The Hudson Housing Authority is pursuing an ambitious redevelopment. What's being proposed will take up an entire city block, and when completed, there will be twice as many units, managed by HHA, as there are now. HHA wants the Planning Board to complete its review and grant site plan approval by May 2026, so they can meet their deadlines for funding from New York State, yet they seem to be stonewalling the Planning Board when it comes to presenting anything that gives a clear idea of what this massive development is going to look like.
At the February meeting of the Planning Board, HHA presented elevations of the proposed buildings--drawings that show the facades of the buildings in two dimensions.
Ron Bogle, who chairs the Planning Board, put off any discussion of the design of the buildings because the elevations did not provide enough information, and he requested renderings to show what the buildings would actually look like.
On Tuesday, March 10, just hours before their meeting started, the Planning Board received a set of "presentation visuals." The visuals, which can be viewed here, were made up of a Google Earth image of the current site, a site plan we've seen several times before, two renderings also seen before, and two 3D renderings. Bogle again postponed discussion of the design because the materials had not been submitted in a timely fashion. (The deadline for submitting things to the Planning Board is two weeks before the next scheduled meeting.) He could have postponed discussion because the renderings do not provide enough information about what the buildings will actually look like.
- Buildings that create the narrative of Hudson by lining the streets
- Buildings that are scaled to be harmonious with the town houses of Hudson
- Creating a pedestrianizing atmosphere
The renderings presented are confusing, because it's not clear exactly what is being depicted. In talking about the rendering below, Williams spoke of the "pedestrianization" of State Street.
Similarly, it's impossible to know the vantage point for this rendering. It seems to show an L-shaped building, but the only L-shaped building in the plan that seems to match this rendering is the one proposed for Phase 2 of the project.
Toward the end of the meeting (1:21:27), Planning Board member Peter Spear asked if they could have renderings that were closer to reality. Following up on Spear's question, Bogle asked of the renderings, "Are they conceptual illustrations, or do they really reflect what is currently planned to be built?" Williams responded to Bogle's question by saying the renderings showed "the intent of what we expect to be built here." Spear pointed out, "Those are two different things, though. Intention and expectation are very different degrees of certainty." To which Williams responded, "Architects deal with intent. . . . My intent is to have this built as it's shown."
These renderings have been around for a long time. Gossips published the first one for the first time in October 2024. The second one (and perhaps also the first) was part of presentation made by Alex Gorlin at the "greenspace workshop" held at Bliss Towers in September 2024. (The playground area which was the focus of the rendering then has been cropped off.) Since then, there's been a lot of value engineering to bring down the cost of the project. It's hard to imagine that effort had no impact on the facade design. In his presentation, Williams talked about "siding." Siding could be anything, but it usually means wood or some imitation wood shingles. The renderings show nothing of the kind.
It is not unreasonable for the public to want to know what this new development will look like. In his comments to the Planning Board on Tuesday, Jeffrey Dodson, HHA executive director, recalled his first walk down Warren Street, thinking this was a beautiful, historic place, "Only to take a right on Second Street and go, 'My god, what is that?'" He was reacting to Bliss Towers, which he described as "hideous." Given that, it seems reasonable for people in Hudson to want to know what in future they will see when making that same turn off Warren Street, but none of the renderings provide any idea. The one 3D rendering that shows the project with any architectural detail shows it from the west, a vantage point from which it will only be seen by residents parking their cars and folks who live in Schuyler Court.
The discussion of the project at the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday brought up a couple of things that are a bit worrisome. As we all know, Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments cannot be demolished until the new buildings have been completed and the current residents of Bliss Towers and Columbia Apartments have been relocated. What was revealed on Tuesday is that there is no money for the demolition in Phase 1, and therefore the demolition will have to wait until funding is secured for Phase 2.
The "pedestrianization" of State Street is also not part of Phase 1. Instead it is part of Phase 2. Given that the parking plan submitted to the Planning Board in October 2025 includes parallel parking on both sides of State Street in order to meet the parking requirements for all the tenants of the project, it's hard to imagine how closing the street is going to happen.
There's another unanswered question that did not come up at the Planning Board meeting: Are the townhouses proposed for the lot at the end of Warren Street part of Phase 1 or Phase 2? If they are part of Phase 1, their design will have to go before the Historic Preservation Commission because the proposed location is in a locally designated historic district. That hasn't happened yet.
Love the AntiRender site! About damn time.
ReplyDeleteIndeed Mark, Gossips on the forefront of news and technology.
ReplyDeleteAlso - for those watching this story unfold... this might be a play of "dramatic irony";
"a literary device by which the audience’s or reader’s understanding of events or individuals in a work surpasses that of its characters. "
- MountCo has not been forthcoming to HHA.
- Dodson has not been forthcoming to Mountco or HHA.
- All 3 have not been forthcoming to the City of Hudson Planning Board, and Hudson taxpayers, as they are legally bound.
Now... dear readers... HHA and Dodson have 75 days to get this rushed past the Planning Board.... otherwise more upfront, right-sized developments in Westchester and larger Hudson Valley cities will get the limited funding in this cycle.
This is why elections (and skeletons) matter.
Theresa Joyner would have rubber stamped this and tolerated the procedural deficiencies... but turns out NYS HCR are quite sensitive to completeness. Turns out perhaps Hudson has wisened to the mistakes of Urban Renewal and the Waterfront, and does not want to repeat it.
For self described "Republicrat" and Westchester based for-profit developer Joel Mounty... this must feel like deja vu? Like KHA?
And Mr. Dodson - prophetic words at the Planning Board meeting last week that will no doubt be revisited:
🗣 Dodson Planning Board Meeting 3/11/26:
"Remember what I said about who I am, I am not going to let that happen. It is ludicrous to let that happen. It's inhumane to let that happen. It's not going to happen."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia4IV4b7g7A
Was Mr. Dodson referring to:
A: The very real risk of this project collapsing mid-construction, leaving the City of Hudson with half-demolished skeletons of buildings and zero remaining funds when the state pulls its support due to "procedural deficiencies" and Trump's HUD withdrawing funding to the state, as they said they would.
B: The reckless plan to quadruple the population density of a development in a small town-city that lacks the job market, transit, and school capacity to support it, effectively setting up new and old residents alike for systemic failure?
C: The pursuit of multi-million dollar developer profits while carefully shielding HHA’s decades long deep-seated management failures from public scrutiny, prioritizing the "deal" over the actual welfare of the existing tenants and taxpayers?
🤔
We will be digging into this one to share common facts, common ground, and then ask uncommon questions.
We have to ask: Is Mr. Dodson Hudson’s White Whale, our White Elephant, or a White Knight?
Will this project be harpooned by its own "mismanagement" to date, or is it just a massive money-maker for MountCo being towed into our harbor?
One thing is certain, the "dramatic irony" is thick, and the 75-day clock is ticking.
www.HudsonCommonSense.com/subscribe
The antirendered results reveal the hideous, cookie-cutter design. These buildings are much more evocative of a SUNY dorm than a Hudson townhouse. I hope the PB sticks to its guns and drills down on the reality of this project to ensure it is in Hudson’s and its residents’ best interests.
ReplyDeleteIt looks hideous because AntiRender itself has a very specific agenda that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. What it is is a generative AI that was told to make something look less good.
DeleteI just fed it a screenshot of Google's streetview of my house (taken in October 2022) and what it did is a) not complain that it's not a render and b) make other gratuitous changes such as removing all foliage and inventing unsightly bog-like patches in my frontyard.
The same exaggerations are happening here: It's not clear to me that there would ever be metal construction fences around the buildings for which we have a render. Nor would random minisplits show up where there weren't any in the render. AntiRender's version also makes a street just disappear.
None of these things are functions of the proposed architectural design.
Gossip's readership rationally knows full well what is going on here. We are dealing not with a labor of love but one of necessity: These towers as they stand need to be replaced and it needs to happen in a context that is full of obtuse regulatory and financial rules. It surprises no one that it doesn't look like Alan St.
The way I see it is that the question shouldn't be so much about what the replacement is going to look like. It's gonna look bad after a few years, no matter what.
The real question is why this replacement project is split into different phases that all interact with each other in unintelligible ways while it also proposes a massive increase in housing units.
I don't think it needs to be super-nice. It needs to be functional for its residents and it needs to have financing. It seems that at least phase one is covered financially.
Max, when you and the rest of the “I was born in Hudson (or Germany or Austria or Egypt or Botswana or over there generally) but live in ‘not-Hudson’ now so let me tell you what’s right” champion the development of affordable housing in Greenport, I’ll be willing to read your medicinal prose. Until then, fuck off and stay in Greenport. And have a nice day.
DeleteDare we joke that only the French (not the Germans) have a member of parliament for residents overseas.
DeleteDéputé des Français de l'étranger
This is one of the reasons why we started referring to Albany Quintin Cross, Catskill Elliott Matos, Greenport Max, Greenport Kristen Zanotelli.
All that said, Hudson is the County seat of Columbia County. And that means that engaged County residents like Max can productively opine on issues that relate to the County.
John, I am surprised that you expected me to opine on Hudson only when it suits your cause. You know me. What about me gave you that impression?
DeleteI have been championing any type of housing in Greenport and I am not the only one in my town. Unlike your city, my town and some of its elected and appointed officials are quite concerned about a receding population. We want more of it since it would increase our piece of the sales tax pie.
The 151-unit proposal (if memory serves right containing 30 affordable units) on Healy Blvd is in walking distance to my house. I would very much like to see it be built anyway. The slight increase in traffic it might incur would easily be outweighed by its upsides.
And thanks for the truthbomb, Hugo. We are all indeed incredibly sophisticated and polyglot citizens of the world that at the end of the day share one unimaginable burden: The fantastical HCSD school tax.
Not at all, Max — I expect you to comment. I expect you expect me to respond.
DeleteHCS - as the county seat, Hudson is both expected and expects to host most if not all of the detritus of the county’s attempts at governance. Just not all of its public and subsidized housing. Nor to foot the entire bill.
If you don’t pay taxes in the CITY of Hudson who cares what you think about our tax base and obligations? Maybe those folks can draft Kamal Johnson to run for supervisor of Greenport of Stockport or who cares where — I hear he’s looking for work.
Fair points all round.
DeleteThis is one of the reasons why Matt Murrell's leadership has been so bad...
- Where is the cross-county Recreation Center (that Mishanda and Jackie now wisely bring forward)
- Why does Hudson have virtually 100% of all of the County's public housing?
Max - office or pier-a-terre in Hudson?
Hudsonians appear to be displeased that affordable housing only ever seems to be proposed in Hudson. Perhaps that's not the fault of Greenport.
DeleteHere's a legal question for John to research: When a replacement of a federally-run affordable housing project is being discussed, does the replacement have to be situated in the same municipality? I genuinely don't know the answer. All I know is that the question over the future fate of Bliss Towers has never sloshed over into my town.
I've not yet seen an elected Hudson official show up at our townboard meeting and propose stuff. Why not? Is it because you all think that we in Greenport sit on trees and make atavistic grunts? It's not nearly as bad.
And I am biding my time with a pied-à -terre or Hudson property, Hugo. I want to wait out the city-wide reassessment. Last I heard you folks lack the funds to get that on its way this year. 😊
No need to research anything: Bliss and its appurtenant outbuildings are Section 7 housing. That is, federally-owned (as opposed to Section 8 (privately owned) housing). As such, at least at Bliss, the federal government owns the land. They are building where they own which, of course, is an economic failure since if the fed sold the land it would yield a good profit and it could then purchase land in Greenport. This would be a boon for everyone! Greenport, without any zoning, could permit a new public housing project anywhere it likes. Land in Greenport is a pittance compared to land values in micro-city Hudson. So they could build a 20 story tower surrounded by a series of surrounding 5 story townhouses with a lovely grassy courtyard in the center. Come to think of it, Wortman Sq. is ideal for this type of development. Open space, close to main roads and shopping, schools nearby. Nice neighbors, too. Plus that annual Halloween hoedown.
DeleteTalk to enough Columbia County natives from the surrounding towns and you’ll get a good understanding of how they’ve viewed Hudson over the years. They were more than happy to NIMBY off what they didn’t want in their towns to Hudson: public housing, the landfill, truck routes, and a state prison. And that’s why they were more than happy to keep 11 Warren St, an entire block of the most valuable real estate in the county, an underutilized tax exempt blight. And since the revitalization of Hudson during the past couple decades they now see us as rich Cidiot transplants to be fleeced via sales tax, real estate taxes, and footing the majority of the bill for shared EMS and free youth department programs for their children.
DeleteIf there was purposed public housing in Wortman Square we could hear the howling all the way from Greenport. Same with Kinderhook, Chatham, Copake… Hudson has the most subsidized housing per capita between Kingston to Albany. There can only be so many middle class taxpayers left to foot the bill for city and school services. There needs to be balance. Sure, replace the current Bliss development. The residents deserve better. But why put the project in jeopardy by doubling or tripling the size? Oh yeah, to appease the developers, and to bring in more voters for the candidates that serve said developers.
Jack, most of what you are saying is not factual. Greenport, on account of having no zoning, has no way of NIMBYing off anything. As a result, all kinds of shit gets dumped on Greenport and only by sheer luck it sometimes doesn't get built.
DeleteCase in point was the Blue Wave battery storage facility that was supposed to be built right next to Bob's Restaurant in 2023. Our Planning Board had no legal basis on which it could have prevented that.
That application only got withdrawn because National Grid changed the parameters of a project that this storage facility was part of and so Blue Wave pulled out.
It was this particular application that prompted the town to come up with a zoning plan.
And Bliss Towers meanwhile was not built in Greenport because we NIMBY'ed it off. It was built in Hudson because that city had been identified as being in decline whereas Greenport's population was growing and was much wealthier.
Read "Fault lines: the legacy of urban renewal in Hudson, NY" by Abigail Bliss to learn why Urban Renewal hit Hudson and no other municipality in the county: https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/127585
Try as you like, we are not the cause of your problems.
I’m not sure of the “we” you are referring to or whom you think that I’m scapegoating. You seem overly enthusiastic to include yourself in any “we” group. My point is many of Hudson’s problems stem from a history of the rest of the county giving up on it and letting it go to decline, while they fled to the suburban lots of Greenport and neighboring. And due to bullying by the rest of the towns via Board of Supervisors, which goes on to this day. And, yes, lots to blame from mismanagement within Hudson, by either incompetence or corruption, and many citizens that lacked civic confidence and pride. And Greenport residents also gave up on Warren St to shop at the big box corporate chains on Fairview. Which, yes, I agree is a dump due to lack of zoning.
DeleteBut in recent years Hudson’s residents have been gaining back confidence in the city as seen by current investment and civic engagement. And in reaction to that we see a lot of hemming and hawing on Facebook from residents of Greenport and neighboring towns who are sour they can’t buy back what their grandparents gave up on and sold off.
Why any sane person would voluntarily expand a massive, grotesquely oversized public housing project, doubling the size of the existing oversized project, into a small town economically dependent on tourism, is beyond me. Is it so hard to find a creative, artistically inclined architect to design an inspired, humanly scaled development?
ReplyDeleteStranger still is the lack of concern that the organization wanting permissions to construct the project has a history of neglect and mismanagement. Rot and mold on bathroom cabinets, broken doors hanging off hinges, cracked up floors, water pouring through the roof into plastic garbage cans when it rained, dust and cobweb caked stairwells, holes in walls, rats and roaches, dangerous, chronically malfunctioning elevators, no security, broken laundry machines, toilets and intercoms - to name a few. Hopefully it has improved somewhat by now, but that was the norm for decades.
This proposal in general just seems to be lacking in imagination. The idea should be to create a nice place for people to live and raise their kids, not an oversized container to pack in as many humans as possible.
The new developmental layout adheres to the architectural layout Jane Jacobs described in her book " The Life and Death of American Cities" , death being the " Towers in the Park" concept first created by Corbusier.
ReplyDeleteThere could be more architectural details along the cornices, but is more in scale than the old Bliss Towers.
I would develop the roof as an outdoor space with an extraordinary view, and I would suggest a much better landscaping plan so that there is the feeling of a planted garden. Lets make it more humane and friendly. All in all, a pretty good job for public housing.
Dear j kay - Corbusier was a great man, even if not all of of his work aged well.
DeleteAnd thank you for your thoughtful comment.
But, respectfully, Jane Jacobs may have like the "eyes from the street" relative openness of this project, but would certainly critique the "megaproject" approach here, and certainly concentrating affordable housing in one spot... our main concern as well...
In her own words 70 years ago, a "hero against the pretensions of social engineering," she could have been describing this new plan, or the half empty Galvan Depot Lofts.
On the second page of Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961), she wrote:
"But look what we have built ... Low-income projects that become worse centers of delinquency, vandalism and general social hopelessness than the slums they were supposed to replace.
Middle-income housing projects which are truly marvels of dullness and regimentation, sealed against any buoyancy or vitality of city life...
This is not the re-building of cities. This is the sacking of cities."
Reference: https://fee.org/articles/jane-jacobs-1916-2006/
Then closing the loop on this thread ...
ReplyDeleteAt tonight's Hudson Housing Authority / Bliss Tower meeting there was a ~30 min conversation about the Gossips blog in general, and this story in particular.
You could generously steelman the conversation, led by the Commissioners and Zachos (previously of the now well funded Youth Center) and say that folks were discussing how optics and perceptions are framed (in Hudson) and the merit of the render / anti-render tools and visualization conventions mentioned above.
At one point, everyone agreed that they _never_ read "that blog" (referring to Gossips), before quoting verbatim several stories, and even specific lines from specific comments in this thread.
Which frankly, was funny and witty.
Touche Commissioner Smith!
And see you again soon at Talbot & Arding.
At one point everyone wondered aloud when the next Planning Board meeting was, at which point your loathed and loved editor could only but suggest, politely, that they all check the Gossips blog on Sundays for the "Meetings and Events in the Week Ahead" post… obviously.
A Seinfeld jingle could be heard in one participant's head...
~
HHA Commissioners and Mr. Mounty with $2m upfront and $20m plus in profit expected on the back - instead of the roundtable discussion on the 5th estate and blaming a blog for your own lack of transparency, why not simply submit complete applications and renderings within the legal time period to the City & PB, it has been 2 years and more than a million dollars of consultants and architects.
And why did you stop posting your public meeting videos in public, and moving most topics to private Executive Sessions for the last 6 months?
Didn't HHA Vice Chairwoman Cousin join in on the online mob last week to call for "transparency" in a private matter of other elected officials.
Here you are about to put Hudson and New York State taxpayers on the hook for a quarter of a billion dollars in tax dollars… and you submit incomplete renderings 3 hours before a meeting.
~
The developer, Joel Mounty, admitted tonight that his family owned firm had invested more than $1.5m to date, and could go up to $2.2m.
In NY HCR guidelines developers get 10% to 15% of total project budget, which means Mountco is looking at $20m to $30m in profit from this $200m to $300m project. Historically, 50% of these types of project go over budget, and 40% of all projects by more than 20%.**
Also see MountCo's Casa Celina project delays and Camp LaGuardia Collapse, and the eerily similar Kingston Housing Authority project... where Mountco apparently had a pattern of premature actions, poor communication, and ever-shifting plans that have left vulnerable, low-income tenants in the dark.
At one point they sent "permanent relocation" notices to tenants before getting the go ahead from HCR/government, and prior to receiving Kingston Planning Board approval. Then violated HUD notification standards. Same MountCo team leads. Imagine if that happened in Hudson…. FB comments would be wild?
[John Madeo from Mountco - if we have any of this wrong please let us know and we will publish a correction here and/or your contextualizing letter verbatim www.HudsonCommonSense.com/write]
~
But back to Bliss... at the end of the meeting tonight, on the walk out, we invited MountCo leadership for coffee to discuss the merits of the project and some of our ongoing research and questions, to share more about the Opportunity Insights' group research.
ReplyDeleteJoel Mounty was initially receptive to meet, immediately sought to answer questions on the spot (to his credit, he is always very polite, forthcoming in person, and even funny in a "Republicrat" lobbyist kinda way) but then at that very moment two HHA Commissioners (neither of whom actually live in Bliss or public housing) who were presumably making their way to the 5th and 1st Ward where they are publicly registered as voters, walked out of Bliss Tower, past us, and warned MountCo execs against "the blogs" and "the trolls".
No coffee meeting was scheduled.
The MountCo execs then drove off in their $100k+ MSRP BMW Series 7 black sedan, up Warren Street and away from the 2nd ward... back to the tony suburbs and winding wooded roads of Westchester County.
Hudson turned quiet again as the cold air pushed up Warren street, dividing the wards.
And here we are...
Residents who disagree on the most monumental project in Hudson this century did not exchange ideas, and at best, talked past each other, and that is when they were allowed to engage.
And, arguably, 95% of Hudson taxpayers, renters, and voters are unaware of this project's scope and consequences for residents, unable to scrutinize the plans, and the few who dared, were rebuffed and their motives or nationally questioned.
~
But hey, at least now more people know what a White Elephant, White Whale, and White Knight is... at least Commissioner Smith does.
Now... if someone can explain to us why a "Black Knight" gets a bad rap... that would be great...
In finance being "in the black" means you are solvent and profitable. Something HHA's plan will not achieve even when doubling or tripling in size to capture more government subsidies. And something HHA has not been for decades.
And in spite of paying a small fraction of the taxes that similarly sized properties pay in Hudson.
And wasn't Batman the Dark Knight.... a great and honest character?
But then again, he was against corrupt politicians, city planners, and mob bosses (like Carmine Falcone) who hijacked public funds… and at least in the cartoon version, is always chauffeured in generic, high-end classic luxury sedans or stretch limousines.
~
Bruce Wayne and his alter-ego Batman… would submit their plans on time, answer FOILs and not hide their public meeting records.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
References and Further Reading:
ReplyDelete**DiNapoli: "Better Reporting and Monitoring of NYC Capital Projects Needed."
*** Kingston Housing Authority / Penn Court Fiasco:
(A highly active, non-partisan, citizen-run watchdog blog in Kingston)
https://www.kingstoncitizens.org/2024/11/guest-article-no-place-like-home/
2."Tax break for selected developer raises various concerns in Kingston"
https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2022/03/08/tax-break-for-selected-developer-raises-various-concerns-in-kingston/
Excerpt:
Mountco has a mixed track record.
It made the front page of New York City’s Daily News back in 2014. The headline read: “Contractor cheated workers out of wages at Harlem housing development.”
In that article, city officials alleged that the company had underpaid its workers $300,000. According to the same article, Mountco was already a familiar name on an “enhanced review” list for previously prevailing-wage rules violations, having run up $610,000 in wages owed to workers on other jobs."
Or see this one:
https://hudsonvalleyone.com/2024/07/04/new-day-for-the-kha-as-harolda-wilcox-gets-acquainted/
"At her very first board meeting, Wilcox refused to sign off on the KHA's financial reports. Why? Because she realized there was over $1 million in unreconciled numbers sitting in the financials."
In that exact same meeting, Mountco VP John Madeo was present, reminding the board that they had a collective "obligation" to their private investors to deliver occupied units by specific dates so the investors could secure their tax incentives.
It perfectly captured the poor vs. profit juxtaposition of the KHA: a public agency failing to track millions of dollars or fix basic tenant safety issues, while simultaneously scrambling to ensure a private developer's investors got their tax breaks.
~
Obviously on one reads Gossips, so just leaving this here for posterity and future Gossips research.
Jesus that’s a lot of words, HCS. Permit me to condense and summarize: when someone won’t show you a picture of what they want to do when they have such a picture, it’s because they don’t want you to see it. In other words, the HHA is staffed and populated by people who are so full of shit that you can likely smell it on their breath.
ReplyDeleteIn a city full of 100 year old+ buildings, Bliss towers are finished at 53 years, and now we trust the same HHA to build bigger and better? Cheap construction, bad design, and poor maintenance have eroded Bliss Towers from the inside. By all means, let's fight about how the new project looks, but without hearing how it will function better and survive longer than the current buildings, aren't we just building another teardown for 2076?
ReplyDeleteFair point John and good summary - on these older threads we just write it out for posterity and record, and since the videos are no longer posted online.
DeleteTanya - that is sadly true. We emailed two of the Commissioners similar questions but no answer yet, and historically Dodson never answers emails and refuses to meet.
No one can explain to us why they can't simply replace housing for the 80 small households currently in Bliss.
Why is there this tripling down and the False Choice of nothing, or 3 to 4x in size expansion in a City that does not have enough good jobs or schools?