As controversy grows surrounding various proposed residential waterfront developments throughout the region—along with the resulting population influx they will attract, and their potential impacts on local environment and infrastructure—Mid-Hudson Pattern for Progress, a nonprofit policy, research, and planning institute think-tank, has discovered some surprising statistics. Based on US census figures from 1960 to 2000, says Pattern's president Mike DiTullo, most of the region's cities' populations peaked in the mid-20th century, declined steadily until the 1990s, and are now on the rise. We can avoid further sprawl, he says, by promoting smart growth and increasing housing units in urban, town, and village centers, fulfilling the Hudson Valley's historical carrying capacity, to take on 46,000 more people. Kingston, for instance, says DiTullo, peaked in 1960 at 29,260, and now has room for 5,996 more; Poughkeepsie peaked in 1950 with 41,023 and has room for an additional 10,849; Hudson peaked in 1930 at 12,337 and can take on 5,041 more; Newburgh peaked in 1950 at 31,956 and is 3,544 below capacity; and Beacon and Peekskill are at full capacity. DiTullo talked to Chronogram about what these past population figures might mean to our future.

When we looked at the US census numbers and the populations of these various cities throughout the 20th century, we noticed that, with most cities here, their populations peaked in 1950. Then [according to] the 1960, '70, '80, and '90 census, in every single one of the cities the population declined every decade. However, in the 2000 census we saw that turning around—Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, Peekskill, and Kingston started to once again gain population. But there's still plenty of capacity there. As we indicated in our report, right now the cities still have room for 46,000 more residents based on their peak populations. That's just a very simple observation. As [former Yankees manager] Casey Stengel used to say when someone would question him, "Just check the box score." Well, this is the box score.

No. I was born and raised in Poughkeepsie; I grew up in the '50s and '60s, and I, as [did] tens of thousands of other Hudson Valley residents, experienced this [decline]. I was a first-generation Italian-American, born in a small, inner-city neighborhood. When I was seven, like so many others, my family moved to the suburbs. Now, [I see] sprawl outpacing population three and four times. The Hudson Valley population, throughout the entire 1990s, increased 8 percent, just a little over half a percent per year—yet land consumption and development increased by 27 percent. So we've used 27 percent more land to accommodate just 8 percent more people—bulldozing cornfields and cutting down forests, and so on.
So, what does that mean? That you have to have more tolerance and have higher density and mixed uses, so that in the same neighborhood there can be residential [buildings], offices,  light industry, commercial centers, and public buildings. These are traditional neighborhoods. These are the cities that our parents and grandparents grew up in.

The young professional demographic wants to move into urban areas, whether small cities like Kingston or Poughkeepsie, or small villages like New Paltz or Warwick—small, vibrant [communities] where you walk out your door and [find] coffee shops, art galleries, places to eat, insurance agencies, and you can pick up a newspaper. We're seeing other cities taking advantage of that and providing those amenities, so the young workforce is moving into those communities. We need to attract young professionals, 24 to 35 years old. If that workforce isn't attracted to the Hudson River Valley or doesn't stay here, then we're never going to have sustainable economic growth, because it starts with the workforce. All we're saying is, perhaps we need to develop a strategy or a policy here in the Hudson River Valley that would at least afford opportunities for people to move into urban settings if they desire.

Every seven seconds a baby boomer turns 55. And as baby boomers age, they want amenities, more of a community setting—they don't want to live on five-acre lots in 4,000-square-foot homes. We need to develop housing product and housing styles for them where there's higher density and mixed use. Then they'll be more motivated to move away from their single-family homes, which opens up housing stock for younger people. There are thousands of four-bedroom 2,500-square-foot homes with just two older people living in them because they don't have any alternative.

Oh, yes. The economy [here] has never been better. There are over a million people working; the unemployment rate regionally is only 3.8 percent, retail sales, housing starts, income levels—all have been increasing over the past three years.
In most cases, Hudson Valley employment numbers have been outpacing national numbers. Without a doubt they're outpacing New York State numbers. However, there's a soft underbelly with those economic numbers—and that is the urban areas. If Dutchess County's unemployment rate is 3.5 percent, the City of Poughkeepsie's is going to be 9 or 10 percent. If Orange County's [rate] is 4 percent, the City of Newburgh's is going to be 12 or 14 percent.
We need to develop incentives that will encourage development and investment in urban areas. Now more than ever it's time to reconsider and realign our views on cities. Traditionally, cities have been the most productive, most sustainable centers of our economy. We need to get back to that core principle as it relates to economic as well as quality-of-life development. Small cities like Poughkeepsie, Kingston, Newburgh—their infrastructures are already in place. They have water and sewer, streets and streetlights, underground utilities in many cases, school systems. When you go way out into the [country], you have to create all that from scratch. That's one reason local taxes are so high. So why not utilize the resources that we already have? It's almost like recycling. Sure, they might need some upgrading; sure, you may have to increase capacity. But the fact is, they already have water and sewer systems and other utilities in place.

According to the 2000 census, we're already seeing an increase in population. We see the cities eventually coming back to their peak population. It may not happen before the next census, but it will in the next 20 years—say, by 2020, if not sooner. Among the smaller cities there are substantial revitalization proposals—in Kingston, Poughkeepsie, Newburgh, Peekskill—that include thousands of residential units. That's an indication the development community has confidence that people are going to come back. When the Hudson Valley was developed 200 years ago, the cities and towns were along the river, so we're sort of going back to that.

Worst-case is we continue the trend of tremendous sprawl: houses on two-acre lots with no community feeling, people driving 30, 40, 50 miles a day to earn a paycheck. Best-case scenario is a place where people live, shop, recreate, and worship, if they please. We have communities where an individual can do all those things within a half-mile walking distance. In Poughkeepsie on Main Street they're redeveloping second, third, and fourth stories of some of the commercial buildings into residential units. Many people who'll live in those units will work in downtown Poughkeepsie in law offices, retail, the downtown government facility, the cultural centers, the Poughkeepsie Journal. Right now, for the people who work downtown, there's not a lot of opportunity for them to live there. That's going to change.