The Restore NY grant application experience has had one effect: the Hudson Housing Authority and Mountco Construction are going out of their way to appear open and transparent in their plans for the redevelopment of HHA properties. Last night, Joel Mounty, the president and principal of Mountco Contruction, appeared at the HHA Board of Commissioners meeting, along with Mountco regulars to the project, John Madeo and Eu Ting-Zambuto. They brought with them architects Alex Gorlin and Quncie Williams, both of Alexander Gorlin Architects. Gossips showed up in person for the meeting, hoping to get more information about what the proposed buildings would look like, but no drawings or renderings were shared that haven't been seen before. The buildings still exist only as orange boxes on a map.
He also said he had written a book on affordable housing and produced two copies of the book: Housing the Nation: Social Equity, Architecture, and the Future of Affordable Housing. The book is actually a collection of essays by various authors, edited by Gorlin and architectural historian Victoria Newhouse.
Gorlin stressed that "the idea of the plan is not to displace anyone." He explained that 135 units in the new development would be for the low and extremely low income households now residing in HHA buildings, but all the additional units would be workforce housing. He cited teachers and policemen as potential tenants for the new housing. Later in the discussion, the income parameters for this workforce housing were defined as between 50 and 80 percent of the AMI.
According to information found on SeeThroughNY, in 2023, 50 educators in the Hudson City School District had annual salaries of more than $100,000, and 57 had salaries of more than $80,000. The lowest salary for someone described as an educator was $57,110. Similarly, for the Hudson Police Department in 2023, 8 officers had annual salaries of more than $100,000, and 11 had salaries of more than $80,000. The salary of the lowest paid officer in 2023 was $58,289. According to the site DataUSA, the median household income in Hudson in 2021 was $40,417. Given this information, it doesn't seem that many teachers and policemen will be living in the new buildings.
Quncie Williams talked about plans for the courtyard surrounded by buildings, which he described as a park, similar in scale to the Public Square, a.k.a. Seventh Street Park. He and Gorlin have maintained that this new park will actually be bigger than the Public Square. Comparing the two spaces on a Google map shows that is true.
Williams said there would be a public workshop, or a community charrette, for the development of the park. When pressed by an audience member to specify when that workshop/charrette might take place, Williams declined to name a time. It was requested that the public be notified at least a month before the charrette is to take place.
The developers and the architects have given assurances that the design of the new buildings will fit into the architectural context of the neighborhood. Last night, a picture of Providence Hall appeared, apparently accidentally, among the boards being displayed. This may be a hint to what the architects consider the context with which the new buildings will be compatible.
During the public comment period, Ronald Kopnicki, who was attending the meeting on Zoom, asked about the soil and engineering study for Site B, the parcel across State Street from Bliss Towers. Madeo told him they haven't done the site study yet, because they wanted input from the community first. The wisdom of this seems a bit questionable.
Back in 2018, working with a different developer, HHA got very far along on another redevelopment project. This one involved renovating Bliss Towers and building two new buildings across the street--one of which would have 33 units, the other 40. Things had gotten pretty fair along in the process. There were renderings showing the proposed design of the buildings, charrettes in which the community critiqued the design, and revised designs based on community comments.
.jpg)
After all that, the plan was abandoned in the summer of 2019, when it was discovered that the land on which the buildings were to be constructed could not sustain what was being proposed. What was being proposed then were four-story buildings. What is being proposed now is one five-story and one seven-story building. Given that history, one wonders why doing a soil study isn't a priority. What could have changed since 2019?
The meeting provided a lot of interesting information, elicited by questions from the public. The video of the meeting is now available on YouTube. It is recommended viewing.
COPYRIGHT 2024 CAROLE OSTERINK
The architects were also asked to speak to the pros and cons of centralized and concentrated housing, versus spread-out and mixed public housing? The question was not answered at the meeting.
ReplyDeleteThe earlier plan was much better. This South Bronx in Hudson rendering is absurdly not in conformity with the surrounding community.
ReplyDeleteThat thing in the Bronx looks like part of a Lego set for children.
ReplyDeleteWhy are we trying to reinvent a broken wheel? Why are people talking about how this project looks without actually asking whether this makes any social, financial, or practical sense in 2024? Have we learned nothing over the last 60 years? Putting a colorful coat of paint on a low income tower does not make life better for anyone. Putting all low income housing in one location does not improve the lives of people in the building, nor does it improve the neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteGentrification is real and there is no solution. Hudson has no extra housing to use for this purpose, so everything needs to be built new, at new prices, using tax dollars in a community with already outrageous tax rates. How does this work?
The rule of thumb on costs for a project like this is: 1/3 of the cost is for the land, 1/3 of the cost is for construction, and 1/3 of the cost is the debt service on the land and construction costs. We know what happens when you cut construction costs. We know banks don't like to lower their rates for anyone, and we know the land is a fixed cost. So again, how does this work?
For starters, I'd ask WHY is this project being proposed when interest rates are at historical highs, and why are we building a new version of the same thing, that we KNOW does not work? I suspect the answer might lie in the impending expiration of Opportunity Zone tax credits on 12/31/26. Is there a reason I don't see anyone talking about this? Also, why are we talking about demolishing buildings built in 1973, when most of this town predates 1900? The problem here isn’t the buildings, it is the maintenance, which we know the government does poorly. A new building is nothing without proper maintenance. Is anyone talking about this? Why spend so much money on a project that will end up in the same place without proper maintenance?
I listened to the entire meeting, and I understand there are 135 units of Section 8 housing that need to be replaced here. I also heard that 200 more units at below market rate were proposed. I also read that this proposal is a $220M project, and we know all building projects tend to go over, and a conservative 20% overrun is $44M, so let’s call this a $264M project for 335 units of housing, or $788,059 per unit. Does anyone else find this more than a little outrageous for housing that will not be generating tax revenue, and will increase the burden on all surrounding housing?
I have several better ideas, some of which solve several problems at once.
Solution 1: Buy houses in the area instead of building new. A quick Zillow search of Columbia County shows 48 houses available at $300K or less. Raise the bar to $550K and there are 140 available homes in Columbia County. I think we can all agree that, given the choice, most people would choose home ownership over living in a low income housing tower indefinitely. (Has anyone asked the Bliss residents if they’d like to own a home? I get that people want to stay where they are, but what if the choice is about ownership?) Change the parameters to include a 25mi radius around Hudson, regardless of county, and you get about 140 homes at $300K or less. Why build housing in Hudson for $788K when we can buy it within 25 miles for half the price? Why not create a path for the Bliss residents toward home ownership, instead of rebuilding a building that will be falling apart again in 50 years? Why do the taxpayers of Hudson have to repeatedly pay for our government’s failures? (I’d argue a failure of maintenance has put us into this position). This solves the problem for half the price, then leaves the land available for smarter development that will generate reasonable tax revenue for the city. The same government bond used to pay for this proposed development, could be better spent helping people own their own homes. How does this not make more sense? The people who want to stay in Hudson and keep renting can do so via solution #2. Solution 2: Change the zoning laws in Hudson. This has worked in several small cities across America with similar housing issues. Change the zoning immediately, allow an ADU with little to no govt. red tape (for instance offer 5-10 reapproved plan designs for alley facing ADUs), allow current homeowners a tax break for creating this affordable housing, offer subsidized loans to build. Current property owners could build a small ADU in a year for $350K that would create a 600 to 1000 sq. ft rental unit that could be guaranteed as $1200-2000/mo. apartments for a minimum of 5 years to renters who make $43,000 to $72K/year (this covers some of the teachers and firefighters from what I heard from the meeting). Offer different sizes and prices. How many current homeowners would like the opportunity to build income producing ADUs to offset their outrageous taxes here? I’m sure 100-300 would jump on this opportunity. I would. This is such an easy fix. Create all the new housing needed with zoning changes, decentralize low income housing, create more affordable housing, and get it done in half the time.
ReplyDeleteSolution 3: Build new market rate townhomes with ADUs. After executing either of both of the above solutions, build new, market rate housing at a density similar to State and Columbia between N Second and N Third, with 24 lots per side of the block. Build individual townhomes in keeping with what we already have, not giant towers that separate low income housing from the fabric of the city. Let these be market rate townhomes of 2000-3000 sq ft, with a 600 to 1000 sq ft ADU above a garage on the alley suitable for workforce housing. Let the new owners pay real estate takes like the rest of us. But also let them own the ADUs to offset those taxes. Increase the RE and school tax base of Hudson with 48 new townhomes (plus 48 ADUs on the continuation of Long Alley) that will help pay for increased maintenance of the water and sewer systems as well. Solution 4: Do not let Columbia County build on the 11 Warren site! That is prime real estate that needs to become 15-20 market rate townhomes, with 15-20 moderate income ADUs on the alley. 15 buildings at $20,000 per year in real estate tax is $300K per year added to the Hudson tax base. 20 buildings (plus 20 tax free ADUs) adds $400K annually to the tax roll. What makes more sense, government offices that cost us money, take up all the street parking, and pay no taxes, when better sites are available (John Edwards school!), or $300-$400K more per year to the tax base with which we could solve real problems? Solution 5: Create new jobs. Train managers, builders, and people to maintain the new public housing, whether that is homes across the county, or ADUs in the center of Hudson. There is no benefit to rebuilding Bliss as a tower, or a group of towers, with a heavy concentration of low income housing. This hasn’t worked in the last 50 years, and it won’t work in the next 50. We know better now, and we can do better. Governments make lousy property managers, and the main failure of this type of project in the past has been a combined failure of management, maintenance, and ownership. Let’s change that. In addition to decentralizing public housing, let’s build in a new system of management and maintenance. Hire and train residents to be property managers. Train residents in necessary skills like construction, plumbing, electrical and garden maintenance. Inspire residents to become homeowners, and help them own real estate they can leave to their children. Public housing needs to be so much more than building towers of 135 units and forgetting about it. We need whole new systems in place before anyone builds a single new building with a pretty coat of paint and a new courtyard, or our kids will be having this same conversation again in 50 years.
ReplyDeleteKudos Tanya ...
ReplyDelete