Morrison's first-ever boutique hotel for Red Rocks concertgoers set to break ground
A boutique hotel designed for Red Rocks concertgoers will break ground in Morrison this month — the town's first commercial project in 60 years, developer Chad Wallace tells us.
Why it matters: It will not only be Morrison's only hotel but is expected to funnel millions in tax revenue to the town — marking a major shift for a community long resistant to change.
Zoom in: The Red Hotel, on Bear Creek Avenue, will be roughly 15,000 square feet, three stories high and have 22 rooms.
Each room "will have its own identity" with a distinct Colorado-inspired theme, Wallace, COO of Evergreen-based Root Architecture, says.
There will be a coffee shop on the lower level that serves beer and wine in the evening and a rooftop terrace. There won't be a restaurant, however, because Wallace wants to drive business to local eateries, "not compete."
By the numbers: Room rates will range between $300 to $1,000 per night, depending on the season, Wallace says.
And 10% of profits will go to organizations serving the Front Range, he tells us.
Friction point: The project faced fierce pushback from Morrison's planning commission over whether its arrival would alter the town's historic character.
Wallace and his team navigated three redesigns and a 19-month permitting process before getting the green light.
The intrigue: In the wake of the Red Hotel's controversial approval, the Morrison Town Board dissolved its planning commission and replaced it with a community action committee — a move town officials say will modernize development rules; but critics argue it centralizes power.
What's next: Groundbreaking is set for mid- to late-March, with an opening targeted for the 2026 Red Rocks concert season.
"Our hope for the Red Hotel is this becomes the No. 1 sought-after place to stay for these people traveling from all over the country and all over the world to see their favorite artist" at Red Rocks, Wallace says.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
an hour ago
- Miami Herald
Porsche Drops Truth Bomb on U.S. Production Plans Amid Tariff Negotiations
Porsche has dismissed a Bloomberg report stating that the automaker is considering moving some of its final assembly to the U.S. to ease tariff impacts. The initial report referenced Porsche possibly installing interior components or fitting tires in the U.S., where it currently has no production presence. Instead, Porsche restated its stance from April that U.S. production localization doesn't make financial sense due to its relatively low sales volume. In April, Porsche CFO Jochen Breckner added that U.S. localization wouldn't occur even if the automaker partnered with another brand from its parent company, Volkswagen Group. Still, Volkswagen Group is seriously considering expanding its U.S. manufacturing footprint with another one of its subsidiaries, Audi. An Audi spokesperson reportedly told Automotive News "We want to increase our presence in the U.S.," while adding that the company is confident it'll finalize specific details with Volkswagen Group by the year's end. Volkswagen currently operates one U.S. plant in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and its competitors, BMW and Mercedes-Benz, have factories in Spartanburg, South Carolina, and Tuscaloosa, Alabama, respectively. Porsche's problems in 2025 aren't limited to U.S. tariffs. During Q1, the brand's sales fell 42% in China. Four years ago, Porsche achieved its highest annual sales in China, at 95,671. Chinese consumers are gravitating away from Porsche and turning to newer companies like Xiaomi and BYD's high-end Yangwang brand. Xiaomi's first model, the electric SU7 sport sedan, thrived in China with its Porsche-inspired styling available at a lower price. The $72,591 Xiaomi SU7 Ultra variant with 1,548 horsepower received about 10,000 pre-orders in two hours, slightly exceeding Porsche's Q1 China sales this year. Porsche CEO Oliver Blume said, "We don't care about the volume," and that the company was more concerned with keeping its prices at a high level, "appropriate for Porsche," Reuters reports. However, Blume also told Porsche investors at the company's annual conference on May 21: "Our market in China has literally collapsed," according to The New York Times. Last month, Porsche delayed its all-electric versions of the 718 Boxster and Cayman for the second time, citing difficulty sourcing the models' high-performance battery cells. In April, Porsche said drivers could expect the two electric vehicles (EVs) in 2026, but its most recent delay pushes the release to at least 2027. Porsche has scaled back its financial outlook for 2025 by about 2 billion euros ($2.28 billion), with an expected profit margin range decline of between 6.5% and 8.5% from 10% to 12%. Oliver Blume's desire to maintain Porsche's prices and keep the company's production out of the U.S. makes it likely that the automaker will raise its lineup's costs. Blume, who is also Volkswagen Group's CEO, confirmed he spoke directly to the U.S. commerce secretary, Howard Lutnick, in Washington, D.C., but agreed with Lutnick to keep the conversation's details confidential. However, Porsche is far from the only company that could increase prices because of tariffs, and some of Volkswagen Group's other subsidiaries, such as Audi, can ease tariff impacts with increased U.S. manufacturing. Porsche's approach is more likely to hurt the company in its second-largest market, China, as the country's electric vehicle price war heats up. Copyright 2025 The Arena Group, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
CBS News
2 hours ago
- CBS News
Decades-old Qwest Tower taken down near Denver, could make way for proposed Portillo's restaurant
Qwest Tower taken down in Littleton, could make way for Portillo's Qwest Tower taken down in Littleton, could make way for Portillo's Qwest Tower taken down in Littleton, could make way for Portillo's A historic tower in Colorado was torn down on Wednesday to make way for the development of a proposed shopping center. Demolition crews took down the 55-year-old Qwest Tower in Littleton to make way for the next phase of construction of the Mineral Place development. Mantooth Company Colorado-based Mantooth Company said the 130-foot-tall tower dates back to 1970. It was used as a drying tower by Gates Rubber and their tire manufacturing plant near South Broadway and County Line Road. The building was later converted into an office complex by the communications company Qwest before it was acquired by Lumen Technologies. The tower was used to test optical fiber. The tower toppling is part of removing about 800,000 square feet of buildings. The first phase of redevelopment is already underway. Work on the infrastructure for the upcoming Costco Warehouse is happening. The City of Littleton said an agreement between the city and the developer estimates that Costco could be ready to open next year. Another big box retailer is yet to be determined. Mantooth Company said there will also be nine smaller stores and a 370-unit luxury apartment community. Mantooth Company The city has concept plans on its website for a proposed Portillo's restaurant. City of Littleton The popular Chicago-area eatery would be located off West Mineral Avenue and South Elati Street. City of Littleton Portillo's also has a proposed location in Denver. The restaurant features Chicago-style hot dogs, Italian beef sandwiches, burgers, cheese fries, and chocolate cake.
Forbes
3 hours ago
- Forbes
New State Merger Review Laws Could Harm U.S. Economy
U.S. states are ramping up their review of proposed mergers and acquisitions (M&A). Both Washington and Colorado have enacted new pre-merger notification statutes that will take effect this summer, and other states have introduced or are considering similar legislation. These changes could impose major new costs on potential merging parties and harm the U.S. economy. In addition, the Trump Administration may wish to consider revisiting costly changes imposed in a revised 2024 federal pre-merger rule. M&A Benefits As I previously discussed in Forbes, M&A activity generates major economic benefits by reallocating capital to higher-valued uses and thus yielding more efficient production and innovation. Specifically: M&A Costs and Federal Enforcement Oversight Trends As I previously explained, M&A activity may also, however, impose costs when it reduces competition in the marketplace. The Clayton Antitrust Act bars M&A transactions that may substantially lessen competition. A longstanding bipartisan federal enforcement consensus that targeted only those mergers that threaten to harm consumer welfare (by raising prices and reducing output, quality, or innovation) was overturned by the Biden Administration, which introduced a populist 'big is bad' skepticism of merger activity. These are 'early days' in the second Trump Administration. Nevertheless, new Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission antitrust enforcers appear to be signaling that they will focus on improvements in merger review process, rather than a return to the far less interventionist pre-Biden approach to merger analysis. Indeed, the Trump DOJ and FTC have kept in place 2023 Biden merger analysis guidelines that greatly relaxed prior guidelines' standard for deeming a merger problematic. The new guidelines disincentivized mergers by featuring novel and unproven theories of competitive harm. The new Trump enforcers also have retained an October 2024 revised pre-merger rule. Compliance with the revised rule 'require[s] New State Merger Legislative Requirements Will Likely Prove Harmful At its best, alignment of state and federal antitrust enforcement efforts is an example of beneficial 'cooperative federalism.' States can enforce federal merger law on behalf of their residents. They also may challenge mergers under state antitrust laws. State statutes may allow a local focus on small state-specific mergers not investigated by federal enforcers. State and federal merger enforcement may also, however, work at cross-purposes. State merger cases may generate highly costly, wasteful duplication of federal efforts, and may occasionally be in tension with federal antitrust policy. The 2024 Model Antitrust Pre-Merger Notification Act served as the basis for an April 2025 pre-merger notification law in Washington, with many other states expected to follow suit. The Model Act gives states access to federal pre-merger filings, subject to the same confidentiality requirements that apply under federal law. Widespread adoption of the Model Act will increase filing cost burdens on merging parties and will subject them to a greater risk of having sensitive non-public business information leak out from a variety of new sources. Even greater concerns stem from the fact that California and New York are considering pre-merger legislation that sweeps more broadly than the Model Act. The new pre-merger burdens would impose major new costs on merging parties. What's more, the California proposal would also establish a far lower substantive standard for striking down a merger ('an appreciable risk of materially lessening competition') than that found in federal law ('may be substantially to lessen competition'). This change raises the legal risk associated with merger proposals. It could seriously disincentivize many beneficial mergers for no good reason. Policy Implications and Next Steps Taken as a whole, recent state merger-related initiatives threaten significant U.S. economic harm. The U.S. has the strongest most innovative capital markets, which are key to driving economic growth. M&A plays a central role in the success of those markets. It keeps rivals on their toes and yields more vibrant competition. The weakening of M&A based on new state-created burdens and legal risks would tend to diminish economic growth and lower American competitive vitality, at least to a degree. This is that last thing we should want to do in a highly competitive global economy. The Trump Administration hopefully will take note. The President might, for example, direct the DOJ and the FTC to make 'competition advocacy' filings with the states highlighting the economic harm that specific merger-related legislative proposals would likely impose. The two agencies have specialized economists and lawyers with a long and respected history of making advocacy filings, directed at both state and federal government entities. The two agencies also use the 'bully pulpit' to emphasize the importance of continued close cooperation between federal and state antitrust enforcers. Federal and state enforcers already cooperate and make joint filings in a variety of cases. New state merger requirements could reduce the effectiveness of such cooperation. Finally, the FTC and the DOJ may wish to take a second look at the revised 2024 federal pre-merger rule to determine whether some of the costly new requirements it placed on filers could be eliminated. Issuing a new less costly rule could be good for American M&A. It would also be fully in tune with President Trump's April 2025 Executive Order on Reducing Anticompetitive Regulatory Barriers. Hopefully state and federal officials will take note and act to enhance the economic benefits of merger review.
