River Development is Key to the Hudson’s Revitalization
After reading the three articles on the waterfront housing boom on the Hudson River, I understand the arguments of the critics. River development will lead to more pollution, it will hurt the aesthetic value of the river, and we are only replacing one problem (polluting factories) with another (riversprawl).
I think everyone can see that further river development will be good for the surrounding economies. Population growth will spur new spending which in turn will grow established businesses, create new ones, and add jobs across the board. I don’t think many would argue that this could be a bad thing. Still, there are those that would say that these economic benefits don’t outweigh the potential environmental and aesthetic issues.
One of the major things that I will take from this course is the idea that if you want to change something, you can. Don’t rely on the government, don’t rely on a business, and don’t rely on your neighbor. That being said, I believe that this river development boom is vital to the Hudson’s recovery. When and why did the initial recovery of the Hudson start? When people realized that they had a stake in the health of the river. It was when they couldn’t swim, fish, or drink the water from the river any longer. It was when they understood the harmful affects of archaic factories to the surrounding landscape. It was when their economies were suffering.
So here’s what I purpose, if more people move to the river, more people will have a stake in its health, beauty, and prosperity. Houses don’t pollute like old factories do. Citizens have to weigh the economy and the environment, something that wasn’t even comprehensible when the major polluting of the river was happening. We have seen the power of the so called robber barons in polluting and later saving the river. We have also seen the power of ordinary citizens in the formation of Scenic Hudson and the rejection of the St. Lawrence Cement plant in Hudson. All of these people felt that they were joint owners of the river with an obligation to protect and preserve it for future generations. Through the housing boom, the joint owners of the Hudson are adding to their numbers, to their strength, and consequently to the vitality of the river’s future.
posted by John @ 11:00 AM
2 Comments:
I agree with John and believe that housing development will bring about an economic revitalization to Hudson River cities and towns. However, I consider myself an environmentalist, and I worry that large areas of new development will be damaging to the river’s health. John argued that more people living near the river will increase appreciation for the river, and the river’s health will not decline with the new development. This may be true for some people, but I believe that the vast majority of new residents will continue to douse their lawns in pesticides and fertilizers, which will increase runoff and add to river pollution.
I believe that smarter development would be the type that is proposed in the “Riversprawl” article. There are many abandoned and run-down buildings in Hudson Valley cities that could be revitalized, and developers could create incentives to attract the type of residents that will be able to expand tax revenues without increasing tax rates. The Hudson River is an historic area, and it seems a crime to build cookie-cutter condos that will wear away the Hudson Valley’s charm. I believe smart growth, mixed use development, and redevelopment are the way to go to revitalize the Hudson in a way that will preserve it.
I couldn't agree more with John. Bringing more people to the River is actually a wonderful thing, as long as we're sure to develop in a smart, well planned, environmentally aware manner. With more people living along the River, we have two effects: (1) more people care about the health of the River, since it directly affects their quality of life and property values (economic incentives, anyone?) and (2) more people get to appreciate the beauty of the River.
That said, it's the *smart growth* part that's important. These new developments need to include public access areas, like parks and promenades, so that everyone, not just the landowners, can enjoy the River. Hudson Park, which includes restaurants, a museum, a pier, a spa, an inn, a promenade/park, marinas, and boat launches is the perfect example of a housing development that makes significant, valuable contributions to the entire community.
JGK does raise reasonable concerns that if these new residents pour fertilizer all over the lawns, it will hurt the River. However, we must keep in mind that these new residents won't materialize out of nowhere. Odds are, they're people that already live somewhere in the Hudson basin. Odds are, they're people that currently either live in or commute to the City, and plan to continue to commute into the City. If they currently live in the City, yes, if they have lawns in the new developments then their move may negatively contribute to the health of the River. However, if they currently live in a suburban home that uses fertilizers and pesticides, moving to a different location in the River basin and continuing the same practice would likely have a net effect close to zero. It should also be noted that, per capita, most condo developments have considerably less lawn to maintain that suburban homes, meaning that if the condo residents move from suburban homes to the condos (to retire, for example), the move might actually have a positive effect on the health of the River.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home