At the informal Common Council meeting on Tuesday, Sean Roland, Caitlin Baiada, and Gabriel Katz, who together make up the CGS Group, presented their proposal for the Dunn warehouse. As Gossips has reported, theirs is the proposal, submitted in response to an RFP issued in April, that the DRI committee has chosen.
The proposed plan follows fairly closely what was Option 2 in the Dunn Warehouse Adaptive Reuse Redevelopment Analysis and Master Plan done by Saratoga Associates back in 2015. There would be two commercial spaces, available for lease to waterfront-related businesses, and a food and beverage space, for a casual restaurant or concession, in the north section of the building, and an events space, available to rent for private events "and at a steeply discounted rate for community or municipal events." There is an element, however, in the CGS Group plan that was not part of the Saratoga Associates plan: an outdoor pool, open to Hudson residents, with sliding scale memberships.
In the plan being proposed, CGS Group would not purchase the building. Rather the City of Hudson would retain ownership.
Commenting on the proposal at the meeting on Tuesday, Councilmember Margaret Morris (First Ward), who served on the committee making the recommendation, said the proposal "showed a great understanding of the integration of the building and the waterfront." City treasurer Heather Campbell, who also served on the review committee, said she was convinced this was the best option, adding that she thought the group "truly understands how the building should benefit the community."
The entire presentation of the proposal for the Dunn warehouse can be seen in the Zoom recording of the meeting, beginning at 1:35:30.
COPYRIGHT 2023 CAROLE OSTERINK
Sounds good, and does confirm what I remember as the vision from the past meetings.
ReplyDeleteGreat! I'm amazed by the appetite some developers have for challenging projects in Hudson.
ReplyDeleteBrava!
ReplyDeleteCongratulations to the City council on letting a contract against a plan — after 8 years. The aldermen must need a vacation now.
ReplyDeleteLooks great overall! However, still a great location for a higher-end destination type restaurant or dining option. Also, the City could use a pool with an indoor option and swim lanes. Can that be considered? The land is there.
ReplyDeleteSorry to be a wet blanket, but how will this lovely and appropriate plan work out if the Planning Board mistakenly approves Colarusso's request to improve the "haul road" with no oversight or limits?! Gravel trucks will be bombarding the waterfront all day, every day, in ever increasing numbers, crossing the tracks just below the station, right next to the Dunn Warehouse!...
ReplyDeleteThank you, Victor. This is precisely the argument we've been making for years. Right now, we have a chance to keep building a waterfront district that is entirely additive— that expands public space and amenities and generates job-creating businesses whose benefits can ripple across the city’s economy. The alternative is a disruptive re-industrialization that may destroy that promise. These are not compatible uses—particularly with the scale up Colarusso has in mind. So it’s a choice between a plan that offers major upsides and zero downsides, and a plan that does exactly the opposite.
DeleteThe weird thing about the Colarusso proposition is that the company hasn't been asked how it would be a good thing for the Hudson waterfront. For decades the City has been making progress on improving that part of town, with some really good development taking place in recent years. An industrial loading dock and truck route is completely out of synch with everything else that is happening on the waterfront. And if the Colarusso operation isn''t providing a lot of jobs or economic upside for the City, then why in the world have we spent the past seven years thinking about it?
ReplyDeleteThere are commercial boats operating out of waterfront — water taxis, the Appolonia, that boat hauling radishes and cheese up and down the Hudson. They do those things for money. The fact is the waterfront can be shared.
DeleteTo an extent, maybe, John. But if your plan is to greatly expand gravel shipping, and you're proposing a road to make that happen, and you make it clear you won't stand for limits on volume, how do you propose establishing and protecting this magical spirit of "sharing?"
ReplyDeleteYou mean the magical spirit of sharing that’s been going on there since the tank farm was rehabbed? As I have said for a long time — neither the City nor ACS, nor for that matter many of the commentators, have behaved like adults. It’s not hard (though it typically lacks the political drama so near and dear to many hearts) but someone has to start.
DeleteJohn, have a look at the Hudson River towns that have cement & aggregate operations. They are the most depressing, miserable, economically desperate regions in the area. Some of us have higher aspirations for our community.
ReplyDeleteSnide much? Take a look at the homogenous waterfronts along much of the river and tell me how another fried fish emporium is going to make Hudson that much better. I have higher aspirations for the waterfront.
DeleteHere's an idea, move the whole gravel operation a few hundred yards downriver, then transport the gravel via an enclosed conveyor belt system south of the existing gravel road. They could move all the gravel they want, with no trucks, away from the recreational part of the waterfront.
ReplyDeleteThey can put in a conveyer where their multimillion dollar facility already is. Read the statutes.
DeleteThe amazing thing is that the Planning Board hasn't even taken an action, yet Colarusso has already filed two lawsuits. The company seems to think that it is exempt from review like any normal applicant.
ReplyDelete