I went to the Common Council meeting last night, and when the business of the Council was completed--including placing on the aldermen's desks a new law banning engine braking in Hudson, for which Alderman Ellen Thurston (Third Ward) was the sponsor--and Common Council President Don Moore asked for "new business" from the audience, I raised my hand and inquired about the riverfront park expansion plans--particularly the fate of the railroad trestle. Since Mayor Scalera was in the audience, Moore referred my question to him. I was told that the trestle is being inspected, and there are no plans to demolish it unless it proves to be unsafe and the safety issues prove unremediable. The cleanup, I was told, is being done with great discrimination: according to Scalera, only dead trees and bushes are being removed; according to DPW Superintendent Rob Perry (whose opinion I got secondhand), mostly sumac is coming out. The cleanup uncovered a "salvage yard," which is the source of the reported metal and scrap. Clean fill is being brought in, but its source was not disclosed.
As far as the plans for this expansion, the City continues to follow what was suggested in the 1996 Hudson Vision Plan. Riprap will be installed around the embayment and grass will be planted. Trees and brush on the south side of the embayment will not be removed because doing so would expose the "rusty salt shed"--that is, the large buttressed cement building, built in 1910, known as the Lower Mill Stock House.
While I was at it, I asked about the containers sitting in the fenced area next to the Dunn's warehouse building that was originally the coal gasification works. I hadn't noticed them until a few weeks ago but was told they have been there for months. The crews working on the renovation of Hudson Terrace are storing their materials there.
This morning, I went down to the waterfront to take some pictures--most of which I share with you here to save you all the trip. The western edge of the new section of the park affords a clear view of the Holcim/O&G dock. Remember the "industrial tourism" SLC spoke of so enthusiastically when they were promoting their "Greenport Project"?
Carole, I must have just missed you this morning. I did the tour and am a bit worried about the bridge. It has the look of imminent departure (a quick-and-dirty version of eminent domain)... Also, did you notice the hand-hewn poles along the "pier" (not sure if that's the proper term)of the news revealed inlet; beautiful stuff, and, like the train trestle, worth preserving.... there are also some interesting industrial refuse, certainly salvageable. Can't somebody detail a historic preservation person down there and slow this thing down? --peter
ReplyDeleteTo follow up (and respond to Peter's comment): While I was walking William this morning along Warren Street (between 7 and 8, after the riverfront park visit which I did solo shortly before 6--she travels fastest who travels alone), Rob Perry, who was heading down to the waterfront in a DPW truck, stopped to talk to me about the plans for the park expansion. He spoke of the trestle and other vestiges of the area's industrial past and said he hoped that everything could be preserved. He told me he was checking maps to confirm where the Holcim boundaries were, sharing the idea that the trestle might be the entrance to a little ramble in the area between the road along the railroad tracks to the dock and the fence around the stock house.
ReplyDeleteHe also told me that the metal scrap they were uncovering was left over from the days when they used to crush cars on the waterfront. According to him, a barge with a car crusher on it would pull into that slip and all the area's junked cars would be taken down there to be crushed. He also said that they were not disturbing whatever is buried there--fearing environmental issues--but were simply covering it with clean fill.
So far as plans for the new section of the park are concerned, Rob said that for the time being they would probably just be planting grass. I reminded him that years ago Dan Grandinetti had proposed that the southernmost part of the park be developed as a dog park and suggested that, if there were a fenced area designed specifically for dogs and their humans, people might stop running their dogs in the area around the gazebo, where people sit on the ground for concerts and other events. Also, if we had a dog park (this is a point I didn't make to Rob because I didn't think of it until later), other dog owners could police those who failed to clean up after their pets, since dog feces presents a greater health hazard to other dogs than to humans. Rob didn't seem too enthusiastic about the idea, but now it's out there again.
I for one think dogs are a blight on Hudson, I know that's cantankerous, but why is it only the dogless residents who see the all the shit & hear all the barking? I hope we don't sanctify them further by offering up a small slice of heaven to them. A dog park uptown maybe, but not there. The peace would be Shattered, the joy diminished, and the sanctimonious dog owners given an even larger slice of our world. Isn't it enough I have to listen to the non stop barking in my own home? Now I have to hear them while I enjoy the waterfront? I think not.
ReplyDeletecaninaphobe, right on! In total agreement with what you write.
ReplyDelete- dog owners (3rd Ward).
I visited the site at low tide and the trees that you picture have been there a long time and should come out. City did a great job so far though.
ReplyDeleteOne of the best things about the ongoing cleanup is that it reveals just how close the barges are docked in proximity to our waterfront park. Imagine yourself there, trying to enjoy the riverbank, with tons of rocks and gravel being dumped nearby. What the hell are our city officials thinking?
ReplyDeleteanon: "I visited the site at low tide and the trees that you picture have been there a long time and should come out."
ReplyDeleteThose eastern cottonwoods are incredible - looking, sounding, and shading - they should not go anywhere, I loathe to think you intended that statement.
This cleaning / clearing is like that bull in a china shop.
ReplyDeleteThe DPW hasn't a clue about parks, tree pruning or items of historical value / interest.
Lo ok Doc,loathe away. I said the trees in the bay that previous tides brought in-they need to be removed. Take a hike down there yourself and you will finally admit the anom is right. Please don't tell me you are an arborist too.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Anonymous is talking about living trees at all. S/he is talking about cut trees and branches--river debris--that are at the bottom of the slip, covered by water most of the time but exposed at low tide. I saw them this morning, and they're shown in one of the first pictures I published with this post.
ReplyDeleteThe tide comes up around the roots of the older cottonwoods, my mistake! Wait anon, what did I claim to be, opinionated hack notwithstanding? And hey, is doesn't make one an arborist to know a cottonwood, but thanks!
ReplyDeleteBut is what they're doing illegal? Isn't the DEC the ones to ask? It's typical that those who seem to imply it don't try and learn the answer.
ReplyDeleteTo be safe, all of the parcels along the river ought to presumed to be contaminated and in need of remediation until proven otherwise. Some remediation on shore has occurred, but much can be assumed to remain both on the banks and underwater.
ReplyDeleteFor example, one can find in DEC records the statement that contamination from the former Lockwood/NiMo areas migrated into the sediments along the shoreline. As such, while making positive improvements it is crucial to know what you're dealing with and not stir up any buried material.
--Sam P.
To protect the railway bridge they should make a wall to protect it from the major driftwood that can cause damage to it!
ReplyDelete