News
Golden-area ranch owned by same family since 1911 on market for $14.85M
An 811-acre ranch in the Golden area that has been owned by one family for more than a century is on the market for $14.85 million, real estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield said.
The property, owned by the Ladwig family since 1911, is one of the few remaining large parcels available along the Front Range, the real estate firm said. The site is priced at just over $18,000 per acre.
“This property offers a rare opportunity to own a substantial piece of land with quick access to the mountains, just 20 minutes from Downtown Denver,” Trevor Brown of Cushman & Wakefield said in statement.
Brown, Joey Dybevik and Michael Kboudi are marketing the property on behalf of the family.
Related Articles- 30-year-old Broadway brunch spot to close this weekend
- SweatHouz sauna and cold plunge expanding with new location at 38th and Tennyson
- Metro Denver home prices take a dip in July on weaker sales
- Douglas County’s Zebulon sports megacomplex could break ground this fall. Will it be ‘iconic,’ or a money pit?
- Need a housing voucher to subsidize your rent in Colorado? You’re likely out of luck this year
The zoning allows for residential development with a minimum lot size of 10 acres. The land consists of two separate adjoining parcels totaling 811 acres. The diverse terrain includes tree-covered areas and open space.
The site is next to the roughly 4,000-acre White Ranch Park, part of Jefferson County Open Space.
A uranium mine operated on a small portion of the property several decades ago. The real estate firm said state records indicate the mine was sealed and capped in 1989.
The property is west of the Colorado 93 exit at Pine Ridge Road. Cushman & Wakefield said the property provides easy access to major transportation routes. The road to the site follows Cressman’s Gulch
Get more real estate and business news by signing up for our weekly newsletter, On the Block.
Nightclub, restaurant eyed for building on downtown edge after $1M sale
The building at 2019 Stout St. has sold at least five times since 2008, been foreclosed on once, and currently isn’t much more than four walls and a roof.
“It’s basically a shell, they acquired a shell. It doesn’t have electrical, it doesn’t have plumbing,” said Matt Call of NavPoint Real Estate.
The latest sale of the 12,000-square-foot building on the edge of downtown Denver happened earlier this month, when records show Bernard Faraone paid $975,000, or $83 per square foot, to buy the property from Beacon Church.
Around the same time, Faraone’s architect at M Moser Associates submitted plans to the city proposing to turn the one-story, 92-year-old brick building into a nightclub and restaurant space.
Farone did not respond to a request for comment. Neither did the church, which operates in Uptown at 1615 N. Ogden St.
The plans call for three-pronged redevelopment of the space, which would be called Chapter. The main level would hold a 5,500-square-foot restaurant, while the 6,200-square-foot basement would house a club. A rooftop space also would be added.
Both the basement and main level have 14-foot ceilings with a “raw and industrial” feel, according to Call, who represented the church in the sale this month.
“I don’t know the last time someone operated there,” he said.
The church purchased the property in 2021 for $1.5 million, according to public records. Pastor CB Barthlow told Denverite in 2023 that the organization hoped to fix up and operate in the building, but ultimately determined that was too costly.
The building still bears the name of Carson Press, a onetime occupant that published guides and books about Denver’s early growth around the turn of the 20th century.
Related Articles- 30-year-old Broadway brunch spot to close this weekend
- Town Pump Provisions coming to Cherry Creek North
- Furniture retailer Wayfair to open brick-and-mortar store in Denver in 2026
- Colorado agency demolishes buildings at Denver’s Burnham Yard, stirring preservation backlash
- Developers offer to move Evergreen’s El Rancho Colorado across the road
Call said he listed the property for sale about six months ago for $1.45 million. He had interest from retail, restaurant and office users, including another nightclub concept, and planned to speed up the process by putting it up for auction.
“The auction inevitably forces everything into a funnel and forces decision-making from anyone interested,” he said.
Faraone’s group sent over an enticing offer and “usurped” the auction, which would have started bidding at $250,000, Call said. He’d expected the building to sell “in the neighborhood” of $1 million.
“When you can take the chance of uncertainty off the table, that’s what you want to do.”
Get more real estate and business news by signing up for our weekly newsletter, On the Block.
Waste Management threatened with eviction from Denver recycling facility
While it waits for a new $100 million sorting facility to be built in Aurora, Waste Management claims it is being wrongfully evicted from its current Denver recycling facility.
The national trash company has leased several buildings at 3600 E. 48th Ave. in the Elyria-Swansea neighborhood since 2005 without much problem, according to a lawsuit it filed last week.
“Waste Management Recycle America faithfully paid all rent and performed its lease obligations,” it wrote. “But in 2024, (Armstrong Capital Development) purchased the buildings and, unlike the prior landlord, immediately demanded that WMRA perform almost $2 million in repairs, despite knowing the condition of the buildings before its purchase.”
Armstrong, a private equity firm headquartered in Greenwood Village, paid $18.3 million for the property early last year. On July 21, it gave Waste Management an ultimatum, according to the company: Either make more than $1 million in repairs or be kicked out.
“The threatened eviction has ramifications far beyond just the relationship of WMRA and ACD,” according to the former’s lawsuit. “Since a huge amount of recycling flows through the WMRA 48th Street facility, the threatened eviction would disrupt an estimated 10 to 15 percent of all recycling in the Denver metropolitan area. That is a serious public impact.”
Jarrett Armstrong, the CEO of Armstrong Capital Development, declined to talk about that.
“Although we don’t agree with Waste Management’s assertions in the lawsuit, our practice is not to comment on pending litigation,” Armstrong told BusinessDen. When asked if he will be evicting Waste Management from 3600 E. 48th, he said, “Any potential eviction of Waste Management similarly concerns pending litigation and ACD does not comment.”
Waste Management’s spokespeople and lawyers did not answer requests for an interview.
The dispute between tenant and landlord concerns a warehouse roof that dates to the 1940s and has leaked since Waste Management moved in, according to the company. It has paid for several roof repairs and replacements over the years, its lawsuit explains.
In 2023, Waste Management signed a lease through 2026, with the expectation it will move to its new Aurora location after that. Then, Armstrong bought the property and almost immediately demanded that Waste Management make $1.9 million in repairs, the tenant alleges.
Related Articles“While WMRA was surprised by this sudden change from the position of any prior landlord, and disputed the extent of repairs demanded, WMRA has substantially complied with a large portion of Armstrong’s demands” by landscaping, painting and repairing the warehouse.
Still, its landlord is demanding more — and unfairly threatening to evict, the tenant claims.
“Waste Management vigorously opposes the defendant’s improper attempt to use eviction proceedings as leverage … and thereby threaten continued waste recycling for large segments of Denver and the surrounding communities,” according to the July 23 lawsuit.
Waste Management’s lawyers are Dana Eismeier and Michael Ley at Burns Figa & Will.
Get more business news by signing up for our Economy Now newsletter.
Colorado homeowners grapple with significant hidden costs
A Bankrate study reveals that Colorado homeowners face extra expenses beyond their monthly mortgage costs.
Too many potential homeowners only plan for their down payment and mortgage payment.
But the Bankrate study shows Colorado homeowners face an average of $25,766 for upkeep and other costs, including property taxes, insurance, and utilities.
Inflation and aging housing stock pushed annual home maintenance costs to about $8,800, the highest expense Bankrate has recorded. At the same time, the increased number and severity of natural disasters and rising rebuilding costs have led to higher insurance premiums.
Colorado’s costs surpass the national average of $21,400, ranking Colorado as one of the top 10 states with the highest costs for home maintenance and property taxes.
HOA costsHomeowners Associations (HOAs) are becoming increasingly common, with 40.5 percent of listings in HOA communities in 2024, up from 39.2 percent in 2023, according to research by Realtor.com.
HOA fees are also getting more expensive, with the median monthly fee increasing from $100 to $125.
The Denver metro area, which includes Denver, Broomfield, and surrounding counties, has a significant number of HOAs. Colorado has over 11,300 condo and community associations.
Study findings:
- In 2024, 40.5% of for-sale listings had a nonzero HOA fee, an increase from 39.2% the previous year. The median HOA fee was $125 per month, up from $110.
- HOAs are more prevalent in newly constructed communities than in older ones, but their influence and membership costs are rising across homes of all ages.
- Condos, row homes, and townhomes are more likely to have HOA dues, often at higher rates than single-family homes, although HOA obligations are expanding for all types of listings.
A Zillow analysis shows that since 2019, home insurance premiums have increased by 38% nationally, while median homeowner income climbed only 22%.
Premiums are increasing the most in areas with higher climate risk, such as Colorado.
Homeowners in Colorado feel the financial strain as home insurance costs continue to rise.
According to a report from Insurify, premiums will rise by approximately 11% this year, reaching around $6,630.
Related Articles- July 23, 2025 Sponsored: How BuildStrong helps women crush construction industry barriers
- July 18, 2025 Sponsored: Picky buyers, stubborn sellers keep Colorado home prices high
- July 11, 2025 Sponsored: Time to buy? Denver housing market hits highest inventory in 14 years
- July 4, 2025 Sponsored: Denver ranks as third most desirable city for homebuyers despite high costs
- June 26, 2025 Sponsored: Why Denver homeowners are investing more in renovation projects
Colorado has some of the highest insurance rates in the United States, currently ranking fourth.
The risks associated with hail and wildfires are significant factors contributing to these rising insurance costs. Over 300,000 homes in Colorado are at risk of wildfire damage.
As premiums continue to climb, it becomes increasingly challenging for homeowners to find affordable insurance coverage.
The news and editorial staffs of The Denver Post had no role in this post’s preparation.
Denver says ‘one-and-done’ policy for concept plans could save developers time
Earlier this month, Denver rolled out an update to its permitting process that could shorten development timelines by several months.
It could be pretty transformational for us,” said Chris Gleissner, director of site design and neighborhood development for Denver’s Community Planning and Development Department.
Gleissner said the department is moving to a “one-and-done” process for concept plans, the first formal step in the development process in which developers pitch their initial drawings and proposals to the city.
In the past, these plans could go back and forth for several rounds, with city staff offering comments and an applicant seeking to address them.
“You might spend a lot of time in concept review cycles, working one particular issue, while at the same time feeling like you’re not progressing other known issues with your site,” Gleissner said, adding that the average has been 2.3 review cycles.
Developers can’t move on to the next step – the submission of a site development plan – until the concept plan is approved.
Under the new one-and-done process, unless an applicant requests to stay in the concept phase, all projects will enter the site development phase after a single city review.
“If you were going to assign an average to a concept plan review, it’s probably a good four to six months in the previous state, and this would significantly shorten that to a matter of one to two months,” Gleissner said.
The city receives concept plans in various forms – some are closer to napkin sketches, while others look like full-on site development plans.
Related Articles- Burnham Yard is near a Superfund site, but experts say that shouldn’t deter stadium development
- Town Pump Provisions coming to Cherry Creek North
- Denver may soon have multiple stadium districts along the South Platte River. Can the city support them all?
- Denver’s first $100 million in downtown grants unveiled for housing, business projects — and Civic Center
- Golden-area ranch owned by same family since 1911 on market for $14.85M
The expectation now is that applicants will submit as much information as they have. The city will give one well-rounded set of comments and things will get ironed out in the next phase.
“That could be significant for our applicants. That represents multiple months of time savings,” Gleissner said.
The change comes on the heels of numerous others within Denver’s planning and permitting apparatus. In April, Mayor Mike Johnston announced the creation of the Denver Permitting Office, which aims to funnel reviews from multiple departments into a singular agency that operates on a 18o-day “shot clock.”
Get more real estate and business news by signing up for our weekly newsletter, On the Block.
CQC left 'deeply concerned' after home inspection - ca.news.yahoo.com
Colfax business owners buy $120K retail condo for ‘community hub’
Jen Sevcik is playing defense on West Colfax.
Sevcik, along with her husband and two friends, purchased a 1,500-square-foot retail condo for $120,000 on the ground floor of the Circa West condominium building at the southwest corner of West Colfax Avenue and Vrain Street earlier this month.
Sevcik said the group stepped up to buy it after another deal, which would have seen the space become a laundromat that sells beer, fell through.
“To me, that was not necessarily going to change the trajectory of West Colfax … This play for us is as defensive as it is offensive,” Sevcik said.
The businesswoman and president of the West Colfax Business Improvement District runs three businesses across the street from the real estate she just bought. She wants to create a community-oriented space for creatives that is also a flexible event space.
One corner will serve as a dedicated photo and video studio, which can be rented by the hour. Adjacent to that will be an area for working and meetings. Sevick anticipates that it will draw a crowd of self-employed marketing and advertising professionals.
“[It’s] a community hub that centers around marketing, branding and PR, that has modular components that can offer small events,” Sevcik said.
Sevcik is teaming up with her husband, Tim Samp. The pair run Duality, a fitness studio across the street where “Orangetheory meets CorePower.” Next door is her cafe, Side Pony, serving up coffee and cocktails. And on the other side is Original Glam, a medical spa.
“All my businesses over there need a space to conduct their meetings … I’m at Side Pony talking about my staff that’s working behind the bar, and it’s not private and it’s loud,” she said.
Sevcik said they only need to make about $1,000 a month to cover the space’s expenses, so there’s less pressure to refine the plan before opening. Instead, she plans to “reverse engineer” the place a bit, letting her clients and customers use it and tell her what it needs. It’ll cost about $150,000 to build out the spot.
“This place doesn’t have to make a lot of money,” she said.
The other duo behind the buy are Chelsea and Juan Forero;, who run a local marketing company Forero Creatives. They plan to provide a wide range of services to companies and individuals looking to do advertising.
“Our little tagline that we have right now is ‘cultivating spaces for creatives,’” Chelsea said.
Related Articles- Town Pump Provisions coming to Cherry Creek North
- Furniture retailer Wayfair to open brick-and-mortar store in Denver in 2026
- Nightclub, restaurant eyed for building on downtown edge after $1M sale
- Colorado agency demolishes buildings at Denver’s Burnham Yard, stirring preservation backlash
- Developers offer to move Evergreen’s El Rancho Colorado across the road
“It’s a place where businesses and people in this corridor can come and collectively work together and build whatever they’re building a little bit more.”
Circa West was developed by local firm Flywheel Capital out of a former assisted living facility called Golden Manor. An executive with Denver’s Bow River Capital signed the sale paperwork on behalf of the Flywheel-formed LLC. Flywheel and Bow River didn’t respond to requests for comment.
A pair of Flywheel development sites flanking the building landed in foreclosure last year after its Arizona-based lender initiated the proceedings. That process has yet to be resolved.
Get more real estate and business news by signing up for our weekly newsletter, On the Block.
Denver Water’s effort to free up land for stadium could hit roadblock in condemnation laws
Colorado has some of the strictest rules against governments taking private property through eminent domain, and that could make it harder for the Denver Broncos to cross the goal line when it comes to building a new stadium in the Lincoln Park neighborhood.
The Colorado Constitution guarantees just compensation for any real estate acquired for a public use and allows owners to challenge whether a use is truly public. Statutes were tightened even more in 2006, with limits barring the use of eminent domain to claim property for economic development purposes or to boost tax revenues.
In short, when land is taken, it must be for genuine public uses, not as a workaround to benefit a private entity.
That matters because Denver Water has sent out “notices of intent” for nearly two dozen properties near its 36-acre campus, which is adjacent to Burnham Yard, a 58-acre site owned by the Colorado Department of Transportation. That former railroad yard, being prepared for sale, is considered a leading candidate for a new football stadium that the Denver Broncos are considering.
But land is also needed for surrounding developments like bars, restaurants, hotels and housing. Sports teams increasingly want to control those assets and profit from them, which requires a much larger footprint in the past.
“Different property owners are responding differently. We figured there was no reason not to go ahead and get an appraisal,” said Adam Foster, an attorney representing the owners of 1245 N. Umatilla St., which was among the properties between 12th and 14th avenues and between I-25 and Shoshone Street that received notices.
Denver Water has been fairly vague in explaining why it needs the land and what it intends to do with it, Foster said, adding that “At this time, we are taking them at their word that it is for a public process.”
The Broncos said the team has studied locating a new stadium in Denver, Aurora and Lone Tree. But since August, proxy companies tied to the team have purchased at least 13 parcels near Burnham Yard and made sellers sign nondisclosure agreements. That suggests the location south of the current stadium and on a light rail line is the leading candidate.
Even with those purchases, the Broncos still need some land from Denver Water’s campus next door to Burnham Yard, and the two sides have been discussing the matter for more than a year via frequent meetings.
“At this time, Denver Water is just exploring some voluntary acquisitions of properties near our Operations Complex to meet future operational needs. There are no set plans, as we are only evaluating potential options for the future,” said Travis Thompson, a communications manager with Denver Water.
Denver Water hasn’t acknowledged that it will need the parcels, which cover approximately 18 acres, to replace land it may sell to the Denver Broncos. And it has repeatedly emphasized the “voluntary” aspect of its purchase requests, which in the case of the Latino Cultural Arts Center’s Las Bodegas campus at 1935 W. 12th Ave. resulted in a rescinded offer to purchase its parcel.
Attorneys contacted said they expect the “notice of intent to acquire” letters that went out in April and May could eventually lead to a “petition for immediate possession” for owners who refuse the initial offer, which would start the formal eminent domain process.
“You have to send somebody that notice. It gives the landowner the chance to plan,” said Don Ostrander, an attorney with Hamre, Rodriguez, Ostrander & Prescott in Englewood who has worked on some of the state’s highest profile condemnation cases, including the assembly of land for Coors Field, RTD’s FasTracks project and E-470.
Appraisals are the next step. Denver Water has determined what it considers a fair value, and property owners are entitled to obtain an appraisal at the utility’s expense, essentially a second opinion.
“Most of the properties will be acquired through negotiation, but not all of them,” Ostrander said.
Owners near retirement, or who face costly repairs or clean-up to sell, or who aren’t up for a legal battle, may take an offer they find agreeable enough and call it a day. Others may push for a higher price or not want to sell.
Denver Water, despite the claim of everything being voluntary, has the ability to force a sale on those who refuse to reach terms, real estate attorneys said. Whether the utility has solid legal standing to do so is another matter.
“You can’t condemn property for an entity that doesn’t have the power to condemn,” Ostrander said. “They have to be careful about using it or they will put themselves at risk that someone says there isn’t a public purpose.”
A key question the courts may be asked to decide is if Denver Water would be acquiring the land in question absent a sale of land it currently owns to facilitate the development of a new stadium.
“The key issue comes down to whether this is for public infrastructure or deemed to benefit a private party. Colorado state law is pretty clear on that,” said Peter Towsky, a partner at Robinson & Henry in Highlands Ranch. “There is a potential trial awaiting each of these eminent domain takings.”
Denver Water building G and trucks at the Denver Water Administration campus with Empower Field at Mile High in the background in Denver on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (Photo by Andy Cross/The Denver Post)If Denver Water acquires land to replace land that will be sold to the Denver Broncos, a private party, it is violating Colorado’s rules on eminent domain actions, Towsky said.
“There are some seemingly legitimate questions that could be raised in a challenge over this,” he said. “The leverage lies with the property owners. If they challenge any of this in court, the public use aspect, that will delay things significantly.”
Richard B. Collins, an emeritus professor at the University of Colorado Law School and expert on eminent domain, however, said a judge could decline to link the two actions. Denver Water is within its rights to sell land it owns, and it can use eminent domain to acquire land that it needs.
“The courts could reject the claim by deeming the two parts of the plan as separate, so that Denver Water’s condemnations stand alone and are valid. The 2006 statute could be avoided by finding that the proposed scheme is not urban renewal,” he said.
Courts have been generous in defining what is of public purpose, and could declare that retaining the Broncos in Denver serves a public purpose, he said. And it will be hard to argue that Denver Water isn’t using the land it acquires for its campus, a public use.
“For these reasons, I think it likely that the courts would not invalidate the scheme. But I could be wrong,” he said.
Colorado tough on takingsColorado tightened its standards on eminent domain after the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority used a blighted designation to claim a privately-owned and spring-fed lake that was popular with locals. The plan was to fill the lake in and use it as a truck turnaround for a new Walmart.
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that economic dissatisfaction didn’t justify taking private property and that the condemnation was not permissible under urban renewal laws. Private property advocates in the state sought stronger safeguards in 2005, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kelo vs. City of New London that eminent domain could be used for economic development purposes.
The Colorado legislature in 2006 responded by passing a bill that prohibited takings solely for economic development purposes and required clear and convincing evidence of blight before private property can be condemned for redevelopment.
Retired Grand County Republican State Rep. Al White, a sponsor of that bill, said that Denver Water may be crossing a line if it resorts to eminent domain in a way that benefits the Broncos, who don’t have that power. Its approach is subtle, not flagrant, but in his view violates the protective intent of the legislation passed nearly two decades ago.
“If they go the eminent domain route to acquire property after selling to a private for-profit entity, that would seem to tip-toe across the line of what my bill was designed to do, i.e. prevent public takings for the benefit of private profit,” White said.
Aside from the public use argument, property owners could also challenge whether the price they are being offered is fair, the most common point of contention in eminent domain disputes.
BusinessDen in June reported that LLCs affiliated with the Denver Broncos assembled more than a dozen parcels near Burnham Yard. Some of the purchases carried premiums at two to three times the going rate of prior sales, which will make it harder for Denver Water to replace whatever land it gives up.
For example, Golden developer Jeff Shanahan paid $5.75 million for a building on 1.4 acres at 1530 W. 13th Ave. in March 2023. Backed by a loan from Denver, he planned to build affordable housing. But in January, an LLC affiliated with the Denver Broncos offered him more than double what he had paid — $12.5 million.
Owners want the “Broncos” price, not the “market” price that Denver Water calculated, and many are expected to hire appraisers to determine a value that reflects those purchases, sources familiar with the matter said.
Part of the Burnham Yard site, a 58-acre plot of land located between 6th and 13th Avenues and bounded by Seminole Road and Osage Street, is seen in Denver on June 7, 2025. (Photo by RJ Sangosti/The Denver Post)Complicated land transactions involving multiple parcels typically have some holdouts, Ostrander said. That was the case with Coors Field, when Mary Siiro and the Cowperthwaite family fought hard to retain their parcels for as long as they could. The legislature restored eminent domain powers to sports districts, including the Denver Metropolitan Major League Baseball Stadium District, allowing the project to move forward.
The Broncos, however, are expected to independently fund any new project rather than using a stadium district. That puts them in a better position to control the surrounding development and avoid the complications of partnering with taxpayers. But it leaves them without a powerful tool to acquire land.
Denver Water could proceed on its current course and make any purchases without using its power of eminent domain, an approach White favors and one that would avoid a fight over public use. But it may have to pay more, which could trigger complaints that it is harming customers to benefit a sports franchise. Or the Denver Broncos, with their deeper pockets, could also step in, buy up the land, and arrange a swap.
Landowners who can find a way to hold out could realize substantially higher values in five to 10 years as the area redevelops, Towsky said. But if the Broncos find it too difficult to assemble the land needed, they may pursue other options, including staying at Empower Field’s current location.
Breaking up a campusBurnham Yard is a brownfield site, and the contamination from decades spent as a railroad repair yard will need to be cleaned up. But the surrounding parcels, including the ones that Denver Water wants, aren’t officially blighted. They may not all look pretty, but aside from a few vacant lots and empty buildings slated to become apartments, most remain productively employed.
Tenants include HVAC and roofing contractors, a treatment center, a janitorial firm, a lighting supplier, an oil and gas company, and a distributor of trampolines. Most of the buildings were built in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, and a couple in the 1980s. The oldest, 1340 Umatilla St., dates to 1910.
“I suspect they will be successfully able to argue the case and purchase,” said Vivek Sah, director of the Franklin L. Burns School of Real Estate and Construction Management at the University of Denver’s Daniels College of Business, said of Denver Water’s efforts.
It is one thing if a public entity tried to condemn land in a productive area like Cherry Creek, and another in a tired industrial zone that could use a new lease on life. Too many interests are aligning in support of a new stadium at that location, Sah said.
Tenants typically receive assistance with moving expenses and owners, if they build a strong case on valuation, can likely achieve a price that works for them. Foster said the area, with or without a stadium, is changing rapidly and is ripe for redevelopment.
But owners and tenants alike will likely struggle to replace what they are giving up in terms of highway access, central location and lower cost. Many could find themselves pushed outside Denver city limits.
A view of the lobby inside the Denver Water Administration building in Denver on Wednesday, June 18, 2025. (Photo by Andy Cross/The Denver Post)Denver Water also faces significant trade-offs if it splits up its contiguous campus and moves some of its operations into the surrounding neighborhood, where cross streets and traffic will reduce the privacy and undisturbed access it now enjoys.
“It would be difficult. It’s probably not ideal. But nothing is as ideal as where they are now,” said Jim Lochhead, former CEO of Denver Water from 2010 to 2023.
Building a unified campus cost more than $200 million and years of planning to pull off. The main headquarters was completed in December 2019, right ahead of the pandemic.
Letting it go will not be easy, but Lochhead also acknowledged that the stadium and the redevelopment of the surrounding area presents an important economic driver for Denver. A new stadium has become a top priority for Mayor Mike Johnston, and Gov. Jared Polis is involved in the talks to sell Burnham Yard.
“It would be too bad for Denver Water to give up that campus or a portion of that campus, but it’s something that I think is for the good of the community, as long as Denver Water is kept whole and its customers are kept whole,” he said.
Denver Post reporter Elliott Wenzler contributed to this report.
