Which Colorado City Could Use a New large Tourist Attraction? (Denver: attorney, house)

[Josseppie]

I thought I would post this here since this thread is about tourist attractions.

Denver/ Aurora are applying for the state tourism grant for the proposed Gay lord hotel and convention center along with moving the Stock Show. However they are infighting so how can they expect to get the grant that is highly competitive or if they do get it ever get it built? I don't know but it is interesting drama.

My personal opinion is if the do get the grant yet can't get it built it will look bad for all of Denver if the other grant recipient (who ever it happens to be) builds their tourist attraction with little to no drama while Denver can't get theirs off the drawing board.

This is from the Denver Post:

For more than two decades, metro Denver's suburban residents have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to help fund sports and cultural venues in the city's core. But the prospect of Denver taxpayers helping to subsidize an $824 million hotel and conference center in conjunction with the proposed move of the National Western Stock Show & Rodeo to Aurora has been met with public outrage.


Read more: Regional unity credited for metro Denver treasures, so pushback on Gaylord project riles - The Denver Post

[Idunn]

I had occasion for an inspiring drive, and specifically will not be saying where, that, for what many people dream of in an ideal Colorado, would be better than any amusement park.


What was particularly lovely about this drive was not only the country traversed, but that for a good distance any sign of 'civilization' other than the road was fairly rare. Not only that, but very light traffic.

This is something one will have a hard time experiencing anywhere along the front range where most people with Colorado dreams end up living. But still ostensibly a large reason why they remain, and will never experience unless willing to venture well beyond urban areas and corridors.

The area I am speaking of could be reached by beginning in Pueblo, well beyond that, and beyond this you'll have to use your creativity if wishing to find it. There are other such areas as well, if looked for. Along that road there are a few large ranches, with often only the entrance gate and dirt road leading off into the woods the only sign of what may lie beyond. At a distance, in places, a few private homes as well. All of them notable for being a long distance from the nearest grocery store -- of any type.

Some people will never get much beyond Denver or other urban realms, and satisfied. For them it does make sense to infill the congestion with more amusements. But for those who really do value the wild, and often feel thwarted in finding their weekends little less crowded than the office, as all seemingly following them to campsite or trail, it makes perfect sense to collectively value what at least in theory makes Colorado so special to so many.

The place I speak of, that road and route, is only so largely open because remote, and now the economy slowing the impetus to spread out and infill all else. You'll find this for real near all the more popular resort areas, and if accustomed to nothing else assume there always will be another 'cabin' on every few acres and around the next bend. But there are still places where that is not so, and it might be different. If wishing to spend the money on something, empty places such as this might be collectively bought by citizens as conservation areas. Simply to be left as is, undeveloped, and place when need be where anyone with the desire to get away might. To feel, if only for a few hours, the ideal and dream of open vistas, of wide open spaces peopled only with meadow, brook and mountain.


None of this will be helped if the population of Colorado continues to increase. As any hiker seeking solitude on the trails outside of Boulder, or in Rocky Mountain National Park, will appreciate. Roads such as I speak of will also lose much of their allure if one finds themselves nose to tail with other traffic trying for the same experience. But for now this is not the case, and might be realized. So more the question of balance, and the citizens of this state valuing it enough to insure enough open areas remain in relation to population that anyone determined to find their special place in nature, can.

That would be worthy of an investment.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Idunn

The area I am speaking of could be reached by beginning in Pueblo, well beyond that, and beyond this you'll have to use your creativity if wishing to find it.

Doesn't everything good start in Pueblo. Just joking I could not help my self as that was the first thing I thought of when I read your sentence.

All joking aside the only road I can think of would be the Beulah highway. Personally I love the drive but when I take it I envision the region with thousands of more people and the highway being a 4 lane freeway, much like the Boulder Turnpike.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

I thought I would post this here since this thread is about tourist attractions.

Denver/ Aurora are applying for the state tourism grant for the proposed Gay lord hotel and convention center along with moving the Stock Show. However they are infighting so how can they expect to get the grant that is highly competitive or if they do get it ever get it built? I don't know but it is interesting drama. [b]....

Josseppie,

You are so subtle but I caught you or is it a Freudian Slip. The hotel company name is GAYLORD not GAY LORD

That would be appropriate for a hotel in the Castro of SanFran

It could also open the oft debated religious discussion if the LORD was Gay...

Or is it a name of the new gang, THE GAY LORDS, in a new production of
West Side Story

LIvecontent

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

I thought I would post this here since this thread is about tourist attractions.

Denver/ Aurora are applying for the state tourism grant for the proposed Gay lord hotel and convention center along with moving the Stock Show. However they are infighting so how can they expect to get the grant that is highly competitive or if they do get it ever get it built? I don't know but it is interesting drama.

My personal opinion is if the do get the grant yet can't get it built it will look bad for all of Denver if the other grant recipient (who ever it happens to be) builds their tourist attraction with little to no drama while Denver can't get theirs off the drawing board.

This is from the Denver Post:

For more than two decades, metro Denver's suburban residents have paid hundreds of millions of dollars to help fund sports and cultural venues in the city's core. But the prospect of Denver taxpayers helping to subsidize an $824 million hotel and conference center in conjunction with the proposed move of the National Western Stock Show & Rodeo to Aurora has been met with public outrage.


Read more: Regional unity credited for metro Denver treasures, so pushback on Gaylord project riles - The Denver Post

Hope I'm not splicing us into a new thread here, but I think it's absurd for the Denver Post to compare Science and Cultural facilities to a for profit, elite hotel chain that caters to the wealthy. This may be more akin to the way cities extort their citizenry for the benefit of sporting venues that have limited annual use under the guise of "good for business!" It is not.

If the Gaylord wants to offer some first come, first serve free days, a la the Denver Zoo, the Botanical Gardens, the Denver Art Museum...then I may be interested in getting in line for my room for a night. Otherwise, we may as well make our next regional offering to a new Bank of America headquarters in Lakewood or Arvada, where I'm sure we will all reap the benefits of an organization designed to benefit the public in every way possible!

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by zenkonami

Hope I'm not splicing us into a new thread here, but I think it's absurd for the Denver Post to compare Science and Cultural facilities to a for profit, elite hotel chain that caters to the wealthy. This may be more akin to the way cities extort their citizenry for the benefit of sporting venues that have limited annual use under the guise of "good for business!" It is not.

If the Gaylord wants to offer some first come, first serve free days, a la the Denver Zoo, the Botanical Gardens, the Denver Art Museum...then I may be interested in getting in line for my room for a night. Otherwise, we may as well make our next regional offering to a new Bank of America headquarters in Lakewood or Arvada, where I'm sure we will all reap the benefits of an organization designed to benefit the public in every way possible!

I tend to think this is a bad idea for the regional tourism grant as well. I do think because its Denver and Aurora backing it and since they are two of the states largest cities it has a chance. I, also, think that could backfire and cause more problems for the metro area if they do get it and for whatever reason it does not get built.

[Josseppie]

A study of the economic impact was just released and it is not good.

This is from the Denver Post:

Denver will lose $31.3 million a year in off-site visitor spending if the National Western Stock Show relocates to Aurora, according to a study to be presented to a city council committee. In addition, the city will lose $2.2 million annually in taxes tied to that spending and $712,000 in on-site tax revenues.

The link: Report: Denver to lose $31.3 million in visitor spending if National Western Stock Show moves - The Denver Post

I don't see how the Denver city council and Denver voters go with this proposal and without that I don't see how they can get the grant.

[Josseppie]

This is the grant proposal for Pueblo's "PBR University Heritage of Hero's" Project. It is in PDF format and takes a while to download.

http://www.pueblo.us/DocumentView.aspx?DID=967

[Josseppie]

Even more bad news for the Denver/ Aurora project as the city of Denver would lose millions of revenue. How is this "new" dollars the state says is part of the criteria for the project to get the grant?

This is from the Denver Post:

About one-third of the business of the proposed Gaylord hotel in Aurora will come from existing hotels, and the metro area will lose $186 million in visitor spending over four years.

The link: Report: Gaylord hotel to result in $186 million spending loss over four years - The Denver Post

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

Even more bad news for the Denver/ Aurora project as the city of Denver would lose millions of revenue. How is this "new" dollars the state says is part of the criteria for the project to get the grant?

This is from the Denver Post:

About one-third of the business of the proposed Gaylord hotel in Aurora will come from existing hotels, and the metro area will lose $186 million in visitor spending over four years.

The link: Report: Gaylord hotel to result in $186 million spending loss over four years - The Denver Post

The Gaylord Hotel...the "Aspenization" of the Aurora Metropolitan Area