Boulder Under One Roof
May 27th, 2008 by contributor




With Harvey Hines’ proposed 50-story residential tower at the Whole Foods site, and David Barrett’s shipping container SRO stack at the Lolita’s site (both of these “hypothetical” designs recently debuted at Design Project Build), high density housing as a solution to affordability has hit the Boulder scene. It has long been accepted that the introduction of specific high density areas of development offsets public amenities such as open space, allowing for a balance in density suiting a versatile range of needs. Initially, shared walls offer economy in construction costs and later, during inhabitance, ganged dwelling units lead to lower utility costs. An efficient building footprint with shared outdoor space on roofs and other often unused space - converse to many building footprints with individual private outdoor spaces - furthers this model as an affordable solution.
While this logic is hard to argue with, hypothetical designs such as Barrett’s and Hines’ are still considered radically polemic in the relatively conservative building environment of Boulder. Imagine a design which would house all 100,000 inhabitants of Boulder in one spire, towering above the city in a gleaming homage to high density as a housing solution to increasing urbanization.
Popular Architecture thinks that just such a design is a solution to London’s affordable housing crunch.

Dubbed simply, “ The SuperTower”, PA’s design looms 1500 meters (almost 5000’) over the city of London, perched on the banks of the Thames. Divided into neighborhoods, villages, and districts, residents would enjoy public amenities of a farmer’s market, several gardens, ice skating and pool levels, theaters, and even the “Tower University.” Indeed, the tower is envisioned as a self sufficient, self contained town, plopped down within a city.
While feasibility is certainly questionable (currently the tallest building in the world, the Burj Dubai, will stand at 800 meters at its impending completion), and precedents of high density affordable housing don’t exactly bolster the potential here ( Pruitt-Igoe and Cabrini-Green being the most infamous examples in the States), the Super Tower concept succeeds in provoking reactions to the controversial question of affordable, abundant housing to match a booming population. Residents of Boulder confronted with perpetually escalating housing costs would agree that this question – and the finding of a solution - is as relevant on this side of the pond as it seems to be in London.
Yech. I mean, really, I can only hope that rational heads prevail at the City Council before anything as idiotic as a 50-story tower is approved in Boulder. I realize it’s all theoretical, but isn’t part of the challenge of architecture to design buildings that *fit into the environment* (a la Wright and Geary) rather than that mar it?
Check out this architectural tower:
Calgary’s new green skyscraper by Foster + Partners
(http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/05/26/calgarys-new-green-skyscraper-by-foster-partners/#more-11193
sustainable sky scrapers in Calgary! Maybe Harvey’s concept isn’t that far off after all? as our population is growing, we will need to make necessary changes and adaptations.
Right, maybe a 50 story tower is a bit ridiculous, but two 25 story towers isn’t. Or maybe five ten story towers.
Density really is the way to go, for many reasons. Yes, it makes the city a bit crazier; but if we aim to maintain our openspace restrictions, we can also maintain affordability and sustainability by building up and closer together.
What is going on with the transit village?
Do you guy’s see this working next to a major transportation corridor?
Thanks for sharing the Calgary link. It is great.
How does Frank Geary’s work fit into the environment?
[…] Boulder Under One Roof Building […]