On March 15, Hudson Valley Pattern for Progress, the Newburgh-based not-for-profit policy, planning, advocacy and research organization “whose mission is to promote regional, balanced and sustainable solutions that enhance the growth and vitality of the Hudson Valley,” released a 44-page report, “Urban Action Agenda: A Program in Motion.”
“The urban centers of the Hudson Valley are the key to a bright future for our region,” began the report’s introduction. “That’s what Pattern for Progress believes.”
President and CEO Jonathan Drapkin said he moved Pattern from its semi-bucolic setting off Old Balmville Road to downtown Newburgh because he wanted to be located in an urban environment. “I love cities,” the Queens native said. The Urban Action Agenda (UAA) doubles down on his belief that the Hudson Valley’s future is inextricably connected to its cities.
Drapkin is nothing if not all in. “We’re not going away,” he said. “We’re in it for the long haul.”
In his 2011 classic, Triumph of the City, Harvard economist Edward Glaeser declared that cities were the healthiest, greenest and richest paces to live. That was also the year that for the first time more than half the world’s population lived in cities.
The Hudson Valley’s urban centers, the new Pattern report said, spent the second half of the twentieth century “playing second fiddle to the booming suburban areas that sprawled around them.” Factories closed, city populations decreased, buildings fell vacant, crime rose and property values fell. The once-proud Main Streets and Broadways were no longer alive with commerce.
Now some — but not all — of the urban centers are to some degree thriving again, though not by doing what they used to do. Pattern has picked 25 varied urban communities in its nine-county service territory to study closely. Among them are Hudson in Columbia County, Catskill in Greene County, Saugerties, Kingston and Ellenville in Ulster County, and Poughkeepsie, Wappingers Falls and Fishkill in Dutchess County.
In 2015 Pattern published community profiles based on governmental data for all 25 communities. Last week’s report chose to address selected regional “snapshots” within eleven topic areas across some of these communities. Here’s what Pattern selected for each topic area:
Demographics: The growing Hispanic population.
Economic development: The distribution of state consolidated funding awards to UAA communities.
Education: Repurposing closed schools.
Housing: Comparing home values and median incomes.
Infrastructure: Bridge conditions.
Governance: Struggling with the tax cap.
Public health: Farm markets and community gardens.
Public safety: Falling crime rates.
Regional amenities: What draws people here.
Sustainability: Regional cross-section of projects.
Transportation: Commuting trends within communities.
It’s uncertain how long the era of positive change for many of the Hudson Valley urban areas might last. Pattern said it was asking itself how it could help shape this change and how it could assist the UAA communities. The conclusion lays Pattern’s cards on the table: “The hope (is) that growth will occur in the urban areas, allowing protection of the Hudson Valley’s open spaces and natural areas.” Not to mention the possible payoffs from more efficient infrastructure, opportunities for better housing, improved services and even the possibility of more equitable income distribution.
In conjunction with the UAA, Pattern has also been the convenor of gatherings of officials and other notables, the operator of a leadership training program, and the host for conferences on such things as infrastructure, housing, downtown revitalization and gentrification. These are all opportunities to broaden the base of communication among these communities.
These steps could go considerably further. Last year Pattern staff conducted in-person one-day site visits to all the UAA communities. Planned, according to the action agenda, is a second round of such meetings.
I would think more could be done on this front. It takes a deeper relationship with the chosen 25 urban areas to gain an understanding of how their differences in character affect the nature of their opportunities.
One size does not fit all. Each Hudson Valley urban fabric has its own unique characteristics. Willing buy-in is essential.
On March 9, the Regional Plan Association held an hour-and-a-half meeting at SUNY New Paltz to report on progress on its fourth regional plan for the 31-county greater New York metropolitan area and to listen to comments about it. About 35 people were in attendance, including several staff members from Pattern for Progress.
It was the right crowd for a planning session. College president Donald Christian welcomed the gathering. Attendees included Gerald Benjamin of the college-based Benjamin Center, Larry Gottlieb of the Hudson Valley Economic Development Corporation and Jonathan Drapkin of Pattern. Among other Ulster County stakeholders there were Kevin O’Connor of Rupco, DEC’s Hudson River estuary coordinator Fran Dunwell, Chris White of the county planning office and county economic development director Suzanne Holt.
It wasn’t quite the right delivery vehicle. Participants were arrayed behind tables around three sides of a voluminous rectangular space. RPA chief planner Chris Jones and advocacy staff person Kate Slevin provided a progress report almost identical to what was on the RPA website. They opened the floor to questions and fielded them. That was the extent of it.
Did this exercise consist of engaging a diverse set of community-based groups? Did it pass for the participation of a wide range of experts, civic, business and community leaders and concerned residents? Did the event provide technical expertise or provide innovative insights about the Hudson Valley for inclusion in the plan? Will it result in a better plan?
I doubt it. No matter the good intentions, it was naught but a road show.
Next week: Springtime for Kingston real estate
Join the family! 
