ap

Skip to content
Union Station Partners' rejected proposal included a plan to route heavy rail, some commuter rail and light rail underground.
Union Station Partners’ rejected proposal included a plan to route heavy rail, some commuter rail and light rail underground.
Author
PUBLISHED: | UPDATED:
Getting your player ready...

Ferd Belz watched wistfully Wednesday as a competing team won the right to negotiate exclusively to redevelop the city’s iconic Union Station.

Belz, president of Cherokee Denver, served as managing director of Union Station Partners, which proposed a redevelopment plan that failed to trump the vision proffered by the competing team, Continuum Partners/East West Partners.

In the end, he said, his team’s proposal wasn’t selected because of skepticism about its cost and design.

“I’m very proud of the work we did, and I think we have the better plan,” Belz said. “But there’s no question that our vision differs (from Continuum/East West).”

Union Station Partners’ vision included a $495 million transportation and public-space component that was $75 million more costly than the one proposed by Continuum/East West. Union Station Partners wanted to route heavy rail, commuter rail and some light rail underground.

“That approach would have required us to put all of this money in the ground before we could build private development,” said John Huggins, Denver’s economic-development director. “That $75 million cost difference would have grown because interest on it would have accrued, so pretty soon, we’re talking about $120 million or $130 million more.”

Said Peter Park, Denver’s director of planning, “The (Continuum/East West) proposal delivers all the very important elements early on and has more flexibility to it.”

The cost of building extensive underground infrastructure drove Union Station Partners to propose more dense commercial and residential development than its competitor, Huggins said.

That additional development – which would have included high-rise structures of up to 45 stories – wasn’t the best fit for those more concerned about aesthetics.

“It certainly was an excellent proposal,” said Ellen Ittelson, who oversees downtown planning for the city. “But the Union Station Partners plan varied from the master plan in its urban-design philosophy.”

The outcome of the months- long selection process was disappointing, said Bill Mosher of Trammel Crow, a member of the Union Station Partners team.

“To spend that much time and put your full effort into something requires full commitment to the vision,” he said. “Of course you want to win.”

Staff writer Julie Dunn contributed to this report.

Staff writer Christine Tatum can be reached at 303-954-1503 or ctatum@denverpost.com.

RevContent Feed

More in Business