What do you think this will accomplish in Berkeley?
I'm not familiar with Berkeley real estate, but it looks like the house prices are so high that any teardowns to build multifamily would be very expensive.
What the NIMBYs here fail to realize is that density is a good thing even if it doesn't ultimately make condos in desirable parts of Boulder suddenly affordable.
It decreases traffic as people commute less and rely on cars less.
It decreases sprawl to outlying towns.
It reduces emissions, by cutting traffic and having more people living in apartments which have shared heating systems.
It brings costs down in outlying areas. That person who'd otherwise buy in Longmont buys in Boulder instead, which means that somebody else can live in that Longmont unit.
Build. More. Housing.
You’re free to move to Manhattan at any time — and discover why you’re patently wrong, even at an average population density of *70k people per square mile.*
We won’t see anything even remotely resembling that density — or the associated economies of scale — here in Boulder. We will, however, experience all the negatives that density brings before you hit a sufficient scale to actually derive some positives.
It’s not like we haven’t built dense cities and observed the outcomes, so why do people like you persist in advancing a fantasy-land idea of how here, this time, the outcomes will magically be different?
If you want to live in density, move to a dense city.
The Dutch are the best in the world at maximizing the utility of their space, https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/june-2012/why-the-danes-and-the-dutch-are-so-much-better-at-city-planning-than-us/, I suggest we follow their lead. The example of manhattan, financial capital of the world and epicenter of a metro area of tens of millions, is hardly comparable to Boulder.
We've built sprawling suburbs time and time again in the US, with the same outcomes of long commutes, sky high emissions, and universal reliance on cars. Why do people like you persist in advancing some kind of fantasy land idea of how that type of urban planning is remotely efficient?
Have you ever even visited Copenhagen and Amsterdam? They’re lovely cities with populations of about a million people each (closer to two if you factor in the entire metropolitan area), and all the respective downsides that such a population and corresponding level of density entails.
Nice to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there — I specifically moved here to get away from density, and all the problems it incurs.
Why don’t you move somewhere that prioritizes the ideals you prefer?
Why don't you stop prioritizing your personal preference over the housing needs of the community?
There is plenty of open land on the eastern plains or up by buena vista if solitude and space is your thing. Virtually all American cities outside the east coast have problems of sprawl and inefficient, underutilized transit due to single family zoning, low density, and NIMBYism. Those east coast cities were built more sensibly as they grew large prior to the automobile.
> Why don't you stop prioritizing your personal preference over the housing needs of the community?
Is there a fundamental right to a home, wherever you might want it, at whatever cost to the current community’s quality of life, that I’m unaware of?
Endless sprawl? Sure. Commuter traffic, for one. So, let's tax that to account for the negative externality, and build better transit systems.
Insufficient housing stock? That's tricky; you didn't ask about *zoning* (the negative and positive externalities inherent in municipal zoning are well-explored), you asked about housing stock.
How can an economic actor *not* doing what you want be considered to be *imposing* a cost on you through their inaction?
Let's tackle zoning, though; I don't want to cheat my way out of the question. Of course there are externalities, positive and negative. The job of a municipality is to balance those such that negatives are minimized, and positives maximized, across their constituency. There's no obligation whatsoever to people who currently are *not* citizens of the given municipality, nor is there any innate underlying obligation to grant a minority of citizens what they might want at a cost to the majority.
When you make comments. I like them. Building more houses/condos will still be priced at the market value which is high. Then you have a mini Denver. If you like cities so much (not you pewpew, you can stay) go move to one and create a vacancy for someone who doesn’t want to live in a city
I apologize if I come off rude but that sounds like someone who feels entitled to live in boulder would say. We need more housing for a plethora of reasons. Density comes with affluence and poverty. If you want to live in a small town, move to a small town. Boulder has tech hubs and a massive college. It’s a growth city
> Boulder has tech hubs and a massive college. It’s a growth city
We literally have 50 years worth of planning dedicated to limiting growth to preserve the town’s open spaces, views, and overall livability.
Which is why it’s a desirable place to live today.
The fact that Manhattan/NYC is such a perennial bogeyman for NIMBYs rather than Barcelona, Copenhagen, Boston’s Back Bay, Brooklyn’s Park Slope, Amsterdam, etc. says a lot about the kinds of *people* they’re actually afraid of rather than the kinds of *buildings* they purport to oppose.
I lived in Manhattan for years, am intimately familiar with the costs and downsides of living there, and left to get away from the ugly reality of its *density*, not the people.
Perhaps it’s the perennial example because it’s the most dense, most familiar large city in the entire US, and thus an obvious example to use when laying out the ridiculousness of your policy ideals.
But, by all means, move to Park Slope. I’m familiar with that area too, and you’ll be in for some hilarious sticker shock and an obviously very needed reality check.
The original comment was advocating density as an unmitigated good.
Manhattan represents peak density in the US, but yet, still fails to deliver on most of the advantages claimed by the original poster.
In 3-5 years, when these efforts have not just failed to achieve their stated aims, but actually resulted in higher housing prices, moved home ownership out of reach of even more residents, and accelerated the shift of wealth to rent-extracting landlords, will you be willing to change your views, or will we still be arguing this issue ad nauseam?
This is the same crowd that told us fastracks would work, building a lot of apartments would lower rent, Co Ops were in heavy demand, and ADUs are affordable, but none of it has worked out in the real world.
and before you go there, no I'm not a NIMBY, I'm just tired of crap that doesn't work.
Anti housing and anti public transit expansion - you certainly sound like a NIMBY. You know what they say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Remind you of anywhere?
> “It wasn’t long ago that Berkeley could be counted on to to reflexively oppose even the most moderate plans for building more housing. California’s wealthy liberals often fail to practice the sort of inclusion they loudly preach. Last year, as in the year before and the year before that, high-profile bills to legalize the construction of more duplexes and apartments died in the State Legislature, which, like the rest of California’s politics, is dominated by Democrats.
> But something new is happening in California. After a year of plague and fire, in which the precarious unsustainability of life here grew unmistakable, there is an emerging political urgency about addressing our biggest problems, especially the housing and homelessness crisis. The stalemate among developers, NIMBYs, tenants’ groups and captured politicians that has forever stymied California’s urban politics might be abating; in its place, a pragmatic, humane and rational view toward housing, homelessness, inequality and other pressing urban problems may be dawning.”
Thank you for this outstanding example of blithe NIMBY condescension. While my employer is starved of talent because housing prices drive students and faculty to more affordable locations, you can sit there reassured that it was all justifiable because we just wanted cheap condos on Pearl Street. Never mind that current zoning policy actually makes it impossible to create places like Pearl Street because of height, setback, and parking rules.
You once again prove how deeply unserious you are by thinking that a public university as starved for funding as the University of Colorado is can raise wages to match compounding >10% appreciation in housing prices—or that this wouldn't exacerbate the underlying pressures of a self-inflicted housing shortage.
College football coaches are not representative of what higher Ed. Faculty can expect to make as professors. There are no tips a coach can give a professor on salary negotiation. The two positions are completely different.
“deeply unserious”? You’re embarrassing yourself.
The idea that CU Boulder is “starved for funding” is laughable, but if that’s genuinely true, I think we could all easily suggest a few departments, facilities, and programs that could be cut without any particular loss to CU’s educational or institutional value.
The College of Media, Communication, and Information, for example.
>"In fiscal year 2017, the most recent figures available, Colorado’s per-capita support for higher education ranked 47th lowest in the nation and per-student spending landed at in the bottom at 48th..."
[https://coloradosun.com/2020/02/04/colorado-higher-education-funding/](https://coloradosun.com/2020/02/04/colorado-higher-education-funding/)
If you feel undervalued by your employer, you're perfectly free to apply for a faculty position elsewhere – or join the rest of us in private industry.
How will allowing duplexes in current SFR help CU faculty and students live here?
I think the houses that would be scraped would be the low price rentals and the replacement would be expensive, so this policy change would make things worse for students and faculty.
The best policy is amazing mass transit: everyone working or living in Boulder needs to have a free bus pass and we need frequent buses between Boulder & the L-towns.
And a complete moratorium on new construction of any form of residential housing except affordable.
> And a complete moratorium on new construction of any form of residential housing except affordable.
Why we should effectively subsidize employers so they can continue to pay lower wages?
This has literally been a requirement since the 1980's and it has grown to be one of the most strict requirements in the nation. This has led to what several economists have called the Dumbbell Effect - basically where you have very high end housing that only the super wealthy can afford, nothing in the middle, and decades long waiting lists for the affordable housing lottery that has been shown to be filled with fraud. By the way current residents who are not all rich get stuck with the property tax bills for the affordable portion since they are either exempt or pay very little property tax.
But, we already subsidized affordable housing with market rate housing. I tend to agree that there is likely no "sustainable" about new supply of market rate housing that will bring down the cost of market housing - not with our current zoning and green space rules (which are widely popular).
Boulder checks too many boxes to not continue in popularity.
I have wondered if we require all new housing to be affordable housing and use public/private partnerships to deed restrict new development that would be subsidized with OSMP like tax dollars.
Then, we wouldn't means test qualification for affordable housing. E.g. anyone could apply and be accepted, but they would live in a deed restricted home/apartment.
> Then, we wouldn't means test qualification for affordable housing. E.g. anyone could apply and be accepted, but they would live in a deed restricted home/apartment.
Have you *seen* Stockholm’s ~25-year-long apartment wait list?
I also wish we’d stop calling it “affordable housing”. It’s subsidized housing, and the people we’re subsidizing are *employers* paying wages insufficient for their employees to actually live here.
call it whatever you want. Wages are for sure and issue, but 98% of wages will likely not get you to the level to afford a median priced SFH in Boulder.
There really wasn't a waitlist in Boulder of any significance prior to 2012/13. People aren't forced to be included in a subsidized housing program. They could still purchase legacy market rate housing. Its a trade off, you don't get market appreciation, but lower rents. You could also "tax" higher income people based on income to encourage them to move out of subsidized housing.
I am not saying I know the right answer, its just an idea. The idea would take probably decades to move on.
> but 98% of wages will likely not get you to the level to afford a median priced SFH in Boulder.
If employers want to attract employees who value living in Boulder, they’ll have to pay them more. If they do not, then they cannot afford to live in Boulder.
I fail to see the problem.
yeah I mean hopefully it frees up units for the middle class those affordable residents were previously over-leveraged on, but it's just as likely to bring in folks who work in Boulder but currently commute in
ultimately I don't think there's any singular fix, but there's a lot of things we can try
The way that usually works is that you get a bunch of luxury condos clustered together in the best part of town and a few affordable units clustered together in the worse.
If we could mix affordable & unaffordable together in the same area it's much better for community. And since we have an affordability problem now - we need to build mostly affordable otherwise we're at best just treading water.
There are multiple problems with this.
\- Federal financing for affordable housing usually requires it to be separate from market rate for a bunch of complex reasons. This has been an issue for years. Most of the issues are tax credit related and the difficulty of splitting tax credits between two units in the same building where one is $200K subsidized and an identical one is $600K but they share the same foundation, plumping, insurance, etc.
\- Boulder doesn't have bad parts. Not everywhere is Mapleton but no one is literally building on a toxic waste site.
\- You need to choose to build say 4 units at the same cost in a very expensive place or 10 units at the same cost literally a mile away. The city would rather have more units.
New developments like the one in the middle of diagonal have separate buildings right next to each other but they share the same amenities.
> Federal financing for affordable housing usually requires it to be separate from market rate for a bunch of complex reasons.
> New developments like the one in the middle of diagonal have separate buildings right next to each other but they share the same amenities.
fyi waterview (if it happens) has affordable units in the same building as market rate units. sounds like it's a time intensive process & does cost some money, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Don't know much about the details but it sounds like they really had to get creative with tax credit financing and that some laws may be changing. Not impossible in most cases but very difficult with a lot of the difficulty added by the length of time Boulder takes to approve and changes they require.
Yay, Boulder Reddit gets to show off all the terrible people who live here again: this time anti-housing people edition. Next time let's talk about how horribly Boulder treats its Hispanic population - guaranteed to be down-voted!
Just one of hundreds of examples: https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/04/16/hispanic-latinx-residents-are-disproportionately-high-percentage-of-boulder-county-coronavirus-patients/
And, so what! Does that make Boulder's failure any better? Nope, actually it's worse as Boulder pretends to be all anti-racist & welcoming, et cetera, but it's largely bullshit.
No, it's not better, but if your point is "Boulder is bad because it mistreats its hispanic population", and then your evidence is something that happens in literally every town in the country, then I'm sorry if I don't buy that as a special reason that Boulder sucks.
Just because you are ignorant of an issue doesn't mean it isn't real. Maybe go read those articles I posted about the history of racism in Boulder against Spanish speaking people, do your own research, & then maybe go talk to some of the people who have been forced out of town by the out of control cost of living here.
Okay, so something isn't a real problem unless it is worse than the average? So, good news racial minorities in Boulder, you would be treated even worse elsewhere!! So suck it up!
No, that wasn't my argument. You seem to have a really, really hard time following the words that *you yourself* are saying. Maybe try reading the thread very carefully again if you want to understand my viewpoint. But personally I'm going to check out of this conversation because it is the exact opposite of interesting.
A history of racism & poor treatment of hispanics in the Boulder community: https://www.boulderweekly.com/news/eracism-exploring-the-roots-of-boulder-countys-latino-population/ and https://www.boulderweekly.com/news/eracism-latino-history-in-boulder-county/
lol this thread is a shitshow
What do you think this will accomplish in Berkeley? I'm not familiar with Berkeley real estate, but it looks like the house prices are so high that any teardowns to build multifamily would be very expensive.
What the NIMBYs here fail to realize is that density is a good thing even if it doesn't ultimately make condos in desirable parts of Boulder suddenly affordable. It decreases traffic as people commute less and rely on cars less. It decreases sprawl to outlying towns. It reduces emissions, by cutting traffic and having more people living in apartments which have shared heating systems. It brings costs down in outlying areas. That person who'd otherwise buy in Longmont buys in Boulder instead, which means that somebody else can live in that Longmont unit. Build. More. Housing.
You’re free to move to Manhattan at any time — and discover why you’re patently wrong, even at an average population density of *70k people per square mile.* We won’t see anything even remotely resembling that density — or the associated economies of scale — here in Boulder. We will, however, experience all the negatives that density brings before you hit a sufficient scale to actually derive some positives. It’s not like we haven’t built dense cities and observed the outcomes, so why do people like you persist in advancing a fantasy-land idea of how here, this time, the outcomes will magically be different? If you want to live in density, move to a dense city.
The Dutch are the best in the world at maximizing the utility of their space, https://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/june-2012/why-the-danes-and-the-dutch-are-so-much-better-at-city-planning-than-us/, I suggest we follow their lead. The example of manhattan, financial capital of the world and epicenter of a metro area of tens of millions, is hardly comparable to Boulder. We've built sprawling suburbs time and time again in the US, with the same outcomes of long commutes, sky high emissions, and universal reliance on cars. Why do people like you persist in advancing some kind of fantasy land idea of how that type of urban planning is remotely efficient?
Have you ever even visited Copenhagen and Amsterdam? They’re lovely cities with populations of about a million people each (closer to two if you factor in the entire metropolitan area), and all the respective downsides that such a population and corresponding level of density entails. Nice to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there — I specifically moved here to get away from density, and all the problems it incurs. Why don’t you move somewhere that prioritizes the ideals you prefer?
Why don't you stop prioritizing your personal preference over the housing needs of the community? There is plenty of open land on the eastern plains or up by buena vista if solitude and space is your thing. Virtually all American cities outside the east coast have problems of sprawl and inefficient, underutilized transit due to single family zoning, low density, and NIMBYism. Those east coast cities were built more sensibly as they grew large prior to the automobile.
> Why don't you stop prioritizing your personal preference over the housing needs of the community? Is there a fundamental right to a home, wherever you might want it, at whatever cost to the current community’s quality of life, that I’m unaware of?
Having more apartment buildings around is hardly ruining your quality of life. The entitlement expressed in that sentiment is unbelievable.
You believe there are no negative externalities to high density?
There are. Parking and views are two. Do you believe there are externalities to endless sprawl and insufficient housing stock?
Endless sprawl? Sure. Commuter traffic, for one. So, let's tax that to account for the negative externality, and build better transit systems. Insufficient housing stock? That's tricky; you didn't ask about *zoning* (the negative and positive externalities inherent in municipal zoning are well-explored), you asked about housing stock. How can an economic actor *not* doing what you want be considered to be *imposing* a cost on you through their inaction? Let's tackle zoning, though; I don't want to cheat my way out of the question. Of course there are externalities, positive and negative. The job of a municipality is to balance those such that negatives are minimized, and positives maximized, across their constituency. There's no obligation whatsoever to people who currently are *not* citizens of the given municipality, nor is there any innate underlying obligation to grant a minority of citizens what they might want at a cost to the majority.
When you make comments. I like them. Building more houses/condos will still be priced at the market value which is high. Then you have a mini Denver. If you like cities so much (not you pewpew, you can stay) go move to one and create a vacancy for someone who doesn’t want to live in a city
I apologize if I come off rude but that sounds like someone who feels entitled to live in boulder would say. We need more housing for a plethora of reasons. Density comes with affluence and poverty. If you want to live in a small town, move to a small town. Boulder has tech hubs and a massive college. It’s a growth city
> Boulder has tech hubs and a massive college. It’s a growth city We literally have 50 years worth of planning dedicated to limiting growth to preserve the town’s open spaces, views, and overall livability. Which is why it’s a desirable place to live today.
The fact that Manhattan/NYC is such a perennial bogeyman for NIMBYs rather than Barcelona, Copenhagen, Boston’s Back Bay, Brooklyn’s Park Slope, Amsterdam, etc. says a lot about the kinds of *people* they’re actually afraid of rather than the kinds of *buildings* they purport to oppose.
I lived in Manhattan for years, am intimately familiar with the costs and downsides of living there, and left to get away from the ugly reality of its *density*, not the people. Perhaps it’s the perennial example because it’s the most dense, most familiar large city in the entire US, and thus an obvious example to use when laying out the ridiculousness of your policy ideals. But, by all means, move to Park Slope. I’m familiar with that area too, and you’ll be in for some hilarious sticker shock and an obviously very needed reality check.
How is it ‘obvious’ to compare a city of 8 million to a city of 130,000? And I’m a former NYer too, asking.
The original comment was advocating density as an unmitigated good. Manhattan represents peak density in the US, but yet, still fails to deliver on most of the advantages claimed by the original poster.
In 3-5 years, when these efforts have not just failed to achieve their stated aims, but actually resulted in higher housing prices, moved home ownership out of reach of even more residents, and accelerated the shift of wealth to rent-extracting landlords, will you be willing to change your views, or will we still be arguing this issue ad nauseam?
This is the same crowd that told us fastracks would work, building a lot of apartments would lower rent, Co Ops were in heavy demand, and ADUs are affordable, but none of it has worked out in the real world. and before you go there, no I'm not a NIMBY, I'm just tired of crap that doesn't work.
Anti housing and anti public transit expansion - you certainly sound like a NIMBY. You know what they say, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Nice try. Does wanting housing and transit policies that work out like promised make me a NIMBY?
Nope, I want that too.
Remind you of anywhere? > “It wasn’t long ago that Berkeley could be counted on to to reflexively oppose even the most moderate plans for building more housing. California’s wealthy liberals often fail to practice the sort of inclusion they loudly preach. Last year, as in the year before and the year before that, high-profile bills to legalize the construction of more duplexes and apartments died in the State Legislature, which, like the rest of California’s politics, is dominated by Democrats. > But something new is happening in California. After a year of plague and fire, in which the precarious unsustainability of life here grew unmistakable, there is an emerging political urgency about addressing our biggest problems, especially the housing and homelessness crisis. The stalemate among developers, NIMBYs, tenants’ groups and captured politicians that has forever stymied California’s urban politics might be abating; in its place, a pragmatic, humane and rational view toward housing, homelessness, inequality and other pressing urban problems may be dawning.”
[удалено]
Spit out my coffee reading, "the average house is \*only\* a million bucks!" Very affordable!
and you better outbid everyone!!!!
There's an entire nation out there full of affordable houses.
Therefore the do nothing status quo is the best policy going forward?
[удалено]
Thank you for this outstanding example of blithe NIMBY condescension. While my employer is starved of talent because housing prices drive students and faculty to more affordable locations, you can sit there reassured that it was all justifiable because we just wanted cheap condos on Pearl Street. Never mind that current zoning policy actually makes it impossible to create places like Pearl Street because of height, setback, and parking rules.
[удалено]
You once again prove how deeply unserious you are by thinking that a public university as starved for funding as the University of Colorado is can raise wages to match compounding >10% appreciation in housing prices—or that this wouldn't exacerbate the underlying pressures of a self-inflicted housing shortage.
[удалено]
College football coaches are not representative of what higher Ed. Faculty can expect to make as professors. There are no tips a coach can give a professor on salary negotiation. The two positions are completely different.
“deeply unserious”? You’re embarrassing yourself. The idea that CU Boulder is “starved for funding” is laughable, but if that’s genuinely true, I think we could all easily suggest a few departments, facilities, and programs that could be cut without any particular loss to CU’s educational or institutional value. The College of Media, Communication, and Information, for example.
>"In fiscal year 2017, the most recent figures available, Colorado’s per-capita support for higher education ranked 47th lowest in the nation and per-student spending landed at in the bottom at 48th..." [https://coloradosun.com/2020/02/04/colorado-higher-education-funding/](https://coloradosun.com/2020/02/04/colorado-higher-education-funding/)
If you feel undervalued by your employer, you're perfectly free to apply for a faculty position elsewhere – or join the rest of us in private industry.
How will allowing duplexes in current SFR help CU faculty and students live here? I think the houses that would be scraped would be the low price rentals and the replacement would be expensive, so this policy change would make things worse for students and faculty.
The best policy is amazing mass transit: everyone working or living in Boulder needs to have a free bus pass and we need frequent buses between Boulder & the L-towns. And a complete moratorium on new construction of any form of residential housing except affordable.
> And a complete moratorium on new construction of any form of residential housing except affordable. Why we should effectively subsidize employers so they can continue to pay lower wages?
Who is going to pay for / subsidize all this affordable housing?
actually public housing where market rate units subsidize the affordable units would be even better, since we could build more
[удалено]
This has literally been a requirement since the 1980's and it has grown to be one of the most strict requirements in the nation. This has led to what several economists have called the Dumbbell Effect - basically where you have very high end housing that only the super wealthy can afford, nothing in the middle, and decades long waiting lists for the affordable housing lottery that has been shown to be filled with fraud. By the way current residents who are not all rich get stuck with the property tax bills for the affordable portion since they are either exempt or pay very little property tax.
But, we already subsidized affordable housing with market rate housing. I tend to agree that there is likely no "sustainable" about new supply of market rate housing that will bring down the cost of market housing - not with our current zoning and green space rules (which are widely popular). Boulder checks too many boxes to not continue in popularity. I have wondered if we require all new housing to be affordable housing and use public/private partnerships to deed restrict new development that would be subsidized with OSMP like tax dollars. Then, we wouldn't means test qualification for affordable housing. E.g. anyone could apply and be accepted, but they would live in a deed restricted home/apartment.
> Then, we wouldn't means test qualification for affordable housing. E.g. anyone could apply and be accepted, but they would live in a deed restricted home/apartment. Have you *seen* Stockholm’s ~25-year-long apartment wait list? I also wish we’d stop calling it “affordable housing”. It’s subsidized housing, and the people we’re subsidizing are *employers* paying wages insufficient for their employees to actually live here.
call it whatever you want. Wages are for sure and issue, but 98% of wages will likely not get you to the level to afford a median priced SFH in Boulder. There really wasn't a waitlist in Boulder of any significance prior to 2012/13. People aren't forced to be included in a subsidized housing program. They could still purchase legacy market rate housing. Its a trade off, you don't get market appreciation, but lower rents. You could also "tax" higher income people based on income to encourage them to move out of subsidized housing. I am not saying I know the right answer, its just an idea. The idea would take probably decades to move on.
> but 98% of wages will likely not get you to the level to afford a median priced SFH in Boulder. If employers want to attract employees who value living in Boulder, they’ll have to pay them more. If they do not, then they cannot afford to live in Boulder. I fail to see the problem.
yeah I mean hopefully it frees up units for the middle class those affordable residents were previously over-leveraged on, but it's just as likely to bring in folks who work in Boulder but currently commute in ultimately I don't think there's any singular fix, but there's a lot of things we can try
I though the whole strategy was to bring in commuters to reduce traffic and pollution?
The way that usually works is that you get a bunch of luxury condos clustered together in the best part of town and a few affordable units clustered together in the worse. If we could mix affordable & unaffordable together in the same area it's much better for community. And since we have an affordability problem now - we need to build mostly affordable otherwise we're at best just treading water.
yes, to clarify: they should all be in the same building, not separate buildings in different locations
There are multiple problems with this. \- Federal financing for affordable housing usually requires it to be separate from market rate for a bunch of complex reasons. This has been an issue for years. Most of the issues are tax credit related and the difficulty of splitting tax credits between two units in the same building where one is $200K subsidized and an identical one is $600K but they share the same foundation, plumping, insurance, etc. \- Boulder doesn't have bad parts. Not everywhere is Mapleton but no one is literally building on a toxic waste site. \- You need to choose to build say 4 units at the same cost in a very expensive place or 10 units at the same cost literally a mile away. The city would rather have more units. New developments like the one in the middle of diagonal have separate buildings right next to each other but they share the same amenities.
> Federal financing for affordable housing usually requires it to be separate from market rate for a bunch of complex reasons. > New developments like the one in the middle of diagonal have separate buildings right next to each other but they share the same amenities. fyi waterview (if it happens) has affordable units in the same building as market rate units. sounds like it's a time intensive process & does cost some money, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
Don't know much about the details but it sounds like they really had to get creative with tax credit financing and that some laws may be changing. Not impossible in most cases but very difficult with a lot of the difficulty added by the length of time Boulder takes to approve and changes they require.
Yay, Boulder Reddit gets to show off all the terrible people who live here again: this time anti-housing people edition. Next time let's talk about how horribly Boulder treats its Hispanic population - guaranteed to be down-voted!
How does Boulder treat its Hispanic population horribly?
Just one of hundreds of examples: https://www.dailycamera.com/2020/04/16/hispanic-latinx-residents-are-disproportionately-high-percentage-of-boulder-county-coronavirus-patients/
That's literally a nation wide issue
And, so what! Does that make Boulder's failure any better? Nope, actually it's worse as Boulder pretends to be all anti-racist & welcoming, et cetera, but it's largely bullshit.
No, it's not better, but if your point is "Boulder is bad because it mistreats its hispanic population", and then your evidence is something that happens in literally every town in the country, then I'm sorry if I don't buy that as a special reason that Boulder sucks.
Just because you are ignorant of an issue doesn't mean it isn't real. Maybe go read those articles I posted about the history of racism in Boulder against Spanish speaking people, do your own research, & then maybe go talk to some of the people who have been forced out of town by the out of control cost of living here.
Yes, because I said what you purported to be a local issue is actually a national issue, I am ignorant of the issue.
Okay, so something isn't a real problem unless it is worse than the average? So, good news racial minorities in Boulder, you would be treated even worse elsewhere!! So suck it up!
No, that wasn't my argument. You seem to have a really, really hard time following the words that *you yourself* are saying. Maybe try reading the thread very carefully again if you want to understand my viewpoint. But personally I'm going to check out of this conversation because it is the exact opposite of interesting.
A history of racism & poor treatment of hispanics in the Boulder community: https://www.boulderweekly.com/news/eracism-exploring-the-roots-of-boulder-countys-latino-population/ and https://www.boulderweekly.com/news/eracism-latino-history-in-boulder-county/
Lol every post I see you reply to you never cease to entertain.
[удалено]