Opinion: The University Hill Hotel is a bad idea that hasn’t gotten any better


The idea of putting a 55-foot building on the southwest corner of Broadway and University Avenue in Boulder is a terrible idea, plain and simple. It will destroy one of Boulder’s iconic views and make that area just another overdeveloped, unpleasant, unattractive place in our city, where unpleasant, unattractive overdevelopment is becoming the norm. Drive, bike, or walk up from downtown, or just look from across the intersection, and see if you don’t agree.
The city finally commissioned a study to evaluate the economic benefits of a proposed hotel at that location. It compared the Hill hotel versus office/commercial and affordable housing development. Conceptually this makes sense — compare scenarios and see which one does the best. But the chosen scenarios were not comparable. Each of the non-hotel development scenarios only looks at redevelopment of the 20,000-square-foot Pleasant Street parking lot. In contrast, the Hill hotel would take up that lot plus the whole rest of the area of that corner, an area multiple times as big. Plus the hotel would be much taller than either of these alternatives, and have about twice the net increase in floor area.
Worse, the study doesn’t consider any more imaginative alternatives. For just one example, what about doing something like the Rayback Collective at 2775 Valmont Road? It’s a highly successful combination of a food court, bar, art sharing and meeting place. Many people, both regular Boulder residents and students, love to go there. And it’s only one story high.
Then there are the study’s conclusions, which are all very tentative and conditional. For example, the study states, “While not a panacea for all challenges associated with the Hill District, the development and occupancy of the proposed University Hill Hotel development would signal confidence in the future of the District …” And, “… if the retail tenancies are unique and experiential, such uses may attract new visitors, residents, and workers in Boulder and generate sales spillover to restaurants and services in the Hill District responsive to their preferences.” Or “If the proposed University Hill Hotel development succeeds, it may encourage investments and enhancements by other property owners and businesses seeking to emulate the success of the University Hill Hotel development and capture the new visitor base attracted to the University Hill Hotel development.” In short, maybe it will be beneficial … and maybe it won’t.
The study asserts that hotel guests will spend $40 each day on “eating and drinking,” $10 at “retail food stores,” and $25 at “other retail.” This $75 per day is supposed to support 24,700 square feet of retail space. But 10,500 square feet of this retail will be in the hotel, leaving a bit more than half to rejuvenate the rest of the Hill. And this ignores the critical question of whether the hotel’s restaurants will capture the lion’s share of the eating and drinking, leaving the rest of the Hill with almost nothing. This negative outcome seems pretty likely; I doubt that the Hill hotel’s guests will have the same tastes and interests as University of Colorado students, who are the Hill merchants’ major clientele.
Then there is parking. The Hill hotel is only providing 58 spaces for 189 rooms plus employees. For the rest of the Hill to function then totally depends on whether CU builds a parking garage big enough to handle the spillover from the Hill hotel’s guests plus employees, as well as the parking needs of CU’s own proposed conference center and 250-room hotel to be built across the intersection. The Boulder City Council has already concluded that it makes no sense for the city to pay for the Hill hotel’s parking. As far as I know, the Hill hotel developers have no interest in paying CU for additional parking. And I sincerely doubt if CU would gratuitously build extra parking spaces.
Finally, the study asserts, “Whether property owners will maintain and improve their properties and businesses (and) maintain and enhance their space and goods and services in a particular area or neighborhood often boils down to expectations about the future.” So it’s reasonable to expect that if CU goes ahead with their projects, whatever benefits the Hill hotel would have provided would already begin to happen without necessitating destroying the view for something of questionable value.
It would make far more sense to just wait until CU builds its hotel and conference center, and begins holding events. Then, if more attractions are needed on the Hill, do another Rayback-type food and event venue and have something that is really cool and attractive to lots of folks, and that doesn’t destroy the view.


Popular Posts

Opinion: Opportunity for the new Boulder City Council

Congratulations to the four new Boulder City Council members! You have a great opportunity to make a contribution to the Boulder community, but it will take a lot of work to do it responsibly; the learning curve is pretty steep. Here are some suggestions for you (and other Council members) that may help improve the process. Read the Charter. It is the document that governs how you, city staff, and board and commission members operate, and how you relate to each other. It defines the limits of your and their power, and can only be amended by a citizen vote. You don’t have to remember every word. But just knowing what’s there makes you more self reliant and less at the mercy of others’ opinions. For example, relative to the recent meeting discussion over diversity, the council does  not  have the power to suspend the rules as to when the mayor is selected. Charter Section 14 specifies, “The mayor shall be chosen by the council from its own number, upon the convening of the new co
Read more

Opinion: Is this the end of Boulder as we know it?

Much of what has made Boulder such a great place to live has been the work of people half a century ago. These people recognized what I call the “ ratchet effect ,” that bad development decisions cannot be undone, so policies needed to be put in place to prevent, or at least limit, the damage that a growth-at-all-costs majority of the council could do. These policies include charter limits, like the Blue Line that prevents city water for development from being supplied above a certain altitude, the 55-foot height limit that has prevented high-rise development from cutting off our views, and the open space referendum process that allows a 60-day window for citizens to challenge disposals of open space. Other constraints include the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan’s requirement for Planning Board agreement for land-use changes in the area inside the city limits (Area I) and additional agreement by the county commissioners and county Planning Commission for urban development further
Read more

Policy Documents: Impact Fees and Adequate Public Facilities

I am writing this to correct some of the apparent inaccuracies put forward at the 10/14 CC/PB study session about charging growth for its costs. I do not claim to be an expert in the field, but I have studied it long enough and consulted with enough supposed experts and legal types to understand most of the basics. In addition, I have found that the experts don’t necessarily know everything and won’t necessarily put forward the most appropriate solutions. The fundamental rule, both legal and equitable, is that growth should pay to address its impacts so as to maintain existing levels of service (LOS) for existing residents and businesses. But growth cannot be required to improve levels of service. LOS is measured in all sorts of ways depending on the facility and/or service being measured. For transportation, it could be total VMT, travel time, intersection waits, access to transit, etc. For schools, it might be square footage per pupil, etc. For water, it could be water righ
Read more