In the second part of this two-part series on residential development in the Hudson Valley, we look at successful projects that provide housing and serve their communities.  In Part One (March 2005) we reviewed building trends and the pressures and resistance that developers face.

"There's tremendous pressure moving up the Hudson River as large proposals are being put forward for development," says Ned Sullivan, president of Scenic Hudson, the environmental preservation group in Poughkeepsie that works with local governments, developers, and citizens groups to help preserve the river and promote community. Sullivan says his group has lately found itself overwhelmed by the amount of development being proposed up and down the Hudson. "Communities are at different stages of planning, and we find ourselves reacting to a lot of projects and groups." Unfortunately, say Sullivan and Jeffrey Anzevino, senior regional planner at Scenic Hudson, few if any of these projects are inspiring, outside-the-box developments that could serve as models for the region.

Some small-scale examples are the Mill at Saugerties, a senior-citizen rental facility located on the Esopus in a historic 19th-century brick building, and a former apple warehouse just south of New Paltz on Route 32, converted to rental units. In Newburgh, the joint venture of architect Drew Kartiganerand Rieger Homeslast year completed construction of Montgomery Views,12 single-family homeson a vacantlot that setnew standards of design. Situated on cozy yet private lots oriented to a magnificent view of the Hudson, the houses reflect the architectural styles ofthe existing housing stock,and utilize traditional materials. Says Kartiganer, "The houses echo the historic buildings in Newburgh from the 1920s. We took advantage of a vacant urban-renewal site and created an anchor for the neighborhood." Many existing trees were preserved, and garages are located on back alleyways. The housesvaryin size and design and are situated at a slightly staggered distance from each other, creating a subtle rhythm. Although the houses are modest in scale compared to much of the new housing going up in the surrounding countryside, several sold for more than $400,000. And since the development has been completed, the values of adjoining properties have gone up 70 percent.

Kartiganer's project is cutting-edge, and an exception to the rule. By and large, most new development contributes to sprawl by eating up natural resources, jars with the traditional architecture and scale of existing towns and villages, and is insensitive to the environment. However, that scenario is beginning to change, as county and town planners, elected officials, and even developers themselves become more aware of the principals of "smart" growth and start laying the groundwork to encourage this type of development.

The movement is gaining a foothold throughout the valley. Re-development of urban waterfronts is being proposed in Peekskill, Beacon, Poughkeepsie, and Kingston, in some instances resulting in updated uses for old industrial buildings and bringing new life to long-abandoned urban zones. Ambitious mixed-used projects, conforming to county and town rezoning efforts designed to revitalize town centers, are in the planning stage at Hyde Park and LaGrange. Cluster developments with preservation of open space have begun to crop up, and the movement toward "conservation subdivisions" is beginning to gain support in the region; the town of Marbletown, for example, is working on a master plan that would create incentives for this type of growth. Perhaps the only segment that's getting short shrift is affordable housing, thanks to the dramatic increase in the cost of land and construction and the hot real-estate market (see sidebar).

Sharing Responsibility
Blame for bad development can't be laid solely at the developers' doorstep. The power to zone and determine what form growth will take belongs to towns. Developers complain about the tendency of recalcitrant town boards to erect obstacles to their projects midway through the approval process, often in reaction to strong opposition by residents; conversely, irked citizens complain about lax planning boards that allow all sorts of ugly development to occur. Yet a few towns are working hard to formulate a vision and cobble together a plan that effectively paves the way for aesthetically pleasing and environmentally sensitive development.   

One such town is Fishkill, whose town supervisor, Joan Pagones, has earned the respect of people on both sides of the fence. Pagones "understands the development process and how to get it done," says Larry Regan, president of Ardsley-based Regan Development, which is building a 90-unit rental building in Fishkill for people over age 55 with modest incomes. (Rents for a one-bedroom apartment will be $790 a month, and the company is receiving subsidies from the state to offset the cost of development.) The approval process for the project took only a year, in contrast to the more typical three or four years. Regan credits Pagones for the lack of difficulties and delays.

"The vision starts with elected officials," notes Pagones, adding that they have the power to make legislative changes that determine a town's zoning. In Fishkill, she and the town board "are on the same page," and the board supported her decision to establish a housing department. She has gotten to know her community "by being on numerous boards," and when an issue surfaces—such as the dire need for affordable housing—Pagones acts; in this case, she attached to new developments a density bonus that requires allotting a percentage of affordable housing units in the overall plan.