The Housing Advisory Board met Jan. 22, 2025, and devoted an hourlong panel to the prospects and limits of converting vacant office buildings into housing in Boulder.

The discussion, moderated by Holly Hendrickson, senior project manager in the city’s Department of Housing and Human Services, emphasized that office-to-residential conversions can add units in the near term but are usually ‘‘market tinkering’’ rather than a market‑shaping solution. “I consider this concept…a market tinkering solution,” Hendrickson said, urging the board to treat conversions as one tool among many.

Panelists pulled from recent local and regional projects to show how results vary by building type and program. Pete Weber, principal at Coburn/COBRA Architects, described a conversion of the Geological Society of America building for Boulder Housing Partners, saying office buildings “are designed with an office user in mind. They are not designed with the idea of living there.” He showed how design features such as deep floor plates, circulation areas and light wells can be reconfigured to put bedrooms and living areas on exterior walls while re-using the building’s robust structural frame.

Nonprofit-operated programs were described as a different use case. Weber and others described Bridge House’s Ready to Work conversions in Aurora and Englewood: older office buildings adapted with dormitory-style sleeping pods, large communal kitchens and program space intended to support people in recovery and job training. Those projects required relatively low acquisition cost (one building had been donated or transferred by the city) and minimal finish budgets; panelists said much of the affordability relied on that earlier public or philanthropic support.

Developer and planner speakers said the economics are the central barrier for most conversions. Phil Scholl, founder of Danube Construction, said that after accounting for new HVAC, elevators, electrical re‑feeds and façade or roof work, “it’s about the same cost as new construction” for many buildings. He and other panelists said that increases the importance of the acquisition price: an owner willing to sell at a steep discount — or a public entity willing to donate a property — is often a precondition for feasibility.

Speakers identified a consistent set of regulatory and technical hurdles that derail many projects: PUD (planned unit development) entitlements that run with an older project and require time‑consuming amendments; conflicts between the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan land‑use designation and local zoning; fire and egress code triggers that require extensive upgrades when a building’s use changes; building systems (electrical service and HVAC) that must be upsized for all‑electric, higher‑density residential use; FEMA and floodplain constraints that delay financing for some waterfront projects; and site‑review processes that can add months and costs.

Panelists outlined specific failure modes they had observed: buildings with property‑line windows that would require fire‑rating to meet residential code; smaller buildings that cannot amortize the cost of a required elevator; wall systems (older stucco systems) whose remediation costs exceed likely sales proceeds; and large floor plates leaving non‑rentable interior space that reduces yield.

Speakers suggested several policy levers the city could study to increase conversion rates: streamline or clarify PUD amendment procedures, create clearer pre‑application staff guidance, explore targeted fee waivers or credits for adaptive reuse (for example credits against commercial linkage or construction‑use fees when commercial space is converted to permanent affordable housing), and explicitly account for embodied carbon as a benefit of reuse. Several panelists and board members urged faster, clearer staff responses to pre‑application questions so developers can assess feasibility before spending months and tens of thousands of dollars on planning.

Board members asked whether conversions are more feasible as 100% affordable projects or as market developments. Panelists said some of the most clearly successful conversions have relied on nonprofit operators, donated or reduced‑cost acquisitions and public funding for services (for example, Bridge House’s transitional model). Market‑rate conversions that seek to resell condominium units face higher hurdles: yield losses from required code upgrades, PUD restrictions, and the cost of exterior work can make resale economics marginal.

Panelists urged the board to take a pragmatic approach: identify the most promising building types (downtown stock with fenestration and central locations; out‑east office parks with ample parking but more distant services) and a short menu of policy changes the city could pilot to reduce time and cost. Board members requested follow‑up: staff and volunteers will draft a short set of recommendations and consider convening a working group to translate the panel’s findings into targeted code or fee proposals for council review.

The panel illustrated both the promise and the limits of office conversions: useful in specific cases, often requiring public subsidies or donations to be feasible, and frequently blocked by technical code or entitlement triggers.

The board moved on to other agenda items after about an hour of presentations and Q&A.