I assumed the city wouldn't keep ownership of the property, but rather give it over to private development. That would be better for the tax base. The article doesn't say.
I prefer to see inner-city revitalization over more urban sprawl. Denver keeps bleeding out onto the plains in a never-ending tide of construction. Easier to maintain city services with a smaller footprint, too. (When I say "Denver," I really mean the whole metropolis from Boulder to Parker.)