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.