Last Friday, the "Me & Mini Me" proposal for 123 Union Street was the subject of a public hearing by the Historic Preservation Commission. Those speaking at the public hearing agreed that the design of the accessory building being proposed was inappropriate.
Henry Haddad, who with painstaking accuracy is restoring a house across the street from 123 Union Street, maintained that there is no precedent in the Northeast for an outbuilding that was a replica of the main house. He called what is being proposed "Disneyland" and "cookie cutter" and completely out of character. He cited the carriage house behind 115 Warren Street (the Seth Jenkins House constructed in 1795) as an example of new construction (the carriage house was built in the early 2000s) that is the right scale and the right period design for its status as an accessory building.
Matt McGhee similarly called the design "out of character with Hudson," saying it could be better thought out. He expressed the opinion that it would be "more appropriate if it looked like what you would expect in Hudson."
Walter Chatham, the architect for the project, questioned the assumption that the proposed building was out of character. "If the original building is in character, why isn't what's proposed in character?" He asserted, "The current vision is not to build something 'garage-y,'" going on to say, "Hudson is in need of housing, and this is an opportunity to create more housing."
Ronald Kopnicki expressed the desire to see examples from the Northeast of 19th-century outbuildings that replicated the main building.
When the public hearing was over and the HPC began its discussion of the project, Paul Barrett expressed the opinion that the accessory building is too much like the house. He also said he was concerned about the scale. Kim Wood observed that the outbuilding being proposed is almost as large as the original house, saying it is more a replica than a miniature version. She was concerned about overcrowding on the lot.
COPYRIGHT 2025 CAROLE OSTERINK
Mr. Haddad, if only, Hudson was as clean and well managed as Disneyland. Did Mr. Schobel poll the residents of Hudson since he claimed the “public does not want Partition Street to be a street of nice little houses.” I assume Mr. Schobel prefers the numerous Shantis, garbage filled yards, warehouses, chain link fences with barbed wire across the top. Run down and unkept houses, broken and unpainted fences. Partition Street ends with an alley to a strip mall and ugly apartments buildings. It is my option it would be wonderful to see Partition Street with beautiful little houses even if they mimicked the main house, but I do not have the Creativeness, Uniqueness, Nerve & Talent of the Hudson HPC.
ReplyDeleteMr. Chatham made a lovely and practical design, and his work does not deserve to be insulted. Mr. Chatham should be commended for his patience while allowing these people the opportunity to feel important and exercise their egos.
Chatbot.
DeleteCork it, Zero. We who live down here applaud the HPC for yesterday’s ruling.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe cidiot has polled Hudson’s residents about 123 Union either. His/her complaints are, just that, HIS/HER complaints not anyone else’s. There's lots of updating, rebuilding and restoring underway in the lower Union and Allen neighborhood. It seems that almost every other home down there has a building permit posted in the window. For the most part, the resident's work seems to be respectful of maintaining the charm, history and wonderful details that make that part of town a special place to live and visit. Unfortunately, 123 Union is one of those projects that does not follow those principles. I walk or drive Partition almost daily and enjoy the beauty and quaintness of it. Sure, there are a couple of properties that need clean up but they are the exceptions and not the rule. Where is the alley to a strip mall and ugly apartment buildings? I haven’t seen those. I appreciate the difficult and often unpopular work being done by our HPC and I hope they continue to protect and stand up against the vanity and short term rental projects which eat away at the unique character of Hudson.
ReplyDeleteI guess I have a middle ground opinion on this. I don’t see the problem with infill development like carriage houses, especially if they intend to model them with same design elements as the existing structures on the same property. I’d rather we add housing for long or short term rentals piecemeal in the character of the neighborhood they reside. I’d rather we do this at scale than just dumping tax exempt tenements in any open lot in town. I respect the HPC and neighbors that feel that this particular design is out of line. I also understand that Galvan (which I feel is a net negative force in Hudson) has burned HPC on numerous occasions. I guess I don’t know what I’m saying except that this feels like we’re winning a battle while losing the war.
ReplyDeleteI'm in favor of anything that will up end the 'notion' of Hudson charm. The pic described as 'in keeping' with the hood is about as banal as the HPC itself. Alley architecture, rag tag as it may be, isn't the province of the HPC. If it conforms to code ... build it. Only people that have been to Disney land can relate to it.
ReplyDelete