An article that appeared in the Chatham Courier for December 23, 1891, contained this recollection of watching the train leave the station at 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
It was an interesting sight to see a train start out of the Hudson upper station to go to West Stockbridge at 3 o'clock. The writer can remember when a small child in 1845 being taken by his father to "see the cars." The locomotive looked rather too formidable and a good distance was maintained as the idea was uppermost that there might be a discharge of steam or something of the kind that might prove fatal. But when the bell began to ring and old Capt. James Bagley, the conductor, mounted to his place on the foot board then it was interesting. One of the things that the writer can perfectly remember was than Benjamin Gates, the prominent New Lebanon Shaker, was one of the passengers.The Hudson and Berkshire Railroad evolved first into the Hudson and Boston line and then became the Hudson Branch of the Albany & Boston Railroad. In 1959, after more than a century of operation, permission was granted to close the line. The removal of the tracks began in 1960. The tracks that remain today extend only as far as the ADM plant in Greenport. On August 20, 1959, an article in the Chatham Courier, commemorating the first railroad in Hudson, contained this reminiscence from the early years of the 20th century.
In the fall, when leaves turned scarlet there was always "The Vassar Special" bringing carloads of pretty girls en route to their New England homes for the holidays, leaving many a palpitating heart among the young swains who viewed this gay, feminine trainload on its way through the countryside.
By 1910 there were four passenger trains a day running between Chatham and Hudson. Trains moved daily between Hudson Station, Hudson Upper Station on State Street, Claverack, a flag stop at Country Club, Mellenville, Pulver's Station, Ghent and Chatham.
A wooden-legged Civil War veteran, "Font" Osborne of Hudson, bellowed out the stations from his conductor's post, while up front, Jim Armstrong of Hudson, the engineer, knew every lane and cow crossing and sounded a warning blast or tooted at a farmer friend doing his spring plowing at Old Ghent."Hudson Station," now the Amtrak Station, was built in 1874 and meticulously restored in 1992. "Hudson Upper Station" is older, possibly dating from the late 1830s, and deserves to be similarly respected and restored. It cannot be allowed to suffer the fate visited upon a building from the same era or earlier in recent months. Fortunately, the train station is in a historic district, and, unlike 900 Columbia Street, its destruction can be prevented.
Why must an old dilapidated building "be respected and restored"? Shouldn't the rights of the property owner be respected?
ReplyDeleteOnce again other than what seems to me to be some misplaced sentiment there is nothing "historical" about it. It is just old.
"Gossips" made a solid case for changing such perceptions as yours. Property owner rights need to be considered, to be sure, and hopefully a mutually beneficial outcome can be realized here. It's too important to have anything else.
DeleteIn this case, it is old and attractive.
DeleteHow many old unattractive bldgs in this city have been beautifully restored when they were literally falling down? Isn't old, what history is?
DeleteCarole, Where does Historic Presevation Committee meet?
ReplyDeleteCity Hall--in the Council Room.
DeleteWhy are they tearing it down? To make another parking lot? That building I've always admired and thought that could have been renovated and put to good use generating income for an owner and the city. Understanding and respecting the current owner of this building and his plans, but over the years we tear more and more down, turn into derelict areas and/or parking lots, and then people wonder why the burden of taxes is on the shoulders of the few. We should re-evaluate and inventory the vacant and derelict properties and form a plan for positive development and marketing to prospective investors "whom have good intentions in alignment of Hudsons positive growth" to make better use of these properties. A diminishing population and under utilized and/or poor planning and zoning restrictions should be evaluated to mitigate the continuation of this decline.
ReplyDeleteWhen I moved here the Cannonball/Dress Factory at 4th and Columbia was just a "dilapidated old building" , made of brick, with giant holes in it, available for purchase at $18,000, if I remember correctly. Now it houses offices for a multi-million dollar internet company, Etsy. It was a project at least 10 times bigger than what restoring this historic train station would be .
ReplyDeleteI have always looked at the uniqueness of that bldg and wished that someone had the wherewithal to make it into a cafe', or special restaurant, or shop altho' the proximity to the tracks poses a problem...But I hope it can be saved...
ReplyDeleteWhat legal rights are given to HPC by the City of Hudson to challenge a Property owner in their decision to alter, demolish, etc. a Historical bldg.? Is HPC's input/review limited to Historical Districts only?
ReplyDeleteYou can read the law for yourself, tmdonofrio. It's Chapter 169 in the City Code, accessible online at the City of Hudson website: cityofhudson.org.
DeleteIve always envisioned this depot as the foundation of an upper State St tourist destination-a railroad museum.. It breathes history more than most buildings in Hudson. It was a corner station on one of the oldest railroads in america; it watched horses pull early loads of coal on wooden rails w steelstraps to the Berkshires and beyond; the coming of steam engines and a new economic revival for Hudson; the factories that were serviced and whose products were all switched on freight cars in the yard at State st depot. I was lucky enuf to meet a older man years ago who was a B&A employee there at the station the day he line switched from steam to diesel- another huge chapter in industrial america. Why wouldnt the station be put to use as a small museum (ie phoenecia, ny) w dioramas and pictures inside, and possibly getting an old steam engine and early Alco diesel up on those side tracks that are still visible in the dirt next to the station? Railfans are another dedicated tourist group who i believe would flock here if it was done right...
ReplyDeleteThis building is a contributing structure in a National Register historic district and it is in the Warren Street local historic district. It is protected from demolition and inappropriate alteration by chapter 169 of the City code. That's the law. Period. Don't like it? Sell it and move on. Further, its proximity to the railroad tracks may make it susceptible to Section 106 review, but I'm not sure. Put it this way: There are enough question marks that it could be a very long, expensive process for an owner adamant that he should raze the building.
ReplyDeleteThe mindset that an owner should be able to do whatever he wants with a building because he owns it is ridiculous. Should he be able to make changes and alterations that violate code? Why not? He owns it. Should he be able to dump toxic waste in the basement? Why not? He owns it. Can he pile as many tenants inside as he wants, and provide one crummy toilet and no fire protection? Why not? He owns it. Just because you own something does mean that the law be damned, like it or not.
Saying a building owner should be able to do whatever they want with their building is tantamount to saying that one should be able to mistreat a pet--because they own it--or burn money because they can. Anyone who thinks that way shouldn't be allowed to have a pet or doesn't deserve to be rich. Same goes for historically significant buildings. The fact that one fails to recognize, appreciate and respect that significance is neither here nor there. It is illegal to abuse your dog or destroy US currency. And it’s illegal to alter or demolish the train station without HPC approval.
Goodness, we don't need to appeal to universalist-type assertions, analogies to dog-beating, or what have you. Other communities are not lesser for having more open codes, or even no codes at all.
DeleteIt's just that in this community, we're justified if we interfere with our neighbor's private property uses in this way.
Courts have long held that aesthetically-motivated zoning does not violate the US Constitution (US Supreme Court, "Welch v. Swansy," 1909). Lower courts have since recognized aesthetic or "form-based zoning" to be a proper community objective.
But Hudson is exceptional in this regard, in that its founders at their first meeting on May 14th 1784, laid out a form-based principle for their new city:
"Seth Jenkins, John Thurston, Daniel Paddock, Joseph Barnard, Thomas Jenkins, Gideon Gardner and David Lawrence were appointed a committee 'to regulate streets, and to attend in a particular manner to the fixing [of] the buildings uniformly.' ... '[No] person should fix his house without such direction from a majority of the committee as they might think proper ...'"
As you say, "the City Code is the law, period."
The Bill of Rights protects us in this regard: people are free not to buy in the City of Hudson if they have a valid disagreement with the values our proprietors laid down 229 years ago.
Nice One !!!
DeleteHear, Hear!
DeleteWhat can anyone add to that? 100 percent on the money.
ReplyDelete"Other communities are not lesser for having more open codes, or even no codes at all."(unheimlich, I think you mean
ReplyDelete"Local Historic Preservation Legislation"
not lesser or no codes at all.)?
because if you don't.....that's not true in NYS. Historic protected buildings or not.
From: http://www.dos.ny.gov/cnsl/lg03.htm
"The code, called the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Building Code (the “Uniform Code”), took effect January 1, 1984 and prescribes minimum standards for both fire prevention and building construction. It is applicable in every municipality of the State (except the City of New York, which was permitted to retain its own code).
The Uniform Code is automatically in effect in each municipality in the State (except New York City) by directive of the State Legislature. An individual city, town, or village cannot choose to exclude itself from all or any part of the Uniform Code."
[Hudson seems to have a problem grasping this.]
[However,.a municipality in NYS may have under certain circumstances].
D. More Restrictive Local Standards. [not less]
[Also in NYS a municipality may have]
Local Historic Preservation Legislation
. [Tragically, until beginning approx..10 yrs ago( as I have been told),this did not exist here, to protect a lot of the Proprietors original grid buildings, or many historic properties, with the few exceptions of National and State Historic Registerd sites.Only by dedicated private steward/ owners and also just general lack of money to "gut renovate", were many saved. What hasn't been bulldozed on a good portion of Northside, remains unprotected. Fortunately, as Ward Hamilton points out, the former Hudson and Berkshire Railroad Train Station, is protected, now]
From:http://www.dos.ny.gov/lg/publications/Legal_Aspects_of_the_Municipal_Historic_Preservation.pdf
"Municipalities have authority to enact their own
historic preservation laws, which is unaffected by
the listing or lack of listing of properties on the
National and State Registers. Local historic
preservation laws may cover properties of purely
local historic interest, as well as those listed on the
National and State Registers, or both. Local
governments have several avenues to preserve
historic resources within their community. The
zoning enabling statutes for cities, towns and
villages provide authority for the protection of
historic resources through local zoning laws."
Municipalities may also enact site plan review laws
either in conjunction with zoning laws or as
separate enactments. Lastly, local governments
may regulate historic properties by enacting a
landmark preservation law as authorized by §96-a
or under Article 5-K of the General Municipal Law"
.......
[this is a sad story]
Gossips of Rivertown
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Hudson's Lost Historic District, Part I
"In the National Register of Historic Places, there are two entries for the Front Street-Parade Hill-Lower Warren Street Historic District. In the first entry, added in 1970, there were 95 buildings; in the second entry for the same district, added in 1986, there were only 25 buildings...."[ great article]
............................
Yes, codes that are in excess of the basic "uniform" building code. Thanks for being more clear than I.
DeleteBut before we get too complacent about our historic preservation laws, recall that this is Hudson, and officials are selective about which laws they'll honor.
Only three months ago, an installation in the Promenade Hill park, which lies within the Front Street-Parade Hill historic district, was executed in defiance of federal and state historic preservation procedure and law, and in defiance of the conditions made by the original grantors of the land. (Note: if you're thinking of granting anything to Hudson, any conditions you may attach are easily ignored despite the fact that the city code forbids it.)
Fortunately, there's no Statute of Limitations on the effrontery in the Front Street-Parade Hill district.
Unfortunately, I can't find anyone in this city of sophists who cares to apply the historic preservation laws equally, if by ignoring them they can benefit themselves or their friends.
As a native of Hudson, I am saddened and angered when history is ignored. Let's NOT relocate it with a bulldozer as was done with 900 Columbia St. That was an atrocity.
ReplyDelete