Housing Boom in The Hudson River Valley: A Double Edged Sword

Development along the Hudson has existed for 200+ years, but the large and expensive housing developments that have been constructed along the river in recent years have caused many residents and activists to panic. Why is there this uneasy feeling about development along the Hudson in the 21st century? Lisa Foderaro, in herarticle "Rooms With Views Replace Factories on Hudson's Banks," first examines the reasons for the recent housing boom along the Hudson. Foderaro talks about the recent cleanup of the Hudson, coupled with the "...empty lots created by vanished factories, a housing boom, the proliferation of suburban developers, a willingness by local officials to embrace a new source of tax revenues, and a crystallizing Hudson Valley consciousness - have come together in recent years to generate interest in building and living along the Hudson." (1). This is important because it shows that the efforts by many poeple to clean up the river and its surroundings, as well as widely available, river front property has made the Hudson River Valley much more attractive in recent years. Many people, however, still oppose the housing boom. One problematic aspect of these large-scale developments are their size. Foderaro warns that some plans call for the creation of villages within villages, as well as developments in Sleepy Hollow and Kingston will create 1,250 housing units and 2,182 housing units respectively (1). These are huge developments, and they cover large areas of land. The Sleepy Hollow development alone will cover 100 acres. These developments, however, have stimulated the growth of cities along the Hudson that are still feeling the harsh effects of the end of the industrial revolution. Foderaro comments on this saying that, "Elected officials have raised concerns about the density of the plans, but have, for the most part, embraced them, particularly in communities that have felt the sting of departing industries" (2). Housing in most cases, therefore, is replacing the role that industrialization played in the economic development of the Hudson River Valley. Foderaro uses Yonkers as a case study that displays the potentially positive effects of certain housing developments explaining that citizens are pleased that these housing units are being created and that their view of the Hudson will not be compormised in the process (3). It seems as though these developments are a double-edged sword. On the one hand they are massive, they are extremely expensive, and they damage the majesty and beauty that many people associate with the Hudson River Valley. One the other hand, these developments are the source of economic growth and development in the wake of the industrial revolution. The real key to maintaining a good relationship between building company and residents along the Hudson seems to be a certain sense of respect. Residents do not want to compromise the beauty of the Hudson and building companies want to capitalize on the massive lots that are left over from the factories that existed during the industrial revolution. If the two sides could meet on some sort of regulations and policies, the development along the Hudson could be both economically beneficial, as well as acceptable to the current residents and activists that live in the Hudson River Valley. The government will play a large role in the continued developmet of the Hudson because the government will need to establish stricter policies that appeal to both the villages along the Hudson and the building companies that want to build housing developments along the Hudson. Housing, according to Foderaro, is the key to the contemporary, economic success of the Hudson. This success, however, could be severely restricted if these two sides cannot meet halfway.