Compatibility Is Not Design Excellence

This morning, at a meeting that started at 8:35 a.m., the Planning Board voted on a resolution granting site plan approval to Phase 1 of the Hudson Housing Authority's redevelopment plan. The resolution can be found here. 

Prior to the vote, Planning Board chair Ron Bogle invited each member of the Planning Board to comment on the project. Veronica Concra said the project as proposed was not perfect, but it was a huge improvement. Kali Michael said it was the best decision for the city and the residents. Peter Spear maintained, as we reported previously, the proposal was "unacceptably institutional." Gene Shetsky said the project was something "we as a city need." Nathan Woodhull opined, "We did a lot of work with the applicant to make the project better." Sara Black said she was "excited for the residents of Bliss to have a safe and dignified place to live."

Before calling for the vote, Bogle made a lengthy statement. What he said about the comprehensive plan and architectural compatibility is particularly interesting.

The comprehensive plan expresses our aspirations for Hudson's future. It isn't a zoning ordinance and doesn't establish the same specific, enforceable development requirements. Nevertheless, our zoning code expressly identifies conformity with the comprehensive plan as a criterion in site plan review.

One of the plan's important aspirations, and a topic that has been a central focus in our discussions, is to repair the harm caused by urban renewal. But the plan doesn't precisely define what constitutes repairing that harm or prescribe how it must be accomplished.

That leaves room for reasonable differences in interpretation, as we've seen firsthand in our deliberations. Some view replacing Bliss Towers with new housing as a significant step toward repairing that harm. Others believe the proposed buildings perpetuate too much of the character of the development they're intended to replace.

Both perspectives deserve consideration. The challenge for this board is that the comprehensive plan establishes broad goals without prescribing exactly how they must be achieved. Our responsibility is to determine whether the proposal is reasonably consistent with those goals, while also applying the more specific requirements of our zoning code. That requires judgment, and reasonable people may reach different conclusions.

Our zoning code requires us to consider whether the height, location, and design of the proposed buildings are compatible with the existing and historic character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Compatibility isn't the same thing as design excellence. . . .

Several characteristics of the proposed design are relevant to that judgment.

The buildings are substantially lower than Bliss Towers, although some are taller than the two- to three-story buildings characteristic of much of Hudson. The proposed brick, stone, and warmer colors reflect materials familiar throughout the city. The articulation of the façades creates a rhythm suggesting individual buildings rather than one uninterrupted wall.

Perhaps most importantly, the buildings establish a more direct relationship with the street and leave open the possibility of connecting First Street to State Street in Phase II. That's a significant departure from the urban renewal approach embodied by Bliss Towers.

These characteristics don't necessarily produce the level of architectural excellence I would wish for Hudson. But in my judgment, taken together, they provide a reasonable basis for finding that the proposed design satisfies the City's current compatibility standard. . .

Throughout this review, we've confronted an important distinction between our aspirations for Hudson and the regulatory standards that guide the City's development.

Today we aren't here to judge those standards. We're obligated to apply them fairly, consistently and with our best judgment.

Bogle's comments also touched upon the future of Bliss Towers, acknowledging that the Planning Board has not "identified a workable mechanism that guarantees demolition independently of Phase II" and the Planning Board's action on Phase I " will not, by itself, resolve the future of Bliss Towers." 

According to a timeline created by Mountco, HHA's development partner, if all things go as planned, construction of Phase 1 will not be completed until July 2029 and the demolition of Bliss Towers will not happen until December 2029.

 

As previously reported, the vote to grant site plan approval was 6 to 1, with only Peter Spear voting against it.

COPYRIGHT 2026 CAROLE OSTERINK