DenverInfill Blog

Wait a second...does this mean the Fontius Building may be redeveloped in the near future???
 

This announcement covers the whole block except Fontius and McClintock...the two historic buildings fronting the mall. The possibility always exists that a separate proposal to renovate the Fontius could happen in the future.
 

Denver Business Journal reports today that the Fontius building is part of the deal. Some confusion out there on this.
 

It looks like the DBJ article today may be incorrect, because it is reporting that the Fontius also changed hands. That probably was a misunderstanding.

In any case, this is outstanding news as it is, even if Fontius isn't involved. I am eager to see what the newer owners have in mind for the block. The last thing I read said that they wanted a hotel project with ground floor retail. Anyone have updated news on that?
 

Dangit, so the blightbound Fontius remains the blightbound Fontius... at least that rundown hotel will see better days.
 

Does anyone know they will follow
the same old and boring Colorado re-development pattern or approach
along the same line of the Civic Center?
 

Right. The DBJ is wrong. I think they've since pulled their article.
 

this is confusing...ken, could you please update the aerial image of this block to show what portion of the block this refers to? it seems like it would be an "L-shaped" parcel but maybe i'm wrong. thanks!!
 

WHAT?? UGH! When I read your blog, Ken, I was getting excited that the infamous Fontius building would FINALLY be redeveloped. But then I read the comments, and I was disappointed. I really hope they make a proposal before the Dems arrive in August of '08. But at least a lot of the rest of the block will experience redevelopment, and that's always good news.
 

Econ Devo! Let's lure those tourists here to see what a wonderful and economically vital urban city Denver is! That's the bottom line for Denver! Increase retail and services so we can collect from tourists! Let’s promote tourism and public-private partnerships to build the greatest city ever! Screw everyone else.
Department stores and fancy hotels...they do that for ya. They generate and stimulate a whole lot of profits, tax revenues, and tax cuts for private developers, the feeling of "cool" for the young Denverites, and they feed our never-ending appetite to consume, consume, and consume, until there is nothing left.
DOES ANYONE CARE OR HAS looked A LITTLE further INTO THE POSSIBILITY THAT THIS PLAN FOR ECONOMIC PROSPERITY WITH WHICH THE CITY OF DENVER IS ENAMORED IS A SCAM? What kinds of jobs are these economic development plans creating? Sure as hell not jobs with wages that would afford a family to live in one of the fancy River Front lofts. Certainly not for those like myself, who has been busting ***, play by the rule, practice my morals and civic duties like good old’ an all-American gal and still, I have to fight everyday for my rights to be a woman, a professional, a middle-class homeowner. That’s me – I have privileges. That’s not the people that the leadership of Denver is trying to shove away into the shadows because they make Civic Park unappealing for tourists.
How about jobs and housing for working-class people???? As much as re-development efforts boost revenues, think about those hotel cleaning ladies who clean the fancy hotel rooms and the janitors that wax the department stores at night or the security guards that keep y'all in peace of mind as you sleep at night in your fancy loft.
Are these people ever going to get justice? Hell, how about just fairness. Are they sub-human beings that don't deserve to share in this supposed "prosperity"?
Fine, forget them, what about me? I am considered to be "middle-class" because I have a graduate degree, have a house, etc. Guess what? I am not sure if I can afford to joyfully bathe myself in this river of economic prosperity with all the privileged, Rockies-loving, SUV-driving, trust-fund white-males who live in one of those fancy lofts by. Neither do I aspire to be associated with them.
IS ANYONE OUT THERE AWAKE? Or have we all been bought out by the machine?
Remember this bumper sticker? "If you're not angry, you haven't looked around" (or something like that, I forgot the exact wording)
And please, don’t call me a bleeding-heart do-good no-good liberal. At least I have a heart. And there are worse things to be.
 

Damn! get! em! girl!
 

Dear angry girl: I would suggest removing the bee from your bonnet. Although you have received a graduate degree, I'm guessing it wasn't in urban planning nor economics. First of all, it's not the city's responsibility to provide jobs so that all families can live in fancy Riverfront lofts. However, since you already have a house, I would think you should consider yourself fortunate, but if you feel that you have the right to joyfully bathe yourself in the river of "elevated" economic prosperity - then you better find a way to create more wealth if you want to keep up with your favorite stereotype: the privileged, Rockies-loving, SUV-driving, trust-fund white-males. From your rant, I don't know whether you despise these people or just want to live like them.

You ask: "How about jobs and housing for working-class people?" Well, I can tell you that they won't be living on block 162 for one thing. And they shouldn't; since this area is zoned for commercial activity. However, these hotels, retail, and office buildings will provide economic stimulus to the area which will not only provide the cleaning ladies and janitors a job, but also give the city needed tax revenue so they can turn around and provide services to those same people who live in the city - thus making it a nicer city to live in. How else do you think the roads get plowed, schools get funded, and police patrol the streets? These things cost money. And when the city has money to pay for these things (taxed from the same economic activity that you railed against), it is then able to employ a city worker, a teacher, and a policeman as a result. These people then shop at the local supermarket, go to the barbershop, and occasionally grab a beer after work. Now you have a grocer, a barber, and a pub owner who are more apt to stay in business and provide for their families. As these activities extrapolate over thousands of people, you get a multiplier affect that is called "vitality". However, it's not just about consuming as you suggest, but it's also about feeling safe on the city streets, enjoying nice parks and bike paths, and taking in the cultural aspects that vibrant cities provide. Although everyone won't be living in penthouses, it's generally true that everyone will be indirectly benefited by those who do. As you see, it's a big circle.

For the record, I'm a democrat, but I feel it's the city's obligation to provide the framework, infrastructure, and incentive to spur economic activity and support it's citizens. Doing so will make both our lives better as a result.
 

Yikes, how's that for high falutened academia, trying look impressive using the same diatribes and technicalities by pro-economic development fans for years now. The only point I am making is that the rhetoric that you are proposing seems like a waterdowned version of free-market economy, (ironic for a self-proclaimed democrat). The type of economic vitality that you are supporting comes attached with huge increases in the # of retail and service sectors jobs, some of the most low-paid jobs historically AND those whose trends have been forecasted to continue well into the next decade for Denver. Working and middle-class families, the backbone of this country, will be so marginalized economically that there will one day be NO middle class for all practical purposes.
By the way, you contradicted yourself between the first and latter paragraphs: Second paragraph: "it's not the city's responsibility to provide jobs". Later on in very last paragraph: " I feel it's the city's obligation to provide the framework, infrastructure, and incentive to spur economic activity and support it's citizens". Isn't "providing jobs" part of the "framework, infrastructure, and incentive to spur economic activity"? Apparently you have not worked in city government, especially in workforce development? I will concede to being wrong but not till I am convinced so.
And by the way, where DID you receive your graduate degree in urban planning and economics?
 

She is a cold piece, get em girlfriend!
 

OK – since you’ve accused me of academia pretentiousness, I should probably point out that it is spelled “highfalutin” and not “high falutened”. But, regardless, if we’re going to have a discussion on the appropriate land uses for block 162, I’d suggest keeping it within scope and not turning it into a broader discussion of middle class plight in America. But first, I agree with you in that unchecked free-market policies are bad, but I also don’t believe in government (in this case – the city of Denver) mandating specific commercial activities to occur. Like any good smoothie – it’s needs to be mixed.
In a nutshell, business and investment groups are responsible for looking out for their own self interest (otherwise they likely go out of business) while govt should court these businesses so that their products, services, and subsequent job creation ultimately bring a value-added benefit to the community. But I did not contradict myself; I still don’t think it’s the city’s responsibility to create jobs. What can govt create but bureaucratic jobs anyway? (before someone jumps on me – I would agree many are indeed necessary). On the contrary, since the city (re: all of us) has an inherent interest in seeing jobs created, the city needs to provide the public works (from our tax dollars) to entice owners of business/industry to see Denver as a good return on their investment. When the city works with business to spur development – momentum builds as projects beget more projects. With progressive leadership, the city should grease the wheels, reduce red-tape, and provide incentives to steer specific development, but like all cities in America, Denver should court businesses to set up shop in the area because the private sector is ultimately the best creator of jobs. If this is what you meant – then we’re in agreement. Needless to say, this growth should have regulation (which is where the hand of govt is so influential – otherwise you end up with uncontrolled growth that disrupts the optimal use of resources: parking, transit, utilities, parks, public spaces, etc).

Again though – in this instance we’re just talking about block 162, which is right between the convention center and the retail backbone of the city – both of which are huge economic stimuli for the city. I’m curious, what would you propose should go in there besides a hotel – or mixed use retail/housing? Do you have a better idea? Sure, a Toyota manufacturing plant might provide more middle income jobs, but this is hardly the place for it.
Anyway, I don’t believe you’re seeing all the economic benefits that a development like this can create. Sure – there will be janitors and maids that are employed at lower wages than you’d probably accept, but these people work for agencies who would otherwise just re-direct them to other hotels. But if you’re worried about medium income jobs, this development will indirectly benefit people who work for banks, insurance agencies, construction management, architectural/design firms, material manufacturing and distribution, security, food preparation/catering, travel, and maintenance (to name a few). In other words, some guy whose job it is to fix elevators just got himself another account.
I can empathize with your anger at what’s going on around us, but I think you’re misguided in attacking this particular development. As for me, I think this is great news for Denver.
 

She still got you, sorry, and while your trying to correct her spelling look at yours, your still contraDICKting yourself. LOVE YA