Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverInfill
From a land use planning perspective, Gaylord is a disaster. Plunking a $800 million hotel and conference center in the middle of nowhere, tantalizingly close to a transit line yet not close enough so that 100% of everyone--employees and visitors--will drive there, is ridiculous.
|
Haha... all very good points, especially given the perspective you come from. But with respect to Gaylord I come wearing a different hat than my Urban hat.
Whether the "distributed urban architecture - the optimum for efficient movement of people, as it minimizes congestion and the need for high density transit".... or maybe more accurately with respect to Phoenix the "Village Plan system which plans for several nodes of higher density and employment concentrations" has merit is not a debate that I'm smart enough to have. I know my preference.
So I guess you would suggest that Denver would never be caught dead backing/putting up a say 500+ room Hotel and Convention Center (as 7News recently reported) way out there? Would Westin Hotels ever be interested in such a venture? And if DIA is your excuse I'd offer that is precisely what Gaylord finds attractive.
Just by way of comparison, the site that Gaylord chose in Phoenix/Mesa is more easterly than DIA. While they wouldn't be far from the rapidly growing Phoenix/Mesa Airport that facility is but a pimple in comparison to the access that DIA provides. While DMB Associates is the kind of long-time successful developer that adds comfort why would Gaylord want to go way out there in the first place?
Simply because Gaylord has their own clientele/customer base that is looking for the Gaylord experience. Don't ask me why it just is the case.
Quote:
|
....but it doesn't mean the taxpayers have to subsidize them to the tune of almost $400 million. If the City of Aurora really was serious about building a sustainable city, they should put Gaylord on the huge undeveloped Aurora City Center site at Alameda and Sable across from the Aurora city government offices, the Aurora Mall, and a new LRT station. That would be an investment that makes some sense
|
First of all, I understand it's easy to get hung up on "almost $400 million" but that amount is
spread over 30 years. The estimated economic benefits over 30 years are
over $8 billion which could end up being significantly low over that kind of time period.
Why Aurora chose to create nearly $300 million in incentives is not a question that I can answer nor have an opinion on. I would agree with your points about Aurora City Center. Presumably Gaylord had no interest in that site.
As all should be aware I'm very big on the return on investment - Bang for the Buck - that convention and tourism business brings. I cringe at any lack of perspective that would shut out this kind of opportunity and benefit.
I will always contend that downtown Denver, as the financial/cultural/sports and soon transit hub will benefit as the whole region benefits and grows.
Prev
Linear Mode
