Wednesday, June 2, 2021

Another Proposal, Another Contention

The historic industrial building at Sixth and Washington streets has been vacant for decades. It started its life as one of the two locations of Union Mills.

 
The building's last industrial use, up until the late 1960s or early 1970s, was manufacturing purses and other leather goods, hence the familiar name the building now has: the Pocketbook Factory.


One of the few surviving remnants of Hudson's industrial past, the building, has stood vacant and virtually unused for decades. It was cause for celebration when, earlier this year, the word was out that the building had new owners whose goal was "to revitalize the property so that it can be widely enjoyed." 

The plans for the building made their public debut at the Planning Board meeting on May 11, but even before the project was presented, the Planning Board received five letters protesting the proposed project. For the most part, the letters characterized the project as a "hotel and spa," terms that evoke luxury and privilege. One of the letters argued, "The city has a housing crisis. Not a hotel crisis." An article about the proposal that appeared in the Register-Star the day after the Planning Board meeting focused on the negative: "Pocketbook factory proposal draws criticism."

The public hearing on the project is scheduled to begin next Tuesday, on June 8. Before then, it makes sense to revisit what is being proposed. 

Although the project's critics have focused on the hotel and spa, those uses account for only half of the building. Sean Roland, one of the principals for the project, explains these uses are needed to make what is the massive restoration project economically viable. The hotel is meant to be inclusive. There will be a diversity of room sizes, and the room rates are promised to be affordable.


What critics call a spa, Roland prefers to call a wellness center, maintaining that "wellness is more of a right than a luxury." The wellness center will offer, among other things, education about nutrition and yoga classes and will serve local residents as well as visitors.

The other half of the building and the outdoor garden will be public spaces--leasable commercial space, spaces for entrepreneurial businesses, inclusive and diverse spaces for hospitality. Roland told Gossips that in their plans for diversity in restaurant offerings involve both a restaurant and a scaled-down cafe, the latter to accommodate Nick Zachos's suggestion that kids coming from nearby Oakdale Lake need a place to buy a hotdog or an ice cream cone. Also planned are comfortable, open spaces--a lobby and lounge and a garden, designed by Wagner Hodgson--which will be open to the public "without expectation of commercial gain."


The project also involves the restoration of the historic industrial building, which is in need of rehabilitation, in accordance with the standards set by the State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO).




Reacting to the initial presentation to the Planning Board on May 11, Steven Steim, who is now interim chair of the Planning Board, said, "Looking at it on paper, it's a beautiful project. My concern is the neighborhood." Betsy Gramkow, who was chairing her final Planning Board meeting, called the presentation "an outstanding first look at the proposal." She advised, "You want your neighbors to be happy at the end of the day. I have great faith in this project, and your ability to solve the problems." 
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK

19 comments:

  1. Carole, thank you for this summary of the history and proposal. The proposal looks terrific and it's such a breath of fresh air to have something that doesn't have Galvin written all over it. Wasn't parking another big issue raised at the Planning Board? My sense is that, as Betsy Gramkow hinted, this could be a great project for Hudson and the neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  2. of course, anyone who actually lives in the neighborhood, like myself, sees this not as a great project, but as a nightmare for parking in a neighborhood where overnight parking is already tight and getting tighter by the month. Like Galvan's enormous proposal a few blocks away, this is not the proper place for this project. It is a residential neighborhood. Leave it that way. Knock the old thing down and build a house or two. B Huston

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Take a look at the zoning map: all the planned uses are permitted in that zone.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. there was a factory in the neighborhood prior to this. now there is a proposal for a hotel, artists lofts etc.

      Sounds pretty good for hudson.

      However, people in Hudson being perverse, the would prefer a homeless shelter for the mentally ill.

      that is more the direction that new Hudsonites want to go, and the developers would actually make 5 times more money housing the homeless.

      that is what all the "affordable housing" in Hudson has always been about -making a lot of money off of the backs of the poor.

      Delete
    4. The suggestion that this magnificent old building should be torn down is horrifying.

      Delete
    5. So, John, because the zoning map allows this kind of use makes it okay? Gives it an automatic pass? That's absurd. An enormous factory in a residential neighborhood was appropriate eons ago. Repurposing it, just because it is there, is unwise. It is simply too big and will have too big an impact on the RESID3NTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. Would you welcome it if you lived next door and lost your convenient on street parking? Welcome the Increased traffic, noise, all the negatives? B Huston

      Delete
    6. But it's not a residential neighborhood. It's mixed-use like the vast majority of Hudson's neighborhoods. That's the point. If you don't like it, petition the Council to change it. And good luck with that.

      Delete
    7. My posting and gripe have nothing to do with zoning, or whether this project CAN go forward. My feeling is that it shouldn't go forward as is because of its inappropriateness, regardless of zoning. A similar but smaller project may be appropriate in the neighborhood, just like Galvan's proposal on 7th. The city should only be considering ONE apartment building and one parking lot over there, not two apartment buildings and no parking lots. It's insanity. B Huston

      Delete
  3. The cry babies are out. How come we never see any of them invest in Hudsons future. Enough about the past.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Isn't it funny how certain people will do anything to leave an old, yes, attractive building as is, even if it stays vacant for decades so that they and the tourists can admire it from the sidewalk? Or support an inappropriate use for it when the negative effects won't affect their lives? So that they can continue to admire it from a distance. Old buildings tend to create a surplus of emotion and a lack of practicality. B Huston

      Delete
  4. Thanks to those who have the ingenuity and ambition to move such a project forward. It's about time that Hudson pulled itself out of post-industrial neglect and decay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. For the record, the parking issue is Hudson’s. There is no requirement for new development to provide parking. That’s something the city can change. As long as it isn’t required, it’s unlikely that developers will provide it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Are they asking for a PILOT?

    ReplyDelete
  7. This project looks great. It would be a boon for jobs and the economy. Just be sure to have that hot dog stand for the kids :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. I watched their entire presentation via Zoom and I was very impressed by everyone involved with this project. I do agree though that parking is a real problem which may require some creativity to solve. It seems very impractical to ask guests who are staying at a hotel to park their cars blocks away, particularly in the rain and snow.

    ReplyDelete
  9. When it was a factory in a residential neighborhood workers walked to it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That is 100% true and important. If this were a vacant plot, no one would build a structure as large as the factory and try to fill it with businesses, including hotels, spas, whatever, without a parking lot nearby. But now we're supposed to welcome this idea and worry about parking later or not at all? Few people would be walking to the factory if this project happens. It's poor and ultimately destructive planning. B Huston

    ReplyDelete
  11. Maybe I’m just not getting it, but can some explain how a hotel benefits low-income residents of the town? I’ve lived here ten years and have never once needed a hotel room, but a lease in a rental many times.’

    ReplyDelete