Of Dormers and Historic Preservation

At last Friday's Historic Preservation Commission, the HPC effectively approved the demolition of the house at 309-311 Union Street and denied a certificate of appropriateness for the addition of dormers at 26 Warren Street, currently operated as a hotel called The Hudson Mariner. The dormers, along with an addition at the rear of the house, were part of a plan to increase the occupiable space in the building. The hotel currently has five suites.

The house was built in 1810--just twenty-five years after the founding of Hudson in 1785. Back in 1970, in the early days of Urban Renewal, the house was one of the contributing structures in the first Hudson Historic District listed in the National Register of Historic Places. In 2010, when Eric Galloway was stripping 211 Union Street, the birthplace of General William Jenkins Worth of its Italianate details, 26 Warren Street was used as a model for what was imagined 211 Union Street might have looked like in 1794 when General Worth was born. 

During the public hearing on the proposed alterations to 26 Warren Street, Matt McGhee had this to say about the building and its significance:

Let us start with the Roman arch surrounding the fanlight over the front door of this Federal five-bay brick house. Its unadorned roofline is highly visible along Warren Street. The very plainness of this house is a major, significant feature of its historical character and nature. Basically, the state of this building as seen from Warren Street is unchanged, excepting the coating of paint. The need for calling out its brickwork for protection cannot be overstated. It should not be treated with any abrasives (sanding, etc.) to remove paint, or coated with damaging finishes.

A lack of dormers is a feature of five-bay Federal houses below Third Street on Union and Warren Streets. This absence of dormers is a feature of the neighborhood; in fact, few houses of any period in this neighborhood have dormers.

Now to end with a statement on the nature of Federal architecture. Its plainness refers to the Roman Republic as a basis for our new Republic—and the famously understated design and ornament of republican Rome’s buildings.

One might say they were as billboards advertising support for our new form of government.

When the HPC began deliberating on the proposal, Walter Chatham, representing the owner of the building, made an effort to sway them. He read a passage from the city's new comprehensive plan, explaining that this paragraph from the Executive Summary (page 8) was the only mention of historic preservation in the entire 277-page document.

This plan is also not a "refresh" or an "update" of an existing effort. The foremost goal of the previous 2002 Plan was to "Protect the Traditional Character of Hudson's Downtown and Neighborhoods," with objectives focused on historic preservation, design, and waterfront access. Over the course of this new plan's development, residents consistently expressed concern with housing affordability and the overall cost of living. This observation bore out for residents new and old and across a range of socioeconomic backgrounds. Whereas the prior plan chose to center historic preservation and design, the imperative of Hudson 2035 is to ensure that the benefits of a resurgent and thriving Hudson are shared among all community members.

What the new comprehensive plan does not acknowledge, although, to his credit, Chatham did, is that the "resurgent and thriving Hudson" is based on the successful efforts of preservation advocates over the past thirty or more years, and historic preservation and the historic character of the city is essential to the economic survival of the city. Chatham referred to himself as "a bridge between this commission and the business community" when arguing for this change to a historic building to accommodate a business interest.

It was not immediately clear how the HPC would vote on the question of the dormers. John Schobel stated at the outset that he was opposed to the dormers. Paul Barrett, the historian member of the HPC, also expressed the opinion that the addition of dormers was inappropriate. Phil Forman, who chairs the HPC, said, remarkably, "We're here to help people get their projects done," and also said, "I don't think we are doing our job if we can't tolerate a few windows that are totally appropriate." Cara Cragan, the architect member of the HPC, who is not actually a preservation architect, said, "The dormers make sense and benefit the business." Jeremy Stynes admitted he was "pulled in both directions" but was "leaning toward saying no." 

In the end, Stynes did say no, and the proposal was denied by the smallest of margins--four to three, with Schobel, Barrett, Stynes, and Miranda Barry voting against, and Forman, Cragan, and Hugh Biber voting in favor.

A little background: The owner of 26 Warren Street (The Hudson Mariner) is also the owner of The Hudson Whaler (542 Warren Street), where the too narrow shutters which were installed "in error" five years ago have yet to be corrected; The Hudson Navigator (251 Allen Street), where it was proposed to put an illuminated sign on the side of a house on a residential block in a historic district; and the hotel proposed 10-12 Warren Street.  

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK