Sunday, August 13, 2023

About 11 Warren Street

Over the years, Gossips has shared the history of the strikingly out-of-place structure at 11 Warren Street on several occasions, the first time being in 2013, when word was out that Galvan going to buy the building from COARC. Now that it's been announced that the County intends to buy the building from Galvan, for close to $2 million more than Galvan paid for it ten years ago, I am inspired to share the history of the building again, because it was a disastrous mistake for the building to have been constructed in the first place, and the County's action ensures that Hudson will have to continue to live with this mistake for a few more decades.


The building at 11 Warren Street is a monument to wrong-headed urban development. It was meant to be shopping center, with off-street parking, to lure people back to Hudson from the strip malls that were popping up along Fairview Avenue in Greenport in the late 1960s and early 1970s. An entire block of 19th-century buildings, with the exception of one building, was demolished during Urban Renewal to be replaced by this wannabe suburban bad idea. This vintage photograph shows some of the buildings that were lost.


This is the building that stood at the southwest corner of Warren and First streets.


The screen capture below, from the 1959 film Odds Against Tomorrow, shows the first block of Warren Street in the late 1950s--intact on both north and south sides.


This picture of the block was taken in 1973, before the demolition that was Urban Renewal began.


In 1975, a developer from Schenectady named Howard Goldstock built the one-story complex--totally out of character with the surrounding neighborhood--and dubbed it Parkview Plaza, a name inspired by its proximity to Promenade Hill. Goldstock promised to fill the plaza with retail businesses--an anchor store at the east end and smaller shops in the remainder--but he never made good on that promise. In 1978, after a lengthy foreclosure proceeding, the building, still unfinished, was sold at public auction on the steps of the Columbia County courthouse as, to quote the Register-Star from August 3, 1978, "disinterested county employees and visitors strolled by."


The buyer, who paid $200,000 for the three-year-old white elephant, was the Hudson City Savings Institution, the very bank that had originally financed the project. (The Hudson City Savings Institution, chartered in 1850, morphed into Hudson River Bank & Trust in 1998 and was sold to First Niagara in 2005, which in turn was acquired by Key Bank in 2016.) William Fisher, who was mortgage operations vice president for HCSI at the time, was quoted in the Register-Star as saying, "We are now pursuing all avenues to try to come up with a viable use [for the building] that will be mutually beneficial to the community and the bank."

In 1981, COARC established Promenade Hill Center, a day activity program, in the building. That use continued until 2013, when COARC moved out, and Galvan bought the building. Initially, it was rumored that Eric Galloway intended to demolish the ill-fated strip mall and re-create in its place the buildings that once were there, but that never happened. In the ten years that Galvan has owned the building, its only use has been as the Warren Street Academy, an alternative high school program that opened in 2016 and closed in 2020. In 2021, Galvan proposed partnering with Benchmark Development of Great Barrington to construct a mixed-use building on the site, with market rate apartments, retail spaces, a restaurant, and underground parking. 


In the press release announcing the plan, Galvan said this about the project.
The project improves the streetscape and connectivity between Warren Street and the waterfront by replacing an unattractive and out-of-place building with a new mixed-use building designed to reflect the historic character of Hudson. . . .
The project furthers the goals set forth in the City of Hudson's vision for the BRIDGE District as part of the Downtown Revitalization Initiative (DRI). The city was awarded a $10 million DRI Grant from New York State which seeks to reestablish the link between downtown and the waterfront with quality housing, economic development, and beautiful, transportation-oriented design. 11 Warren Street revitalizes the connection of Warren Street and Front Street, linking Hudson's vibrant downtown to its waterfront parks and Amtrak station.
It is not known why the project was abandoned, but selling the building to the County to use as the location of the Probation Office and the Public Defenders Office and for storing voting machines achieves none of the goals outlined in that 2021 press release. 

Curious to know how this all came about, I contacted Claire Cousin, the county supervisor who represents the First Ward, my ward. When close to a day passed, and Cousin had not responded to my email, I contacted the other four Hudson supervisors--Abdus Miah (Second Ward), Michael Chameides (Third Ward), Linda Mussmann (Fourth Ward), and Rick Scalera (Fifth Ward)--to ask how they had voted when the question of buying 11 Warren Street came before the Board of Supervisors. More than a day has passed since I sent the email, and only Mussmann has responded. Mussmann told me that Cousin had not been present at the meeting on August 9. She, Mussmann, had not voted because she had to leave the meeting before the vote has taken, but she had spoken out against the purchase prior to the vote. She didn't know how Miah and Chameides had voted, since she wasn't present, but she said Scalera had recused himself because of his association with the Galvan Foundation.

Update: Gossips learned this morning from Kelly Baccaro, clerk of the Board of Supervisors, that the notes from the August 9 meeting had just been posted on the County website. Here is the information provided there. 
Request the Clerk to Read the Resolutions
Resolution numbers 301-2023 through 312-2023 were read. A motion to approve was made by M. Chameides seconded by T. Houghtling; motion carried unanimously. Resolution numbers 313-2023 through 325-2023 were read. A motion to approve was made by K. Weigelt, seconded by R. Knott, with a recusal from R. Scalera on Resolution #318-2023; motion was carried unanimously. A SEQR review was required on Resolution #318-2023 R. Fitzsimmons led the group through the SEQR process. A motion to declare a negative declaration for the 11 Warren Street property was made by R. Knott, seconded by J. Guzzi; motion was approved unanimously.
Supervisors - do they have any other business to bring before the Board?
T. Houghtling requested a meeting of the Space Utilization committee regarding the 11 Warren Street property.
As anyone who has attended a county Board of Supervisors meeting knows, the board votes on several resolutions at a time. Information provided allows one to infer that, of the thirteen resolutions voted on in the second block, the resolution regarding 11 Warren Street was Resolution #318-2023. Since the motion to approve the thirteen resolutions carried unanimously, it can be inferred that Hudson supervisors Abdus Miah (Second Ward) and Michael Chameides (Third Ward) voted in favor of the resolution. As Gossips reported earlier, Claire Cousin (First Ward) was absent, Linda Mussmann (Fourth Ward) had to leave the meeting before the vote was taken, and Rick Scalera (Fifth Ward) recused himself.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK

20 comments:

  1. It's sad, particularly when looking the photographs of what was destroyed. It is unfortunate that people at that time had no appreciation for what was there.

    The thing to do with that building would be to tear it down and rebuild replicas of the buildings that were there. The building could be torn down, the block divided into lots and sold individually with a stipulation that the new construction replicate the house that was originally on each lot. You can go back!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Any hope of a redesign? Perhaps add another story or two? Mixed use that would satisfy the DRI. Of course, money. Pro bono architect services? Because no self-respecting architect can pass up this challenge. And then, well, money.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Those of us that grew up here will recall that the Goldstock family was very well known through out the Capital District for running a chain of local sporting goods stores for decades.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why was the original article on the sale taken down?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Huh? Scroll down. https://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2023/08/not-good-news.html

      Delete
  5. This turn of events seems incredulous to me and to many residents of Hudson. Hudson has an opportunity here to not only fix a mistake from the past, but to encourage redevelopment of this part of Hudson to reflect the beautiful world class city that it has become. This needs to be reevaluated by city leadership and it calls for leadership to step up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unfortunately, "city leadership" has very little to do with this. It is the county that is buying the building from Galvan. Only the five Hudson supervisors could have had any influence on this decision, and they seem to have done very little, if anything, to prevent this.

      Delete
  6. That's the astonishing thing. The lack of political leadership, self-respect and solidarity in this town is breathtaking. And so we have Colarusso deciding what our waterfront will be; Galvan deciding what Helsinki will be; and County Republicans deciding the fate of lower Warren (actually this one that combines Galvan AND County Republicans, so we get a twofer!).

    ReplyDelete
  7. As an aside, the Hudson Day Care Center had high hopes of moving into part of the space at 11 Warren. Although it would have been a short term occupancy and have minimal investment we were told it was doable. Then nothing but " crickets " from GALVAN. Dropped like a hot potato! The need for adequate daycare for Hudson still exists as we prepare to fill a dumpster across the street.

    ReplyDelete
  8. While this solves some of County government's immediate needs, this is disappointing news. One wonders where City government was in the process? Why was it not aware that one of the most unique opportunities to correct a blemish on Hudson was collapsing? And it is insufficient to claim that the Hudson supervisors had no influence. If awake, they could have raised some hell among their County colleagues, highlighted the bigger "County" picture (affordable housing included), or better, alerted City leadership and citizens. This is too much of a surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Register-Star has a paywall and SAT-SUN. weekend edition costs $3.50 at newsstand, if you do not subscribe, but there is a lot in this article that the citizens of Hudson and those of us who pay the County & City Taxes, would be wise to read carefully for a numerous reasons.
    "County to acquire 11 Warren St. for 3.5
    million"-- By Raymond Pignone
    August 12-13
    Columbia Green Media


    ReplyDelete
  10. Could be Galvan realized there was no local demand to fill all the apartments they were planning to build and decided it was more economical to dump the building. At least someone will benefit, moving probation there will be good for cigarette sales at the corner stores.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Is it just me? With every passing minute this is more outrageous. Thank you Carole for bringing this up to our attention. The history of the property is fascinating and devastating all at once. 'Urban Renewal' LOL, a disaster!

    ReplyDelete
  12. “I stand strongly behind the purchase of 11 Warren Street. It’s a no-brainer,” Austerlitz town supervisor and county Deputy Chairman Robert Lagonia told the Register Star. “It’s a huge game changer for the county.” What’s missing here? Wait, lemme see—oh, I know! Not a single mention in the whole story about the economic impact (or lack of one) this has on the Hudson’s main street. The city’s economic welfare means literally nothing to these people. They expect us to shut up just live with the trucks, the destruction of our waterfront, the economic black hole at First and Warren, etc., while the county’s old boy network takes care of its own.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It will be a great improvement compared to the current building the County utilizes.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Lew, you completely miss the point. It's not just a question of what's good for the county in solving its "infrastructure problem." It's also a question of whether a decision benefits the city of Hudson. Among our "leaders," that never seems to be part of the conversation, whether it's the the potential of our waterfront, the fate of Helsinki, the idiocy of routing big trucks through the city, or the best use of a stellar development parcel on lower Warren Street.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. While our “leaders” have clearly once again screwed the pooch viz. lower Warren and the city generally, that’s only one group of useless (and in at least two cases, venal) pols — Hudson’s five supervisors. The other “leaders,” at the City council and mayor’s office, are simply so staggeringly inept and lazy as to beg the question: why hasn’t this been made into a musical tragicomedy? With our assemblywoman tacitly buying into the concept of doing nothing as a strategy, the truck route won’t be solved. As to Helsinki, that’s private property and I’m at a loss as to what you would have the City do to prevent its sale to a third party. Surely Galvan will make a hash of what was once uniquely great. But it’s its money to waste. Yes, it was essentially taxpayer money but once it ended up in Galvan’s bank account the City lost its leverage. Good for the Mayor, Scalera and Galvan. The vast majority of Hudsonians suffer and foot the bill.

      Delete
    2. @dkon, every decision that is ever made will most likely not please everyone. Case in point, Hudson is like the rest of the Country. Deeply divided. I compare it to the foot stomping of a little kid who doesn't get their way.

      Delete
    3. Lew, no foot-stomping here. And I personally have no "way" I want to see this building redeveloped. I'm just observing that it is a very big deal due to the scale and location of 11 Warren--and that in this case, as in others, what was NOT considered was how the proposed use would benefit the city. In this case, the use proposed seems like a major missed opportunity, and the city's supervisors appear to have been largely and weirdly MIA.

      Delete
  15. If you all expect anything better than this, then people need to pay attention and get involved beyond social media. "Vote blue no matter who" does not work locally as they all claim the same party line. Look past catchphrases and identity politics and ask yourself what’s really important: a well run city, fiscally responsible, fix our crumbling infrastructure, and be supportive of the entrepreneurial homeowners and small business community that has sparked the recent renaissance in Hudson - despite our inept government - OR do we want to not pay attention and support the candidates that look and sound progressive - but are in the pockets of big business like Galvan and Colarusso? Clearing the way for them to bleed the city dry, while also standing idly by as the county good 'ol boys continue to use Hudson as the county’s dumping ground, as they have for the past 70 years.

    Urban Renewal Part II: Galvan Boogaloo

    ReplyDelete