Last night at the Common Council meeting, after an executive session that lasted for forty-seven minutes, the Council heard a presentation from Adirondack Community Development (ADK), the group that seeks to purchase the former John L. Edwards School from Hudson City School District (HCSD). The principal spokesperson for ADK was Victor Salerno, who is described on the ADK website as "a creative, action-oriented real estate professional, deal maker and attorney." Salerno is also part of the management team for the Texas-based Mayfair Management Group.
Salerno told the Council they had "tweaked" their plans "based on feedback from some community leaders." The only one he actually mentioned was Council president Tom DePietro. One of the tweaks suggested by DePietro was creating space for a daycare center somewhere in the building. That seems an odd fit since Salerno explained the proposed development was meant to be for residents aged 50 and older, in the income band between 40 and 80 percent of the AMI (area mean income).
When this project was first talked about, DePietro suggested that, although the developer would not be seeking a PILOT, zoning changes would be needed to allow them to add floors to the existing building. The plan of adding floors has now been abandoned in favor of constructing a new five-story building at the west end of the existing building. The renderings below, presented at the Council meeting last night, show that building. The first two show the building as seen from Carroll Street; the third shows the view from State Street; and the final rendering shows the proposed building in the context of the original school building and the historic Hudson Almshouse at 400 State Street.
This, of course, raises the question of how many millions it will cost to demolish Bliss Towers and cart it away.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
This looks like a Holiday Inn Express
ReplyDeleteNo No one thousand times NO!
ReplyDeleteCreative, my Ass. SALERNO is living in a fanticy if he thinks this will pass.
ReplyDeleteWhat possible benefit is there to the residents of Hudson to import a large number of low income retirees to fill this proposed building? Makes no sense to anyone but the developers accounting department.
ReplyDeleteI'm OK with this project if it's meant to replace existing sub-standard housing. But if the result is just more low-income seniors in Hudson, it should be opposed by the Planning Board. I don't have data at hand, but am pretty sure that our community is already saturated with an unusually high % of low-income housing.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's ugly as sin and fits in the streetscape like a whore in church, but at least the developer brings its own (federal) teat and isn't looking for a (local) PILOT. If the developer decides to move forward, the Planning Board should ensure that if it or a successor in interest does seek a PILOT that it looses its approvals, has a springing mortgage filed, or some other severe and bankruptcy-inducing penalty for violating their promise in the wake of their building's extreme ugliness.
ReplyDeleteAs thoughtless and inappropriate as most of the horrible architecture in latter-day corporate America...but why here, why now? It's just stunningly wrong for Hudson. Hasn't enough ("urban renewal") damage been done already?
ReplyDeleteIt's a Hampton Inn!
ReplyDeleteVery Luddite in feel, so clunky and ugly. Perfect for the new crowd in Hudson with a vision to turn the city into South Bronx meets Bulgaria.
ReplyDeleteI find it hard to believe there is not an alternative that provides an acceptable return to the developer and doesn't leave the residents of Hudson saddled with the kind of building someone books a weekly suite in after their spouse finds out they've been having an affair for the past or next twenty years, depending how you want that sentence to go.
ReplyDeleteThis is a property with great potential, and I hate to think a location so central and high-traffic in Hudson would turn into such an institutional, suburban eyesore.
If this was their introduction to the community, the developer should think hard about how and if they want a second date, preferably not at Schlotzsky's.
Hudson will be Soviet bloc city right here in America -- with monolithic State subsidized apartment blocs with hot and cold running welfare services -- the new Industry of Poverty Plan
Deletewelcome to the future, where small town America becomes obliterated by Socialist Group Think, and where nothing of beauty and history remains.
I thought buildings in Hudson couldn't be more than three stories tall - especially when designed as ugly as possible.
ReplyDeleteThe height limit, I believe, is four stories, but that's what the amendment they want in exchange for not asking for a PILOT is all about.
DeleteAnd by the way, ADK paid jack-s**t for the property at 3 million. Someone i know paid 2.5 million for a property one tenth of the size in March of 2021. and that was a deal.
ReplyDelete10 million is really the right price for this property because of its size and acreage, but the powers that be have absolutely no financial knowledge of how things are valued. None. they cannot even pay their own taxes.
Raise the price by at least double if you have any responsibility for the City of Hudson, the friendly city in which the sheep go to slaughter on every deal they ever make.
And please, just DO NOT allow this to be built so that you avoid ruining the decades of work and investment that brought us what we have today.
On aesthetics alone, it's a disgrace to the Almshouse and the entire city. What a jarring juxtaposition! The website of the Texas based Mayfair Management Group offered clues. The preponderance of the idea of low income housing as Hudson's savior is wearing thin, don't you think! This is present day urban renewal at its ugliest we've seen recently. A disgrace. And, who cares for the newly installed aging residents? Does Hudson have the facilities and know how? The city's and environs present-day population is aging too and facing increased needs. The building could have other transformative incarnations that would use the current footprint. Isn't there any demand for spacious market rate condos in this town? Tax paying residents fully financially contributing for Hudson services and amenities. I'm thinking even for myself, not getting any younger! When I can no longer clip the hedges or use the stairs, then what! Be polite, thank you.
ReplyDeleteA ghastly looking building and plonk - right beside the historic and beautiful old Library building. It's a disgrace - no imagination for the site nor understanding of what Hudson is - surely, surely some company, (and preferably not from Texas)
ReplyDeletecould have come up with a better idea and design, which fits the community. How many big block buildings should we have? Also the comment about do we need more elderly residents -no - it's hard enough to find helpers or carers for the elderly who live here. I've just had a closely related experience with a very elderly friend and it was very difficult to find competent carers, through all the available sources. (Our wonderful old nursing home on 7th street is now going to be a mega hotel)
dear jennifer
Deletewhat Hudson was -- what Hudson is becoming ?
hudson is becoming a cash register for the developers of public welfare housing, while the naive tax payers of the City foot the bills. Hudson as we know it will be history
Only if we let them
DeleteJonathan Lerner submitted this comment by email:
ReplyDeleteThe proposed building is awful. But I must take issue with Gossips' own opinion that it would be an “odd fit” to locate a daycare center in the building. There are numerous successful examples of mixed-use developments that include senior living and daycares (or schools). Apparently, and not surprisingly, some older people appreciate seeing kids once in a while, and surely it’s beneficial to kids to see old folks. Would it be preferable to segregate seniors altogether? “Today’s seniors also prefer to be integrated into the community with people of all ages and not isolated... They want to live in a community that offers an active lifestyle with more choices and a connection to the outside community through intergenerational interactions.” (https://seniorcare.nic.org/mixed-use-developments-in-seniors-housing/)
It's like we learned nothing from the 1970's, when just about every city in America made the mistake of stacking up economically disadvantaged residents in tall buildings. It doesn't work.
ReplyDelete