Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability

Historic Preservation Lecture Series

UMass Historic Preservation Program
Second Symposium on Preservation and Sustainability

“Cultural Heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability”

Sponsored by:

University of Massachusetts-Amherst
Department of Architecture + Design
Public History Program/Department of History
Department of Environmental Conservation: Building Construction, & Technology
The UMASS/Hancock Shaker Village Historic Preservation Program

When: Friday, March 01, 2013 from 1:00 PM – 5:30 PM
Where: University of Massachusetts-Amherst, Lincoln Campus Center, Room 165
Admission: Open to the public (See below if seeking AIA credits)

Symposium Goals:
This symposium will explore the challenges of preserving cultural and historic resources in an era of climate change and the additional challenge of bringing sustainability to these sites. Each presentation will be followed by a short question and answer period.

Welcome and Introduction:
Max Page, Ph.D., Professor of Architecture and History and Director Historic Preservation Program, UMASS-Amherst

Keynote Speaker:
Diane Barthel-Bouchier (SUNY-Stony Brook)
Cultural heritage and the Challenge of Sustainability — a global view of how cultural heritage is responding to the climate crisis and the challenge of sustainable development.

Case Studies:
Ethan Carr (UMass-Amherst, Landscape Architecture/Regional Planning)
The Sustainable Historic Site: Martin Van Buren and Lindenwald — a description and analysis of a conservation–based plan to transform the landscape of this presidential homestead.

David Glassberg (UMass-Amherst, History);
“Sustainability and Landscape Character on Cape Cod?” An examination of Cape Cod historic resources and the effects climate change may have and the effort to quantify the effect of climate change on historical and cultural resources.

Carey Clouse (UMass-Amherst, LARP and Architecture + Design)
“Farming Havana: Preserving Urban Agriculture Landscapes for Food Security”
This session will highlight the progressive urban food landscapes in Havana, Cuba, while addressing the role of open space preservation and conservation in the larger context of food security and environmental stewardship.

Chris Skelly (Massachusetts Historical Commission)
Preservation and Sustainability: Policy and Practice in Massachusetts. Skelly, the head of local programs for the Massachusetts Historical Commission, will offer examples of effective projects and policies in Massachusetts’ communities.

Directions & Parking

For directions and maps: http://www.umass.edu/visitorsctr/Directions_to_Campus/
Parking: parking is available at the Campus Center garage (for a fee).

Learning Units
For all architects, learning units can be earned by attending this or any of the WMAIA monthly programs. For more information regarding learning units, contact Lorin Starr at director@wmaia.org

Cost:
$50 for those seeking AIA Learning Units. (Note, this program is free and open to the public, however, please register with WMAIA and submit the administrative fee if you want WMAIA to record Learning Units (LU’s)

For those non-students who are not seeking AIA credit, a donation of $10 is suggested.
 

Saving St. Patrick's Church in Watervliet, New York

The Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany closed St. Patrick's Roman Catholic Church last year because the structure, which has been deteriorating for years, would require restoration they were unable (or unwilling) to pay for.  In March 2012, local developer Nigro Companies filed a proposal to rezone the property from residential to business status so that it could raze the church as well as an attached rectory, former school building and six private residences.   What are they proposing to replace this landmark structure with?  A new Price Chopper grocery store.  After tossing around loose, unsubstantiated numbers, Nigro Companies released a scant, four page letter from an architect in Ballston Spa as it's conditions assessment and engineer's estimate of cost.  You can see an example of what such a report should look like here.  I encourage you to contrast and compare.

 

St. Patrick's Church, which is clearly the tallest point in town, is modeled after the Upper Basilica in Lourdes and is considered the defining piece of architecture in Watervliet. Some in the community have responded with criticism and formed Citizens for St. Patrick's, a group opposed to the demolition ofthe church.  The group has obtained a statement by the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation that the church is eligible to apply for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Planning board meetings have taken place regarding the developer's proposal, and a decision from the City Council is expected in the Fall of 2012.

Nigro Companies created a website calling itself the '19th Street Redevelopment Project' where they could promote their position without coming across as another money hungry developer bent on erasing history to erect yet another strip mall.  They published an architect's four page report (half of it photos) that apologizes for the estimated price tag of $4m to restore the church.  The developer even offers this rationale for the proposed development:

"After a thorough evaluation, the Immaculate Heart of Mary Parish in Watervliet, NY, reached the decision recently to sell the former St. Patrick’s Church and associated buildings. The financial burden to operate and maintain the 25,000-square-foot church was simply too great for our small Catholic Community to bear.  We share the affection many feel for these buildings and would have preferred a buyer who would renovate St. Patrick’s as a worship space and preserve the buildings on the property. However, the investment that would be required to rehabilitate the buildings to make them habitable and safe appears financially unrealistic for any organization in our region, non-profit or otherwise.   Given the necessary and costly repairs to the church and other buildings, the most responsible choice was to offer the property for sale, with the proceeds remaining in Watervliet and Green Island for the long-term benefit of the Catholic community."  (Source:  http://www.stpatrickswatervliet.org)

This statement is carefully crafted.  Why is restoration for another congregation's use the only option they would consider?  Certainly "the investment that would be required to rehabilitate the buildings ... appears financially unrealistic for any organization in our region, non-profit or otherwise" but they've predetermined that those are the only viable options and done so without any research or attempt to find an interested party.  What about repurposing for housing with retail on the first floor of the structure?  Churches and other institutional structures throughout the US are being adaptively reused quite regularly.  It's the "green" choice and a socially responsible course of action.

"Stewardship is the heart of the environmental movement. The only way we can really take care of nature is by taking care of what is all around us and believing in the power of preservation.   Every time we extend the service life of a building, we avoid the environmental impacts of creating something new, we avoid the environmental impacts of our throwaway culture." -- Jean Carroon, FAIA, Goody Clancy (Boston)

The Catholic church claims that they built the church at the turn of the century, and that it is well within their rights to sell it to a developer who'll level the lot and build a new Price Chopper grocery store just around the corner from the existing one in town. But who is "they" when the church says "they" built it? The chuch was erected with the funds gathered each Sunday from the working class, immigrant people who inhabited the community a century ago. People who married there, had children baptized there and whose funeral masses were said there. During the 20th century, their children, grand children, and great-grand children celebrated relgious events, weddings and funerals there. The structure, itself, is their monument in the community.  Repurposed on the inside as anything--apartments, commercial space, whatever--the outside can remain much as it has for the life of the building.  "See, there is the building where you were baptized,"  "There is where my grandparents met at a dance and later married," "There is where my father's funeral mass was celebrated."  Buildings connect us to the past; they are where human events take place.  Saving a church isn't just about the bricks and mortar and whats good for the environment; its about preserving our history which, in turn, is about cultural heritage.

"Historic preservationists are ultimately interested in the preservation of communities.   We believe that by honoring the past – by protecting the key buildings and landscapes of our communities, telling their stories, and keeping them in use – we build a more sustainable and just world.  Without the evidence of the past, and without examples of past achievements in architecture, our cities and towns would be lifeless.   Even as we build for today, we must maintain continuity with the past."  -- Dr. Max Page, UMass-Amherst

You wouldn't think this conversation could be happening in Albany County, NY, in 2012.  This is a masonry structure which epitomizes "sustainable design."  The embodied energy in this building is astounding--it's cathedral-like. Look at the pictures. Maintenance was obviously deferred for decades by the same Diocese that now cries poor mouth.  Had they maintained the structure properly they would not now be in the position that they put themselves in.  Somehow this irony is lost on them.  [See "Demolition by neglect," a tactic not foreign to institutions such as this.]  That is exactly the policy that was in place ... "let it fall down around us and we'll say we cannot afford to fix it."  Have other options been realistically explored? No.  Why?  Because its too much work.  The church wants this to go away as quickly as possible so the sale can proceed and the funds can be added to their coiffers.  They're not interested in finding a way to preserve the community's connection to the institution that was the Catholic church in Watervliet.  They're not interested in doing what's right for the environment.  They're interested in generating revenue.  There's a real message in that for all of us to pause and consider.

“Historic preservation is, ultimately, not about buildings, it is about culture – which is about humanity. Our cultural trajectories result in our understanding of the technologies that permit us to shape Earth-formed materials into buildings. Buildings become the shelters and settings in which we enrich ourselves more fully. Cultural preservation – in all of its diverse forms – is as important as the preservation of buildings, if we are to fully understand what it is to be human. The saving and passing on of buildings of significance helps us to resist cultural stagnation and fosters sustained renewal.”  -- Hon. Michael Devonshire, NYC Landmarks Commission 

 

ADDENDUM

While the diocese of Albany refuses to rehabilitate St. Patrick’s church in Watervliet, or entertain any option but its sale to a developer for demolition, it is worthwhile to take a peek at what it has done to it’s own ‘home’, the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Albany. The cathedral website relishes in the massive and far-ranging restoration of the historic cathedral.  What the cathedral website doesn’t mention is the cost.  The exterior and interior phases cost more than $19 million and took over five years to fulfill. Over 70% of the exterior stone was removed and replaced.

While the diocese fell $3.5 million short of its $10 million goal for the interior work, several items on its wish list, including air-conditioning, a new concrete floor with radiant heat, new bathrooms and an elevator, were postponed.  The large pipe organ was removed for cleaning and repair, but ended up costing in excess of $1 million to restore.   “If more money becomes available, we’ll do those other items in the master plan that we couldn’t complete in the current restoration,” Bishop Hubbard said in 2009.  This as parishes in his diocese are literally falling apart.

(Sources: website of the Immaculate Conception Cathedral of Albany, and Albany Times-Union, “Renovation a Revelation”, published 30 Nov 2009)

A brief history of the Almshouse in Hudson

The imposing stone structure located on State Street at the head of Fourth Street was built in 1818 as the almshouse for the city of Hudson. Under the New York laws of 1778, towns and cities were responsible for the care of their own poor. Previously, the poor of Hudson had been sheltered in a house, also located on State Street, which had been purchased for the purpose in 1801 from Daniel Allen. 

Today, the building envelope is in difficult condition.  Many of the details that were added when the structure was "Victorianized" in the late nineteenth century are failing.  Alterations to the fenestration have, ultimately, caused structural failures to the masonry facade.  Fortunately, the building is now owned by a foundation that is planning for an extensive restoration that will return the structure to its original glory.  A library presently occupies the space until the foundation finishes repurposing the armory, just up the street, into their new home. 

New Almshouse

The New almshouse was built by Ephraim Baldwin under the supervision of a building committee made up of Dr. John Talman, Judah Paddock, and Barnabus Waterman. The Construction costs, according to A Visible Heritage, were $5100. The plan for the almshouse was based on a plan drawn by Robert Jenkins’ own home on Warren Street, which was built in 1811 and is today the home of the Hendrick Hudson Chapter of the D.A.R. In A Visible Heritage, Ruth Piwonka and Roderic Blackburn call the almshouse building “a unique local example of surviving Federal architecture intended for institutional use.”

Insane Asylum

 

Around 1830, Columbia County established a poor farm on land purchased from John C. Hogeboom, and the poor of Hudson, together with paupers from the towns throughout the county, were moved to the county poor farm. In May of 1830, Dr. Samuel White, who had been practicing medicine in Hudson since 1795, established an insane asylum in the building, which he ran himself, assisted by his son, Dr. George H. White. Dr. White was a pioneer in the humane care of the mentally ill. An advertisement for his institution, published in 1841 and quoted in Ellis’ History of Columbia County, stated that “in the first ten years three hundred patients were admitted, most of whom were cured, and all were benefited.” Dr. White’s asylum closed when the state asylum at Utica opened, and his patients were transferred there.

 

Hudson Female Academy

 

In 1851, the Hudson Female Academy was established in the building, under the direction of Rev. J.B. Hague. The school enjoyed a “high reputation” and attracted students from as far away as Detroit, Milwaukee, the West Indies, and Europe. Henry Ary, who painted the portrait of George Washington that hangs in the Common Council chamber in City Hall, as well as numerous views of Mt. Merino, the Hudson River, and the city of Hudson, was on the faculty and taught drawing and painting to fourth-year students.

An 1853 catalog of the academy offers this description of 400 State Street:

 

"The building occupied by the Academy, was originally erected at a cost exceeding twelve thousand dollars. By an additional outlay it has been perfectly adapted to its present use. It is situated on a gentle eminence, commanding a view almost unrivalled in extent and magnificence. It contains a large and beautiful schoolroom, recitation rooms, and numerous other apartments, arranged for carrying on to the best advantage, the work of instruction. Hair Mattresses (sic) are used throughout sleeping apartments. Each room is carpeted, and furnished with table, bureau, &c., and in the arrangements generally regard has been had to comfort and elegance."

 

In 1865, the Hudson Female Academy moved to a building at the corner of First and Warren Street, and by 1878, when Ellis’ History of Columbia County was published, it was no longer in existence.

 

Private Residence of George H. Power

 

When the Hudson Female Academy relocated, the building on State Street became the private residence of one of the school’s trustees, George H. Power. George Power was a major force in the development of ferries and river transportation in Hudson.  His, Father, Captain John Power, had come to Hudson from Adams, Massachusetts, in 1790 and began boating on the river as early as 1804 or 1805. He founded the freighting firm of Power, Livingston & Co. and owned the first steamboat in Hudson, the Bolivar.   George was born in Hudson in 1817 and began his career in the river at the age of seventeen as the master of a vessel owned by Jeremiah Bame. Eventually George Power becomes the owner of the New York and Hudson Steamboat Company, the Hudson and Athens Ferry, and the Hudson and Catskill Ferry. The ferry boat that ran between Hudson and Athens bore his name. He was one of the original trustees of the Hudson City Savings Institution and served two terms as the mayor of Hudson.  George H. Power lived at 400 State Street from 1865 until 1881, when he sold the building to the Hudson Orphan and Relief Association and moved to 218 Warren Street, the grand house built by Thomas Jenkins, the richest of the original Proprietors.

 

Hudson Orphan and Relief Association

 

From 1881 until 1957, the Hudson Orphan and Relief Association operated a home for orphans and needy children in the building.

 

Hudson Area Library

 

In 1957, the organization, then called the Children’s Home of Columbia County, suspended custodial care of children, and the orphanage building and grounds were given to the Board of Education of the Public School System of Hudson with the stipulation that a library be developed in the building. In 1959, 400 State Street became the home of the Hudson Area Library.

This history of the library building was prepared by Historic Hudson, Inc., based on research materials available in the library’s History Room.  (http://hudsonarealibrary.org/about-us/history-of-the-library-building/)

Another look: Moving the Robert Taylor House

On September 14^th I will be presenting a new proposal to the Hudson Historic Preservation Commission to move the Robert Taylor House from its present location in an abandoned industrial area into a nearby historic district. There are several images that are not part of the presentation included in this article. I took them from Wolfe House & Building Movers' website. At the very end of the article is an amazing video of Wolfe's team moving the Ingersoll House in Schenectady. Here's a look at the application:

INTRODUCTION

Galvan Partners LLC seeks a Certificate of Appropriateness to relocate the Robert Taylor House from its present location at 68 South Second Street to a vacant lot at 21 Union Street in the Union/Allen/Front Street Historic District.  Research conducted by attorney Mark Greenberg demonstrates that the Robert Taylor House is neither a legal landmark in the City of Hudson nor is it in a local historic district.  A qualified examination [1] of the structure and research of its history has revealed that it is an English building type, not Dutch, and that it does not predate the Proprietors in Hudson.  We propose to move the building into a local historic district; presumably, the Commission will welcome the building into an area where it will be protected by the historic preservation law.  A similar structure exists near our intended relocation site at 10 South Front Street.  The question before the Historic Preservation Commission is the appropriateness of the structure at 21 Union Street. 

PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUES

The Robert Taylor House is neither an individual landmark nor is it located within a local historic district in the City of Hudson.  On or about October 15, 2004, the HPC passed a resolution purporting to designate the Robert Taylor house as an individual historic landmark.  Under state law, however, the HPC lacked the legal power to designate historic landmarks.[2]   The original law purported to give the Commission the power to designate structures or resources as landmarks and historic districts. (See City of Hudson Local Law No. 5 (2003), § 2(e)(III).)  This provision was amended in 2005 so as to comply with state law. The power to designate landmarks and districts resides with the Common Council. (See Local Law No. 4 (2005), § 3(e)(IV).)  The Robert Taylor House is not a legally designated historic landmark.

The resolution creating the Union/Allen/Front Street District states that the "precise boundaries [of the district are] defined in the Hudson Preservation Commission's document of recommendation for the Union-Allen-South Front Street Historic District designation dated August 21, 2006, and on file with the office of the City Clerk."[3]  The section of South Second Street that includes the Robert Taylor House is not within the Union/Allen/South Front Street District.  The list of properties that comprises the historic district does not include the subject property.  The boundary description in the Commission's "Historic District Application Form" does not include the subject property (the boundary description designates Cross Street as a southern boundary of the district).  Finally, the HPC's map identifying the boundaries of the City's historic districts shows that the Union/Allen/Front Street district does not extend to include the subject property.  The map posted on the City's website is included as figure four, below.  The Robert Taylor House is not located within a designated historic district.

SIGNIFICANCE OF SETTING IN CONTEXT

While it has been established that the Robert Taylor house was not legally landmarked, let’s consider the resolution purporting to establish the Robert Taylor House as a designated landmark with respect to the argument of setting and significance.    Nowhere in the document does the author or the HPC cite the significance of the structure’s specific location with respect to “viewscape,” real or imagined.  The structure was purportedly landmarked because it was identified with an historic person and because it “possesses special character or historic or aesthetic interest or value as part of the architectural, cultural, political, economic, or social history of the locality, region, state, or nation.”[4]  Nowhere in the body of the document is the location or proximity of the structure identified as having specific value or significance in an historic context.   We submit that the argument of location with respect to “viewscape” is esoteric and arbitrary, not identified in the code as a criterion for consideration (§ 169-4 Designation of landmarks or historic districts), and not relevant to this discussion. 

APPROPRIATENESS IN THE UNION/ALLEN/FRONT STREET HISTORIC DISTRICT

Would a circa 1800, English brick structure with a gambrel roof be appropriate in the district?  According to local historian Carole Osterink, “there is visual evidence that at least two other houses in Hudson at one time had gambrel roofs.”[5]  An early English brick structure with a gambrel roof is found in the district at 10 South Front Street (see figures two and three, below.)  This structure also has a shed style dormer roof.  Close examination of the timber framework of the Robert Taylor House and an interview of Neil Larson of the Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture Association confirms that the structure is not an example of early Dutch vernacular architecture.  Mr. Larson indicated that it is an English structure and, therefore, was not included in John Stevens’ definitive tome on Dutch vernacular architecture in North America.[6]  Hudson City Historian Patricia Fenoff, who grew up in the Robert Taylor House, dispelled the myth that the structure predates the Proprietors.  In a May 2012 interview, Fenoff said that Taylor built the house in the 1790’s.[7]  The Robert Taylor House is entirely appropriate in its intended location at 21 Union Street.

PRECEDENT:  HAMILTON GRANGE

There is ample precedence for the appropriateness of relocating historic structures when their current location is not integral to their historic status, particularly where, as here, the move will enhance an existing historic district and enable the property to be restored and presented in a more favorable setting.  In June 2008, Hamilton Grange National Memorial, the 1802 home of Alexander Hamilton in New York City, was relocated from a cramped lot on Convent Avenue to a more spacious setting facing West 141st Street in nearby St. Nicholas Park, where it underwent a complete restoration.  It was the second time the 298-ton mansion had been moved. In 1889 it was relocated from its original site on West 143rd Street.[8] 

The movement of the Hamilton Grange property is one of many noteworthy examples of historic properties that have been moved to better locations in order to restore them and/or present them in a more favorable setting.[9]  In that case it was no less than the National Park Service – the entity that sets the standards for historic preservation in the United States – that chose to move the structure.  Their rationale was simple:  the new location was a better setting.[10] We look to the NPS as leaders in historic preservation and cite the example of Hamilton Grange.  We submit that the Robert Taylor House, restored appropriately, on lower Union Street, will be an improvement for the historic district and the structure which currently sits alone in a shuttered industrial area (see figures five, six and seven, below.)

CONCLUSION

The Robert Taylor House is neither a landmark in the City of Hudson nor is it in a local historic district.  We propose moving the building from its current location, lost among abandoned warehouses in an industrial district, into a nearby historic district.  There, it will be restored appropriately and enhance lower Union Street while being protected by the Historic Preservation law.  The question before the Historic Preservation Commission is the appropriateness of the structure at its intended destination of 21 Union Street.  We address the criteria to answer that question below: 

Application of Hudson’s Historic Preservation law:

§ 169-6. Criteria for approval of certificate of appropriateness.

A. In passing on an application for a certificate of appropriateness, the Historic Preservation Commission shall not consider changes to interior spaces unless they are specifically landmarked. The Commission's decision shall be based on the following principles:

(1) Properties that contribute to the character of the historic district shall be retained, with their historic features altered as little as possible;

Not applicable as this structure is not in an historic district.  It is important, however, to examine whether or not the Robert Taylor House would be appropriate in the Union/Allen/Front Street Local Historic District.  Another example of an early English structure with a gambrel roof is found in the district at 10 South Front Street (see figures two and three, below.)  This structure also has a shed style dormer roof.  An examination of the timber frame and interview of Neil Larson of the Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture Association confirms that the Robert Taylor House is not an example of early Dutch vernacular architecture.  Mr. Larson indicated that it is an English structure and, therefore, was not included in John Stevens’ definitive tome “Dutch Vernacular Architecture in North America, 1640-1830.”  ‘Gambrel roof’ does not always equal ‘Dutch.’  Further, we submit that the question is moot; the first time a certificate of appropriateness was sought, the HPC asserted—incorrectly—that the Robert Taylor House was in the Union/Allen/Front Street Local Historic District.  Certainly the HPC would not deny the inclusion of a structure that they once thought was a part of the district.

(2) Any alteration of existing properties shall be compatible with their historic character, as well as with the surrounding district; and

There will be no alteration of the structure to consider.  With respect to the question of compatibility in the surrounding historic district, the Robert Taylor House will be relocated to a section of lower Union Street with other period structures.  The new neighboring structures date to the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.  While the structure is reputed to have been built for Robert Taylor prior to 1800, the oldest record of its existence is a map from 1811.  Further, the period of significance for Robert Taylor as a “person of significance” is cited as being 1799 to 1827.   This fits perfectly with neighboring structures in the vicinity of 21 Union Street.  As discussed above, 10 South Front Street is a similar structure just around the corner from 21 Union Street that reinforces the assertion that the Robert Taylor House may be appropriately relocated here.

(3) New construction shall be compatible with the district in which it is located.

Not applicable as this is not a new construction project.  In so much as the relocated structure is viewed as a ‘new construction’-like project, the response is identical to criterion numbers one and two, above.   

B. In applying the principle of compatibility, the Commission shall consider the following factors:

(1) The general design, character, and appropriateness to the property of the proposed alteration or new construction;

The Robert Taylor house is completely appropriate in the lower Union Street section of the historic district among similar structures built with bricks laid in common bond. The roof is an English gambrel type with shed style dormer roofs which is as uncommon in its present location as it would be in the proposed site.  The structure at 10 South Front Street provides an example of a similar building with a gambrel roof and shed style dormer in the immediate vicinity of 21 Union Street.   

(2) The scale of the proposed alteration or new construction in relation to the property itself, surrounding properties, and the neighborhood;

The property is in scale with the target neighborhood. It is of comparable size and scale of the houses on lower Union Street.

(3) Texture, materials, and color and their relation to similar features of other properties in the neighborhood;

The texture, materials, and color of the Robert Taylor House are wholly compatible with others in the intended location. It is a five bay, double pile, brick structure and, while it has a gambrel roof, as opposed to a gabled or low-sloped roof, it is of the same period as many of its future neighbors at 21 Union Street.  Further, there is a five bay, double pile, brick structure with a gambrel roof around the corner at 10 South Front Street.  Hence, a precedent exists for this house style in this part of the historic district.

(4) Visual compatibility with surrounding properties, including proportion of the property's front facade, proportion and arrangement of windows and other openings within the facade, roof shape, and the rhythm of spacing of properties on streets, including setback; and,

The Robert Taylor House is visually compatible with surrounding properties.  The proportion and arrangement of the fenestration, roof shape, and the rhythm of spacing of properties on streets, including setback, make it clear that the Taylor House is an excellent fit for the proposed location at 21 Union Street.

(5) The importance of historic, architectural, or other features to the significance of the property.

Most historic, architectural features of the structure were lost through decades of neglect.  The appropriate treatments are not unknown variables and will be presented in a later application. 

 

PHOTO EXHIBITS

10 South Front Street.  The part of the building where the entrance now is appears to be an addition. The elaborate hood over the doorway and the oriel were both very likely added in the 19th century. Studying the side of the building reveals something more.   In the back, the gable has the characteristic gambrel shape, but in the front, the slope of the roof has been straightened out to make the front wall higher to allow a bracketed cornice, another 19th-century decorative element, to be added.   According to local historian Carole Osterink, “there is visual evidence that at least two other houses in Hudson at one time had gambrel roofs.” Photo, quote and information source: http://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot. com/2012/05/janes-walk-site-2.html

The rear of 10 South Front Street.  Note the shed style dormer roof.  Photo, at left, source: https://foursquare.com/v/hudson-merchant-house-a-boutique-inn/4dccaa12d164679b8cd4c39e

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A map of the historic districts in Hudson from the City’s website.  Source:   http://cityofhudson.org/content/Generic/View/34:field=documents;/content/Documents/File/567.pdf

The Robert Taylor House.  Source:  Ward Hamilton

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Robert Taylor House.  Lost in an abandoned industrial district.  Source: Ward Hamilton

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Robert Taylor House.  Rear elevation.  Source:  Ward Hamilton

 

 

 

 

 

 

Undated photo of the setting/view from Robert Taylor House (structure visible in the foreground, right).  Source:  The Gossips of Rivertown blog

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The "viewscape" today.  Undated photo of the view from the front of the Robert Taylor House toward the Hudson River.  Source:  The Gossips of Rivertown blog

 

 

 

 

View to the left of 21 Union Street.  Source:  Ward Hamilton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View across the street, to the right of 21 Union Street.  Source:  Ward Hamilton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View directly across the street from 21 Union  Street.  Source:  Ward Hamilton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View across the street, to the left, from 21 Union Street.  Source:  Ward Hamilton

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

View to the right of 21 Union Street.  Source:  Ward Hamilton

---

[1]  Secretary of the Interior’s Standards:  Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural Historian to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, 36 CFR Part 61

[2] See General Municipal Law § 96-a; Matter of Snyder Development Co. v. Town of Amherst Town Board, 12 AD3d 1092, 1093 (4th Dept. 2004) ("General Municipal Law § 96-a provides, in relevant part, that the power to designate historic sites resides with the governing board of a [municipality]…")

[3] City of Hudson, NY – Historic Preservation documents – Resolution designating the Union-Allen-South Front Street Area as a Historic District  (http://cityofhudson.org/content/Generic/View/34:field=documents/content/ Documents/File/568.pdf)

[4] City of Hudson, NY – Historic Preservation documents, Robert Taylor House - 68 South Second Street (http://cityofhudson.org/content/Generic/View/34:field= documents /content/Documents/File/956.pdf)

[5] Gossips of Rivertown blog (http://gossipsofrivertown.blogspot.com/2012/05/janes-walk-site-2.html)

[6] Stevens, John.  Dutch Vernacular Architecture in North America, 1640-1830.  New York: Society for the Preservation of Hudson Valley Vernacular Architecture, 2005

[7] Two historic homes may be moved, by John Mason, Hudson Register-Star, May 8, 2012

[8] Moving the Grange, and Twisting It Around, Too, by  David W. Dunlap, New York Times, February 18, 2008

[9] National Park Service website (http://www.nps.gov/npnh/parknews/hamilton-grange-move-media-advisory.htm)

[10] Hamilton Grange; A Move to Move A Historic House, by  Christopher Gray, New York Times, March 21, 1993