The Boulder City Council on Feb. 5 approved the first housing project in East Boulder since the city adopted new development rules, clearing the way for a 300-unit, mixed-use development that would replace surface parking lots and “auto-oriented” buildings with housing, retail and a transit hub.
The project also served as a test case for the city’s new form-based code, prompting some Planning Board members to call for reforms after they criticized the design as a “big cube” that they said fails to jibe with the community’s vision for the area.
The five-story project, located at 55th Street and Arapahoe Ave., is intended to serve as a high-density, transit-oriented hub in East Boulder, according to developers. The development includes smaller units, with more than half proposed as studios or one-bedroom apartments.
The project also proposes nearly 3,000 square feet of ground-floor retail and a “production business space” intended for light industrial uses, such as maker spaces or artist studios, according to development documents.
The applicant, Sopher Sparn Architects, a Boulder-based firm, is proposing a building that is primarily composed of brick, metal panels and glass, intended to support the area’s “creative and industrial identity.” The building would be all-electric.
Developers characterized the project as a pioneering development for East Boulder, acting as the first test case for the city’s new form-based code. The city council approved those development rules as part of a larger vision that could bring 5,000 new housing units to the area over time.
“We started the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan because we wanted housing in East Boulder,” Erin Bagnall, a principal architect at Sopher Sparn, told the Planning Board in December 2025.
The project went before the city’s Planning Board and Boulder City Council because it required rezoning and involved exceptions to the city’s new development rules. The city council held a public hearing on the project last week before unanimously voting to approve it.
Some supporters view the project as a necessary shift from the area’s auto-oriented past toward a high-density, transit-oriented future. Others said the added density would allow nearby local businesses to thrive due to increased pedestrian traffic.
But the project drew criticism from the city’s Planning Board, with several members arguing that it did not meet the requirements in the form-based code. Others suggested it highlighted tensions between the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan’s broader vision and the city code for new developments.
A key concern among some Planning Board members was the lack of variation in the building’s facade and height, both of which are required under the form-based code in order to create buildings that are “human-scaled” so that pedestrians don’t feel closed in by tall buildings on either side.
The height variation is on the north side of the building, not visible from Arapahoe Ave., one Planning Board member said. Other members said the variation in the facade was “negligible” or “imperceptible.”
The project took on added significance because it’s the first proposed under the new code and could set a precedent.
“The buildings we’re going to get in the future, in this whole area, are going to be looking to this as the first out of the gate, what is acceptable,” said Planning Board Vice Chair Laura Kaplan, who voted against the project.
The Planning Board voted 4-3 to approve the form-based code application.
The project was the impetus for the Planning Board’s highest-priority recommendation to the Boulder City Council ahead of the council’s 2026 retreat, where they set their priorities for the upcoming year. In a December 2025 letter to the Boulder City Council, the Planning Board said the form-based code for East Boulder is “inadequate” at creating varied rooflines and facade articulation. They also said the code does not require enough open space and resident amenities.
“I was alarmed to discover that the form-based code allows building types that don’t seem to jibe with what the community thought they were going to see as a product in the East Boulder Subcommunity Plan,” Planning Board Chair Mark McIntyre, who voted for the project, told Boulder Reporting Lab. He said the plan allows for projects that are bigger and boxier, with less open space and fewer resident amenities, than people had hoped for.
During the city council’s 2026 retreat, councilmembers declined to pursue changes to East Boulder’s form-based code after city staff said such a project could take two years. Councilmembers’ tenure this year is one year, shorter than the typical two years, due to the transition to even-year council elections.
During last Thursday’s city council meeting, Councilmember Mark Wallach said the applicant did what was set out in the form-based code, but criticized the architecture.
“The results of the form-based code have been a surpassingly hideous structure,” he said. “It could easily pass for a prison.”
Mayor Aaron Brockett said hideousness is in the eye of the beholder.
“I think it is actually a pretty tastefully designed project,” he said.
Who could have imagined that an a subcommunity planning process dominated by DEVELOPERS and a code revision intended to make things easier for DEVELOPERS would result in DEVELOPMENTS only DEVELOPERS like. Boulder did this to itself as a result of ten years of pro development policies and regulations that went way too far.
totally agree
I work in that area, and am very excited about the prospect of a transit oriented development there. Currently the area is totally car-centric and feels actively hostile to pedestrians. A new development with bike racks, increased bus service, and businesses on the main level would do a lot to make the area feel more welcoming to people walking around getting lunch.
The design looks fine to me, seems like that opposition is just an excuse for people who don’t want the city to build any new housing.
Why would you think there would be increased bus service to this area? RTD has no plans to increase bus service to this area, which now consists of very occasional service by the JUMP, and less frequent service for the 206 and 208, and the city is unlikely to step in. This development is in the middle of nowhere, there is no shopping nearby, and like other recent developments, i.e., SPARKS, retail is unlikely to locate there. Food shopping will be at the Conoco across the street and the residents will be highly dependent on cars. Posturing this development as transit oriented is a prime example of greenwashing.
I’m not in Boulder but used to work in this area. I think all the things that some Planning Commission members want (amenities, facade articulation, open space) means the project gets more expensive per unit. Do we want some housing to be affordable or beautiful/perfect?? The developer isn’t going to donate anything – they want to make a certain amount of money off the project and they’ll get what they believe is “theirs” first and foremost. The way to make it a little less expensive is to increase the number of units and make them more “bare bones”. Boulder needs to get over it’s “image”.
But who wants to live in those units? It looks like a commercial office space, and they couldn’t even be bothered to put in balconies that would have at least made the small units less claustrophobic. How affordable do you think they will be? Probably not at all affordable since even the new “affordable” units built by BHP are not affordable to most people they are targeting. Boulder needs to think outside the box or we will get ever smaller and more expensive units that will be the worst of both worlds. We could do much better.
When I lived out there as a single young professional I would have killed for a smaller unit instead of the 1200 sq ft 2 bdrm unit I had to rent because it was the only thing available when I moved there after college.
What year was that? Sounds like you were renting a luxury unit at 1200 square feet. These new tiny units will likely cost around the same as lux units did a couple of years ago. Tiny units for professionals at those income levels means that the lower income workforce is increasingly priced out.
“The development includes smaller units, with more than half proposed as studios or one-bedroom apartments.” How is this going to address the identified need for moderate-income housing for families? And, this location is definitely not a “15-minute” neighborhood. I simply cannot see how it is desirable for Boulder, as it moves towards the future, to consist primarily of very small units on the one hand and large multi-million dollar homes on the other. This feels like a sort of feudalism in which we house the service workers in small units and expect them to bus or bike to work from the east while the oligarchs luxuriate in their 6000+ sq. ft. homes in the foothills and drive their Rivians around town. And, some dare to call this “progressive.”
So right on. And, yes, that is the kind of “progressives” we get in Boulder.
As we move our building code to all electric is the city Council requiring developers to include a generator for backup for when Xcel energy is guaranteed to turn off the power?
Just a reminder that CordenPharma is close to this development. From a BRL article in 2022 there was an issue of CordenPharma asking council to remove a housing area next to their facility due to light, noise and emissions. From the article:
“CordenPharma is the largest emitter of toxic pollution in Boulder County, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic Release Inventory. It emits dichloromethane, which the EPA considers to be carcinogenic, and a range of hazardous air pollutants, though at levels generally below EPA limits. (According to the company’s 2021 environmental report, emissions from the two plants have declined significantly over the last two decades. Dreiling said CordenPharma is in compliance with all its air emission permits.) ”
I am not suggesting that CordenPhamra is not an environmentally responsibly managed company. I am suggesting that it is not a good idea to put housing near a factory.
Here is the link to the article:
https://boulderreportinglab.org/2022/05/20/boulder-city-council-nixes-potential-housing-block-from-east-boulder-redevelopment-plan-after-pushback-from-drug-manufacturer/
There is nothing wrong with what the developer submitted . an attractive, functional building that meets zoning requirements. maybe the city of boulder should change their name to Pompous Karenville to more reflect their refined constituents fine tastes.
Would you prefer to live there, Charles? I doubt it. It’s perfectly functional and attractive, at least from the outside, for a commercial office building. Those units each have a window that likely opens about three inches. Nothing like being stuck in a tiny studio cubicle and can barely crack a window. You should try it!
Am I the only reader who doesn’t know what “form-based code” means? As this is the first test of it, an explanation seems in order.
I would encourage people to read this BRL article from 2022. The drug manufacturer is close to the development which is the subject of this current article.
The first time I tried to post about this article my post was deleted. Hopefully this one will go through. I would very much appreciate it when a post is deleted that there is some communication as to why a post is deleted.
https://boulderreportinglab.org/2022/05/20/boulder-city-council-nixes-potential-housing-block-from-east-boulder-redevelopment-plan-after-pushback-from-drug-manufacturer/
More spending. Boulder needs to reduce spending.
RTD has shown for at least 32 years that it WILL NOT use “right-sized” 15-passenger vans but insists on 40′ buses on local routes that only have an average of 4-6 passengers in their 35-43 seats. RTD’s yearly “Ride Check” reports prove this. The big buses cost about 5 times as much, use 4 times as much fuel and do far far more road damage due to the “4th Power Law”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_power_law. By wasting HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS this way over the decades, RTD is in a hole. IF they used 15-passenger vans on most local routes I bet they could have twice as many and hire more drivers so we would have the frequent service people need to use transit. But, as former longtime Council member Steve Pomerance said in 1994, RTD wants a “BIG BUS EMPIRE.” Now that ebikes are faster and way cheaper than buses, it’s even stupider.
You would think that would be obvious to everyone by now after many years of mammoth buses lumbering down narrow lanes with one or two passengers onboard. Would be interesting to hear their justifications for this. They also need dedicated free buses every couple of hours specifically to take people from downtown and points east to All Roads. If that’s where they want all the unhoused to go, make it easier to get there. And then drive them to overflow shelter when All Roads inevitably fills to capacity. Get serious about this!