Controversial Beacon Residential Project Moves Forward

Beekman proposal continues to draw criticism

By Brian PJ Cronin

As the pace of development continues to quicken in Beacon, so does the public scrutiny of each new project. Few have been subject to the scrutiny given to The View, a proposed 50-unit apartment building that would sit near City Hall on Beekman Street facing West Main and overlooking the Hudson River.

When the project was unveiled a year ago, there was criticism of its design and perceived lack of harmony with the city’s historic architecture, especially given its prominent location: It would be one of the first buildings visitors to Beacon by train would see as they make their way up to Main St.

In response, the seven-member City of Beacon Planning Board took the extraordinary step of creating an Architectural Review subcommittee to consider the design of this project and others brought before the board.

A revised rendering of The View, a proposed apartment building on Beacon's Beekman Street. (Courtesy M.A. Designs)
A revised rendering of The View, a proposed apartment building on Beacon’s Beekman Street. (Courtesy M.A. Designs)

The planners of The View were asked by the board to redesign it so that it better blends in with the traditional architecture of the city. At its meeting on July 12, the board received the revised plans from Mark Day of M.A. Day Engineering on behalf of the developer, DMS Consolidators. Although board members still had issues with the design, they agreed to draft resolutions of approval based on the drawings to consider at their next meeting.

To make the building blend in better, brick will now be used selectively throughout the design. In order to bring a sense of activity to the building, balconies and a patio were added, as well as a pocket park that would be for public use. A public stairway would help link Beekman Street to Route 9D, although the staircase as planned would not actually connect to Route 9D because of city property in the way. The board asked the designers to discuss with the city the possibility of obtaining an easement or other approval for connecting the stairway all the way out to 9D in order to increase its usefulness. An earlier plan to have valet parking for building residents was scrapped.

The architectural subcommittee also had suggestions. “We tried to introduce a kink to the building to echo the curve of the street and we discussed stepping the building back into the hillside to integrate it into the landscape,” said board member David Burke, who is on the subcommittee, “but we couldn’t find a compromise with either of those ideas, and I think that was because we came late to the project.”

Gary Barrack, also on the committee, agreed. “We got into this in the middle of the project, so it was difficult for us to tell the developer to eliminate their plans and start from square one again,” he said.

The subcommittee members also were not entirely happy with a proposed “green” roof. “We struggled with the design to try and get it to be more responsive to the landscape,” said Jill Reynolds. “The developer and engineer had reasons for not doing that, so we’re kind of just left with the green roof, which at this point is just a three-foot border. I don’t understand the point of that. The point of the green roof is to benefit the whole building in terms of energy consumption — it mitigates water runoff, it looks better, and it can enhance the roof deck experience. So I would like to see that developed more.”

When the floor was opened for public comment, it became clear that some residents are still not satisfied with the design.

“This looks to me like a painted rectangle,” said Jim Zellinger. “It doesn’t seem to be keeping in the style of Beacon at all.”

Colin Gentle told the board, “I would hope that we are not doomed to repeat the mistakes of urban renewals past in the quest for revenue. New families are moving to Beacon because of its charming, small-town feel. These proposed developments are far outside of those aesthetics and usage. We’re not against new development; we are proponents of smart, sustainable, reasonably scaled and aesthetically appropriate structures which relate to our beautiful and historic architecture. We are the ones who will be living with this.”

Peggy Ross, a Beacon City Council member who said she speaking as a member of the public, said she hoped the city could take lessons from the review of The View when dealing with future development.

“This is a crossroads for Beacon,” she said. “I would like to ask that we all do better in working together. We no longer have to go begging for developers. I would use this occasion to ask that going forward we work closely with them to install some design standards.”

The Current is a nonprofit supported by its readers; please consider a tax-deductible contribution.

8 Responses to "Controversial Beacon Residential Project Moves Forward"

  1. Stephanie Hepburn
    Stephanie Hepburn   July 24, 2016 at 10:39 am

    No, no and no!

  2. Arlene Pinkey Russell
    Arlene Pinkey Russell   July 24, 2016 at 12:03 pm

    It’s ugly as hell… No, no, no, not down by the river. Up on the back side of the city, buried by the mountain and woods, so it can’t be seen, maybe, but no, no, no by the river.

  3. Stephanie Fogarty   July 24, 2016 at 1:47 pm

    Such an ugly building. It does not relate either to the surrounding landscape nor the architecture of the historic buildings on Main Street. Why not use The Lofts, for example, on Route 52 as a guideline, or other older buildings with some architectural detail so they blend in, instead of just being plopped down with no aesthetic consideration. Why is that so difficult?

  4. Deirdre Forbes   July 24, 2016 at 5:05 pm

    I am a visitor who very much appreciates your city. Don’t do it. I come from a village down the river whose waterfront has been virtually abandoned for 50 years. And you know what? I’m proud of that. In the past five years the town managed to agree on having the buildings which once held active manufacturing businesses torn down and taken away so a view of the river was opened up. Over the past 20 years the town caretakers have invited citizens to come to meetings and put in writing how they would like to see the waterfront developed. Of course most everyone wants “green space.” I think we all know at some point that will need to be revised and some development will be needed and expected. But this is the most valuable real estate in town. It is not something to be given away to the first developer to show up; or even the second or third and ruin it for the citizens and future citizens.

    I never saw the first rendering of the residence that was planned but this one looks like the non-descript affordable housing buildings I’ve watched develop elsewhere. Most of those developers are there for the quick buck. And you know what? That’s OK. That’s what they do, they make money developing real estate. But it’s every citizen’s business to stop them from ruining what everyone in town should share in. If they go away because they feel it’s too much time to waste and too much trouble to talk to the citizenry, well then, good riddance. There are plenty more out there willing to take their place — but you set them on the right course, not the easiest one, and you will all be better off. Don’t forget the meaning of “beacon” and be that bright light for the Hudson Valley.

  5. Arlene Pinkey Russell
    Arlene Pinkey Russell   July 24, 2016 at 10:20 pm

    Someone said it looks like the Howard Johnson Motor Lodge… I second that.

  6. Joan Martorano   July 25, 2016 at 6:43 am

    Is it really going to be that light blue/green? If it’s a done deal, can’t we at least have a more traditional finish? And can we have a say as to what kind of trees are going to be used? The Key Foods “landscaping” is a disaster.

  7. Phyllis Newham   July 25, 2016 at 10:08 am

    The proposed development as shown in the rendering is absolutely hideous and does not belong at the gateway to our city. I am not against development and we need housing. However, whatever we allow to be built needs to be harmonious, architecturally appropriate, environmentally sustainable and a long-term asset to our city. Any developer who cannot deliver these minimal criteria should be denied access to our most valuable property and replaced with a developer who reflects what we as a city want to see. There a plenty of developers out there. Lets not ruin the city so a private developer can make a quick buck.

  8. Pamela Collum   July 26, 2016 at 7:56 am

    I grew up in the Hudson Valley and have seen much of the world. This is the current “style” of architecture on a national flavor. Where do you think the developers buy their architectural blueprints from? The residents who love their community in Charleston, S.C., and Columbia, S.C., don’t like this streamlined, soup-can-colored structures, either. The developers have $$$$ and investors who will use secrecy and Influence to dominate till they get what they want. “Progress” will come. Work with the developers to negotiate getting something more in tune with the character of your community. More brick facing? Kudos to Deidre Forbes. Those developers are not going to give up. There will be another to take the previous developer’s place. Stay strong, negotiate!