Last night, the Planning Board began its task as lead agency in the SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) process for the proposed Hudson Housing Authority redevelopment project by considering the eighteen questions in Part 2 of the Full Environmental Assessment Form (FEAF). That whole discussion can be viewed here, beginning at 46:17.
 |
Beginning the SEQR process was the first of several steps outlined by Planning Board chair Ron Bogle. The next will be a design review, then an engineering review, then a public hearing, and finally board action. In preparation for the design review, which is expected to begin at the May meeting of the Planning Board, Bogle explained that the architect, Quncie Williams of Alexander Gorlin Architects, was unclear about what information the board was seeking. It will be recalled that at the March meeting of the Planning Board, when Peter Spear asked for renderings that were closer to reality, and Bogle asked if the renderings were "conceptual illustrations, or do they really reflect what is currently planned to be built?" (the renderings have been around since the fall of 2024), Williams responded, "Architects deal with intent. . . . My intent is to have this built as it's shown."
 |
| Williams (left) at the March meeting of the Planning Board with one of the two renderings |
Similarly, questions 17 and 18 in Part 2 of the FEAF address, respectively, "Consistency with Community Plans" and "Consistency with Community Character." When they got to the latter question, Bogle asked if "community character" referred to "the immediate neighborhood, or is it something beyond?" Planning Board member Veronica Concra responded, "If it's already existing, how could it inconsistent? I don't understand. It's the exact same thing, just newer and safer."
Bogle went on to say, "I think based on what we know right now, we'll know more at the next meeting when we have our design review, but directionally it feels like they are representing what they believe is consistent with the neighborhood."
Sara Black, recently appointed to the board and previously on the HHA board, agreed with Concra that what was being proposed could not possibly be inconsistent. She added, "Compared to Schuyler Court and the townhouses . . . I don't have an architectural problem with the community character."
It's worth pointing out that Concra and Black live in parts of the city that are far away from the HHA site, about as far away as you can get in a city that's only a little more than two square miles. Peter Spear, who lives only a block or so away, offered this opinion: "I think there's legitimate questions about the scale and the degree to which it fits with the scale of the neighborhood that it's in."
When Black made a comment about the proposed project being totally consistent with the urban renewal neighborhood in which is was located, Spear responded, "This is where things get complicated, because the comprehensive plan requires that we repair the harms of urban renewal and that repairing the harms of urban renewal in the built environment orients the design toward the historic character of the neighborhood."
The review of the proposed design is expected to happen at the May meeting of the Planning Board, which is currently scheduled to take place on May 12.
COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK
I am not quite sure which comprehensive plan Peter is referring to here. If it is the most recent one (the one done last year), it contains no reference to "repairing the harms of urban renewal". I have it before me and scanned it carefully to no avail.
ReplyDeleteThe Comprehensive Plan is either entirely useless or the real thing, depending on who you ask. It can't be made to play both roles at the same time, carefully selecting the view that is more convenient in the moment.
If we accept it as the standing plan, we should acknowledge that it focuses on affordable housing to a large degree. If we don't, then it cannot be used as counter argument the way Peter did.
Max - Page 51:
Delete"By recognizing historical injustices, the 2035 Comprehensive Plan commits to promoting equitable development that repairs the harms and prevents future displacement".
To be clear, citing a PDF written by a highly political progressive/activist "think tank", under the supervision of Michelle Tullo, and with a statistically insignificant survey response rate, is not wise for the City.
~
And then re: the "logic" of consistency mentioned above:
To argue that a design is "consistent" because it mimics the architectural scar tissue of a failed experiment is pure institutional atrophy (from those PB Board members).
Claiming we must preserve the geometry of Urban Renewal simply because it exists is like a doctor defending a gangrenous limb due to its long-standing presence.
Or the City of Berlin saying let's build 10 foot walls everywhere because it is consistent with the one big one that they had down the middle that existed for 50 years as a failed social experiment before literally and figuratively falling apart.
If Hudson truly wants to repair past "harms", it must admit that these isolated blocks are not the neighborhood's character. They are its pathology. And HUD, the federal agency, has said as much.
We should restore the organic complexity of the historic grid and scale, integrate the city and not cement its division, instead of building a shinier version of a socialist-realist cul-de-sac.
The only reason why this project is tripling in size is money, specifically MountCo needing a $20m plus profit, and the scale requirements of the NYS Low-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC).
HCS makes sense, Max. But the simple and almost immediate fix would be for the Council to adopt corner-lot commercial overlays in the north side of the city to permit the organic development of actual street life and commerce in a quarter of the city lacks any commercial development at all. Historically, there were stores, bars, restaurants and brothels in all the "blocked" areas of Hudson. Bring it back (not the brothels, but . . .). Overlays are comparatively simple zoning law fixes that permit planned growth and development. If paired with a qualified ability to build to 4 stories on those corners we might end up with more rental housing as well.
DeleteIndeed John - we will write about this more later elsewhere, and the massive legal blunder the City made here vis-a-vis Black, which is now forever enshrined with her speaking last night and not recusing on this matter.
DeleteMore broadly, consider the legal framework that America has established, and the data:
Federal policy since QHWRA 1998 and the 2015 AFFH Rule has shifted away from concentrated "projects" because Chetty’s research proves that children thrive when housing is distributed. Bliss 2.0 risks repeating the "concentrated poverty" mistakes of the 1970s rather than embracing the modern "scatterplot" model that federal law now prefers.
I see how this sentence could be read this way but I think that's only because it's written in a way that could mean anything. Sentences containing the word "equitable" rarely express a rigid proposition.
DeleteThe way I read this in reference to Bliss Towers: Bliss is falling apart and it would be the right thing to replace it with something that isn't. I don't read out of it that the replacement needs to be Versailles. It just needs to be better and fullfil its purpose.
What is before the PB in my mind can achieve this. I don't agree with the overall plan of more than doubling its size. That doubling however would be achieved by a later second stage which I doubt has a chance of happening anyway.
John: I recall we once talked about the overlay zoning (may have been in relation to the Stewart's remodel back then). It made a lot of sense to me and it's something that would make Hudson behave more like many European towns where this type of residential/commercial mixture is quite common. It's a good model to copy.
As for Sara Black and a conflict of interest, I am less convinced. As far as I can tell, she would not personally benefit from the Bliss replacement happening. I would think that some sort of potential personal enrichment or benefit would have to exist before a conflict of interest could be declared. As I remember, she also joined the HHA after that project had already been proposed. She was not one of the chief architects behind it.
Your ethical analysis is as constipated as the state legislature’s. Money is not the sine qua non of conflicts of interest. And the erosion of public trust engendered by one person sitting in review of their own work would make a child blush. Most adults, apparently, can’t see beyond their wallets.
DeleteTassilo -
Deletere: "That doubling however would be achieved by a later second stage which I doubt has a chance of happening anyway."
This is what many people believe.
Thanks... for saying the quiet part out loud Max...
But:
A) consider that NY law requires both phases to be tied together in SEQRA review and overall PB review, and final buildout _financing_.
B) you may betray that you are a Greenport resident and not a Hudson taxpayer, or perhaps to not care as much about the residents of that neighborhood (?), when you seem to be ok with an intentionally half built mega project, that will leave the whole 2nd Ward in disarray for decades (again), if the 2nd Phase is not completed.
Not to mention that HHA/Bliss needs the 2nd Phase completed, to have those coveted 315 units online, to increase their annual HUD operating subsidy.
Do you mean to suggest this was the plan all along?
To move from 85 functional units to 315 units, as a ploy to get generous demolition and construction funding, but only for Phase 1, knowing full well that Phase 2 will not happen?
This would mean, again, that they may not have enough operating budget to cover maintenance?
~
The HHA isn't building 315 units because the residents need that many apartments in one spot (3x current online units), or because it follows current HUD best practices, they are building 315 units because the HHA needs the $10+ million difference in developer fees to fund its own administrative future and salaries.
MountCo will either lose $2.5m of their upfront cash investment on this gamble, or make $20m to $30m.
Which, from an Expected Value (EV) perspective was a rational bet at the time. Especially when Kamal was mayor, Biden was President, and Joyner ran rough shod over the Planning Board.
But now the PB is in better shape, the federal funding landscape changed, and the odds went from greater than 50% (yielding an EV of $11m plus for MountCo) to less than 10% with the latest actions on the PB Procedural History for this project, which is MountCo's breakeven.
Still interesting to see the former MountCo employee and project lead Eu Ting-Zambuto move from MountCo to a job within New York State (HCR), and one of the primary state agencies responsible for funding and overseeing Bliss 2.0.
Must be a pure coincidence.
Sara Black to Hudson: “I did a great job at the HHA! Don’t believe me, just ask me and I’ll tell you.”
ReplyDeleteThank goodness there’s no conflict of interest there.