For more than 150 years, Hastings' waterfront has been a vital part of the history and character of this community. As steward of that property, Atlantic Richfield Company's (ARC) primary focus is to remediate PCB and other contamination on the site to make it safe for future development, yet ARC still recognizes and appreciates the understandable desire on the part of some members of the community to preserve the historical character of the site in some fashion.

As part of its consent decree with the Village, ARC agreed to study the issue of historic preservation of the water tower and three buildings: the administration building and two brick, industrial buildings designated as 51 and 52. Unfortunately, the administration building was severely damaged by fire many years back and, for safety reasons, ARC was required to take the building down in the fall of 2004.

In the decree, ARC was asked to assess the overall condition and integrity of these structures, the impact of remediation activities on preservation, the estimated cost of preservation measures and the potential effects of preservation measures on the redevelopment of the site. In order to fully meet its obligation, ARC has invested significant resources into commissioning two lengthy studies that have fully met is obligations under the decree.

Hutton & Associates, Inc. and Stephen Katz, Architect, well-respected planning architectural firm in the field of historic preservation, conducted the first study, as well as a supplemental report that was made as further investigations into PCB contamination in and around the buildings were completed. The study noted that none of the structures warrant historic landmark status, but are good examples of the industrial buildings that once dotted the banks of the Hudson. The study determined that the only way to preserve the water tower would be to carefully take it down, store it for several years during remediation, restore it and then re-erect it at a different location on the riverfront at a cost of just over $500,000. Because of the necessity to remove PCB contamination underneath Building 51 and because of some serious structural issues, much of the building will have to be taken down, but the study suggests that the façade and perhaps the front portion of the building might be preserved. Building 52 fortunately has less PCB contamination and a larger portion of the building could be preserved. Part of the northern section of the building would have to be removed as part of the likely proposed remedy for cleaning up the river. The cost of stabilizing and weather proofing the portions of the remaining portions of the buildings will nearly $2 million. That amount would not include any restoration of the buildings.

While the Hutton report stated that portions of the buildings could be saved, it noted several obstacles. First, the extensive remediation of the site, including excavation six to 12 feet at many portions of the site, will put severe stress on the structural integrity of the buildings. Second, the obligation to raise the grade of the site above the flood plain will raise the ground level up to four feet around parts of the buildings, stressing the buildings and changing their overall appearance. Third, the Village's Local Waterfront Revitalization Project has developed plans that would place the main entrance road to the site right through this building, suggesting that building preservation may conflict with future redevelopment.

Public comments by some citizens have suggested that the estimated costs for stabilizing the façade and front portion of Building 51 and the southern portion of Building 52 are to repair damage done by ARC during remediation activities. This is simply not the case. The damage done to the buildings during remediation activities is minor, mostly impacting the brick facades of the buildings. This limited damage is not what is jeopardizing the long-term viability of these buildings. It is the proposed environmental remedy for the site that is jeopardizing their status by requiring the removal of significant portions of both buildings. The partial demolition of these buildings would require significant shoring up and weatherproofing to give these buildings while still providing no guarantee of survival.

To complete its obligation under the consent decree, ARC sponsored the Domani Report. The goal of the Domani Report was to take a clear-eyed look at the feasibility of preservation and its potential impact on redevelopment. The Domani Report clearly laid out the significant hurdles for preservation, including identifying a funding source for the $2.5 million required and outlining the risks involved in the investment of that money. There simply are no guarantees that even a good faith effort to carefully preserve portions of these buildings will result in the survival of these buildings through the extensive remediation process required for this site.

The community is clearly divided on this subject. Some residents have strongly advocated preservation, while others have argued for a clean slate on the waterfront. ARC has asked the Village to consider the issues and alternatives and provide feedback on its preferences.

To download a copy of these two reports, please go to the Public Documents page on the web site.