The Colorado legislative session came to a close last week.

Once again, one of the biggest issues of the term was — you guessed it — housing. State Democrats, who control both the House and the Senate, passed six pieces of land use legislation. None have the scale or scope of the sweeping land-use reform bill that died at the end of last year’s session, but taken together they are an admirable effort to address our housing crisis.

The centerpiece of the bunch, House Bill 1313, will require local governments along the Front Range to set density goals near transit-rich areas. The others will make building accessory-dwelling units easier; ban residential occupancy limits on non-related residents; limit mandatory parking for new developments; and require local governments to implement regular housing studies.

Density is not only something our state leaders are taking on. Locally, the Boulder City Council is in the process of exploring potential zoning changes also aimed at increasing density.

The means available to the city are complicated, in part because Boulder’s hands are partially tied by the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, which puts limits on density. One of the workarounds the city is exploring would cut the required lot area per housing unit. The size of the cuts to lot areas would depend on how that particular neighborhood was zoned, but the goal is to allow property owners to build duplexes — without destroying the character of a neighborhood by building on every available inch of land to squeeze in a five-story apartment complex.

The city is in the early stages of investigating how exactly it might go about such changes and what impacts they could have, but the initiative is worth applauding. Boulder, as we all know, is in dire need of more housing, and it is heartening to see our city leaders exploring these sorts of creative solutions.

There are some who have pushed back against the notion that there is a housing crisis in Boulder, and thus no need to be pushing for developments and density. But the reality is that roughly 60,000 people commute to Boulder every day for work. Some use public transit, but the vast majority drive. According to EPA data, transportation is the largest polluter in the U.S., and passenger cars are responsible for 58% of those emissions. It should be clear then that if we are serious about combating climate change, we need to be rethinking the shape and structure of our communities — where we live, how we commute and how our cities affect the environment.

To be clear, we are not blaming Boulder’s in-commuters for traffic or pollution. The issue is that we do not have the housing stock and transit infrastructure to provide these workers with other viable options.

The solution, then, is to give them options. And the best option is housing close to where they work or close to transit.

This is easier said than done. But the fact of the matter is, more people work in Boulder than have the ability to live here — and we need to be striving to rectify this imbalance.

This is where density comes in.

For many in Boulder, density is a scary word. It is in-fill development. It is new apartment complexes. It is constant construction. It is more buildings, more cars, more people and less nature, less views and less Boulder.

In other words, many people view it as the opposite of one of Boulder’s core values: environmental preservation.

But the fact of the matter is, density is important because it allows us to change the character of our cities and towns — in order to preserve the character of our natural habitats.

By slowly and carefully increasing the density in our community, we can lower transit-related emissions and prevent the need for more suburban sprawl.

A New York Times report from 2022 puts it painfully clearly: “Households in denser neighborhoods close to city centers tend to be responsible for fewer planet-warming greenhouse gases, on average, than households in the rest of the country. Residents in these areas typically drive less because jobs and stores are nearby and they can more easily walk, bike or take public transit. And they’re more likely to live in smaller homes or apartments that require less energy to heat and cool.”

Density also plays an important role in water preservation. An EPA report lays it out simply in its title, “Protecting Water Resources with Higher-Density Development.”

“Higher densities might better protect water quality, especially at the lot and watershed levels,” a summary of the report states. “Denser developments consume less land to accommodate the same number of houses. Consuming less land creates less impervious cover in the watershed.”

It is worth reiterating that we are not arguing for the Boulder to be paved and for skyscrapers to rise above the Flatirons. Density comes in many different forms, and the proposals from Boulder’s City Council are, thus far, measured and focused on adding more housing here and thereby keeping the footprint of a building the same size, but allowing two or three units to exist in that footprint.

A cynic might argue that Boulder is only one city in the Front Range. If we dedicate ourselves to increasing density to decrease commuting and our environmental footprint, who is to say our surrounding communities will do the same? All of our efforts could be negated by the carelessness sprawl of our neighbors.

This is, of course, true. All we can do is do our part and hope to inspire our neighbors to do the same. We can lead the way toward a more climate-resilient future.

At this early stage, we are not sure what shape any new lot-size reforms in Boulder might take. And we don’t yet know how exactly Colorado’s state-level land-use reforms will affect Boulder’s density. But we are hopeful, in part because we believe that density — measured and carefully implemented density — is the right way forward. It may not be what we are used to, and it may not make everyone happy who bought a house in a quiet suburb. But times are changing — our world is changing — and that means we have to be willing to change too.

Nobody wants to see Boulder become a concrete jungle of apartments and parking lots — and nobody is going to let that happen. But we have to be willing to grow and adapt. And that means we must work together to find a path forward, one in which we reverse the historical trend of excessive use — of land, of water, of all of our resources — and imagine a future where we preserve our environment by changing our cities.

Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board