Letter: Yes to S. Bridge, no to ‘lofts’
In response to John Stroud’s very informative article entitled “City, Garfield County open South Bridge talks,” I must say I agree with Councilor Leo McKinney that South Bridge would ease traffic congestion all around. Virtually everyone who lives in the vicinity of Glenwood Springs or regularly travels through our town ought to support the construction of South Bridge.
But just the opposite needs to be said for Craig Helm’s so called “Fox Lofts” proposal to build 71 apartment units (without lofts) at an unwalkable location roughly half a mile north of the 27th Street and Midland Avenue traffic circle.
In order to build those 71 unwalkable units at 2225 Midland Ave., Mr. Helm must first persuade City Council to amend current zoning, which presently allows no more than 38 units at that location. That number (38) in itself makes little sense due to the fact that 2225 Midland Ave. lies smack in the middle of an unwalkable low-density housing neighborhood. And the idea of raising that limit even higher to 71 units is absolutely bonkers. For more on this, please see several previous letters at the PI website including Bob Herrell’s Nov. 21 letter entitled “Nightmare on Midland.”
Also, the addition of 71 housing units at yet another unwalkable city location along Midland Avenue would weaken the city’s argument that most of the traffic congestion at the 27th Street bridge comes from unincorporated parts of the county. That would not help the taxpaying residents of Glenwood Springs in terms of negotiating with Garfield County for South Bridge money.
Because so very much of it is unwalkable, most housing along the Midland Avenue corridor negatively impacts traffic all over town. And it will continue to do so at least until South Bridge is built. Hence, I say a resounding yes to South Bridge and an equally resounding no to Mr. Helm’s request for City Council to raise the allowable housing density to accommodate 71 new housing units at 2225 Midland.