• ZoteTheMighty@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Lol, this is wild. I’ve parked there several times. Parking in that area does kinda suck, but so does getting a hotel for a reasonable rate too, which is generally more important.

  • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    114
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    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

    A lovely neighborhood that was ruined by a parking lot and will continue to be ruined by building a hotel there

    • LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah but a hotel is still better than a parking lot. It’s literally the worst land use possible.

      • LePoisson@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

      • Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      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?

      • Fidgetting@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 hours ago

        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.

      • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 hours ago

        A hotel would destroy the view from those units along the left

        The view of what? The view of the parking lot and some streets?

      • Boomer Humor Doomergod@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.)

      • ayyy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 day ago

        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?

      • schnapsman@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.

  • Taco2112@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    2 days ago

    I feel like this post and highlighted quote requires more context. The parking lot is next to a church, most of the voices of dissent in the article are from people who go to that church and someone involved with another hotel being constructed not far away. The City Council voted 7-1 to approve the replacement of the parking lot with a hotel. Councilmember Nicole Speer, the one quoted above, is a member of the church who voted IN FAVOR of removing the parking lot.

    • zaphod@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Why doesn’t the church have its own parking space? Maybe they can replace the church with a parking garage and put the church on top of that.

    • grue@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      In other words, it’s even worse because they would mostly only be parking there on Sunday anyway.

      Frankly, church people can be the worst, most entitled assholes about this sort of thing. I remember a cycle track got removed in my city because, even though the bollards had been removed and the church-goers had already been allowed to park on top of it on Sundays, they still weren’t fucking satisfied!

      • Throbbing_banjo@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Be a real shame if something happened to that church🙃

        *Edit: Still thinking about how infuriating this situation is. I really do think if I rode that stretch regularly, I’d make it a point to vandalize as many cars parked in the should-be bike lane as possible.

    • Remember_the_tooth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      13 hours ago

      Good point. If that’s the main issue, a hotel with a parking garage could have a much higher capacity for cars and offer parking passes for the Church. I’d rather see low-income housing or a park, but it’s not my town.