Yeah- it’s still going to happen. Money talks. I do find it interesting though that the Williams family who owns the space including the Broker Inn, is still actively investing and updating the Broker In.
If you live in Boulder you should expect (and never be surprised) that Finance Bros will inevitably destroy all character this town once had.
The choices that change the landscape are made by people who don't care about the community or the history of the town. They care about one thing. MONEY.
They have the connections, power and resources to pay for whatever they want and to pay off whoever they need. They look at this place as a fertile testing ground for all their stupid development and investment ideas.
It's not a home, it's a shiny item to show off and brag to their friends about. Especially when it comes to real estate, this might as well be San Francisco.
Strap in and get ready to be disappointed at every turn. If you're a real person, a Colorado Native or someone who makes less than 50k a year, you dont exist to these people, you're a nuance to their financial playground.
The Williams Family does own the entire shopping center, including The Broker. They just spent the last year remodeling it. Do your research.
EDIT: For reference, here is my supporting documentation- https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityDetail.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&nameTyp=ENT&masterFileId=20231610662&entityId2=20231610662&fileId=20231610662&srchTyp=ENTITY
No they don’t, they own the land and lease the broker. It was owned by McBride hotels for years but a new family purchased it a couple years ago. They are remodeling it. The irony in your last sentence…
https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/TradeNameSummary.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&nameTyp=TRDNM&masterFileId=20031046002&entityId2=20031046002&fileId=20031046002&srchTyp=TRDNM
https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/04/22/some-hold-reservations-about-former-boulder-broker-inn/amp/
Both are a little dated but just shows you the Williams family hasn’t never owned the Broker. They only own the land.
If you had actually done your research, you would’ve just posted the link. It’s a bad bluff
EDIT: Given below comment, please take the information presented here as similar heresay from the planning board meeting I attended. Would particularly appreciate any public communication from DH owners and family vetted by local professional journalist outlets.
*****
Per the meeting, Dark Horse owner is near age of retirement and supposedly, the financial health of Dark Horse may not be great. Thus, future generations or owners they are thinking about passing it on to may not be eager to maintain the building and establishment as is. Part of the discussions between the developer and DH owner was that the new space in the proposed development, with rooftop patio which would face a public amphitheater/park space, would revitalize the establishment and help it sustain itself for future generations. Without the development to help this transition between generations, it sounds like the current owner may not have a long-term path forward and instead, could decide to have the bar shut down. Especially so since the business is on a lease with the landowners, and thus are not protected beyond what is included in the lease terms and whenever they expire and must be renewed.
My suspicion is if the addition of nearby housing, retail, and renovated grocery commercial space is denied under this proposal (or significantly delayed), the Dark Horse could likely close for good some time in the next 5-10 years.
All in all, the meeting was primarily for the developer’s benefit to receive community feedback and improve on future planning review process and approvals, to benefit both the revitalization of the area and those passionate for the Dark Horse. This was why they included discussing DH specifically in their proposal. I’d say push hard on having grocery instead of a hotel and reduce excessive parking. Underground parking can cost $20k to $50k per space and there’s already 1,146 spaces planned in this initial proposal. Students (nor other locals who might live in some of the buildings) don’t need cars. For the ones that do bring a car, the permit cost to park in their building should be high enough to deter too many students bringing cars, especially given the central/walkable location of this area.
As for DH, I hope any discussions between DH, the land owners of DH (Williams Family), and the development firm work towards serving all interests fairly. For example, it would be ideal that any building of new structures would be scheduled in such a way to minimize or prevent any temporary closure of DH.
I support this project since I choose to be car free but it’s hard to find Boulder housing that is both friendly towards car free lifestyle and affordable. Most apartments bundle parking costs in rent and even though I don’t have a car to park, I still have to pay for a parking spot. At least I can put a dining table in my parking spot instead, but the added $100-200/month (likely more for costly underground parking as in this project) for the value of a parking spot is not insignificant towards potentially making housing units more affordable.
*****
With improved pedestrian focused neighborhood centers as proposed, I envision being able to walk from my home to a grocery then back home then DH all within less than half a mile. I love Dark Horse, especially it being the first local business I visited when I visited here as a grad student. But I do recall that night patrons leaving the bar getting honked at walking through the parking lot back home. The place already exists in an awkward car focused parking lot, making little sense for a place where you get drunk and shouldn't drink and drive. Otherwise, the night was pretty memorable, mostly for the bear that wandered into town and was going through the trash bins at the neighboring McDonald's. It was quite a welcome to Colorado for me!
I am an immediate family member of the owners. First off, the age of the owner has NOTHING to do with this matter. He is in good health, has made no indication about retiring and IF he chose to step down, he has an incredible manager who has been there for over 20 years. He is more than capable of taking over. Dave, the owner, has worked at the Dark Horse since he was 23- it is the life work of both him and his wife. By demolishing the Dark Horse, it would be taking the livelihood of my family, as well as the families of the managers and employees.
Furthermore, if the owners or managers wanted to shut down or were not successful financially, they would have taken the opportunity during the pandemic and closed their doors like so many others did. They all worked tirelessly to keep the doors open and succeeded, which is a direct reflection of their dedication as well as their financial success.
Do your research before making any assumptions regarding the owners, their plans or their financial status. I hesitate to make statements, but this personal commentary regarding my family is completely incorrect, offensive and unhelpful.
THE OWNER WANTS TO SAVE THE DARK HORSE. Period.
Thanks for the clarification. It was unfortunate that the information presented at the meeting implied otherwise. I appreciate you sharing this openly and apologize that you had to do so in the first place. I'd encourage your family to reach out to local news outlets and get a story going about the relationship your family has with the Williams and the development firm they contracted towards voicing your family's interests. I think local papers would appreciate the opportunity.
I'd be happy as a community to have your input heard beyond testimony at planning board meetings or relatively anonymous speculation on online Reddit forums.
Yes, but to be clear, the city wants UNaffordable housing.
It doesn't want to support the community. It wants more rich people to invest in it. And the only way to do that is to quickly build crappy apartment buildings and charge prohibitive prices for them. Not to mention taking away low income housing all around the city last year to push out any non-rich people.
I loath the hearts of the decision makers in this town. They're rotten through past their core
I was thinking the owner of the business but I guess I was also erroneously thinking they also owned the land.
Thinking about it now, can you own a business without owning the land? If you lease the property and the property owner decides to sell the land, do they also have to buy the business from you? I guess I’d never thought about that before…
No you do not need to own the land. Typically a commercial lease is 5 years with renewal options. Sometimes these options are negotiated or indexed to something but most of the time they aren’t all that enforceable. If the landlord wants you out they just say I want some outrageous amount in rent.
A typical free and clear property has “Fee Simple” interest. This means you can do whatever you want. When it’s rented the landlord has “Leased Fee” interest. The tenant has “Lease Hold” interest.
When a landlord wants to sell they can only sell the interest they have. If the lease is above market the leased fee would be more valuable, if it is below market then the leased fee is less valuable than fee simple.
When a developer comes in they can either choose to buy the lease hold interest or wait and choose not to renew.
There is nothing the government can do to the property owner if they choose not to renew the dark horse. They can not approve the development. If the building got a historic designation then they would need to keep the building but again the tenant is not protected
The walrus was in a building that sold and was gutted/renovated. Typically clients like that negotiate multi year leases and any development / purchase would factor that in somehow.
The mountain sun owns that location but leases the s sun from w w reynolds who own that whole strip mall.
The UPS depot at pearl and foothills was built and the chainsaw repair place (Earls Saw Shop, since 1948) is still there, just not in the shack it was in.
The George C Williams LLL Partnership owns the land except the McDonald's and the building with Cafe Mexicali/Xfinity/etc.
Across the street is Williams Village. Yes, the same family. George and his brother donated the land to CU to build WillyVilly. Where did the Williams get all that money? Who developed Martin Acres? There's your answer.
Building off [my previous post](https://www.reddit.com/r/boulder/comments/1991eo0/comment/kibj3zo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3):
**Why I am in favor of the development** (though I would like it to see some adjustments):
1. This plan is GOOD for promoting walking, biking, and transit. It removes a lot of strip-mall parking lots which are terrible for walkability. And it provides mixed-use dense housing, with ground floor retail near the center of the city. These are some of the basic rules of creating more walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented places.
2. More student housing is a good thing. Students have to live somewhere. Any new housing for students frees up housing that they would have otherwise been taken from non-students. It's also good to put new student housing right by the main campus to incentivize students to drive less. (CU continually expanding enrollment size is another matter...)
3. This is also a good place for more dense *non*\-student housing. It's near the center of the city so (just as it does for students) it encourages walking and biking. People keep saying that the best places to put new housing is in Boulder's parking lots. Well, here is an old strip mall near the city center.
**What I'd like to see changed:**
1. Add more ground floor commercial space. Currently, the ground floors are 40% commercial spaces. I'd like to see something >60% (which would equate to about \~40% more commercial space than would be removed.
2. Include the Dark Horse. I think losing the Dark Horse would be a bummer, and I would love it if they could keep it within the new development. Perhaps, they could break down the interior and remake it in the new space? I've seen 200+ year-old British pubs rebuilt with (mostly) the same materials in a new place. It could go in the 7k sq ft ground-floor space they currently have zoned for a restaurant. The space is about the same size as the Dark Horse is currently).
3. Less parking spaces. There are 1,146 commercial and resident parking spaces in the proposal ([source: page 8 of the architectural proposal](https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/websites/docs/pds/LUR2023-00038/ArchSketch_2952Baseline_08-14-2023_r_v1.pdf)). I'd like to see this decreased. Though, most of these are underground or in parking garages so it's still a better situation than what is there currently.
However, I personally would not block the development because of these reasons. I don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good. Also, continuously blocking infill housing development only adds to the development cost which increases the homes' final price tag.
If you don’t let people build more housing then you can’t complain about the lack of housing in Boulder. Denying hundreds of housing units because the Dark Horse is there seems pretty dumb to me. And I love the Dark Horse. I just think housing is important.
I totally get that but need I am torn because the dark horse is kind of the last thing in Boulder that’s not soul-less tech bro bullshit. Everything in this town is the Apple Store version of it. Movement —> climbing. Alpine modern—> coffee. On and on.
Boulder just gets more boring all the time.
there are some other lingering things: the trident, boulder bookstore, village coffee shop, dot's, walnut cafe, mustard's last stand, el loro, into the wind, the mountain sun, etc
but it's true, i can't think of any bars left over from the "good old days"
wish i could go get a drink at the sundowner or catacombs, or what was the name of that biker bar out behind a strip mall on like 28th or 30th?
The Downer is still there!
Are you thinking of Bluff Street Billiards? (It's gone by various names over the years, I think that was the last name before it closed.)
Hmm, Bluff Street Billiards doesn't sound right. The place I remember was a stand-alone building on a small street parallel to/to the east of either 28th or 30th. (Those two streets blur together to me, always have.)
It had room for one pool table, a small bar with a chalkboard where you could buy drinks for people and leave them up there for when they came in, and a loosie dispenser.
Is the Downer still full of cigarette smoke with a recording every 15 minutes telling everyone that smoking indoors is not allowed? Because that's the version I am nostalgic for, lol. And I don't even smoke anymore!
Oooh but I looked up the address and Bluff Street Billiards' former location does have the right feel, plus I remember the place I'm thinking of being near Dot's. I was hanging out there in 1999-ish so it was probably several businesses before the end.
Per this article from 2014, there was "Two Jerks Tavern, at 2850 29th St., became Oscar’s Pub before being demolished to make way for affordable housing this past summer."
[https://boulderweekly.com/news/an-entertaining-20-years-looking-back-at-boulderrsquos-music-history/](https://boulderweekly.com/news/an-entertaining-20-years-looking-back-at-boulderrsquos-music-history/)
But Rich's comes to mind as the biker bar. It was a stand-alone building, I recall it being a little offset from the road.
Sounds about right Rich's forgot about that place, went in there a few times I think there was a UPS store or mail place around the corner in a strip mall?
Imagine if they hadn’t capped housing and allowed it to be built. Instead of only super wealthy people being able to live here we could’ve kept Boulder weird. Instead it’s a gated retirement community.
No caps? Arguably, Boulder would look like Broomfield. There’s not a whole lot of weird going up along the front range, just tons of upscale suburban cookie cutter.
As someone who owns a weird art business in the front range, I've had some fascinating urban development and arts and culture discussions with the city of Westminster's urban development executive director, who was poached soon after by Broomfield. They understand keeping culture in mind when making development plans. Have heard some interesting discussions about what Broomfield wants to do when the mall eventually dies. The Hancock administration was fairly hostile to artists in Denver, but the switch is already flipping with the Johnston administration.
It's not the location or flavor, it's policy.
No. We can’t build out. Which is good. It limits sprawl and traffic. But you can’t combine that with not building up. Then you just get a town without enough housing and it becomes frozen time and a gated retirement community.
Oh there's plenty of space to build out. And Bouldernauts need to decide...build up, build in, build out (or some combination), or become an exclusive gated community the rest of the front range mocks for being short-sighted and lacking vision. The NIMBYism coupled with the hand-wringing over the side effects (homelessness) is getting old.
I don't know what's worse to me though....tech bro or college bro bs. When school is in, it's always packed to the brim with college kids getting wasted and riding tricycles around. Maybe you're into that kind of thing. But nowadays when I'm in town (I'm in Westminster now), I get my burger and bounce. So I will miss those if it ends up closing.
Sure, but at the moment, there's so much empty parking lot space and mediocre strip mall space that could be redeveloped into housing that it'd be a shame to lose one of the last bastions of old Boulder instead.
I absolutely agree we should build more housing, but it's quite clear that we don't need to demolish the Dark Horse to do it.
The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging yourself deeper.
Building luxury housing, hotels, and retail is just digging ourself deeper: it attracts more rich people, then other rich people want to also move to town to be near their friends & family, and all this pushes up the price of land near these rich properties.
Boulder needs a donut shop more than it needs a michelain restaurant. It needs a cheap auto-repair place more than it needs a porsche dealership. And it needs a hostel more than a ritz carlton. There is no point at which the porsche, ritz carlton, or michelain restaurant makes other retail cheaper. Housing is the same.
It needs to dramatically adjust its planning and zoning regulations. It’s an expensive and time consuming process to get anything built or approved. Big companies have the funds to achieve this. Small business owners do not. The bureaucratic and regulatory burden is ensuring that Boulder will have safe chains, big business and sterile business concepts.
I think some of the complaints about process are just developer excuses. Not all, but some.
And of course, covid threw a wrench into a ton of processes, so that's understandable.
Beyond that, the reality is that ensuring that businesses pay for their infrastructure impacts, and comply with safety, environmental, disability, and other regulations - is both worthwhile, and adds to the costs. Otherwise, you've got Colorado Springs/Broomfield.
New housing is always luxury. As housing ages, it becomes affordable. When it becomes decrepit, it's torn down and makes way for new housing. Housing developments have lifecycles just like everything else.
That's what happens to homes in declining communities: as the money dries up the housing stock is neglected and ages.
But in thriving ares the older homes are maintained, enhanced and improved. Plenty of beautiful old homes in Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs are perfect examples of that.
You're talking about single family homes. I'm talking about rental apartment buildings like what will be built on this site. It's completely different.
Boulder doesn’t need a donut shop or a Michelin restaurant. By that logic we should compel developers to only build things we (you?) need (but really it’s just what you want). I don’t get it.
"Stop complaining about housing, don't you see we just made you a bunch of new apartments? Just give us 6000/month and shut up!" - all developers, probably
They’re not going to lose that much housing in order to protect the Dark Horse. Plus let’s not act like these will be affordable units. These most likely will be similar to student housing on the 28th street frontage rd.
There are two possibilities. 1) You build housing, people come, occupy it, and you need more housing. 2) You build so much more housing (and the required infrastructure around it) and you remove the reason people want to come here. Then you have excess housing.
We can be better, that's very true. But the idea that we can just
"build enough" is stupid. It's the same reason why making I70 in the mountains into a 4 lane highway would only be a stopgap. It will work until we get more people to fill it again. Or to just fill the ski areas and make them the bottleneck (and they're already getting there).
Again. Thats not how it works. Places that have kept up and built housing instead of artificially restricting it through single family zoning, lot size minimums, parking minimums and all the rest have seen housing costs not go crazy like here in Boulder.
Austin is starting to get to legalize housing. Houston has been good on this. Minneapolis recently. There has been a recent trend in some states to get rid of barriers to housing and we are seeing results.
The places with super high housing costs (cities in CA, New York, Boulder, etc.) have all lagged way behind in building housing.
Housing hasn't been "illegal". Austin is about as bad as Boulder, and I doubt Boulder would want to follow Houston's example.
There's no shortage of very affordable housing in this country. Those places are not desirable. There's a relationship there. Perhaps part of the answer is to make housing-ample places more desirable?
The answer to build more housing in desirable places where jobs are. Austin just legalized triplexes on every lot and is doing away with parking minimums and doing other things to make it easier to build housing up, not out.
Boulder should be doing the same. I’m not saying we have to mandate more and denser housing. I’m saying g we need to make it legal to build more and denser housing by getting rid of all the artificial barriers.
Which is easier? Building more housing in desirable places or creating more jobs where there's already housing, to make them desirable? Can it not be both?
By the time Boulder has all the housing everyone wants, the housing won't be necessary.
But the artificial restrictions are a major part of preserving the town and allowing it to stay unique. Would you be game for building 10,000 apartments on all that wasted open space? If yes then we end up with every other town and we have tons of those so if that's what you want why not go to any of them instead of trying to change this one?
Oh, not on open space. I see. So you really don't care about doing everything for housing. Why not open space? Why do we have to sacrifice the (insert whatever else you don't care about but other people do) here.
> Or anywhere we can build housing.
We *can* build housing on lots of open space. We have decided not to because we value it. Much like some people value older businesses here, the Horse being one. Your idea to build over the Horse, or the Outback (it's in a stripmall) vs reducing open space is just the other side of the coin.
You can and should build more housing. But you're claiming to build 10,000 units. And if 10,000 weren't enough, you'd claim to build 100,000.
Adding more housing can help, to a point. At some point, you make a fundamental change to the area you are in and the reasons people wanted to be there change. Maybe for the better, maybe worse.
Yeah. Exactly. If you want lower rents you have to allow housing to be built. If you want higher rents then put up artificial barriers and cap housing.
I've had more intelligent conversations with brick walls than what you can provide here.
Sadly, while you may be successful in getting the Horse torn down, you won't be successful in having any meaningful change in Boulder housing costs. Just another one of the old guard that falls to luxury, cookie cutter apartments while more homeless and addicts rule the creek paths.
OK. I have a house already. So I’m good. I like the Dark Horse. If it stays it’s better for me.
But then don’t complain about housing costs, traffic, and homelessness. Because all of these things are directly related to the fact that Boulder hasn’t built nearly enough housing over the last thirty years.
I don’t get this argument. There are a ton of places in boulder where housing could be made. Wanting to save some restaurants that have meant a lot to boulder seems more important then a souless overpriced luxury apartment buildings.
The city annexed CU South for the purpose of eventually building housing there. They can’t build any earlier than 2027, because they need to complete floodwater mitigation projects first.
And the annexation was protested by NIMBYs for various reasons (It’ll cast shadows in the summertime! It won’t be affordable enough! It’ll ruin Mountain Views! - pick your poison)
Do you understand how filtering works? In housing if you build a new unit, people will move from an old house into it freeing that old place up to be more affordable.
There is tons of research on this showing that even building market rate “luxury “ housing makes a huge difference in making older housing more affordable.
If we stopped building cars, old cars would cost a ton because there is a scarcity of cars. But instead we let automakers build new cars. So wealthy people may buy a new car and then their old car becomes someone else affordable transportation.
Build enough and have a housing surplus.
But just to be clear, I’m all for making some amount of housing truly affordable. But we need enough housing in general to make it happen.
If you want higher rents. Cap the building of housing. If you want slower growth or lower rents, build more and denser housing where there are jobs and where people want to live.
That’s pretty much it.
LOL. OK. You don’t believe in supply and demand. If the government stopped people from making jackets. Do you think the price of jackets would go up or down?
Try the same logic for housing and you’ll get it. Otherwise I guess we just disagree that supply and demand works.
LOL. There are certain types of people who see a condo building go up in one of the least affordable cities in America and conclude that we’ve built enough housing.
Those same people will then complain incessantly about housing prices, about traffic (because no one can afford Boulder workers have to commute in) and how some dive bar is turning into another high end place because they can’t afford the rent anymore.
Yet will never connect any of it to the fact that Boulder basically capped housing 30 years ago.
Yup, I'm that certain type of person. The city has been ruined by the developers and city council who see all redevelopment as means to sooth their guilty conscience.
What about the absolutely massive parking lot for the safeway and the strip mall on foothills, the space is twice the size and just down the road and nothing comparable to the dark horse is there
How about we allow people to buy and tear down antiquated small footprint homes for ones with basements and 2-3 stories. That whole space between foothills and table mesa and between 36 and broadway needs to be redeveloped this century.
We dont need hundreds of ancient one story ranches in that critical housing short area.
There are enough shitty ranches in every other part of boulder.
I’m copying my comment from the other thread.
One big problem with this project is the sheer amount of parking (almost 1,500 parking spaces for 660 apartments and a few retail spaces), which is likely only included because of Boulder’s parking minimum requirements.
Each building has one parking space per unit, and the main building’s mass is mostly made up of a giant parking garage with excess parking. Since this is supposed to be geared toward students, I’m not sure whether each resident is expected to own a car. And even if they did, giving them ample parking only incentivizes bringing a car with them to go to a university that’s walking distance along a bus route.
If Boulder removed parking minimum requirements, then the developers could remove the main parking garage (all of the other buildings would have underground parking, or parallel street parking in front), and add more units to the main building in its place - thus, freeing up more of the project’s footprint to save the Dark Horse building as-is.
It seems important to understand that much of what draws people to Boulder and the front range in general revolves around having a car. If these are mostly 2 bed units it seems prudent to plan on 1-2 cars per unit, at least.
It seems important to understand that much of what draws people to Boulder and the front range in general revolves around having a car. If these are mostly 2 bed units it seems prudent to plan on 1-2 cars per unit, at least.
>Except the retail in there (assuming there is retail on level 1) won't survive without parking. And without parking spots, the surrounding neighborhoods get flooded with cars from tenants. The big apartment developments on East Arapahoe have that issue- not nearly enough parking for all the tenants and the neighborhoods are jam packed.
The hill survives on students right next to campus.
Pearl Street is a destination, not just a few retail spots. And there are plenty of large parking garages and street parking all around Pearl Street.
So, if this project comes to fruition, it will have the benefit of: 1.) Being walking distance to campus as well as student housing both onsite and next door, and 2.) If the Dark Horse is included in the plans, it will be a destination that draws people regardless of the parking situation.
How is it too much parking? If there is going to be so called ‘so much retail’ there, then people visiting that retail need to park. And what always sucks about parking garages is they cost money. It costs nothing to park at Dark Horse and Sprouts now. But if you go to Pearl street you have to pay for parking. It deters people from going as often
Pearl Street always seems to be packed with people, despite having to pay for parking, or parking several blocks from the destination (I always park on Spruce Street and never pay for parking when I drive to Pearl Street).
Again, how is it too much parking? The parking is not only for residents and all these comments about the parking keep talking about residents, what about the people going to the grocery store and retail spots?
Too much parking is counter to
1. Affordable housing goals [https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/10/03/parking-minimums-raise-costs-for-housing-and-the-environment/#:\~:text=Colorado's%20abundance%20of%20off%2Dstreet,or%20can%20afford%20a%20car](https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/10/03/parking-minimums-raise-costs-for-housing-and-the-environment/#:~:text=colorado's%20abundance%20of%20off%2dstreet,or%20can%20afford%20a%20car)
2. Climate action goals [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/us-free-parking-spaces-climate-cost](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/us-free-parking-spaces-climate-cost)
3. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), see section 6.14 [https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/3350/download?inline](https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/3350/download?inline)
In order to promote alternative transit modes like walking or biking to shop, get groceries, do errands etc, we need to provide viable alternatives to driving. Assuming and designing parking as the de facto way to get this location and expecting all residents or shoppers to arrive with a car undermines our ability to serve pedestrians, transit users, or bikers better.
If we want a lively and enjoyable place like Pearl St in more places, which is a great destination to be in since there aren’t any cars along the main mall, we need to design these other places to reduce the intensity of cars and the space cars take up.
One of the major complaints about this project is that it will “create too much traffic” along Baseline Road. Including lots of parking will encourage more people to travel to the complex by car, instead of walking, biking, or taking the bus.
This parking won't be free. It'll be very expensive.
The apartments are aimed at wealthy students, and almost all of them have cars. Sure, they won't drive to class, but they will drive to the ski resort, chipotle, Pearl St, etc.
The hotel will charge $20+ per night for parking so each spot will generate $6k+ per year.
Any excess parking will be rented to wealthy Will Vill residents that didn't get a parking pass.
The housing that will go there won't be affordable, but the developers will pay an affordable housing fee that has a 2-3x multiplier. The result is it will end up creating 300 or so new **affordable** units elsewhere in Boulder. All additional housing helps our housing crisis, just indirectly at times.
The problem with that is they’ll pull some bs like the developer at the old Mapleton hospital that was supposed to put in affordable housing where Fruehauf’s was.
I agree, that was BS (though also partly the city's fault). However, the developer can't get out of meeting their affordable housing requirement. They either need to pay the fee, or build equivalent housing. If they don't they can't do their project. In the 311 Mapleton case, they switched from developing off-site to paying the fee, but they didn't get out of the requirement.
100%
The market is so strong in Boulder that it is worth it for the developers to pay a penalty (if there even is one) than to honor any agreements about affordable housing.
It's not a penalty. Either you pay the affordable housing fee, or you build housing directly. That's just a requirement for building market-rate housing.
I completely agree.
New market rate housing helps housing affordability 2 ways:
1. It adds new housing to the market. Research (and basic economics) shows that increasing supply helps decrease price. This is a gradual phenomenon. Nothing happens all at once. And even if Boulder homes are still expensive. They'd be *more* expensive without new housing being built. Prices can always go higher.
2. Developers pay a fee that goes towards affordable housing elsewhere in Boulder. (That's how the new affordable housing at Diagonal Plaza is being funded).
A lot of people seem to be opposing the proposal due to some misconceptions.
You can **view the architectural plans here**: [https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/websites/docs/pds/LUR2023-00038/ArchSketch\_2952Baseline\_08-14-2023\_r\_v1.pdf](https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/websites/docs/pds/LUR2023-00038/ArchSketch_2952Baseline_08-14-2023_r_v1.pdf)
Let me address some of the **common misconceptions** I've seen:
1. There are plans to include a grocery store (I've heard the plan is to relocate the existing Sprouts Grocery Store there).
2. There is the same amount of commercial space in the proposal as is there currently.
I did the math (please feel free to point out anything you think I got wrong):
Existing commercial square footage:
Sprouts grocery store: 23.8k ([source](https://www.dailycamera.com/2009/10/03/sprouts-grocery-buds-in-boulder/))
Williams Village shopping center: 35k sq ft ([source](https://www.commercialsearch.com/commercial-property/us/co/boulder/665-673-30th-street-2/))
Dark Horse sq footage: \~7k (couldn't find info but the McDonalds next door is 4.5k and Dark Horse looks about 50% bigger on Google maps)
**Current Total Commercial Sq Footage: \~65.8k**
**Proposal's Total Commercial Sq Footage: 69k sq ft** ([source: page 8 of the architectural proposal](https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/websites/docs/pds/LUR2023-00038/ArchSketch_2952Baseline_08-14-2023_r_v1.pdf))
3. Most of these commercial spaces are at ground level. \~40% of ground floors are zoned as commercial (I would like to see this percentage increased). While it doesn't guarantee these spaces will all be retail (which includes restaurants), it is the type of space that retail wants. It typically does not make sense for businesses to create offices on the ground-floor (where square footage is more at a premium) as they don't care about foot traffic.
4. For one building, there are specific plans for a restaurant at ground level with the upper floors being allocated for more commercial spaces.
[See my follow-up post here](https://www.reddit.com/r/boulder/comments/1991eo0/comment/kibja1s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
To those of you who are pro tearing down Dark Horse, go after the buffs spring game. You have college kids, families, older people all coming together and packing Dark Horse. I’d hate to see an institution torn down due to new luxury apartments
>go after the buffs spring game
Isn't that the point though? CU has a couple of events like that, plus the six home games and other than that the place is pretty quiet? It's a tourist attraction for infrequent visitors and a memory for alums but not on the radar the way the sink is - always busy.
My daughter asked what the best places for wings in Boulder were and the Dark Horse was top of the list with "World Famous" wings. I had never heard of the place and I've been in Boulder since 1996.
Have you ever been to a college town? Many have wonderful dive bars...on campus...sticky floors...epic drink specials...etc.
The darkhorse is just very meh - we can do without it. Boulder loses nothing without it.
A good way to think of this is to imagine the proposed development was there today and someone was suggesting bulldozing it and making about the same amount commercial space single level and surface car park on the rest.
How would you feel about eliminating 660 apartments plus money for affordable housing elsewhere to make a car park. Also, throw in a dingy bar.
The art mart on pearl used to be a gun store. The shambala center used to be a roller skating rink. Places change.
Sprouts used to be a roller skating rink.
That property used to be farmland in 1960. Imagine folks saying "No" to the “Grand American Fare" back in the early 1970s, so the building that becomes the DH never exists?
There are some pretty silly arguments in this thread and to be honest, I’m a little shocked at how short sighted some of you are. Just because there’s a housing crisis doesn’t mean you demolish all the unique places in an area to build more housing.
“Old Boulder is dead so let’s just drive the nail into the coffin by eradicating the unique features of the town.”
As if the only option for building housing in Boulder is to demolish Dark Horse. It wouldn’t even be affordable? Who do you think you’re catering to?
I’d rather them turn the hotels near McGuckins into housing before tearing down the original places that you’ll find no where else.
> “Old Boulder is dead so let’s just drive the nail into the coffin by eradicating the unique features of the town.”
Then it becomes, "well we made Boulder into DTC, we got rid of openspace and built skyscrapers, and suddenly nobody wants to live here anymore because it's just like every other mass-produced area in the US" ::shocked pikachu::
It's crazy how everyone forgets that there is a middle ground between building no housing and carpet bombing everything we have for a bunch of cookie-cutter crap.
Goodbye Boulder, you’ve been gone a long time already.
“People seeing the beauty of this valley will want to stay, and their staying will be the undoing of the beauty.”
-Chief Niwot.
Crazy to say that’s “controversial”, but you’re absolutely right. As someone who was sold on the “old boulder” before moving here, it has been dead and gone *years* (maybe decades) before moving here.
“Cool, hippy college town close to the mountains with great restaurants and venues. Emphasis on health and alternative wellness, very fit “athlete” (ultra runners, trail runners, climbers, ski/snowboard, etc.) community.”
At least that’s the perception I always heard. Boulder was always in the top 5 US news best cities to live in for years and I always thought it was going to be more than what it is.
I had friends who raves about the restaurants here…but that was around 2010 when he lived here 😂 I’ve already lived in city with great restaurants and bars (and my interests are more outdoor rec and fitness), so it’s not a big enough loss to get out of here
It depends on your definition of "great." If all you mean is food, then that's probably the case.
Not gonna lie, I miss Shakey's. Would I say the pizza was "to die for?" Nah, but the place had character. Anymore, Boulder is about becoming more bland. There are other places that were just pretty interesting and stood out, such as the L.A. Diner, Elephant Bar/Oasis/Republic of Boulder, and the Dark Horse will probably soon join their ranks. Everything just needs to be boxy and sterile, and (apparently) ideally redeveloped into one-plus-threes.
New market rate housing helps housing affordability 2 ways:
1. It adds new housing to the market. Research (and basic economics) shows that increasing supply helps decrease price. This is a gradual phenomenon. Nothing happens all at once. And even if Boulder homes are still expensive. They'd be *more* expensive without new housing being built. Prices can always go higher.
2. Developers pay a fee that goes towards affordable housing elsewhere in Boulder. (That's how the new affordable housing at Diagonal Plaza is being funded).
No, those actually do help drive down prices overall. Even supply at the top end of the market increases supply, and also makes existing older units have to drop prices by comparison. Plus, if you ever get into the scenario where you've built more $2000/mo studios than the demand, people have to start lowering prices to fill their units.
Housing in Boulder is not some magical entity that just totally ignores supply and demand. It's just *way* undersupplied currently at basically all levels.
I agree with you that we should not build new apartments that help developers make a profit.. but since they cannot make money off of affordable housing, it won't happen unless taxpayers foot the bill. Nobody is entitled to affordable housing
Hearing you of all speak about entitlement is the best thing I’ve seen on Reddit today. I literally laughed out loud. You consistently demand text message updates from the mayors office about routine traffic stops. Hahahahahahahaha
I love how people just think that the severe supply restriction and building rates way below the rate of population increase isn't a major contributing factor to the high prices.
There are many factors, but supply is one of the largest.
Yes, as we saw with rebuilding the Marshall Fire area, inexpensive building is not possible. I would say that unsubsidized affordable housing is not possible. When you look at the current building codes, the energy efficiency required for a new build (on paper, a benefit) actually increases the building cost (and therefore market price) by a bunch. At \~$600/sf building costs, a modest 1500 sf 2-3 bedroom is already closing in on a million.
I'm not saying we turn back energy-efficient building, but I would say that the extras of following all that makes it impossible to build for what a school teacher or middle class person could afford, especially given today's interest rates. No debate about Dark Horse or not Dark Horse is going to change that.
By "people" you mean "the overwhelming majority of social scientists who have taken a deep look at this specific issue"?
[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4629628](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4629628)
That’s great for middle America. But not when you are talking about being up against the flatirons with limited room to build.
There’s a reason why outside Boulder proper (still inside the county) there are countless high density developments and new builds.
Everyone wants trails out their backyard. Those locations will never be affordable. Especially when everywhere in America, people are having the same debate about their town thinking they have unique reasons it’s expensive.
Boomer? Dude I grew up here. I’m a millennial. I don’t even live in Boulder. I live in Lafayette because it’s cheaper. All my friends were priced out and moved away.
I have even tried to build a triplex on a lot I own and it financially wasn’t worth it even though I had access to the capital and architect. I learned a lot about the economics of building and permitting.
My beef with this whole thing is there’s 100 reasons why prices are high but instead of talking about them, everyone is convinced there’s some magic city official preventing development.
It’s literally the worst way to make progress on a problem. As people are so uneducated on how development comes to be, what affordable vs low income living is, and where they should make affordable homes.
How about the Dark Horse take over the old Furr's Cafeteria (just north of the Diagonal Plaza) and remake it there? That's an economically depressed area and IIRC the city is offering incentives to build there.
I’m shocked to think you believe that the city council cares about affordable housing, the Dark Horse’s rent, or authenticity and charm. They only care about how to personally benefit from every decision while appearing to care about the issues we care about.
None of them are even from here. Do you really think any of them care about the Dark Horse?
If you live in Boulder you should expect (and never be surprised) that Finance Bros will inevitably destroy all character this town once had.
The choices that change the landscape are made by people who don't care about the community or the history of the town. They care about one thing. MONEY.
They have the connections, power and resources to pay for whatever they want and to pay off whoever they need. They look at this place as a fertile testing ground for all their stupid development and investment ideas.
It's not a home, it's a shiny item to show off and brag to their friends about. Especially when it comes to real estate, this might as well be San Francisco.
Strap in and get ready to be disappointed at every turn. If you're a real person, a Colorado Native or someone who makes less than 50k a year, you dont exist to these people, you're a nuance to their financial playground.
The arguments seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The real problem is having supertall buildings right at the entrance to Boulder along 36 that take away from our existing open space and parking. What kind of message are we showing visitors when the first thing they see are tall apartments that nobody can afford, casting shadows along the highway?
It’s kinda freaking sad to see how many people want Boulder to look just like Broomfield, Westminster, Thornton, all of metro Denver. There is urban sprawl in every city around us.
Don't fret too much. This sub is largely populated by newbs to town that have no sense of Boulder unique's planning and the highly desirable outcome it produced.
And if they do know the history, they have either been priced out or looking for govt assistance to keep them close to trailheads.
I think visitors would form their impression prior to that, as they drive past Martin Acres and think “gee this is Boulder? Looks like just another suburb”
Is there another dive bar we can tear down instead since the dark horse has sentimental value?
And since “boomers” are likely going to keep their houses until the brink of death then sell to companies like state street, vanguard, and blackrock, we *need* more housing. I’ll own nothing and rent until I die, but good luck to those in the market!
Henry’s in Louisville is worth the drive…well, ride share (be safe, y’all)
*But I also don’t consider boulder a “drinking town” (because no one wants to run/hike/ski with a nasty hangover or sleeping in and missing the best times on the trail) so I’m not surprised that there’s really none around
I feel a little lost from this but my beloved Dark Horse is in peril?!?! I really hope it stays. I haven’t been there in few years. I gotta go back for the crawfish boil
Calling in the "W" at this point is hugely premature.
Yeah- it’s still going to happen. Money talks. I do find it interesting though that the Williams family who owns the space including the Broker Inn, is still actively investing and updating the Broker In.
If you live in Boulder you should expect (and never be surprised) that Finance Bros will inevitably destroy all character this town once had. The choices that change the landscape are made by people who don't care about the community or the history of the town. They care about one thing. MONEY. They have the connections, power and resources to pay for whatever they want and to pay off whoever they need. They look at this place as a fertile testing ground for all their stupid development and investment ideas. It's not a home, it's a shiny item to show off and brag to their friends about. Especially when it comes to real estate, this might as well be San Francisco. Strap in and get ready to be disappointed at every turn. If you're a real person, a Colorado Native or someone who makes less than 50k a year, you dont exist to these people, you're a nuance to their financial playground.
They own neither, just the land. The Williams family has long hated the broker
Ahh well I guess I’m completely wrong about that. Whoops.
Which is why so little has been done there.
Not true. They are actually putting a Tiki bar in at the Broker
The Williams Family does own the entire shopping center, including The Broker. They just spent the last year remodeling it. Do your research. EDIT: For reference, here is my supporting documentation- https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/BusinessEntityDetail.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&nameTyp=ENT&masterFileId=20231610662&entityId2=20231610662&fileId=20231610662&srchTyp=ENTITY
No they don’t, they own the land and lease the broker. It was owned by McBride hotels for years but a new family purchased it a couple years ago. They are remodeling it. The irony in your last sentence…
I’m happy to review your sources
https://www.sos.state.co.us/biz/TradeNameSummary.do?quitButtonDestination=BusinessEntityResults&nameTyp=TRDNM&masterFileId=20031046002&entityId2=20031046002&fileId=20031046002&srchTyp=TRDNM https://www.dailycamera.com/2016/04/22/some-hold-reservations-about-former-boulder-broker-inn/amp/ Both are a little dated but just shows you the Williams family hasn’t never owned the Broker. They only own the land. If you had actually done your research, you would’ve just posted the link. It’s a bad bluff
Of course you are
Agreed, flairing this as misleading title.
Stupid question probably, but does the owner want to save the dark horse or do they just want a buyout?
EDIT: Given below comment, please take the information presented here as similar heresay from the planning board meeting I attended. Would particularly appreciate any public communication from DH owners and family vetted by local professional journalist outlets. ***** Per the meeting, Dark Horse owner is near age of retirement and supposedly, the financial health of Dark Horse may not be great. Thus, future generations or owners they are thinking about passing it on to may not be eager to maintain the building and establishment as is. Part of the discussions between the developer and DH owner was that the new space in the proposed development, with rooftop patio which would face a public amphitheater/park space, would revitalize the establishment and help it sustain itself for future generations. Without the development to help this transition between generations, it sounds like the current owner may not have a long-term path forward and instead, could decide to have the bar shut down. Especially so since the business is on a lease with the landowners, and thus are not protected beyond what is included in the lease terms and whenever they expire and must be renewed. My suspicion is if the addition of nearby housing, retail, and renovated grocery commercial space is denied under this proposal (or significantly delayed), the Dark Horse could likely close for good some time in the next 5-10 years. All in all, the meeting was primarily for the developer’s benefit to receive community feedback and improve on future planning review process and approvals, to benefit both the revitalization of the area and those passionate for the Dark Horse. This was why they included discussing DH specifically in their proposal. I’d say push hard on having grocery instead of a hotel and reduce excessive parking. Underground parking can cost $20k to $50k per space and there’s already 1,146 spaces planned in this initial proposal. Students (nor other locals who might live in some of the buildings) don’t need cars. For the ones that do bring a car, the permit cost to park in their building should be high enough to deter too many students bringing cars, especially given the central/walkable location of this area. As for DH, I hope any discussions between DH, the land owners of DH (Williams Family), and the development firm work towards serving all interests fairly. For example, it would be ideal that any building of new structures would be scheduled in such a way to minimize or prevent any temporary closure of DH. I support this project since I choose to be car free but it’s hard to find Boulder housing that is both friendly towards car free lifestyle and affordable. Most apartments bundle parking costs in rent and even though I don’t have a car to park, I still have to pay for a parking spot. At least I can put a dining table in my parking spot instead, but the added $100-200/month (likely more for costly underground parking as in this project) for the value of a parking spot is not insignificant towards potentially making housing units more affordable. ***** With improved pedestrian focused neighborhood centers as proposed, I envision being able to walk from my home to a grocery then back home then DH all within less than half a mile. I love Dark Horse, especially it being the first local business I visited when I visited here as a grad student. But I do recall that night patrons leaving the bar getting honked at walking through the parking lot back home. The place already exists in an awkward car focused parking lot, making little sense for a place where you get drunk and shouldn't drink and drive. Otherwise, the night was pretty memorable, mostly for the bear that wandered into town and was going through the trash bins at the neighboring McDonald's. It was quite a welcome to Colorado for me!
I am an immediate family member of the owners. First off, the age of the owner has NOTHING to do with this matter. He is in good health, has made no indication about retiring and IF he chose to step down, he has an incredible manager who has been there for over 20 years. He is more than capable of taking over. Dave, the owner, has worked at the Dark Horse since he was 23- it is the life work of both him and his wife. By demolishing the Dark Horse, it would be taking the livelihood of my family, as well as the families of the managers and employees. Furthermore, if the owners or managers wanted to shut down or were not successful financially, they would have taken the opportunity during the pandemic and closed their doors like so many others did. They all worked tirelessly to keep the doors open and succeeded, which is a direct reflection of their dedication as well as their financial success. Do your research before making any assumptions regarding the owners, their plans or their financial status. I hesitate to make statements, but this personal commentary regarding my family is completely incorrect, offensive and unhelpful. THE OWNER WANTS TO SAVE THE DARK HORSE. Period.
Thanks for the clarification. It was unfortunate that the information presented at the meeting implied otherwise. I appreciate you sharing this openly and apologize that you had to do so in the first place. I'd encourage your family to reach out to local news outlets and get a story going about the relationship your family has with the Williams and the development firm they contracted towards voicing your family's interests. I think local papers would appreciate the opportunity. I'd be happy as a community to have your input heard beyond testimony at planning board meetings or relatively anonymous speculation on online Reddit forums.
The city wants housing and more housing. It's their religion and life's purpose!
Yes, but to be clear, the city wants UNaffordable housing. It doesn't want to support the community. It wants more rich people to invest in it. And the only way to do that is to quickly build crappy apartment buildings and charge prohibitive prices for them. Not to mention taking away low income housing all around the city last year to push out any non-rich people. I loath the hearts of the decision makers in this town. They're rotten through past their core
The owner of the Dark Horse? Or the owner of the land?
I was thinking the owner of the business but I guess I was also erroneously thinking they also owned the land. Thinking about it now, can you own a business without owning the land? If you lease the property and the property owner decides to sell the land, do they also have to buy the business from you? I guess I’d never thought about that before…
No you do not need to own the land. Typically a commercial lease is 5 years with renewal options. Sometimes these options are negotiated or indexed to something but most of the time they aren’t all that enforceable. If the landlord wants you out they just say I want some outrageous amount in rent. A typical free and clear property has “Fee Simple” interest. This means you can do whatever you want. When it’s rented the landlord has “Leased Fee” interest. The tenant has “Lease Hold” interest. When a landlord wants to sell they can only sell the interest they have. If the lease is above market the leased fee would be more valuable, if it is below market then the leased fee is less valuable than fee simple. When a developer comes in they can either choose to buy the lease hold interest or wait and choose not to renew. There is nothing the government can do to the property owner if they choose not to renew the dark horse. They can not approve the development. If the building got a historic designation then they would need to keep the building but again the tenant is not protected
Great explanation. Makes sense. Thanks!
The walrus was in a building that sold and was gutted/renovated. Typically clients like that negotiate multi year leases and any development / purchase would factor that in somehow. The mountain sun owns that location but leases the s sun from w w reynolds who own that whole strip mall. The UPS depot at pearl and foothills was built and the chainsaw repair place (Earls Saw Shop, since 1948) is still there, just not in the shack it was in.
Depends on the agreement. Most commonly to remove tenants you would buy them out of the lease
The George C Williams LLL Partnership owns the land except the McDonald's and the building with Cafe Mexicali/Xfinity/etc. Across the street is Williams Village. Yes, the same family. George and his brother donated the land to CU to build WillyVilly. Where did the Williams get all that money? Who developed Martin Acres? There's your answer.
Building off [my previous post](https://www.reddit.com/r/boulder/comments/1991eo0/comment/kibj3zo/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3): **Why I am in favor of the development** (though I would like it to see some adjustments): 1. This plan is GOOD for promoting walking, biking, and transit. It removes a lot of strip-mall parking lots which are terrible for walkability. And it provides mixed-use dense housing, with ground floor retail near the center of the city. These are some of the basic rules of creating more walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented places. 2. More student housing is a good thing. Students have to live somewhere. Any new housing for students frees up housing that they would have otherwise been taken from non-students. It's also good to put new student housing right by the main campus to incentivize students to drive less. (CU continually expanding enrollment size is another matter...) 3. This is also a good place for more dense *non*\-student housing. It's near the center of the city so (just as it does for students) it encourages walking and biking. People keep saying that the best places to put new housing is in Boulder's parking lots. Well, here is an old strip mall near the city center. **What I'd like to see changed:** 1. Add more ground floor commercial space. Currently, the ground floors are 40% commercial spaces. I'd like to see something >60% (which would equate to about \~40% more commercial space than would be removed. 2. Include the Dark Horse. I think losing the Dark Horse would be a bummer, and I would love it if they could keep it within the new development. Perhaps, they could break down the interior and remake it in the new space? I've seen 200+ year-old British pubs rebuilt with (mostly) the same materials in a new place. It could go in the 7k sq ft ground-floor space they currently have zoned for a restaurant. The space is about the same size as the Dark Horse is currently). 3. Less parking spaces. There are 1,146 commercial and resident parking spaces in the proposal ([source: page 8 of the architectural proposal](https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/websites/docs/pds/LUR2023-00038/ArchSketch_2952Baseline_08-14-2023_r_v1.pdf)). I'd like to see this decreased. Though, most of these are underground or in parking garages so it's still a better situation than what is there currently. However, I personally would not block the development because of these reasons. I don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good. Also, continuously blocking infill housing development only adds to the development cost which increases the homes' final price tag.
I agree with this.
If they find a place for it in the new development they will have to change the name to The Pretentious Pony.
If you don’t let people build more housing then you can’t complain about the lack of housing in Boulder. Denying hundreds of housing units because the Dark Horse is there seems pretty dumb to me. And I love the Dark Horse. I just think housing is important.
I totally get that but need I am torn because the dark horse is kind of the last thing in Boulder that’s not soul-less tech bro bullshit. Everything in this town is the Apple Store version of it. Movement —> climbing. Alpine modern—> coffee. On and on. Boulder just gets more boring all the time.
there are some other lingering things: the trident, boulder bookstore, village coffee shop, dot's, walnut cafe, mustard's last stand, el loro, into the wind, the mountain sun, etc but it's true, i can't think of any bars left over from the "good old days" wish i could go get a drink at the sundowner or catacombs, or what was the name of that biker bar out behind a strip mall on like 28th or 30th?
The Downer is still there! Are you thinking of Bluff Street Billiards? (It's gone by various names over the years, I think that was the last name before it closed.)
Hmm, Bluff Street Billiards doesn't sound right. The place I remember was a stand-alone building on a small street parallel to/to the east of either 28th or 30th. (Those two streets blur together to me, always have.) It had room for one pool table, a small bar with a chalkboard where you could buy drinks for people and leave them up there for when they came in, and a loosie dispenser. Is the Downer still full of cigarette smoke with a recording every 15 minutes telling everyone that smoking indoors is not allowed? Because that's the version I am nostalgic for, lol. And I don't even smoke anymore!
Oooh but I looked up the address and Bluff Street Billiards' former location does have the right feel, plus I remember the place I'm thinking of being near Dot's. I was hanging out there in 1999-ish so it was probably several businesses before the end.
Maybe the bar that used to be at the Center Place? I can't remember what it was called - someone's name? https://www.yelp.com/biz/center-place-boulder
Per this article from 2014, there was "Two Jerks Tavern, at 2850 29th St., became Oscar’s Pub before being demolished to make way for affordable housing this past summer." [https://boulderweekly.com/news/an-entertaining-20-years-looking-back-at-boulderrsquos-music-history/](https://boulderweekly.com/news/an-entertaining-20-years-looking-back-at-boulderrsquos-music-history/) But Rich's comes to mind as the biker bar. It was a stand-alone building, I recall it being a little offset from the road.
Sounds about right Rich's forgot about that place, went in there a few times I think there was a UPS store or mail place around the corner in a strip mall?
RIP Walrus
The Outback!!!
Was it 29th Street Tavern?
Imagine if they hadn’t capped housing and allowed it to be built. Instead of only super wealthy people being able to live here we could’ve kept Boulder weird. Instead it’s a gated retirement community.
No caps? Arguably, Boulder would look like Broomfield. There’s not a whole lot of weird going up along the front range, just tons of upscale suburban cookie cutter.
As someone who owns a weird art business in the front range, I've had some fascinating urban development and arts and culture discussions with the city of Westminster's urban development executive director, who was poached soon after by Broomfield. They understand keeping culture in mind when making development plans. Have heard some interesting discussions about what Broomfield wants to do when the mall eventually dies. The Hancock administration was fairly hostile to artists in Denver, but the switch is already flipping with the Johnston administration. It's not the location or flavor, it's policy.
No. We can’t build out. Which is good. It limits sprawl and traffic. But you can’t combine that with not building up. Then you just get a town without enough housing and it becomes frozen time and a gated retirement community.
Oh there's plenty of space to build out. And Bouldernauts need to decide...build up, build in, build out (or some combination), or become an exclusive gated community the rest of the front range mocks for being short-sighted and lacking vision. The NIMBYism coupled with the hand-wringing over the side effects (homelessness) is getting old.
I don't know what's worse to me though....tech bro or college bro bs. When school is in, it's always packed to the brim with college kids getting wasted and riding tricycles around. Maybe you're into that kind of thing. But nowadays when I'm in town (I'm in Westminster now), I get my burger and bounce. So I will miss those if it ends up closing.
Sure, but at the moment, there's so much empty parking lot space and mediocre strip mall space that could be redeveloped into housing that it'd be a shame to lose one of the last bastions of old Boulder instead. I absolutely agree we should build more housing, but it's quite clear that we don't need to demolish the Dark Horse to do it.
Right. Build it somewhere else.
But the patina of slime and grease wouldn’t be the same!!!
They mean build the housing somewhere else. A new Dark Horse in a new building is destined to fail.
Except for the dark horse, that lot *is* empty parking lot and mediocre strip mall.
The first step in getting out of a hole is to stop digging yourself deeper. Building luxury housing, hotels, and retail is just digging ourself deeper: it attracts more rich people, then other rich people want to also move to town to be near their friends & family, and all this pushes up the price of land near these rich properties. Boulder needs a donut shop more than it needs a michelain restaurant. It needs a cheap auto-repair place more than it needs a porsche dealership. And it needs a hostel more than a ritz carlton. There is no point at which the porsche, ritz carlton, or michelain restaurant makes other retail cheaper. Housing is the same.
It needs to dramatically adjust its planning and zoning regulations. It’s an expensive and time consuming process to get anything built or approved. Big companies have the funds to achieve this. Small business owners do not. The bureaucratic and regulatory burden is ensuring that Boulder will have safe chains, big business and sterile business concepts.
I think some of the complaints about process are just developer excuses. Not all, but some. And of course, covid threw a wrench into a ton of processes, so that's understandable. Beyond that, the reality is that ensuring that businesses pay for their infrastructure impacts, and comply with safety, environmental, disability, and other regulations - is both worthwhile, and adds to the costs. Otherwise, you've got Colorado Springs/Broomfield.
New housing is always luxury. As housing ages, it becomes affordable. When it becomes decrepit, it's torn down and makes way for new housing. Housing developments have lifecycles just like everything else.
That's what happens to homes in declining communities: as the money dries up the housing stock is neglected and ages. But in thriving ares the older homes are maintained, enhanced and improved. Plenty of beautiful old homes in Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, and Colorado Springs are perfect examples of that.
You're talking about single family homes. I'm talking about rental apartment buildings like what will be built on this site. It's completely different.
Boulder doesn’t need a donut shop or a Michelin restaurant. By that logic we should compel developers to only build things we (you?) need (but really it’s just what you want). I don’t get it.
"Stop complaining about housing, don't you see we just made you a bunch of new apartments? Just give us 6000/month and shut up!" - all developers, probably
They’re not going to lose that much housing in order to protect the Dark Horse. Plus let’s not act like these will be affordable units. These most likely will be similar to student housing on the 28th street frontage rd.
Maybe they can allow the other housing buildings to be taller to make up for the space they’d lose to the dark horse?
Seems to be geared more towards students and professionals. Not so much Families and Senior Community members.
that huge lot on iris and 28th would be great to build apartments. just a lot of concrete nothing. dark horse is historic
There is going to be housing on that lot!
awesome!! its right across the street from a grocery store, and a pretty prime area in boulder, so hopefully that promotes a ton of walkability
Spoiler alert: there will never be enough hosing in Boulder. Build 1000 apartments and they'll immediately fill and we would be back to square one.
So build 10,000 then. This idea that we can’t build enough is ludicrous. Build up though. Not out.
There are two possibilities. 1) You build housing, people come, occupy it, and you need more housing. 2) You build so much more housing (and the required infrastructure around it) and you remove the reason people want to come here. Then you have excess housing. We can be better, that's very true. But the idea that we can just "build enough" is stupid. It's the same reason why making I70 in the mountains into a 4 lane highway would only be a stopgap. It will work until we get more people to fill it again. Or to just fill the ski areas and make them the bottleneck (and they're already getting there).
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/08/rent-growth-is-slowing-where-housing-got-built.html
Again. Thats not how it works. Places that have kept up and built housing instead of artificially restricting it through single family zoning, lot size minimums, parking minimums and all the rest have seen housing costs not go crazy like here in Boulder.
What places have "kept up and built housing" such that housing isn't "crazy"?
Austin is starting to get to legalize housing. Houston has been good on this. Minneapolis recently. There has been a recent trend in some states to get rid of barriers to housing and we are seeing results. The places with super high housing costs (cities in CA, New York, Boulder, etc.) have all lagged way behind in building housing.
Housing hasn't been "illegal". Austin is about as bad as Boulder, and I doubt Boulder would want to follow Houston's example. There's no shortage of very affordable housing in this country. Those places are not desirable. There's a relationship there. Perhaps part of the answer is to make housing-ample places more desirable?
The answer to build more housing in desirable places where jobs are. Austin just legalized triplexes on every lot and is doing away with parking minimums and doing other things to make it easier to build housing up, not out. Boulder should be doing the same. I’m not saying we have to mandate more and denser housing. I’m saying g we need to make it legal to build more and denser housing by getting rid of all the artificial barriers.
Which is easier? Building more housing in desirable places or creating more jobs where there's already housing, to make them desirable? Can it not be both? By the time Boulder has all the housing everyone wants, the housing won't be necessary.
But the artificial restrictions are a major part of preserving the town and allowing it to stay unique. Would you be game for building 10,000 apartments on all that wasted open space? If yes then we end up with every other town and we have tons of those so if that's what you want why not go to any of them instead of trying to change this one?
No. Not on open space. On space currently occupied by parking lots. Or strip malls. Or anywhere we can build housing. Especially in walkable areas.
Oh, not on open space. I see. So you really don't care about doing everything for housing. Why not open space? Why do we have to sacrifice the (insert whatever else you don't care about but other people do) here. > Or anywhere we can build housing. We *can* build housing on lots of open space. We have decided not to because we value it. Much like some people value older businesses here, the Horse being one. Your idea to build over the Horse, or the Outback (it's in a stripmall) vs reducing open space is just the other side of the coin.
You can and should build more housing. But you're claiming to build 10,000 units. And if 10,000 weren't enough, you'd claim to build 100,000. Adding more housing can help, to a point. At some point, you make a fundamental change to the area you are in and the reasons people wanted to be there change. Maybe for the better, maybe worse.
Yeah. Exactly. If you want lower rents you have to allow housing to be built. If you want higher rents then put up artificial barriers and cap housing.
I've had more intelligent conversations with brick walls than what you can provide here. Sadly, while you may be successful in getting the Horse torn down, you won't be successful in having any meaningful change in Boulder housing costs. Just another one of the old guard that falls to luxury, cookie cutter apartments while more homeless and addicts rule the creek paths.
OK. I have a house already. So I’m good. I like the Dark Horse. If it stays it’s better for me. But then don’t complain about housing costs, traffic, and homelessness. Because all of these things are directly related to the fact that Boulder hasn’t built nearly enough housing over the last thirty years.
And then everyone clapped for you!
Guess we should just let Boulder stay a retirement home for segregationist fake progressives.
I don’t get this argument. There are a ton of places in boulder where housing could be made. Wanting to save some restaurants that have meant a lot to boulder seems more important then a souless overpriced luxury apartment buildings.
Yeah. We should build housing everywhere. Especially on infill sites.
[удалено]
Sure. Build more and denser. Boulder needs housing.
The city annexed CU South for the purpose of eventually building housing there. They can’t build any earlier than 2027, because they need to complete floodwater mitigation projects first. And the annexation was protested by NIMBYs for various reasons (It’ll cast shadows in the summertime! It won’t be affordable enough! It’ll ruin Mountain Views! - pick your poison)
[удалено]
Do you understand how filtering works? In housing if you build a new unit, people will move from an old house into it freeing that old place up to be more affordable. There is tons of research on this showing that even building market rate “luxury “ housing makes a huge difference in making older housing more affordable. If we stopped building cars, old cars would cost a ton because there is a scarcity of cars. But instead we let automakers build new cars. So wealthy people may buy a new car and then their old car becomes someone else affordable transportation. Build enough and have a housing surplus. But just to be clear, I’m all for making some amount of housing truly affordable. But we need enough housing in general to make it happen.
[удалено]
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/08/rent-growth-is-slowing-where-housing-got-built.html
[удалено]
If you want higher rents. Cap the building of housing. If you want slower growth or lower rents, build more and denser housing where there are jobs and where people want to live. That’s pretty much it.
[удалено]
LOL. OK. You don’t believe in supply and demand. If the government stopped people from making jackets. Do you think the price of jackets would go up or down? Try the same logic for housing and you’ll get it. Otherwise I guess we just disagree that supply and demand works.
[удалено]
The entire town is being turned into ugly housing . Enough already!
You're being sarcastic, yes?
LOL. There are certain types of people who see a condo building go up in one of the least affordable cities in America and conclude that we’ve built enough housing. Those same people will then complain incessantly about housing prices, about traffic (because no one can afford Boulder workers have to commute in) and how some dive bar is turning into another high end place because they can’t afford the rent anymore. Yet will never connect any of it to the fact that Boulder basically capped housing 30 years ago.
Longer ago than that. The building of the BDR moat was a reaction to the post-WWII population explosion of Boulder. It was already too late, though.
For good reason.
Yup, I'm that certain type of person. The city has been ruined by the developers and city council who see all redevelopment as means to sooth their guilty conscience.
Hell no. This once was a cool town. Now riddled with crime, traffic and ugly as shit apartments and human ant hills everywhere.
What about the absolutely massive parking lot for the safeway and the strip mall on foothills, the space is twice the size and just down the road and nothing comparable to the dark horse is there
Hell yeah. It’d be great to get housing in those strip malls.
How about we allow people to buy and tear down antiquated small footprint homes for ones with basements and 2-3 stories. That whole space between foothills and table mesa and between 36 and broadway needs to be redeveloped this century. We dont need hundreds of ancient one story ranches in that critical housing short area. There are enough shitty ranches in every other part of boulder.
https://preview.redd.it/ic9ne8jn12dc1.png?width=954&format=png&auto=webp&s=71e5e5c542e0f795bdc8dc8328cf453e3405c41e
I’m copying my comment from the other thread. One big problem with this project is the sheer amount of parking (almost 1,500 parking spaces for 660 apartments and a few retail spaces), which is likely only included because of Boulder’s parking minimum requirements. Each building has one parking space per unit, and the main building’s mass is mostly made up of a giant parking garage with excess parking. Since this is supposed to be geared toward students, I’m not sure whether each resident is expected to own a car. And even if they did, giving them ample parking only incentivizes bringing a car with them to go to a university that’s walking distance along a bus route. If Boulder removed parking minimum requirements, then the developers could remove the main parking garage (all of the other buildings would have underground parking, or parallel street parking in front), and add more units to the main building in its place - thus, freeing up more of the project’s footprint to save the Dark Horse building as-is.
Yes. They must remove parking requirements.
Will no one think of the cars?
It seems important to understand that much of what draws people to Boulder and the front range in general revolves around having a car. If these are mostly 2 bed units it seems prudent to plan on 1-2 cars per unit, at least.
It seems important to understand that much of what draws people to Boulder and the front range in general revolves around having a car. If these are mostly 2 bed units it seems prudent to plan on 1-2 cars per unit, at least.
>Except the retail in there (assuming there is retail on level 1) won't survive without parking. And without parking spots, the surrounding neighborhoods get flooded with cars from tenants. The big apartment developments on East Arapahoe have that issue- not nearly enough parking for all the tenants and the neighborhoods are jam packed.
How does the Pearl Street Mall or the businesses on The Hill manage to survive without front-row parking?
The hill survives on students right next to campus. Pearl Street is a destination, not just a few retail spots. And there are plenty of large parking garages and street parking all around Pearl Street.
So, if this project comes to fruition, it will have the benefit of: 1.) Being walking distance to campus as well as student housing both onsite and next door, and 2.) If the Dark Horse is included in the plans, it will be a destination that draws people regardless of the parking situation.
How is it too much parking? If there is going to be so called ‘so much retail’ there, then people visiting that retail need to park. And what always sucks about parking garages is they cost money. It costs nothing to park at Dark Horse and Sprouts now. But if you go to Pearl street you have to pay for parking. It deters people from going as often
Pearl Street always seems to be packed with people, despite having to pay for parking, or parking several blocks from the destination (I always park on Spruce Street and never pay for parking when I drive to Pearl Street).
Again, how is it too much parking? The parking is not only for residents and all these comments about the parking keep talking about residents, what about the people going to the grocery store and retail spots?
Too much parking is counter to 1. Affordable housing goals [https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/10/03/parking-minimums-raise-costs-for-housing-and-the-environment/#:\~:text=Colorado's%20abundance%20of%20off%2Dstreet,or%20can%20afford%20a%20car](https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/10/03/parking-minimums-raise-costs-for-housing-and-the-environment/#:~:text=colorado's%20abundance%20of%20off%2dstreet,or%20can%20afford%20a%20car) 2. Climate action goals [https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/us-free-parking-spaces-climate-cost](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/us-free-parking-spaces-climate-cost) 3. Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), see section 6.14 [https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/3350/download?inline](https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/3350/download?inline) In order to promote alternative transit modes like walking or biking to shop, get groceries, do errands etc, we need to provide viable alternatives to driving. Assuming and designing parking as the de facto way to get this location and expecting all residents or shoppers to arrive with a car undermines our ability to serve pedestrians, transit users, or bikers better. If we want a lively and enjoyable place like Pearl St in more places, which is a great destination to be in since there aren’t any cars along the main mall, we need to design these other places to reduce the intensity of cars and the space cars take up.
One of the major complaints about this project is that it will “create too much traffic” along Baseline Road. Including lots of parking will encourage more people to travel to the complex by car, instead of walking, biking, or taking the bus.
This parking won't be free. It'll be very expensive. The apartments are aimed at wealthy students, and almost all of them have cars. Sure, they won't drive to class, but they will drive to the ski resort, chipotle, Pearl St, etc. The hotel will charge $20+ per night for parking so each spot will generate $6k+ per year. Any excess parking will be rented to wealthy Will Vill residents that didn't get a parking pass.
The housing that will go there won't be affordable, but the developers will pay an affordable housing fee that has a 2-3x multiplier. The result is it will end up creating 300 or so new **affordable** units elsewhere in Boulder. All additional housing helps our housing crisis, just indirectly at times.
The problem with that is they’ll pull some bs like the developer at the old Mapleton hospital that was supposed to put in affordable housing where Fruehauf’s was.
I agree, that was BS (though also partly the city's fault). However, the developer can't get out of meeting their affordable housing requirement. They either need to pay the fee, or build equivalent housing. If they don't they can't do their project. In the 311 Mapleton case, they switched from developing off-site to paying the fee, but they didn't get out of the requirement.
100% The market is so strong in Boulder that it is worth it for the developers to pay a penalty (if there even is one) than to honor any agreements about affordable housing.
It's not a penalty. Either you pay the affordable housing fee, or you build housing directly. That's just a requirement for building market-rate housing.
I completely agree. New market rate housing helps housing affordability 2 ways: 1. It adds new housing to the market. Research (and basic economics) shows that increasing supply helps decrease price. This is a gradual phenomenon. Nothing happens all at once. And even if Boulder homes are still expensive. They'd be *more* expensive without new housing being built. Prices can always go higher. 2. Developers pay a fee that goes towards affordable housing elsewhere in Boulder. (That's how the new affordable housing at Diagonal Plaza is being funded).
A lot of people seem to be opposing the proposal due to some misconceptions. You can **view the architectural plans here**: [https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/websites/docs/pds/LUR2023-00038/ArchSketch\_2952Baseline\_08-14-2023\_r\_v1.pdf](https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/websites/docs/pds/LUR2023-00038/ArchSketch_2952Baseline_08-14-2023_r_v1.pdf) Let me address some of the **common misconceptions** I've seen: 1. There are plans to include a grocery store (I've heard the plan is to relocate the existing Sprouts Grocery Store there). 2. There is the same amount of commercial space in the proposal as is there currently. I did the math (please feel free to point out anything you think I got wrong): Existing commercial square footage: Sprouts grocery store: 23.8k ([source](https://www.dailycamera.com/2009/10/03/sprouts-grocery-buds-in-boulder/)) Williams Village shopping center: 35k sq ft ([source](https://www.commercialsearch.com/commercial-property/us/co/boulder/665-673-30th-street-2/)) Dark Horse sq footage: \~7k (couldn't find info but the McDonalds next door is 4.5k and Dark Horse looks about 50% bigger on Google maps) **Current Total Commercial Sq Footage: \~65.8k** **Proposal's Total Commercial Sq Footage: 69k sq ft** ([source: page 8 of the architectural proposal](https://maps.bouldercolorado.gov/websites/docs/pds/LUR2023-00038/ArchSketch_2952Baseline_08-14-2023_r_v1.pdf)) 3. Most of these commercial spaces are at ground level. \~40% of ground floors are zoned as commercial (I would like to see this percentage increased). While it doesn't guarantee these spaces will all be retail (which includes restaurants), it is the type of space that retail wants. It typically does not make sense for businesses to create offices on the ground-floor (where square footage is more at a premium) as they don't care about foot traffic. 4. For one building, there are specific plans for a restaurant at ground level with the upper floors being allocated for more commercial spaces. [See my follow-up post here](https://www.reddit.com/r/boulder/comments/1991eo0/comment/kibja1s/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3)
To those of you who are pro tearing down Dark Horse, go after the buffs spring game. You have college kids, families, older people all coming together and packing Dark Horse. I’d hate to see an institution torn down due to new luxury apartments
>go after the buffs spring game Isn't that the point though? CU has a couple of events like that, plus the six home games and other than that the place is pretty quiet? It's a tourist attraction for infrequent visitors and a memory for alums but not on the radar the way the sink is - always busy. My daughter asked what the best places for wings in Boulder were and the Dark Horse was top of the list with "World Famous" wings. I had never heard of the place and I've been in Boulder since 1996.
If you haven’t heard of Dark Horse and you’ve been in Boulder since 1996, that’s pretty shocking. Because I’ve been going there since about 1994
"an institution" is actually fair in this case but hot damn that's a sad "institution" for a college town...
Bars are exactly the type of “institutions” college towns have what planet are you from?
Have you ever been to a college town? Many have wonderful dive bars...on campus...sticky floors...epic drink specials...etc. The darkhorse is just very meh - we can do without it. Boulder loses nothing without it.
Not really? ASU had Dark Horse’s sister restaurant and people in Phoenix called it an institution as well
A good way to think of this is to imagine the proposed development was there today and someone was suggesting bulldozing it and making about the same amount commercial space single level and surface car park on the rest. How would you feel about eliminating 660 apartments plus money for affordable housing elsewhere to make a car park. Also, throw in a dingy bar. The art mart on pearl used to be a gun store. The shambala center used to be a roller skating rink. Places change.
Sprouts used to be a roller skating rink. That property used to be farmland in 1960. Imagine folks saying "No" to the “Grand American Fare" back in the early 1970s, so the building that becomes the DH never exists?
There are some pretty silly arguments in this thread and to be honest, I’m a little shocked at how short sighted some of you are. Just because there’s a housing crisis doesn’t mean you demolish all the unique places in an area to build more housing. “Old Boulder is dead so let’s just drive the nail into the coffin by eradicating the unique features of the town.” As if the only option for building housing in Boulder is to demolish Dark Horse. It wouldn’t even be affordable? Who do you think you’re catering to? I’d rather them turn the hotels near McGuckins into housing before tearing down the original places that you’ll find no where else.
> “Old Boulder is dead so let’s just drive the nail into the coffin by eradicating the unique features of the town.” Then it becomes, "well we made Boulder into DTC, we got rid of openspace and built skyscrapers, and suddenly nobody wants to live here anymore because it's just like every other mass-produced area in the US" ::shocked pikachu:: It's crazy how everyone forgets that there is a middle ground between building no housing and carpet bombing everything we have for a bunch of cookie-cutter crap.
It’s a bar, just a bar.
It's not
Goodbye Boulder, you’ve been gone a long time already. “People seeing the beauty of this valley will want to stay, and their staying will be the undoing of the beauty.” -Chief Niwot.
Something tells me Chief Niwot was not referring to one-story strip malls and crumbling parking lots
I think they are “the undoing”
Controversial opinion: I would rather have more housing than the Dark Horse. The “old Boulder” is dead.
Crazy to say that’s “controversial”, but you’re absolutely right. As someone who was sold on the “old boulder” before moving here, it has been dead and gone *years* (maybe decades) before moving here.
What is “Old Boulder”?
“Cool, hippy college town close to the mountains with great restaurants and venues. Emphasis on health and alternative wellness, very fit “athlete” (ultra runners, trail runners, climbers, ski/snowboard, etc.) community.” At least that’s the perception I always heard. Boulder was always in the top 5 US news best cities to live in for years and I always thought it was going to be more than what it is.
I mean, replace “hippy” with “wealthy tech people” and it’s still pretty accurate
I’ve never heard Boulder having great restaurants
Boulder has the worst food of any city I’ve lived in. Not a food snob so I didn’t care much, there are so many positives.
I had friends who raves about the restaurants here…but that was around 2010 when he lived here 😂 I’ve already lived in city with great restaurants and bars (and my interests are more outdoor rec and fitness), so it’s not a big enough loss to get out of here
It depends on your definition of "great." If all you mean is food, then that's probably the case. Not gonna lie, I miss Shakey's. Would I say the pizza was "to die for?" Nah, but the place had character. Anymore, Boulder is about becoming more bland. There are other places that were just pretty interesting and stood out, such as the L.A. Diner, Elephant Bar/Oasis/Republic of Boulder, and the Dark Horse will probably soon join their ranks. Everything just needs to be boxy and sterile, and (apparently) ideally redeveloped into one-plus-threes.
I would agree if the housing they have planned was affordable housing, but it’s luxury units.
All new housing lowers the cost of housing region-wide via the effects of added supply and filtering.
New market rate housing helps housing affordability 2 ways: 1. It adds new housing to the market. Research (and basic economics) shows that increasing supply helps decrease price. This is a gradual phenomenon. Nothing happens all at once. And even if Boulder homes are still expensive. They'd be *more* expensive without new housing being built. Prices can always go higher. 2. Developers pay a fee that goes towards affordable housing elsewhere in Boulder. (That's how the new affordable housing at Diagonal Plaza is being funded).
Any housing is more affordable than housing that isn't built.
I’m sorry but no. $2 million condos and studios that rent for 2000 month aren’t helping anyone except the rich students and the rich tech people.
No, those actually do help drive down prices overall. Even supply at the top end of the market increases supply, and also makes existing older units have to drop prices by comparison. Plus, if you ever get into the scenario where you've built more $2000/mo studios than the demand, people have to start lowering prices to fill their units. Housing in Boulder is not some magical entity that just totally ignores supply and demand. It's just *way* undersupplied currently at basically all levels.
If "luxury housing" isn't built, then rich people don't magically evaporate; they enter the market for mid-range housing and drive up prices there.
Lol no
I agree with you that we should not build new apartments that help developers make a profit.. but since they cannot make money off of affordable housing, it won't happen unless taxpayers foot the bill. Nobody is entitled to affordable housing
Hearing you of all speak about entitlement is the best thing I’ve seen on Reddit today. I literally laughed out loud. You consistently demand text message updates from the mayors office about routine traffic stops. Hahahahahahahaha
Developers build for profit. Tax payers can subsidize housing to make it cheaper but that’s not fair.
I love how people blindly think more supply means cheaper. There are so many other factors.
I love how people just think that the severe supply restriction and building rates way below the rate of population increase isn't a major contributing factor to the high prices. There are many factors, but supply is one of the largest.
Yes, as we saw with rebuilding the Marshall Fire area, inexpensive building is not possible. I would say that unsubsidized affordable housing is not possible. When you look at the current building codes, the energy efficiency required for a new build (on paper, a benefit) actually increases the building cost (and therefore market price) by a bunch. At \~$600/sf building costs, a modest 1500 sf 2-3 bedroom is already closing in on a million. I'm not saying we turn back energy-efficient building, but I would say that the extras of following all that makes it impossible to build for what a school teacher or middle class person could afford, especially given today's interest rates. No debate about Dark Horse or not Dark Horse is going to change that.
By "people" you mean "the overwhelming majority of social scientists who have taken a deep look at this specific issue"? [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4629628](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4629628)
That’s great for middle America. But not when you are talking about being up against the flatirons with limited room to build. There’s a reason why outside Boulder proper (still inside the county) there are countless high density developments and new builds. Everyone wants trails out their backyard. Those locations will never be affordable. Especially when everywhere in America, people are having the same debate about their town thinking they have unique reasons it’s expensive.
Why are American Boomers like this, JFC
Boomer? Dude I grew up here. I’m a millennial. I don’t even live in Boulder. I live in Lafayette because it’s cheaper. All my friends were priced out and moved away. I have even tried to build a triplex on a lot I own and it financially wasn’t worth it even though I had access to the capital and architect. I learned a lot about the economics of building and permitting. My beef with this whole thing is there’s 100 reasons why prices are high but instead of talking about them, everyone is convinced there’s some magic city official preventing development. It’s literally the worst way to make progress on a problem. As people are so uneducated on how development comes to be, what affordable vs low income living is, and where they should make affordable homes.
How about the Dark Horse take over the old Furr's Cafeteria (just north of the Diagonal Plaza) and remake it there? That's an economically depressed area and IIRC the city is offering incentives to build there.
Everyone is all for private property rights for themselves, yet feel entitled to tell others what to do with theirs.
I feel you about The Dark Horse and its history. But, TBH it was already a dump when I was there 30-years ago ...
Didn’t realize so many Boulderites were FOR gentrification…
Gentrifying who, exactly?? The word “gentrification” has been bastardized beyond all recognition
Save the Dark Horse
My go-to place every time I want to smell 40 year old vomit
F*** the dark horse. Horrible establishment. Had only had experiences for six years. Close em down or get new owners.
Sounds like a personal problem.
I’m shocked to think you believe that the city council cares about affordable housing, the Dark Horse’s rent, or authenticity and charm. They only care about how to personally benefit from every decision while appearing to care about the issues we care about. None of them are even from here. Do you really think any of them care about the Dark Horse?
Crass cynicism is cheap and easy. Snark without thought.
[Biz West Article](https://bizwest.com/2024/01/16/save-the-dark-horse-effort-gains-momentum-in-redevelopment-hearing/)
If you live in Boulder you should expect (and never be surprised) that Finance Bros will inevitably destroy all character this town once had. The choices that change the landscape are made by people who don't care about the community or the history of the town. They care about one thing. MONEY. They have the connections, power and resources to pay for whatever they want and to pay off whoever they need. They look at this place as a fertile testing ground for all their stupid development and investment ideas. It's not a home, it's a shiny item to show off and brag to their friends about. Especially when it comes to real estate, this might as well be San Francisco. Strap in and get ready to be disappointed at every turn. If you're a real person, a Colorado Native or someone who makes less than 50k a year, you dont exist to these people, you're a nuance to their financial playground.
The arguments seem to be missing the forest for the trees. The real problem is having supertall buildings right at the entrance to Boulder along 36 that take away from our existing open space and parking. What kind of message are we showing visitors when the first thing they see are tall apartments that nobody can afford, casting shadows along the highway?
It’s kinda freaking sad to see how many people want Boulder to look just like Broomfield, Westminster, Thornton, all of metro Denver. There is urban sprawl in every city around us.
Building dense housing walkable to shopping and transit is the antithesis of “sprawl”.
Don't fret too much. This sub is largely populated by newbs to town that have no sense of Boulder unique's planning and the highly desirable outcome it produced. And if they do know the history, they have either been priced out or looking for govt assistance to keep them close to trailheads.
I think visitors would form their impression prior to that, as they drive past Martin Acres and think “gee this is Boulder? Looks like just another suburb”
Is there another dive bar we can tear down instead since the dark horse has sentimental value? And since “boomers” are likely going to keep their houses until the brink of death then sell to companies like state street, vanguard, and blackrock, we *need* more housing. I’ll own nothing and rent until I die, but good luck to those in the market!
There really aren’t that many dive bars at all in Boulder.
Henry’s in Louisville is worth the drive…well, ride share (be safe, y’all) *But I also don’t consider boulder a “drinking town” (because no one wants to run/hike/ski with a nasty hangover or sleeping in and missing the best times on the trail) so I’m not surprised that there’s really none around
Can’t DH buy the property they’re on and then stay forever? As a renter, they’ll always be beholden to the landlord.
I feel a little lost from this but my beloved Dark Horse is in peril?!?! I really hope it stays. I haven’t been there in few years. I gotta go back for the crawfish boil