Very little of the original house remains. Not only was the front wall rebuilt as a single course of brick over a new wall constructed behind it, but the bricks that were used are not original to the house; they were salvaged from the Brick Tavern that once stood at the intersection of Routes 66 and 9H. It isn't just the front wall that is newly constructed. Word has it that the entire house behind the brick veneer facade has been rebuilt. A house that was originally post and beam construction is now balloon construction. The roof has a Philadephia style gutter which never appeared in the drawings submitted to the Historic Preservation Commission--in fact, this type of gutter never appeared on buildings in Hudson until the latter part of the 19th century and does not seem to be a type of gutter that was used in Hudson in the late 18th century, when this house was built. And then there are the windows, with mullions that are far too wide for the period and, on the second floor, a configuration that is rarely if ever seen: six over nine.
Still this bastardization of one of Hudson's most historically significant houses is a cause for celebration in some quarters. See W. T. Eckert's report in the Register-Star: "Worth House restoration unveiled." Restoration? Whoever came up with that title wasn't very careful about his or her choice of words.
1 st class award in suburban kitsch goes to ...
ReplyDeleteNow on to conquer that library mess !
Historic preservation and code enforcement should get together and pass a law allowing the demolition of Hudsons historic architecture to make it easier for reinvention (new form of restoration) for this rich man who could afford to do it right but just can't.
Carole's points ate well taken I'm sure. (I haven't seen the unveiled house.)
ReplyDeleteMy question is this, however: if indeed the house was falling down, or in disrepair, and no one else was fixing it, then isn't what Galloway is doing, i.e,, rehabbing and making a house more useful, better than doing nothing at all?
Who else is stepping forward tom do a better job?
-- Jock Spivy
Jock, that's the wrong question, put to the wrong people. We -- the community -- should ask Mr. Galloway why, if he's going to rehab a falling down house, can't he do it properly?
ReplyDeletecheers,
peter
The proper term is actually muntin.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, we have to ask what is "useful". Is it more useful that we have a gutted and vacant rebuilt approximation of history, rather than an authentic and honest building, albeit still in need of loving restoration? In this particular case, its pretty obvious to me, that this building's historical significance demanded we weigh the benefit of immediate availability in this saturated housing market, with the benefit of appropriate and respectful restoration. This building has sat for 200 years, I would have certainly been happy to let it sit for 2 more, had that facilitated finding an appropriate owner to respect the architecture. Onward to one of the most beautiful Federal stone buildings in the Northeast!
Jonathan David--Muntins, mullions--by any name, they're too wide.
ReplyDeleteAmen Carole.
ReplyDeleteWhat bothers me is that a set of plans was submitted to our Historic Preservation Committee and then flagrantly ignored. Classic bait and switch. If HPC had real and significant enforcement capabilities, developers couldn't get away with this. I'm not pleased that Galloway offered to do the right thing and then did not .....knowing full well that Hudson does not have the power to level any sort of significant fines or other deterrants.
ReplyDeleteI'm not saying he did a good job on the Worth House. Who in Hudson is going to do a better job on more buildings? Is there another live, active (not notional) developer willing to spend lots of money in Hudson? Who else has financed new residential construction in central Hudson in recent years (not renovation of existing stock)? Seems to me Galloway has saved a lot of crappy buildings. He's obviously far from perfect. But who on a developer scale is better? Can anyone name that developer?
ReplyDelete-- Jock Spivy
Could someone enlighten me the difference of single course & three corse brick? Or refer a link that illustrates? Unable to find it in a search, Thank you.
ReplyDeleteLike mullion, course was the wrong word to use. I should have used the word wythe. The walls of old brick houses are typically three bricks thick, and the wythes--or the thicknesses of brick--are interlocking. The way the interlocking is done accounts for historic brick patterns--Flemish bond, English bond, common bond. A brick wall that is only one wythe thick is not a structural wall but rather a veneer over a structural wall.
ReplyDeleteAt the General Worth House, they took down the original structural wall that was the facade and replaced it with a new wall--not of brick. Then to make it appear as it did before, they put a layer of brick--a single wythe--over that wall.
Jonathan David, do you want to correct any of this?
Jock, why do you challenge us to name someone "on a developer scale" who is better? Why is that important? Forgive me but your position is not much different from that of the people who think everything Galloway does is fine because the buildings "look better than they did."
ReplyDeleteWhat people are objecting to is someone with what would seem to be an endless supply of money who is buying up buildings and altering them to suit his will, seeming to pay little attention to historic authenticity and showing little respect for genuine historic fabric. What people are objecting to is someone who is compromising the historic integrity of Hudson--on a very large scale. What is most frustrating to many of us is that someone who according to Rick Scalera "loves Hudson" is destroying, with everything he does, the very thing that makes the rest of us love Hudson--the city's authentic historic character. He has the resources to do right by Hudson's historic architecture, but for some incomprehensible reason--incomprehensible to me, at least--he doesn't or won't.
Carole,
ReplyDeleteThe historic preservations go too far. If you have a vision of how buildings in Hudson should be restored, why don't you buy the buildings and restore them as you wish. It is presumptuous, at best, for you to sit on the sideline being judgmental and suggesting how other people should spend their money. Hudson needs to move past the eighteenth century.
I'm not being presumptuous, piperlman. It's the law in Hudson.
ReplyDeleteChapter 169-1 of the City Code reads:
It is hereby declared, as a matter of public policy, that the protection, enhancement, and perpetuation of landmarks and historic districts are necessary to promote the economic, cultural, educational, and general welfare of the public, inasmuch as the identity of a people is founded on its past, and inasmuch as the City of Hudson has many significant historic, architectural, and cultural resources which constitute its heritage, this chapter is intended to:
A. Protect and enhance the landmarks and historic districts which represent distinctive elements of Hudson's historic, architectural, and cultural heritage;
B. Foster civic pride in the accomplishments of the past;
C. Protect and enhance Hudson's attractiveness to visitors and the support and stimulus to the economy thereby provided;
D. Insure the harmonious, orderly, and efficient development of the City; and
E. Promote stewardship through education, advisement and consultation.
You don't destroy your history on the pretext of embracing the future.
That section of the City Code sure has turned Hudson into a bustling business and population center. Well done! How great was the population drop in the last census? Do you consider Hudson to be doing well economically?
ReplyDeleteActually, I do. Were you out and about in Hudson at all today?
ReplyDeleteI addressed the myth of population growth equals prosperity months ago. I suggest you take a look. http://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2011/03/census-figures-for-hudson.html
Carole of course everyone should follow the rules. If Galloway is supposed to do thoings and doesn't, then that's obviously wrong. I'm not excusing him if he's doing things illegally but it's then up to Hudson to police itself. But I don't think everything single thing I've seen him do is terrible. I think he has rescued some real wrecks and I guess I just don't think he merits what seems not to be criticism but endless vilification. And who else is stepping forward in a big way to do what you want?
ReplyDelete-- jock Spivy
Thank you for the clairification on the brick construction. This house was owned by a family member (the deed is handwritten) and although those that lived there are no longer with us, my husband and I did have the opportunity to tour the house prior to the restoration/renovation. Our family had a wonderful rose garden in the back. Just experiencing the "molecules" of family and history made the short visit special and memorable.
ReplyDeleteWhy, Jock, is it important that someone "step forward in a big way"? "Real wrecks" were being rescued all over town by people with less money and more appreciation and respect for historic fabric. The results of these individual, smaller scale efforts are much more satisfying and more effective in building a vital community than large-scale "development."
ReplyDeleteCarole I was just wondering if there's someone else at Galloway's level of real estate activity whom you like better in Hudson. I take your reply to mean that no, there is no one.
ReplyDeleteI've been in Columbia County for 27 years. My impression is that Galloway has done more good than harm in Hudson.
Jock--There is no one at Galloway's level of real estate activity period--unless you count Phil Gellert.
ReplyDeleteThere are many people who live not just in Columbia County but in Hudson and have invested their money and energy and passion in bringing this city back from the edge who would disagree with you. The idea that you, as an observer, have this impression is quite disappointing.
The answer to Jock's question is that countless individuals were doing restoration right (mostly) before Galloway's arrival, and continue to do so since.
ReplyDeleteThere is no need for a "big" developer. The slow, steady process of improvement does not require that anyone swoop in and buy 40+ buildings, then rehab them all in a short time frame, in an ersatz historical style—or build from scratch. There are still many underutilized properties in Hudson, including a large number being warehoused by some of these same "big" players (see below).
The evidence is that that process happens much more appropriately and naturally one building at a time, driven by individuals with somewhat differing tastes and budgets. (That's how Hudson got the way it did in the first place, right?) If an individual of relatively modest means makes a bad decision, it's only one house, and it's usually a small-scale mistake. If a developer makes the same mistakes on dozens of properties, it changes the whole town.
Ironically, it was most likely the investment and care which dozens and dozens of individuals of far lesser means—working on their own house in which they live themselves, making changes that they have to live with every day—which attracted Mr. Galloway and his partner, Mr. van Ameringen, to Hudson in the first place.
For many decades it was assumed that there were only two options for houses which had become empty or fallen into disrepair: demolish, or renovate on the cheap. Individual property owners proved this mentality wrong. Buildings identical to those torn down or bastardized prove still amenable to restoration 10, 20 or even 30 years later.
(It sometimes feels like a lot of the resentment expressed toward these individual homeowners is simply a displacement of anger for not having had the same foresight and vision. Those who are kicking themselves for not seeing that opportunity should not take out their frustration on those who did.)
A bigger question I have for developers like Galloway and van Ameringen, along with Eleanor Ambos: Why are you warehousing so many properties? Why, for example, has the apartment building on the corner of 2nd and Warren, which once housed 8-12 families, still empty since the tenants were booted 5-6 years ago?
Galloway is buying up and hoarding Hudsons historic stock. Most sit empty or boarded up with holes in their roofs. What you see in his transformations is just a handful of buildings he has actually worked on. In reality he hates anything old. Galloway prefers to build new and wants to make the historic properties into his new vision of old through extreme alteration of the original.
ReplyDeleteJock, with what you have done to your beautiful home, this shouldn't be so hard to understand.
Hudson doesn't need a mass developer and never did. Properties are purchased by individuals that want to care and live here.
Galloway is preventing that on a large scale with his limitless funds for hoarding and his subsidized substandard approach.
We all lose in the end what we have here and for future attraction.
It feels like I've said this here previously, but want to chime in again. The word that always comes to my mind on subjects like this is stewardship. Defined as: the conducting, supervising, or managing of something; especially : the careful and responsible management of something entrusted to one's care .
ReplyDeleteI ask myself: what kind of steward am I over the home and small bit of land I've been blessed with in Hudson? I ask the same question (albeit to myself) of others and other properties I observe around town. As a sidenote example: I was heartened two weeks ago to watch a family, neighbors who live in one of Phil Gellert's disastrous rentals, work all afternoon to edge their lawn and walks. They are "careful stewards;" Gellert is not.
By comparison, Eric Galloway has the ability and means to be a more careful
steward over the properties he owns. This is unfortunate- despite the good he does do in Hudson.