Hudson's New Municipal Building
At last night's Common Council meeting, Alderman Nick Haddad (First Ward) provided a progress report on 701 Union Street, which soon will be known as the City of Hudson Police and Courts Center.
According to Haddad, designs for the interior of the building, which had been agreed on two weeks ago, have since needed to be augmented, setting the project back two weeks. Part of the reason for the delay is that the police department's current facility is so woefully inadequate that it didn't provide a sufficient model for the new facility. As a consequence of the recently discovered need to amend the plans, the bid documents, which were expected to be ready by the end of the year, will not be ready until January 15.
Haddad reported that Craig Haigh, code enforcement officer, is now reviewing the plans for code compliance. The building is a noncontributing structure in a locally designated historic district, and hence the proposed redesign should be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission. It is not clear when that will happen, but those in attendance at last night's Council meeting got a sneak peak at the new design.
Haddad noted that one change has been made since this rendering was created: the faux parapet on the facade will be composed of perforated steel panels rather than the material shown.
Construction is expected to begin in March 2015, to be completed around Thanksgiving 2015.
COPYRIGHT 2014 CAROLE OSTERINK
Hate the faux parapet.
ReplyDeleteHPC approve this ... duckling?
ReplyDeleteooog leeee
ReplyDeletecan't make a silk purse from a sow's ear...
ReplyDeleteLove the return to the 1970's.
ReplyDeleteReally ugly. The existing building is basically a blank slate. Couldn't they have come up with something better than this?
ReplyDeleteIs there an architect involved?
ReplyDeletewith their eyes open?
Frank Lloyd Wrong!!!
ReplyDeleteThey're planning on using the roof as a jail.
ReplyDeleteRiddle me this fellow citizens, who was head of HDC, when tricky Rick sold the City shore to the Power Boat?
ReplyDeleteIt looks worse and cheap somehow. At least, before it looked adequate and rather unassuming.
ReplyDeleteDoes not compliment our city's architecture heritage. We can and should do better.
ReplyDeleteMighty tight corporation, Hudson. Twenty years ago, the mayor and the head of Hudson Development Corporation, a Power Boat Commodore, sell the city's shore, to Power Boat!
ReplyDeleteThe City's pilot pirates, can't wait to flip the Button Factory for the 23 time and they end up with ever increasing power and salaries.
Guess anyone willing to launder municipal property for the mayor, deserves a place to dock his new yacht.
1 Riparian
I'm not an architect, but I suspect a long low flat roofed building is a difficult "pallet" from which to work to make some that is architecturally distinguished. My main objection is that it looks very modern, for a most un-modern locale, architecturally and otherwise. Assuming however that the roof surface is being used for activities thereon, the issue is just what could be done with this "pallet" to make it better, that would not cost considerably more money. I do like the faux fence that raises the height of the long low building, at presumably reasonable cost. In any event, the building looks a lot better than it does now, to my eyes.
ReplyDeleteIn any event, rather than curse the darkness, light a candle if one has the time and passion for it. Come up with another plan within the same budget, with the same utility, that would be superior. Frankly nothing comes to mind to me, but then I am just an opinionated lawyer - opinionated about everything - including architecture, but not the genuine article on that front. So my failure, and lack of imagination on this, is hardly dispositive. I know my limitations. So for those with more talent in this field, go for it I say. Just do it, and do it now! :)
Regarding the "now" bit, I appreciate that this is probably largely a done deal, so that there is next to no time to cause a tack in course here, even if it were wise to do so. Was this rendering available some time ago, to solicit and receive public comment? If not, that would be my main criticism, lack of an adequate public comment period. Public comment in this opinionated city, particularly about architecture, but so much else as well, is good. And yes, there is talent in this city - a lot of talent - and it needs to be utilized more, a lot more, and not just about architecture, but so many other issues as well. We are a small city, and its management does not have much staff, and it needs help to compensate for that. I urge the powers that be to reach out more, and actively solicit assistance, on all the complex issues it faces, and do so proactively.
Just my opinion.
@Joe Gallo, I understand you're angry about the Furgary, but why go after the Boat Club. What you're saying is, "If I can't have you, no one can" The HPBA does many great thing to support the waterfront and the community.
ReplyDeleteBad enough that we paid full price for this inadequate building (I'm being kind) situated on such environmentally polluted, compromised land that they can't dig, and require a special filtration system according to Joe Rapp, to run 24/7 in the police building; presumably to keep control of the air quality due to the compromised land the building is situated on. Now I understand that this is the second architect that the City has hired; so we paid twice for architectural plans? And this is the design that they came up with? Considering all of the money being spent on this project (thrown out in my estimation) one would think that the Citizens of this City should have some say as to the design of this lovely new addition to the neighborhood. And Carole, you report that "part of the reason for the delay to start construction is that the police department's current facility is so woefully inadequate that it didn't provide a sufficient model for the new facility. As a consequence of the recently discovered need to amend the plans, the bid documents, which were expected to be ready by the end of the year, will not be ready until January 15". Who has plans drawn up by an architect before they clearly know the needs of the planned occupants? These continued wasteful expenditures, coming from our tax money is inexcusable.
ReplyDeleteRemember folks, they wanted to raise our taxes because of all of their budget shortfalls. Terrible mismanagement of expenditures by our elected officials, just my opinion.
I know I'm in a lonely corner on this one, but I think it has a certain chic.
ReplyDeleteNone of us on this thread are architects but the response is obvious ... this is C r A p
ReplyDelete