder of the 70’s and 80’s will never return. Cutting car dependence and increasing public transportation would be a great thing. Don’t kid yourself they’ll be “affordable “. That will also, never return.
“…Several councilmembers who voted against the measure argued that any increase in occupancy associated with converting a single-family home to a duplex should require an affordability agreement. But officials said mandating affordability requirements would require additional time to draft. ” Really? That is the issue with affordability? I dont think so. Probably more like there is no capacity or desire among city staff to monitor compliance. How a about you hire someone to do just that? This is an attitude problem. Way to sidestep the real issue which is affordability for middle income residents.
One Council member, Benjamin, said the quiet part out loud—that the goal is not to increase affordability at all. It’s just to increase housing supply.
Of course developers will buy up homes, turn them into duplexes, and pretty much double their money.
I live in South Boulder and own and live in a single family home. I would be delighted to turn it into a duplex and continue living there while renting part of it. The problem, to me, is that there is no attempt to keep homes from being bought by corporations and turned into duplexes or triplexes and renting them. This does nothing to increase home ownership among the middle class, and makes the housing more attractive to investment buyers. And it does nothing to make rents and ownership more affordable. I think it will do the opposite. The cost to rent a 2 bedroom part of a duplex will be higher than renting 2 rooms in a 4 bedroom house. And institutional investors will drive up the price of buying a home as well, now that there is no requirement for a homeowner to live there.
If supply can ever outstrip demand, we may very well reach a point where it’s more affordable (relatively) to live in Boulder. My primary concern is that it won’t happen very quickly, because too many doing the work of transforming a lower density property into a higher density property will assume a return on investment that’s not viable.
For my money, removing the distance-from-a-bus-route and the limitation-to-certain-neighborhoods restrictions will be crucial to reaching the city’s stated goals.
As to the assertions that such an effort cannot produce more affordable housing, I find those at odds with the law of supply and demand: the only way it can be true that increasing the number of housing units in Boulder does not make it more affordable than the alternative requires changes to demand that are not in evidence.
Most of the places that will be converted to duplexes are already rentals. These steps will not lead to measurably more available bedrooms. What they will do, is allow these rentals to be split up into more units, each with it’s own entrance and bathroom and kitchen. These units will then be more expensive than the previous rentals. It is not going to increase supply, rather it will increase the price
And now 5 bedroom apartments across from the Law School 777 Broadway, are renting by the bedroom, as the “former” Millennium, apartments are. The trend now is more bedrooms sharing one common space apt. makes for cheaper rent for the occupant but more income for the developer! Gotcha.
…many councilmembers have criticized such non-statistically valid surveys for failing to capture a representative sample of Boulder’s population.
“What our current research approaches have indicated is that white, wealthy, single homeowners tend to be overrepresented in our qualitative efforts,” Councilmember Adams said.
What nonsense! The Council designs a survey, then discounts the people who care enough to respond to it. Naturally current homeowners have more interest in the outcome, on average. They may also care more about Boulder’s future, being rooted here. And most of Boulder is white and relatively affluent. What numbers are they comparing responders to?
But when the Council doesn’t like the feedback they say it’s not scientifically significant? No kidding! Of course such a survey isn’t.
If they’d gotten the answers they wanted the Council would check the “citizen engagement/feedback box and been perfectly happy with it.
Many good quality landlords with houses with more than 3 bedrooms near CU have been renting the additional bedrooms to students for years, making the landlords and the students criminals and liars. Both had disrespect for the hypocrisy of the City that had always claimed to desire to limit student sprawl, traffic and pollution while not helping with these issues by allowing one renter per bedroom. With the new state mandated end of occupancy limits, landlords and students can now legally help achieve these goals – it certainly doesn’t cost any more or cause more pollution to heat a house for six than it does for three and, particularly near CU, students are able to drive less and cause less traffic congestion. I applaud the new duplex, triplex and accessory living units rules.
This is long overdue and I hope they make duplexes and triplexes legal citywide soon.