Gradual Development: The Wave of the Future

The Hudson River Valley is to conflict as river is to water. Although the end of industrialization created a cleaner Hudson River, post-industrialization has led to a plethora of problems--socioeconomic and racial divides, unemployment, and communities that are deteriorating as quickly as their town centers’ buildings are--in the cities and towns along the Hudson River. Unfortunately, community division often occurs as a direct result of the river's environmental revival. A prime example of such division is the debate that is currently unfolding over the Hudson Valley housing boom. Contentious discussions are heating up between environmental activists, townsfolk, and real estate developers over the real estate market’s desire to construct approximately 15,000 housing units along the river between Yonkers and Kingston. Disagreements between these three parties are already causing social unrest, and it is ironic that tempers are flaring because the Hudson River is cleaner, quieter, and a more desirable place to live. The environmentalists and river enthusiasts argue the Hudson Valley’s history trumps its economic potential, and, therefore, they do not want to see any development of the river’s banks. Hudson Valley citizens hold mixed views. Some desire environmental conservation and historical preservation, but there is a surprising majority that see real estate development as the definite answer to the Hudson Valley’s post-industrialized economic lull. However, even the citizens that favor development are divided in their opinions of how real estate moguls should add housing units.

Gradual development is the ideal method. It calls for real estate developers to add housing units by renovating existing buildings, such as old factories and plants, that are no longer inhabited by local businesses before constructing “cookie cutter” developments. Although gradual development would not be as profitable as constructing large, new apartment and condominium complexes, real estate developers could still make a great deal of money by re-using these remnants of industrialization. Besides generating necessary tax revenue, gradual development would not change the current aesthetics of the Hudson Valley; developers could actually act as conservationists by renovating abandoned factories and plants instead of constructing new town homes and apartments. State lawmakers embrace housing construction as a means of protecting the environmental future of the Hudson by enforcing strict “green” building codes. Green building would curb point and non-point pollution during the construction process, and constructing a green development would limit both types of pollution in the future. Gradual development would also limit suburban sprawl, a main source of non-point pollution. Suburban sprawl occurs when the population of an area becomes too large too quickly, and the society can no longer depend on local businesses. Gradually developing the banks of the Hudson is a controlled method of increasing population because it won’t add 15,000 new housing units over a short period of time. It is instead a way of using what the Hudson Valley already has to add only what the riverbanks can support. Environmental legislation is necessary, but that is up to the politicians and not real estate developers. Real estate development is the most economically viable option for reviving the Hudson Valley, and it is a misconception that housing developments have to be of the “cookie cutter” variety. A consensus must be reached and all sides have to make concessions because the environmental and economic well-being of the Hudson Valley is at stake.