I'd be happy if they demolished it and put in a nice plaque with pictures like the one from 1899 that was shared above, then opened up a path down to the river with some picnic benches or something. Maybe re-use that sign and some of the wood siding to build a little covered picnic area.

They've already improved a few other stops along the river road, like the one that features the restored memorial to Billy Westall, the train conductor who managed to save all 450 passengers from the crash where he lost his own life:
https://jeffcowestjeffersonms.ss12.shar ... Id=1522351

Additional nuggets of the local history would only serve to make visits to this area more enjoyable, but it's already pretty great as it is.

Which, to be fair, is expected in this particular instance since the purpose of acquiring the land was to build a dam and place the property underwater. Absent legislation/rules/regulations which require land acquired under eminent domain to have historic buildings preserved/relocated somewhere, whenever land is acquired by a public entity you're going to run into this situation. I'm sure if a benefactor could be found Denver Water would allow the structure to be moved/restored at a different location, but given the outcome sought by Denver Water is to submerge the land, there's no reason to spend public money restoring a structure that they intend to submerge at some point absent a regulatory requirement that they do so.

What is this talk about DW expanding and submerging the area ? I have not seen or read anything about this.
Are you all talking about the decades old Two Forks project that was vetoed and been shelved. It was because of that denied project that DW then proposed and has now started the Gross Res expansion.

Personally I am against any further expansion of reservoirs etc because it is merely kicking the problem down the road.
But thats a subject for a different post, another time.

Yes, Denver Water acquired the land upon which sits the South Platte Hotel as part of the Two Forks Dam project. They acquired the land with the intention of building the Two Forks Dam and submerging the land beneath the waters of the reservoir behind the dam. The dam may have been denied, but Denver Water still owns the land, and the hotel. The land is an asset in the City & County of Denver portfolio, just as the Denver Mtn Parks are, and it receives about as much attention from the city as the parks do. I'm sure you've driven by the Denver Mtn Park just below Kittredge, if memory serves me still its called Corwina Park, and the huge stone BBQ that sits rotting and unusable that is visible from the road. Same story, different location. Denver owns the land (it actually took an act of Congress to acquire the land for the Denver Mtn Parks, but that's another history thread), but they really have no interest in investing capital to keep any of the properties up

And yes, for now the Two Forks project is dead . . . the EPA denied the permit to build it. That doesn't mean that in the future Denver won't try to resurrect the project to supply water for the area and try their luck with the EPA again at some point in the future. That's why Denver Water won't be selling off the land they acquired for the dam project anytime soon or be inclined to spend any money to maintain that property or restore any historic buildings that may be on it anytime soon.

In a quick (really quick) skim of the Colorado River Agreement, I don't see anything that precludes Two Forks forever. PS is right, just wait for another administration with different priorities and rules, and the EPA could make an entirely different decision.

And of course it all depends on the water situation in the coming years.

According to this bit of research, https://foothillsgenealogy.org/resource ... _final.pdf, the Two Forks Dam was first proposed in 1902, then again in 1950.

There are also a few additional nuggets of the history of the hotel and surrounding area to be found in this document.

Not sure I really understand what 'preserving' the building means. I definitely don't see any value in preserving it in its current condition.
Does 'preserve' actually mean to restore for the sake of this poll?
If so, then what would happen after it was 'preserved?'
Would it be an actual hotel again? A museum? Would it be able to generate enough income to pay for the restoration and sustain its maintenance after it was completed?

Broadest definition of "preserve" is to keep intact. To accomplish "preserving" the structure would, I think, necessitate some degree of restoration/remodeling, certainly addressing the outside of the structure (siding, roof, windows, doors) to prevent further damage from the elements would be indicated.

I do, however, think that the only way of preserving the structure would be to dismantle and move it to another location, restore/remodel it and put it to some form of commercial use. That's a tall order for the structure at the current time. Not sure you'd find anyone willing to go to the expense at this point, but you never know . . .