Interesting idea and it looks cool. But 673' among buildings that top 700'? I'd suggest 900'+ so there's a view in all directions, or something well outside the main tower cluster.
The key to popularity seems to be (a) being iconic, (b) having fascinating views beyond what you can see elsewhere, and (c) having plenty of visitors nearby. Also (d) you get a wave of locals when you're new, because many people will go once. The center of a downtown isn't great for b because towers will block the nearby views, and this will get worse over time.
The north end of the Elitch site would be pretty good. You could look straight down at the Platte and Confluence, the new and existing neighborhoods, parks, etc. You'd have a permanently unobstructed view of the Front Range. The tower would be noticeable in a downtown silhouette from multiple directions, with the chance to become iconic.
Broadway/Colfax/Lincoln would be good too. Right next to Civic Center Park and several tourist attractions.
It would look cool close-up, but its silhouette from two miles away would be small, and it might not have that Eiffel Tower effect. Would it be identifiable enough to say "Denver"? Do something a little shapier instead?
Capacity at the top looks small, though it could have multiple viewing levels. That could create an interesting revenue challenge. Would revenues minus financing and operating expenses be enough to pay tens of millions in development costs, even if people stand in line to go up?
Other cities have poked at similar ideas. Portland for example. These almost never go anywhere. It's always a leap of faith about whether tons of visitors will line up and pay $40 each, which makes financing prohibitive. Construction costs tend to shock once contractors are brought in. Subsidies tend to be requested due to the costs, the lack of faith among financiers, and the possibility that ticket sales won't be as high as hoped.
__________________
"Alot" has never been a word.
|
Prev
Linear Mode
