Once upon a time, when Hudson Development Corporation was still thinking of overseeing the development of the Kaz site, people like Walter Chatham and Matthew Frederick urged that the site be divided up into smaller lots for development. That advice was not heeded. Advice that was heeded, by DRI (Downtown Revitalization Initiative) Committee, came from the developer Bonacio Construction, who advised that the three parcels on the waterfront, north of the Dunn building, be included in the Request for Expressions of Interest for the Dunn building. There was even talk of adding the Kaz site to what the City was offering for development. The latter didn't happen, but in June 2020, the Common Council passed a resolution authorizing the addition of the three vacant parcels to the Dunn warehouse REI. All of this runs counter to what is known as Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND), a concept that we in Hudson should probably be embracing.
An article of interest, originally published in February 2019, appeared today on the Strong Towns Facebook page. It argues that, although developers may consider smaller parcels to be "substandard," small parcel size and diverse ownership are keys to successful urban development: "Savor Your Small Parcels, and Create More of Them." It is recommended reading.
COPYRIGHT 2021 CAROLE OSTERINK
Small parcels and diverse ownership makes perfect sense towards preserving the character of the city. If this had been followed back in the 1970s we would be in a different situation now, the character of the 2nd ward would have been preserved and no one would be considering building large multi story apartment buildings. These are permanent changes to the character of the city that should not be made by a handful of people backing a singular agenda.
ReplyDeleteTypically considered last for the empty lots north of the Dunn building is future waterfront parking. Failing that, Hudson will easily paint itself into a corner.
ReplyDeleteRedevelopment of the parcel and adjacent areas as small plots (a position I supported) requires infrastructure development by the City — water, sewer — along with plat surveying of each lot. You’d think, with the two most powerful elected City officials on the HDC board such cooperative work would be rather easy to plan and execute. Of course given that these particular ex officio members have, between them, neither desire nor experience to enable them to lead the City in fulfilling such obligations, it’s easy to understand how the board had no choice but to seek a developer to partner with.
ReplyDeleteThe large parcels are a missed opportunity for a more organic and diverse neighborhood. There would still be mechanisms in the RFP requirements and developer selection to require smaller-scale buildings or facades and streetscape features - worth pursuing but a lot more work up front from the city and still more likely to veer toward monotony.
ReplyDeleteThere is no RFP or developer selection as to the HDC-sold parcel -- it's being sold to a developer to develop within the City's existing zoning code (and any changes to it that occur prior to its application to the Planning Board).
DeleteOh whoops then I guess the ship has really sailed. Unfortunate.
Delete