Well what a surprise this is. Just when everyone thought this building was about to tumble down, brick repair has begun to the former Clinton Hotel at the corner of Washington Street and Liberty. They are starting at the rear off the building, knocking off loose bricks and stacking up others on the side. From the front of the building you can get a glimpse of the scaffolding peeking out from behind.
So what’s the deal with this building anyway? A fire gutted it in 1978. Since then it has been deteriorating brick by brick. I’ve been told plans are to rehabilitate the building into a mixed use property with possible lofts and ground floor exhibition space. And if all goes as planned, it might be the first Passive House in the Hudson Valley. Till then, hopefully the work will continue and prove to all the naysayers that buildings in severe disrepair don’t all have a date with a wrecking ball.
The first ‘Passive’ Hudson Valley house is credited to BarlisWedlick Architects LLC, built by Bill Stratton Building Company (I attended a presentation a few years back given by the architect). Give credit where credit is due…http://hudsonpassiveproject.com/intro.html
Blame the wrecking ball directive on gubberment regs that make it cost prohibitive for many private developers to take on such projects. Putting the NCLB up as the poster child of bldg. rehab is illusory. Most small developers don’t have a streamline through the design/build process nor do double duty at ‘city hall’. So, yes, it would be great to see this project come to fruition, regardless of the ‘passive’ narrative. But, after the fact, show us the numbers that prove it’s feasible as a ‘real world’ model going forward.
Why the ambiguity surrounding this Newburgh Land Bank Project?
It was a while back when I had the conversation with the architects. But I’m pretty sure it was supposed to be the first Passive House of somewhere, HV, Orange County….just not sure which one. But perhaps there was a misunderstanding.
There’s no ambiguity around the Land Banks involvement, they just aren’t the reason the building is in the condition it’s in, and I didn’t particularly view them as defining the building’s future, but I can see how their role could’ve been made clearer.
Soooo, whose plans and pricing are they referring to…”Final project planning underway for 104 Washington and pricing should be in in August.” It’s listed as ‘in contract’…so who’s stacking the bricks?
Every building in the NCLB’s inventory should have a ‘file’ accessible by the public. In fact, most of NY’s Landbanks link their properties to detailed resolutions and/or acquisition/disposition logs… https://centerstateceonycoc.wliinc14.com/economic-development/new_york_land_bank_association.aspx
As I commented before, the Burgh’s biggest deficit is its credibility. You’ll hear from me no more.