City of Boulder officials estimate the Area III Planning Reserve, a largely undeveloped tract of land north of the city, could accommodate up to 6,700 housing units, according to preliminary estimates shared with the Boulder City Council last week.
The Area III Planning Reserve, totaling nearly 500 acres of city and private land, has long been considered a potential site for substantial housing development to help reduce the cost of living in Boulder. Opportunities for such large-scale development are rare in a city mostly surrounded by protected open space. Recently, the city adopted a plan to add 5,000 housing units to the industrial eastern side of Boulder. Residents are also pushing for a ballot measure to close the city’s airport and build 2,000 housing units.
City officials are in the early stages of evaluating the cost and feasibility of connecting the Area III Planning Reserve to city services, like water and sewer lines. Developing the area would also place demands on other city resources, such as policing and fire services.
This “baseline urban services study” will not determine whether the city should develop the land. If the city council pursues developing the area, construction likely would not start until at least 2030, according to city officials.
In evaluating the area for development, city officials will need to make assumptions about the number of residential units and non-residential spaces, such as retail and parks. Officials are assuming the area would be redeveloped with attached housing rather than single-family detached homes like those in suburban communities. A high-density scenario could include up to 50 units per acre, similar to developments in Boulder Junction.
Councilmembers gave city officials feedback last week on the parameters of the study. They wanted the study to assume homes would be built to higher energy efficiency and sustainability standards than those existing today and that no roads would have to be widened to accommodate single-occupancy vehicle traffic, for instance.
“This is a blank slate. We should be looking at scenarios that are very dreamy,” Councilmember Ryan Schuchard told city officials.
Officials plan to present their findings to councilmembers as soon as October 2024.
I prefer this city STOP building. We are trafficked out!
Dense housing with regular and reliable means of non-car transportation such as rapid transit and safe & separate bike and walking paths will help to eliminate the need for car dependency. Sprawl, without non-car modes of transport, leads to traffic. Well-planned communities full of amenities (grocery, commercial, etc.) reduce traffic needs. See any city in Europe. Instead of blanket “stop building” comments, we need to look into making this region more accessible to those who truly want to ditch automobiles.
Sure, but that is not what is going to happen in Boulder. There is an unlimited demand for market rate housing in Boulder, the market is totally inelastic. Boulder market can handle and unlimited number of people moving in and paying extremely high amounts for housing. Less than 45% of Boulder residents own, compared to Longmont, Arvada, both of which have over 72% ownership rates. All we are doing is building for new upper middle class wealthy people to move into Boulder. This does nothing to eliminate workers commuting in because those workers want to own, and they will choose to own outside of Boulder at relatively affordable rates. Stop using trickle down economics to justify something that has never happened, and will not, happen in Boulder.
well there is no mass transit in Boulder so putting 5000 homes= at least 10000 more cars on the roads if most o fhtose homes have families living in them…. We do not live in a well planned out place and this development is not in central Boudler but north eat of boulder….. Sorry but vast majority of people do not bike and bus to work
More housing = more expensive housing.
How does that work?
CU jsut keeps adding more and more students so the demand never will go down and the cost jsut keeps going up, as does congestion, pollution, noise, fire risk
Ask City Council! They can’t seem to approve anything but luxury housing or Soviet-style blocks of concrete, but more often than not, luxury housing.
If zoning is practically only for single family homes then only the people who can afford to buy 8,000 sq ft of land will be able to live here. Those are the same households that are able to pour $1m into renovations and upgrades. Sad that we could have affordable housing if duplexes, triplexes ect could be built on million dollar plots of land so that multiple households could split the high cost of land but sigh.
Adding more housing without addressing other issues will not make Boulder more affordable. Council recently passed a measure to increase the sales tax by 0.8% which causes Boulder to have one of the highest sales tax rates not only in Colorado but the entire country. Boulder City government is not working efficiently and residents are burdened with undo taxes, such as the $0.55/gallon fuel surcharge. Boulder residents pay the highest rates for flood water, we pay the second highest rates for water and sewer. We spending $100’s of thousands on studies that result in no change. We spend 10’s of thousands on litigation that money thrown in the wind. In fact, if we look around Boulder has become so progressive that we have become regressive. Making Boulder affordable requires more than just adding housing units. If don’t improve our roads, if don’t improve public transportation, if we don’t improve how traffic moves, and if we don’t stop creating new fees and taxes Boulder will only become more crowded and ultimately less affordable.
Agree completely!
Couldn’t have articulated it better! Like I always say, enough already!
The city should stop building period. Stop approving new development. It’s destroying the quality of life in Boulder.
I agree, Paul. We’re beyond our carrying capacity now. Council can’t seem to understand that this out-of-control building will strain/break our infrastructure. If all 3 of the plans (Area 3, East, Airport) mentioned in the BRL article were implemented, that would be ~ an additional 41,000 residents based on 3 people per unit. But as usual, any development will probably have no consideration for families and cater to well-heeled tech workers only.
We could have more affordable housing, more livable neighborhoods, and be FAR greener if we could dream at higher than 3 people per acre. Such a shame that when we need housing so badly that we look to the periphery rather than just making duplexes, triplexes, ect legal.
Unh-unh, John. We look at the periphery AND infill. Case in point Weathervane. This is precisely the problem. We sprawl, infill and repeat. The Jared Polis cycle of despair.
We need to get those numbies up! At least 1500 per acre, stack them high.
In re: building in Area III Planning Reserve , please write a follow up and have the proponents andwer the following with facts and figured: 1) Pkease give proof that building more housing units and particularly dense units that are not single family homes here will “lower the cost of living in Boulder.” — The statement used here to justify this building project. 2. Prove that we need more housing when we have around 25% vacancy in sll the currently available apartments snd condo units, and 3. Pkease prove this “builder’s myth” that we have a housing shortage in Boulder.
As usual, not thought given to “where will the water come from” just build build build until there is nothing left.
Two comments. 1) Boulder has always taken steps to make itself upscale and less affordable, such as buying up surrounding open space. 2) I bet most of the people saying “enough already” or the equivalent have been here less than 20 years. It’s always the same: As soon as people move to a place, they say “I’m here, so stop building now!” Not just Boulder but everywhere. We live in a dynamic and capitalist economy, people. Change is a given. Get used to it.
How about a park instead of cramming more people into our overpopulated city 🚵♂️ 🧗♀️⛹️♂️
Boulder’s character thrives on its abundant greenspaces. While developing undeveloped land may seem cost-effective in the short term, these areas, once lost, are irreplaceable, as exemplified by CU South. To accommodate growth while safeguarding our natural environment, Boulder should explore maximizing its existing footprint. This could involve:
Strategic redevelopment: Replacing underutilized strip malls with mixed-use developments.
Roadway evaluation: Considering the feasibility of narrowing roads in certain areas to create space for additional housing.
Zoning adjustments: Evaluating zoning regulations in some neighborhoods to allow for multi-family dwellings
This this this – literally the only sane answer
Unless this plan provides housing will cost SUBSTANTIALLY less than the so-called “affordable” housing that’s been built so far, this will be less than helpful. It would be essential that the housing be *permanently” and realistically affordable and that “cash in lieu of” to developers be prohibited.
What is wrong with Boulder officials? Do they not drive 28th St.? Do they not try to hike Chatauqua? What exactly is their motivation for growing Boulder and ruining what used to be a pretty good town? Here’s a hint, Boulder council and staff: Not everyone who wants to can live here, and you can’t make it magically happen. 6700 housing units?
This is insane. 6700 housing units. That translates as about 13,000 people and a similar number of cars. For a city that is against urban sprawl, increased traffic and pollution and noise and water usage, this has to be like asking an abuser, or a crowd of them, to move into your neighborhood. It is like building a new town on the outskirts of Boulder. I pray that this isn’t a fait accompli.
Does anybody know who to contact/email?
commissioners@bouldercounty.gov
Thank you.
I contacted the county commissioners but was advised this is City of Boulder and concerns should be addressed to the City Council.
Thank you.
Please don’t.
The City continues to pack density within its limited borders, impacting traffic and other infrastructure while not solving the problem of providing enough affordable housing for lower and middle income people/workers. A well-planned, self-sustaining community (think Stapleton in Denver) on a US highway (36) and on a bus line makes more sense than just packing more within the City. Let’s face it – there’s almost no space left unless going higher keeps getting approved. By enhancing the bus service and constructing better bike lanes (e-bikes and small electric cars are the future) along the corridor with the cooperation of the State, this could be a viable plan. If the City doesn’t grow and the wealthy old folks are the only ones who can afford to live here, it will die on the vine as the rich old folks die off. In many ways, North Boulder, if not all of Boulder, is already underserved. Council looks at this as a 20 year plan from 2030 to 2050. It’s not like overnight there will be 6700 new housing units. Separate practicality from NIMBY thinking. The Area III Planning Reserve has been serving prairie dogs now for at least 3 decades, but was always earmarked to serve just this purpose at some future time.
Regarding traffic, if there were reliable and frequent “express” busses to transport passengers to and from the surrounding area to key places in Boulder, it could vastly reduce the amount of cars commuting into Boulder. Even better if there was a rack system or such on those busses to commute bikes & scooters for use to get to the bus stops and travel within Boulder before taking an express bus home. And main stops should have covered/walled shelters with seating and perhaps other amenities. The busses should have two attendants per route, in addition to the driver, to quickly manage bikes, scooters, strollers, and accommodations. The way to reduce cars on the road is safe, reliable, and time efficient public transportation for commuters. We’re in Lafayette and would absolutely use a system like this if it would get us to central Boulder in less than thirty minutes.
How about a rec center with a library instead .
This is great to hear and I strongly support adding dense housing in the area III planning reserve. More housing in Boulder means that more people who work in Boulder can live in Boulder. If workers can’t live in Boulder they will have to drive in from the suburbs creating more traffic.
6700 more cars on 28th St and Broadway? Please.
Leave this land wild! Lots of wildlife use this as a home and it connects to osmp land.