How does a community transition from an exhaust-belching life spent driving between disparate work, commerce, and residency destinations? The short answer is to integrate those activities in closer proximity as infill. Building upon vacant or under-utilized sites in town does this, using existing infrastructure and transportation networks.
The project at 2206 Pearl that goes before City Council on Thursday, September 5, 2024 will create 45 small units affordable to people earning $81,760 or more in a downtown location. It will be constructed on a 20,000 sq. ft. lot (outlined in the image below) that currently is mostly an unused parking lot. This makes a lot of sense, for the reasons I explain here.
The Politics of In-Town Redevelopment
The automotive sprawl of suburbia has become the default model for (un)civic life. Most of the “angry villagers” who show up at project reviews and who post on NextDoor have been raised in post-war subdivisions and strip malls. It is the only landscape they know. Driving is the principal source of transportation.
The objections to more density are not surprising, often focusing on the increased automotive traffic and inconvenient parking. To a point, this opposition is not unfounded. Joel Garreau, in his book Edge City, notes that most of the suburban landscape—the cul de sac subdivisions and strip malls—occupy the land at a cumulative Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of about 0.25 to 0.40. [FAR is the measurement of a building’s floor area in relation to the size of the lot/parcel and is derived by dividing the square footage of the building by the square footage of the lot.]
As a district evolves with new businesses or residents, the increased automotive traffic becomes a concern to people at about FAR 1.0. Yet reliable and frequent public transit does not become economically feasible until the neighborhoods served reach an average FAR of 2.0. What is a possible solution?
Missing Middle Housing
The answer: Let me analogize by getting readers to think of “chunky peanut butter.” Imagine that single-family continuous suburbia is “ Creamy Peanut Butter”, sprawled, as it were, in an undifferentiated smear to the horizon. The added “chunks” are infill of higher density residential nodes or centers inserted at the core of existing neighborhoods. Transit might connect these nodes with enough tributary ridership to support frequent and economical service. These 15-minute walkable districts might be more aptly described as “cities within the City.” Existing single family neighborhoods can become self-contained, complete neighborhoods with the robust addition of a variety of missing middle housing at their core.
Missing middle income housing, as explained by Dan Parolak, is “a transformative concept that highlights the need for diverse, affordable housing choices in sustainable, walkable places.” It is well illustrated below in a drawing from the cover of his seminal book, Missing Middle Housing–Thinking Big and Building Small to Respond to Today’s Housing Crisis.
A Brief History of Zoning Near 22nd & Pearl
In 1976, well-intended but naive Boulder citizens enacted growth limits. But sprawl was a regional issue: squeeze here and new sprawl pops up out there.
Scarcity drives price, and Boulder workers have had to drive further from the city to find affordable housing—and thus we have 60,000 in-commuters per day. The deficit of housing supply has become so large that some claim, “we cannot build our way out”. Yet communities as diverse as Minneapolis and Aukland have recently shown that robust support for new infill housing actually can stabilize or even begin to reduce prices.
In the neighborhood of this project along Pearl, anti-growth regulations long stunted needed housing. Fifteen years ago, as an architect I proposed 3 small (850 sq.ft.) units for employee housing. Although within walking distance of both the Downtown and the University, parking minimums would have required 9 spaces (3 per unit), even though on-street parking and on-site parking was only 40% full most of the time. We noted that the requirements for a high parking ratio favored providing space for cars over providing homes for people. Here was one of the few areas where people who choose not to drive might live. But Boulder’s parking requirement prohibited the project from being built.
To the City’s credit, the restrictive zoning regs that controlled this lot and the surrounding neighborhood were revised in September 2023 when the City Council adopted some important reforms. Land use regulations were modified to encourage missing middle housing. Efficiency units have become easier to permit. Open space requirements, formerly satisfied by weedy parking lot berms, have shrunk. Instead, floor area ratios are now key to establishing the size of the buildings.
It is under these new zoning regulations that several townhome projects have been completed nearby. But these are quite expensive and often simply a good way to park an investment by an absentee owner. {See Vacant Second Homes, Jill Grano, BHN July 3, 2024.) Four units of luxury housing adjacent to this project on the east side are valued at $1,350,000. Five units one property to the west are valued at $2,000,000.These have been “by right” projects which so strictly conform to zoning and building codes that they qualify for building permits without a public hearing. Seeking a reduction in the parking requirement, as the developer seeks to do at 2206 Pearl, triggered a lengthy “discretionary review” which adds to the cost and reduces the viability of middle income apartments.
45 micro-apartments are proposed at 2206 Pearl. They are targeting the middle market (people earning at least 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) in Boulder). These units are especially attractive to people who choose to minimize or eliminate the use of a car. Despite being only 300 sq.ft., they provide privacy and satisfy the basic needs and wants of the occupant. A clever floating “cloud bed” and movable partitions make double use of the living space. Residents can gather with neighbors and friends on the 2nd level community deck adjacent to a common lounge. Like dwellers in urban settings elsewhere, the living space of the efficient unit extends outward into the city itself to an activated street replete with informal seating and dining spaces. Some on-site parking is provided at an extra charge to tenants that have cars. Bicycle storage, and ride sharing spaces are also provided. It is important to note that, like 15 years ago, current on-street parking is still not fully utilized. Neighbors who like to park every day directly in front of their house may have to adjust. But the trade-off is that someone who now commutes into Boulder each day for work could actually live here instead.
There is also resistance to unfamiliar housing types and occupancies. Traditional urban neighborhoods offer a broad range of unit sizes and prices that build inclusivity. In contrast, home buyers in the suburbs take qualifying cues from billboards along the Northwest Parkway. “Starting in the low $400’s” might be the tease. (These days it might be, “Starting in the low $900’s). The buyer is assured no one of lesser economic stature will move in next door; nor will anyone of greater wealth likely move next door either, so the buyer won’t be forced to keep up with the more affluent Joneses.
There have also been expressed concerns that 2206 Pearl might become a collection of B&B’s. First, leases shorter than 30 days are prohibited by code. And while there will certainly be longer term leases for, say, downtown workers, there is also a market for mid-term residents: grad students, itinerant teachers or preachers and even the occasional nomadic tech bro. If their employment is legal, then who lives here, and for how long, really should not raise concerns.
Patterns of Development—Fine grain to post war large lots and buildings
For sure, change has occurred across the entire district, but the small lots of the original town promoted a sequential and incremental pattern of infill that respects what’s already there. The lots are too small to support any large or disruptive re-development. Yet, for a variety of reasons, the discretionary review process for this small project has taken over 1000 days at this writing. Keep in mind this project is really quite modest in scale, and achieves much in terms of neighborhood variety, as well as community sustainability and resiliency by supporting a lower carbon lifestyle.
In summary, incremental, small scale infill—like this project for 45 micro-units—expands housing choices. It takes advantage of proximity to existing services and infrastructure. It permits people to save the cost of operating and maintaining multiple household vehicles. But most importantly, it creates community, bringing more people to live downtown—enriching a civic realm that benefits all.
Who would want to live like that?
When approvals are sought for higher density place-making, a skepticism prevails. “Who would want to live like that?” It may come as a surprise, but many people actually do. This is my granddaughter illustrating her “house.” She lives in a five story apartment building in a former hotel, in Jane Jacobs’ neighborhood of Greenwich Village. Now a pre-teen, she confidently navigates her way to middle school on a bus, and pops downstairs for pizza in a shop that knows both her and her little sister. She has no suburban backyard. Her family has no need for a car. She is a well balanced, happy kid. And, if it’s some indication of desirability, her tiny apartment is very expensive because a large part of the civilized world would love “to live just like that.”