I’d be upset, too. It shouldn’t be a hotel, it should be a park. A hotel in this pretty neighborhood would be awful. Especially since it’s probably going to be Millennial Beige
Unless people are driving their cars from the adjoining suburban areas and want to park somewhere?
Like not saying parking lots are awesome but with such car centric infrastructure oftentimes they’re more useful than a hotel. Which will come with its own set of folks looking to park somewhere so compounding that whole issue or finding a place to park.
Nevertheless, in general I agree that it’d be nice if we had way less cars and the parking lots that go with them.
What about a compromise: A trailer park. Private equity still gets to lease out the land to tenants, who own their own trailer and rent them out to Air BNB guests. It’s win-win-win.
A hotel would destroy the view from those units along the left, as well as the church. They can see for quite a ways now, after the hotel, they’ll be staring at a hotel. Why does this hotel get to bring down the living quality of those around it, with no compensation? Will rents in those units decrease because they are going be much less desirable when they are right up against a hotel with transient guests every day?
Those “units” are the Spruce Street Mansion and while it was originally a house it has been converted to office space. It holds a law firm and a company called Discover Boulder Tours. The nearest house that is for sale to this location is 3.6M for ~3000 sqft or $1200/sqft, so if these were residences I’m not going to have much sympathy for the rich assholes. The Pearl Street Mall in Boulder doesn’t need a park. It is going to need a ton of short term housing starting next year because of Sundance. This hotel is to put downward pressure on the number of airbnbs in the city.
I’m all for being anti development. I grew up in Boulder and it invented a lot of the anti development playbook. Boulder is so desirable precisely because it became very anti development 50 years ago allowing it to build a unique and desirable city. But this? This is rich NIMBY bullshit. They want their property values to go up because a speculator wants to buy it for a short term rental that is only occupied a couple months of the year during a film festival. Be anti development for sustainability reasons, not because rich jerks want higher housing prices.
There’s totally compensation. They give the local arts place a bunch of money and host local art. (Which they can pay to get out of.) And they also have to let people use the roof for a whole 20 hours a week! (Which they can pay to get out of.)
If you don’t want to see other people or buildings, move to a cabin in the woods. Why should the people living in those units get to reap the profits of housing scarcity? Why should the people living in those units get to reap the benefits of living in a developed place developed with taxpayer money while disallowing others to do their same?
And how was it? Worth demonstrating for in front of city council? I imagine someone switching off their car, closing their eyes and just soaking in the sweet satisfaction of having parked there.
I’d be upset, too. It shouldn’t be a hotel, it should be a park. A hotel in this pretty neighborhood would be awful. Especially since it’s probably going to be Millennial Beige
Yeah but a hotel is still better than a parking lot. It’s literally the worst land use possible.
Unless people are driving their cars from the adjoining suburban areas and want to park somewhere?
Like not saying parking lots are awesome but with such car centric infrastructure oftentimes they’re more useful than a hotel. Which will come with its own set of folks looking to park somewhere so compounding that whole issue or finding a place to park.
Nevertheless, in general I agree that it’d be nice if we had way less cars and the parking lots that go with them.
Can’t do handbrake turns in the snow on a hotel
Not with that attitude.
I like your energy
What about a compromise: A trailer park. Private equity still gets to lease out the land to tenants, who own their own trailer and rent them out to Air BNB guests. It’s win-win-win.
I’d make a Trailer Park Boys joke but I’m having a hard time enjoying it anymore
Got you dawg
“They could pay them $20 to fuck off”
A hotel would destroy the view from those units along the left, as well as the church. They can see for quite a ways now, after the hotel, they’ll be staring at a hotel. Why does this hotel get to bring down the living quality of those around it, with no compensation? Will rents in those units decrease because they are going be much less desirable when they are right up against a hotel with transient guests every day?
Those “units” are the Spruce Street Mansion and while it was originally a house it has been converted to office space. It holds a law firm and a company called Discover Boulder Tours. The nearest house that is for sale to this location is 3.6M for ~3000 sqft or $1200/sqft, so if these were residences I’m not going to have much sympathy for the rich assholes. The Pearl Street Mall in Boulder doesn’t need a park. It is going to need a ton of short term housing starting next year because of Sundance. This hotel is to put downward pressure on the number of airbnbs in the city.
I’m all for being anti development. I grew up in Boulder and it invented a lot of the anti development playbook. Boulder is so desirable precisely because it became very anti development 50 years ago allowing it to build a unique and desirable city. But this? This is rich NIMBY bullshit. They want their property values to go up because a speculator wants to buy it for a short term rental that is only occupied a couple months of the year during a film festival. Be anti development for sustainability reasons, not because rich jerks want higher housing prices.
The view of what? The view of the parking lot and some streets?
deleted by creator
There’s totally compensation. They give the local arts place a bunch of money and host local art. (Which they can pay to get out of.) And they also have to let people use the roof for a whole 20 hours a week! (Which they can pay to get out of.)
If you don’t want to see other people or buildings, move to a cabin in the woods. Why should the people living in those units get to reap the profits of housing scarcity? Why should the people living in those units get to reap the benefits of living in a developed place developed with taxpayer money while disallowing others to do their same?
Hey I’ve parked there
And how was it? Worth demonstrating for in front of city council? I imagine someone switching off their car, closing their eyes and just soaking in the sweet satisfaction of having parked there.