Decades ago, I heard about a photograph that appeared on the front page of the Register-Star in early 1970, showing Mayor Sam Wheeler standing in front of the rubble of the demolished General Worth Hotel eating a hotdog. The photo was captioned "Progress!" I've never actually seen that photograph, much less gotten a copy of it, but if I had a copy, I would be tempted to juxtapose it with these pictures, taken this morning, of the historic fishing village in North Bay that evolved into the Furgary Boat Club.
I took a drive yesterday to check out the shacks. The good news is that there is now a nice view northward over North Bay. Since our civic leadership doesn't give a rat's ass about South Bay, perhaps we can re-direct our attention to the north.
ReplyDeleteYou'll be happy to know the only path through the adjacent wetlands being proposed is one from the Hudson Dog Park, meant for dogs and their humans traversing it on paw and foot.
DeleteThe new view is nearly the same as the one planned in the DRI. We even Photoshopped what it would look like in our Nov. 2017 application. (You can see and compare for yourself at the address below.)
DeleteIn the DRI plan, however, the historic structures were to remain standing. Instead, these were the first to be razed.
https://cms3.revize.com/revize/hudsonny/DRI/Fishing_Village_DRI_Application.pdf
North Bay is very close to the old Landfill and South Bay was built up due to a landfill. Not sure that people realize that. Very polluted soil in those places. The city should have it tested before constructing anything for the public to use. Having the Sewage treatment plant next door is great also.
ReplyDelete1. South Bay landfill -
DeleteIn 2017, I supplied the NYS DEC Bureau of Solid Waste with a newspaper article from 1932 announcing the closing of the South Bay landfill. In a second article from 1954, also sent to the DEC, Hudson's mayor complained that illegal dumping continued at the closed landfill. Moreover, I provided the DEC with a 50-year-old aerial photograph of South Bay, showing that dumping continued well into the 1960s.
After years of fishing for some reply, in November 2020 I finally received the following email from an engineer with the DEC Bureau of Solid Waste:
"According to my conversations, the consulting firm hired to identify inactive landfills, the information regarding this landfill, wasn’t sufficient enough to list it as an inactive landfill. I do not know of anyone who would vouch for this landfill based on the information that we have on hand. The information that you provided to me was forwarded to the Department’s consultants."
2. North Bay landfill -
DeleteIn a 2009 study by Crawford and Associates titled "Hudson Landfill - Phase I Analysis of Current Site Conditions & Recommendations For Transfer of Landfill," the Crawford group acknowledged:
"As required by the EPA and in conformance with 6 NYCRR Part 360, monitoring and maintenance is to take place for a minimum of 30 years following landfill closure," and thus, "monitoring and maintenance will be required to continue thru 2030 under the terms of the closure plan."
On a monthly basis, Crawford & Associates was to conduct gas level readings, water sampling, and monitoring of the leachate at nine identified seepages.
Was any of this ever accomplished? Does Crawford continue to meet its obligations? And do you really think you can simply FOIL the answer? That's a laugh!
I don't see how you can make a comparison between the loss of a historically significant structure like the General Worth Hotel to those few totally rotted falling down shacks that were removed, that's absurd. I find the whole argument disingenuous and intended to disrupt and prevent the city from doing it's job which was to convert the property to a public park. The Furgary was a camp of squatters who were using public property for their exclusive private use, paying no taxes and stealing utilities from National Grid. Put up a plaque, take the photos and make a book, but the shacks themselves are of no architectural significance and continue to occupy the public space and interfere with the river views and public enjoyment of the property. Preserving the Furgary as some sort of historical artifact as a means to maintain it's grip on the property and prevent it's conversion to a public park is unacceptable.
ReplyDeleteI made no such "comparison" SlowArt, which rather draws attention to your own "disingenuousness."
DeleteEqually disingenuous is the idea that the DRI funding was simply meant to "convert the property to a public park." Everyone knows that wasn't the reason for the grant.
Nor were there any "squatters" - at least not technically - until the state Supreme Court decided in 2009 that the property actually belonged to the state, and to no one else. (And each shack paid its own utility bill, so there you tell another lie.)
Curiously, though, and conveniently ignored by an unlawful city government, the state's high court also found that the land at the corner of North Front and Dock Streets, beneath Kite Nest's new structure, is also state-owned land and remains so.
Eventually Hudson will pay dearly for its lies and corrupt attitudes.
The comparison was made by the post, I didn't say you made it. The utility story was hearsay, I admit that, told to me by someone who used a shack there--but it seems unlikely to me that with no deed, lease or documentation of any kind that each shack had a utility bill.
DeleteThe fact is there are thousands upon thousands of hunting and fishing shacks all over the country that were slapped together from whatever materials could be scrapped together, these aren't architecturally significant structures. You can argue that the historical uses of the waterfront for fishing, ice harvesting, industry, etc., are important and should be preserved as part of the historical record, but the shacks themselves, falling down, made from scraps, sided with vinyl or pieces of discarded metal roofing, aren't important historical structures.
When the plan was to preserve the "fishing village", there was no mention of the toxic conditions of the property, now suddenly that some of the shacks are gone you claim it is toxic. This proves the point that the intent of your argument isn't historical preservation, but simply to be disruptive.
The DRI also came years after the city took possession of the property. When the Furgary lost possession in court, the claim was then made that the shacks were historic as a means to prevent the city from moving forward with the park conversion. It seemed pretty obvious to me at the time, that the historical value of the shacks was an intentionally fallacious argument from the get go, intended to stymie the process of conversion.
SlowArt, you are wholly dismissive of vernacular architecture, and even hostile towards it. I think I begin to see why.
DeleteBut first, several of the structures we successfully dated were important enough for the history of the Hudson River that state historians and archaeologists favored their preservation. If that means nothing to you, then you should say so.
Evidently you are fearless of ridicule seeing as your incorrect hearsay about the electrical hookups is now followed with more uninformed accusations:
1. In fact, there was full and frank acknowledgement of the site's necessary remediation in our DRI application. There had to be. Without submitting professional remediation estimates the state would never have considered granting the award. (Our cleanup estimate came from the same outfit that conducted the contaminant tests in 2015.)
2. If you knew your local history and trafficked less in hearsay, you'd know that deeds were created by the Proprietors for the North Bay's "water lots." That is a fact. Some were eventually sold to the railroad, and some survived into our lifetimes as proof that the shacks' ownership was legitimate. What the court decided was that the Proprietors' deeds were illegitimate from the get-go. They'd given themselves underwater lands which were sited outside the city's original state grant. Now isn't that a more interesting and informative account than your uninformed vitriol?
3. Our DRI project aimed to preserve only a handful of shacks, with the rest of the land always intended to be - and to feel like - the 2nd Ward's own waterfront park. Some of our futuristic graphics were based on images of water-parks in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We collected our non-shack ideas from a range of 2nd Ward residents. Of those we spoke with, many of them immigrants or children of immigrants, the shacks were a point of interest.
All of this is to say that you are way, way off the mark!
But I do begin to discern your philosophy which strikes me as a Progressive philosophy. Where history is concerned, and even your ideas of diversity, what is valuable is whatever leads to your own subculture, all else being expendable.
"History is bunk" - Henry Ford.
I'd say that the shacks out on the water off the north shore could remain as some sort of artifact until they rot away and the large one with the metal roof could be repurposed into an open pavilion with benches to take in the river views. The rest could go to the dump.
ReplyDeleteAgain, what on earth could possibly be your "philosophy of art"? It boggles the mind.
DeleteTake a ride on North 2nd Street all the way in past the Dog Park and you will see the beautiful vent pipes sticking out of the ground to release the gasses from the decomposition of the waste that has been there for years.
ReplyDelete