Must the price of creating safe access to the waterfront be the demolition of this remnant of Hudson history?
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Bridging Past and Present
A comment on an earlier Gossips post about the Ferry Street Bridge pointed out that our much maligned bridge to the waterfront is indeed a historic bridge, one of very few structures at the waterfront that have survived demolition during the 20th century. The comment inspired a reader to create this montage, showing the bridge as it was when the waterfront was filled with hotels, warehouses, and an active steamboat landing and as it is now.
Must the price of creating safe access to the waterfront be the demolition of this remnant of Hudson history?
Must the price of creating safe access to the waterfront be the demolition of this remnant of Hudson history?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I've heard a couple rumors that CSX might someday close the Broad St. grade crossing for safety reasons. As much as that would inconvenience Hudson residents, it would have the effect of making Holcim's dock inaccessible by heavy truck, which would be a very good thing. So this leads me to wonder if there is some conveyor mechanism being contemplated that would move the gravel over the CSX rail line?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, it is astonishing that the City of Hudson spent 25 years and close to half a million dollars to develop a waterfront plan that leaves us with an outcome this bad. On top of that, the Governor recently gave out a $2 million grant of taxpayer money that is funding a trans-rail depot in Greenport, presumably to build a facility will be a staging area for loading O & G / Colarusso gravel onto trains. This whole thing is nothing but a giant corporate welfare scheme at the expense of the quality of life of the citizens and taxpayers of Hudson.
Is it surprising to learn that the planning for that gravel staging area was well underway when the LWRP "alternatives" were being discussed in the environmental impact statement?
ReplyDeleteWhen a public comment on the GEIS asked about the rail transport of gravel as an alternative to using the South Bay causeway, the official GEIS responder, Cheryl Roberts, pretended not to understand the question and proceeded to answer an unrelated question to the one posed.
In all due respect Gizmo, I wonder what parameters you've used to arrive at that dollar figure when the bathrooms alone at the waterfront park cost nearly a half a million! (No sweat though, since most of that was "free" money too.)
ReplyDeleteWith the exception of a few, the greater part of Hudsons Common Council doesn't really care enough to have a vision for this town fraught with huge positive possibilities.
ReplyDeleteThis was a really nice opportunity to take what was mercifully left from Urban Remuddle and create a City to be proud of with the blessings of new people saving one building at a time.
What a sad state of affairs we have in this god forsaken place.
They remind me of binge drinkers: as long as the money keeps flowing that's their primary focus, consequences be damned.
ReplyDeleteThe difference is that there are no personal consequences for their short-sightedness. Others will live the consequences of their money-grubbing, and their names will be forgotten.
The means used to achieve these unimaginative goals are another matter. Residents should scrutinize the council's methods to determine how it is that public dialogue is routinely circumvented nowadays.
Whenever there were controversial issues in the past, at least we were able to count on being patronized, and seeing some window dressing. Apparently even that is no longer necessary!
City government has mutated into an ingrown, self-sufficient cliche (except that our money is required to perpetuate this arrangement).