The impact of 138 new dwelling units in an area of the city that is now quite sparsely populated has been a concern to several in the community. Proving particularly worrisome is parking, because the plan proposed includes no accommodation for tenants' cars, except for a handful of handicapped parking spots next to 708 State Street, the building that is planned to be exclusively market rate units.
In discussing parking, the Galvan people cite onstreet spaces and parking lots not currently utilized in the overnight hours--parking lots at the Department of Social Services building on Railroad Avenue and One City Centre, as well as the municipal lot on Columbia Street. The assertions about available parking rely on a traffic and parking assessment done by Creighton Manning. That study, which was submitted to the Planning Board, was recently made available on the City of Hudson website. To review it, click here.
Let's just say that no one from the engineering firm who conducted the "study" or from Galvan actually live in the neighborhood near the possible development. They don't live here, they don't have any idea what parking overnight is like around here, and they don't give one crap how their development will seriously disrupt the lives of residents with cars. This so-called study is yet one more reason to not trust one word Galvan utters. They did a study of parking in the City of Hudson and crunched numbers as if alternate side parking doesn't exist. The study is insulting garbage and should put an end to discussions with the city about the project.
ReplyDeleteI would like to know what surrounding or abutting properties which Galvan already owns could be used for parking. I agree with "bb" that the parking study results are unacceptable and a demonstration of Galvan's pure contempt for our city.
ReplyDeleteThe sham referred to as a parking study claims that there are 10 parking spaces on N. 6th street from Franklin to Washington, the hill up from Oakdale. There have NEVER BEEN 10 spaces there, just two in front of the house at Washington. When the stop sign was installed in August (?), those spaces were removed by DPW. So now there are NONE. But there has always been a no parking sign half way down the hill, which the sham study conveniently ignored. "Hey, look Joe, there's a hill over there no one is parked on, let's add 10 spaces to the list." "You are so smart, Mo, did they teach you that in traffic planning school? But what about the NO PARKING sign, Mo?" "What NO PARKING sign, Joe?" "Oh, Mo, you learn that in school, too?" Voila, 10 spaces for Galvan's tenants and residents of the neighborhood to park their cars on a steep hill with cars zooming by on the hill where it is dark at night. Unfortunately, it's a fantasy of Galvan's. How low will they go to deceive us for this project? If they do it readily and heavily in a simple parking assessment, where else do you suppose they might work their bullshit and hope no one notices or notices too late? Bill Huston
ReplyDeleteIs it too much to require that underground parking be part of the project? After all they have to dig a substantial foundation and space for utilities. This is an actual concept used in cities all the time. Has anyone heard of it 😏 Think how safe and useful for those with disabilities (remember them?) the elderly and in general, hauling groceries to their homes. There's such a thing as ADA compliancy. A few parking spots nearby may not cut it. I enjoyed the illustration of the happy tenants on the street. The ages are from youth to about 30 - now, that's realistic!
ReplyDeletea very reasonable and simple suggestion
DeleteWould much rather live in a city with affordable housing for all than a city consumed by vast expanses of parking lots.
ReplyDeleteFix alternate side parking regulations to get higher utilization of the urban space we already have decided to allocate to parking for private vehicles and this won't need to be a problem for anyone.