Restoring the Hudson - Environmentalism in the 20th and 21st Centuries

/
 
 

Hudson River Environment in the 20th and 21st Centuries

By the 19th century, the Hudson River was one of the most significant routes of trade during the Industrial Revolution. The industries that developed because of the river also changed its ecology and environment, and has left a legacy that will impact future generations. Following the construction of the Erie Canal, built between 1817 and 1825, there was a boom of commercial activity in Upstate New York. The canal, at the time of construction, was the longest artificial waterway, stretching Over 360 miles from Buffalo to Albany. The Erie Canal allowed for New York State to establish itself as an integral part of the United States Economy. The canal helped to spread the ideals of abolitionists, feminists, and allowed for people to travel away from home at unprecedented speeds. However, the construction also coincided with the displacement of Indigenous peoples from their ancestral lands. Intersecting with Haudenosaunee and Mohican land, the canal increased settlement within Western New York, further displacing Indigenous communities beyond the boundaries of New York State.

In 1831, the Mohawk and Hudson Railroad opened, connecting the cities of Albany and Schenectady along the two rivers. It was the first railroad built in New York, and allowed for Erie Canal passengers to bypass the Cohoes Falls. By 1866, the Hudson River Bridge connected Albany and East Greenbush, allowing for train passengers to travel between the Hudson River Railroad and the New York Central Railroad, that traversed the Western part of the New York towards Buffalo. The Lumber industry, which boomed by the later half of the 19th century in Albany, relied on the Erie Canal and the Hudson river to transport lumber from the Adirondacks into New York City. As more industries sprang up along the Hudson during the 20th century, waste released into the increased dramatically. It wasn’t until the second half of the 20th century that economic growth began to shift away from manufacturing in Upstate New York. Companies that had opened manufacturing plants during the second world war shuttered and relocated towards the end of the 20th century. Government officials and residents were forced to deal with the fall out of abandoned structures, as well as water and land poisoned by toxic waste. General Electric was primarily responsible for releasing PCB pollutants into the Hudson. General Motors had operated in North Tarrytown, now known as Sleepy Hollow from 1896-1996. During this time, lead contaminants were released into the Hudson. By the second half of the 20th century, environmentalists and advocates for the Hudson River began the fight to preserve the natural environment.

 

The PCB Crisis and other Environmental Threats 

Presently, 200 miles of the Hudson River is classified as a Superfund site – one of the largest in the United States. From 1947 until 1977, GE used PCBs at two facilities located on the Hudson River: the Hudson Falls and Fort Edward facilities. PCB oils were discharged both directly and indirectly into the Hudson River – some of the discharge was permitted, some were not. During this time, it is estimated that approximately 1,330,000 pounds of PCBs were deposited into the Hudson. In 1969, PCBs were found in fish collected from the river. By 1975, in response to the discovery in fish, The New York State Department of Health began to issue health advisories to limit the consumption of fish from the Hudson River. The following year, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation banned all fishing in the Upper Hudson and most commercial fishing in the Lower Hudson. In the 1990s, 45 tons of PCBs were removed from the Allen Mill tunnel. After the removal process from 1993-1995, the fishing ban was removed along the Upper Hudson and catch and release programs were put in place. At this point, however, the Health Department recommended that children under 15 and women of child-bearing age avoid eating fish from the Hudson completely. The Superfund Site has been divided into two distinct zones. The first being the stretch of the river known as the Upper Hudson, from Hudson Falls to the Federal Dam at Troy. The Lower Hudson spans from the Troy Dam all the way to Manhattan. The EPA, New York State and General Electric have coordinated dredging activities to reduce the amount of PCBs in the Hudson River. Starting in 2009, General Electric In April of 2019, the EPA announced that General Electric had successfully cleaned up PCBs.

In 1963, Scenic Hudson was founded to organize against the proposed pumped-storage hydroelectric plant at Storm King Mountain. Consolidated Edison had announced plans to develop the hydroelectric plant to accommodate the growing energy needs in New York City. The plan was met with dismay and anger amongst many of the residents and environmentalists who advocated for the Hudson River valley, because of the threat the plant posed to the environment. Consolidated Edison had purchased land in Buchanan, NY and developed the Indian Point Nuclear Plant by 1962. In September that same year, the plant became fully operational.

 
 

The Hudson River during the 17th-19th centuries: Exploring the Natural Environment

/

Introduction

The Hudson River has awed and amazed the people who have lived along its shores for centuries. The river, called the Mahicantuck by the Mohican peoples of the region, is natural feature of our cultural heritage. The river has played an instrumental role in the history of the region – in terms of military and diplomatic missions, economic development, and culture. The natural beauty of the Hudson River and its surrounding areas has changed due to human development over the centuries, however. During the 20th century, the river environment was dramatically impacted by pollution. Environmentalists of the 20th century and beyond have fought for decades to protect the river, as it has played a role in the shared history of millions of people. This first blog, in a series of two, will focus on the environmental history of the Hudson River from Early America. Descriptions from both Indigenous people and colonists about the Hudson will be discussed throughout.

 
 
 

“Many Trails”

The emblem of the Stockbridge-Munsee Nation symbolizes endurance, strength and hope. To learn more about the history of the Stockbridge-Munsee Flag, please refer to the Stockbridge-Munsee Nation website.

The Indigenous Peoples of the Hudson River Valley

The history of the indigenous peoples that lived along the Hudson River date back at least 10,000 years. The Mohicans and Mohawks of the Haudenosaunee lived along the Upper Hudson, while the The Munsee, or Lenape people, lived along the Lower Hudson. Throughout their histories, indigenous people relied on the river for sustenance, and to develop and maintain trade routes. Spiritual traditions were developed that honored the environment of the river, and the wildlife that depended on it. When the Dutch and other European settlers arrived in the region, they recognized not only the natural beauty of the region, but the economic value of the Hudson River as well. As early as 1609, when Henry Hudson first set sail down the river which bears his namesake, Europeans began to trade with the Lenape and Mohawk villages they encountered.

Archaeologists have uncovered more than thirty sites that predate European contact, that are believed to be Mohican in Upstate New York. A majority of these sites are located along the Hudson River or its tributaries. Primarily, the ancestral land of the Mohicans were located within and around the boundaries of Rensselaerswijck, established by the colonists of New Netherland. Primarily, the historical record of the Mohican people is from a European perspective, particularly that of the Dutch. Accounts from the English and French also exist, but they are limited in scope.

 

Indigenous Accounts of the Hudson River Valley during the Colonial Period

The written record does not adequately represent the Mohicans during the era of colonialism. One account published by a Mohican author, Hendrick Aupaumut, was published in 1791. Aupaumut (1757-1830) provided limited descriptions of the ancestral lands of the Mohicans in his narrative. Born in Stockbridge, Massachusetts, Aupaumut was a veteran of both the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. He represented the Stockbridge-Munsee Nation in treaties and other negotiations. In his letters and other writtings, Aupaumut referred to the Mahicans as the “Muhheacunnuk Tribe.” Digitized editions of his manuscripts can be found at the Dartmouth Library.

The land boundaries regarding indigenous territory have largely been based upon the European land treaties. In 1624, Nicolaes Van Wassenaer (1571-1630) described the land boundaries of the Mohicans as being “25 leagues on both sides of the Hudson River.” At this point, the Dutch were unfamiliar with land north of present-day Albany. It is uncertain where exactly this stretch of land that Van Wassenaer is referring to is located. Using modern measurements, the southern-most boundary of Mohican land would be around the modern-day city of Newburgh. Generally speaking, the Mohicans were bordered by the Mohawks of the Haudenosaunee to the west, and the Munsee to the South. On a map produced in 1614 by Adriaen Block, (1657-1627) the Mohicans were positioned at the middle point of the Hudson River, southwards towards present-day New York City. By 1616, the Mohicans were associated with land closer to Fort Nassau and Fort Orange. The Boundary between the Mohicans and the Mohawks tends to be associated with the Hudson River – the Mohicans were typically positioned on the eastern banks, while the Mohawks were positioned on the western side of the Hudson.

Europeans observed that the Indigenous peoples of the Hudson Valley did not regard property rights in the same way as the settlers. Adriaen Van Der Donck (1618-1655) Van Der Donck set sail for the North America in 1641. He observed that despite clashes over land and resources between different nations, Indigenous people were not accustomed to private property agreements in the same way as Europeans were. “… Wind, stream, bush, field, see, beach and riverside are open and free to every one of every nation with which the Indians are not embroiled in open conflict. All those are free to enjoy and move about such places as though they were born there.” When the Dutch arrived in North America, they viewed the colony of New Netherland in terms of profit. In the period after Dutch control of the region, the English focused on both colonization and profit. A significant source of tension between the Indigenous peoples and the Europeans were the terms under which the land was sold. The Dutch and English perceived land sales to be final in nature, whereas the Mohicans perceived the transactions to be subject to re-negotiations as needs changed. As an example of such circumstances, the land boundaries between the Mohicans and their neighbors most likely depended upon the natural migratory patterns of the game they hunted, mainly white-tailed deer.

 
 

A probable portrait of Adriaen Van Der Donck by an Unknown Artist.

“…Wind, stream, bush, field, see, beach and riverside are open and free to every one of every nation with which the Indians are not embroiled in open conflict. All those are free to enjoy and move about such places as though they were born there.” - An excerpt from a “Description of New Netherland.”

 

Van Der Donck’s Map of New Netherland, 1656

Lithograph created in ca. 1845-1848.

1655 Map of New Netherland

Cartographer - Nicolaes Visscher (1649-1702)

Rensselaerswijck

A close-up detail of Visscher’s Map - Dutch names for Indigenous peoples are used to designate their land. “Mackwaas,” or Mohawks, are west of the Hudson, while the “Mahikans,” or Mohicans, are east of the Hudson.

European Accounts of the Hudson River Valley during the Colonial Period

Jasper Danckaert (1639-1701) described the environment of the Northeast in his writing. In a “Journal of a Voyage to New York and a Tour in Several of the American Colonies in 1679-80,” Danckaert documented his extensive travels through New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Massachusetts. Within his accounts of the Northeast, Danckaert described the communities of Indigenous peoples he encountered. The mention of burial places located along the banks of rivers or streams in which Indigenous peoples lived are noteworthy: “You find these burial places everywhere in the woods, but especially along the banks of rivers or streams near where they live or have lived.” At the town of Claverrack, Danckaert observed markers hanging from trees nearby graves left behind by Mohican people.

Another Dutch Colonial author who wrote extensively about the environment of New Netherland was Adriaen Van Der Donck. His “A Description of New Netherland” was published in 1655 and 1656. New Netherland, founded by the Dutch following Henry Hudson’s trip to North America, covered all or part of the future states of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Delaware. The land was named “New Netherland” because of how similar the climate and environment was: “In fertility, equable climate, opportunity for trade, fisheries, and whatever other commendable qualities one may care to mention, it is so similar to the Netherlands or, truth to say, generally superior to it, that for good reasons they named it New Netherland.” Some of the fish he observed included sturgeon, rockfish, black bass and sheepshead - the Atlantic Sturgeon is currently endangered in the Hudson River, but the species used to be abundant in the region. Van Der Donck came to New Netherland to work for Kiliaen van Rensselaer, (1586-1643) a Patroon of Rensselaerswijck, located around present-day Albany, New York. During this time, he became familiar with the Indigenous communities and the landscape.

Throughout his life time, Van Der Donck described New Netherland as a very “beautiful, pleasant, healthy and delightful land.” Van Der Donck describes the southern portion of the Hudson River as a river system of abundant resources: “This river and the many rich, fertile fields served by it are well suited for establishing towns. The river is spacious and broad, clear, and deep… fine, level land extends on both sides… Well-traveled observers compare it to the superb Amazon River, for the other outstanding qualities of the river and the surrounding countryside. Therefore, it would be sad to see such a gem stripped from our hands by foreigners.” His account demonstrates how the Dutch colonists viewed the land in New Netherland as their own; Donck does not acknowledge the stewardship of the Indigenous peoples.

 

Legacy of Colonial Perspectives

The land surrounding the Hudson River is described by Van Der Donck in such a way that residents today can envision their own communities: “Yet there are also so many beautiful meadows and pastures of great length and breadth. As everywhere else in the country, most hills rise gently so that one sometimes finds oneself on very high ground overlooking valleys, and tall trees before one is aware of having ascended. Such land affords fine views for the enjoyment of painters and hunters, for it has many pleasing hills, watercourses, and valleys...” Proper management of natural environments is crucial in preserving the heritage of the Hudson River Valley.

Traditions started by the indigenous communities have shaped wildlife management approaches used today. Dutch settlers observed Mohican and Munsee communities setting controlled burns to clear overgrown woodland. Van Der Donck observed the practice being used by the Mohicans and Munsee throughout his time living in New Netherland: “Bush burning is practiced for several reasons. For one, it facilitates hunting, because the dry weeds and fallen leaves not only hinder the hunter’s progress, but the crackling invariably betrays him and the game spot him first. Second, it serves to thin out the forest. Third, it clears the forest of old dead-wood; and fourth, it increases the game and assists the hunter since it restricts the animals’ movements.” Donck observed this phenomenon in Rensselaerwyck: “I have seen many instances of it in the colony of Rensselaerswijck, which has much pinewood. Such a fire is a spectacular sight when one sails on the rivers at night while the forest is ablaze on both banks; it is a delightful scene to look on from afar.”

The cultivability of the Hudson River Valley was discussed frequently in colonial narratives. Donck remarked on the great variety of vegetables and herbs that were grown in New Netherland: “The local vegetables comprise several varieties of lettuce, cabbages, parsnips, carrots, beets, spinach, radishes, parsley, onions and chives. The herb garden is also fairly well supplied with rosemary, lavender, thyme, sage, garlic, besides laurel, artichokes, and asparagus...” These descriptions encouraged settlers from Europe to come to the new world – something the Dutch struggled to achieve successfully in New Netherland. This abundance of food in the region still defines an important part of the economy and culture of Upstate New York. Supporting locally grown food is more sustainable; it is more environmentally friendly and benefits the local economy. It also supports the rural landscape of the area, that has been a part of our natural heritage for centuries.

 

Van Der Donck’s Perspective:

“Such a fire is a spectacular sight when one sails on the rivers at night while the forest is ablaze on both banks.” - An excerpt from “A Description of New Netherland.”

17th Century Still Life

Jacob Foppens van Es (Flemish, c. 1596 – 1666)

 
 

The Hudson River School: How the Natural Environment Inspired Generations of Artists

The Hudson River School was an artistic movement that started in New York State. Thomas Cole (1801-1848), a British-Born artist is credited with founding movement. The natural beauty of the Hudson River Valley inspired artists like Cole to capture the area on canvas, to demonstrate the importance of preservation. Cole’s representations of the American landscape were noteworthy because he applied the European theory of the “sublime” to the American wilderness. In romanticism, the theory of the “sublime” relates to evoking a feeling of awe and amazement. By the 1830s, Cole began to express dismay over the impact of industrialization in the Hudson River Valley. His 1836 work, “Essay on American Scenery,” emphasized his grief over the destruction of the landscape in the Northeast. The “Course of Empire” series exemplifies this anxious sentiment. “The Savage State,” also known as the “Commencement of Empire,” is the first of five paintings. In “The Savage State,” ca. 1834, scenes of Native American life, demonstrating a group of hunters, is depicted. Dark clouds loom in the sky, symbolizing the threat of empire destroying the natural world. Cole expressed that empire would be asserted over “sea, land, and the animal kingdom.” They can also be interpreted as Cole’s feelings of uncertainty over the future of the environment.

The term “savage” was used by Europeans to justify the colonization of the Americas and the maltreatment of Indigenous peoples. The terminology was also used to idealize the natural world. George Catlin (1796-1872) was an American painter who created portraits of Indigenous peoples and western landscapes. In his landscapes, he depicted what he perceived what life was like “before civilization developed” in Europe. “Catlin was a steadfast champion of the Noble Savage myth, which described American Indians as brave but honorable warriors and creatures of innocence and simplicity living from the bounty of nature. During the Romantic period, many European authors embraced the idea of the “noble savage” and used it to express their longing for simplicity, beauty, and deep connection to nature.” This concept is expressed in Cole’s landscape work that was created while he was residing in the Catskills region of New York. For more information on the impact of colonial rhetoric, please refer to “Words Matter Case Study.”

The Metropolitan Museum of Art in recent years has invited Indigenous artists and historians to respond and comment on European artwork of the natural environment from the 18th and 19th centuries. Responding to the “Hudson River Scene,” painted by John Frederick Kensett (1816-1872) Bonney Hartley of the Stockbridge-Munsee Mohican nation expressed the importance of the environment to Indigenous identity. Hartley states: “It is a sacred landscape from which our surviving community continues to derive pride and meaning. Every day we confront this truth as we work to protect burial places and other sacred sites. The theft is still unresolved.” The preservation of riverfront land contributes to honoring the heritage and cultural idenitity of both the natural environment and indigenous peoples. Community groups like the Friends of the Mahicantuck advocate for preservation efforts that benefit all members of the community. 1011 2nd Ave represents an untouched forested area along the banks of the Hudson, that provides a natural respite in an urban community, as well as a sanctuary for rare species. The last undeveloped riverfront property in Troy allows for us to see a glimpse of the natural environment prior to industrialization. With continued advocacy, the land can become a protected environment that can be enjoyed by all.

The second blog in this series will examine the impact of pollution on the Hudson River, and the importance of equitable access to the Hudson River.

 

References

Starna, William A. “From Homeland to New Land: A History of the Mahican Indians, 1600-1830.” Lincoln: UNP - Nebraska, 2013.

Gehring, Charles T, and Robert S Grumet. “Observations of the Indians from Jasper Danckaerts’s Journal, 1679-1680.” The William and Mary quarterly 44, no. 1 (1987): 104–120.

Donck, Adriaen van der, D. W. Goedhuys, William A. Starna, and Charles T. Gehring. A Description of New Netherland. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2008.

Jacobs, Jaap, and L. H Roper. The Worlds of the Seventeenth-Century Hudson Valley. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2014.

Kiely, Alexandra. “The Hudson River School: Celebrating Nature, American-Style.” Daily Art Magazine, 2022.

Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. “Dutch & Native American Heritage in the Hudson River Valley.” National Parks Service, 2022.

The Metropolitan Museum of Art. “Native Perspectives.” The American Wing, 2022.

 
 

Who are the Shakers?

/
 

The Shaker Heritage Society focuses on the preservation of the original Shaker settlement in America, located right here in Albany County. Their mission is the betterment of the local community through local history and education; a similar aim of our organization,  Historic Albany Foundation. Because of the strong mission connection both foundations have, we have decided to host this year's Feast at the historical Shaker Barn.

Who are the Shakers?

The Shakers are a religious sect formed in 1747. Originally a part of the Quakers, a group founded by James and Jane Wardley broke off to focus on spiritual expression, something the Church of England and the Quakers were moving away from. They were known as the United Society of Believers in Christ’s Second Appearing. In 1758, a young woman named  Ann Lee joined this newly founded group as was “compelled by the power of the testimonies”.

Mother ann lee

The Shakers' beliefs centered a great deal around the concept of spiritualism: the thought that spirits are real and have the ability to communicate with the living, and that during worship they received the messages of God. They also heavily believed in dualism, the confession of sin, and the second coming of Christ. Along with religious views, the Shakers were advanced in their attitude to gender and racial equality, having numerous women leaders and helping slaves cross over the Canadian border. They felt that the second coming of Christ would happen through a woman, therefore, they often looked towards women for leadership. This largely played a hand in the rise of Ann Lee to become the first leader of the Shakers. 

Unfortunately, the Shakers were increasingly regarded as strange and their practices unnatural to the Church of England.  In her early years as a Shaker, Ann was imprisoned in Manchester multiple times on the grounds of her strange beliefs. During her first imprisonment, Ann had a revelation from God that lust was the root of all evil, and its complete avoidance, along with proficient confession was the only way to achieve salvation. Long before her revelation from God, Ann has expressed strong revulsion toward sexual relations. In 1761 her father forced her into a marriage with a man named Abraham Stanley, who knew of her strong feelings toward celibacy. Throughout her marriage, Ann would become pregnant four times with each child dying during infancy or early childhood. Many believe that the traumatic experience of losing all of her children added to Ann’s attitude towards sex.

Mother Ann - Leader of the Shakers 

Ann Lee was born in 1736, in Manchester, England. Her father was a blacksmith, her mother an extremely religious woman. The family was poor, and Ann was expected to work at a young age in order to help provide. She found solace in the Wardley’s new group and quickly became an engaged and important member.

It was during this time that the group became known as the ‘Shaking Quakers’' due to their erratic movements and dances worship. The Shakers believed that during silent meditation an individual would see the Holy Spirit, giving them the opportunity to openly confess their sins. They would then become overcome with shaking, dancing, and singing. Early into the practice, these movements were random but later choreographed moves were incorporated into worship. This gained them their title, and the name stuck. 

 

shakers dancing during a WORSHIP service

Mother Ann Makes a Decision

Shortly after Ann’s first imprisonment in Manchester she was chosen as the leader of the Shakers and began going by the name ‘Mother Ann’. Following her second imprisonment in 1774, Ann had another revelation that the only way to escape prosecution was to move the Shakers to America. In 1774 Ann and several others including her brother and niece, made the journey to America, landing in New York City. While in New York City Ann’s husband left the group and was never heard of again. Despite their hope for a new life the Shakers again found themselves facing prosecution in the New World. Building a life here was extremely difficult for any settlers, this struggle was made even more difficult for the Shakers as they arrived right as the Revolutionary War was beginning. Because the Shakers practiced pacifism it was against their beliefs to pick a side, and they were unable to make an Oath of Allegiance. This resulted in their imprisonment for six months. 

 

The Watervliet Settlement

 

Continued Growth 

After Ann’s death, the settlement in Watervliet continued to grow in numbers - along with the entire Shaker population in America. In the early years of the Shaker’s establishment in America, it wasn’t required for members to live on the settlement. Many of the members chose to do so anyway, however, a handful maintained private farms in the area. In 1787 it was decided that all Shakers must give up their private land. By 1793 there were 12 Shaker settlements across New England and New York. The settlement in Watervliet reached a population of 87 by 1800; the highest it had ever been. Because of the large population increase, a need arose for a large building that could accommodate its needs. In 1784 the first Meeting House was built. It was a two-story building that could house the entire Shaker family, the term given to the community of Shakers living on a settlement. A second Meeting House was built in 1791 that was of slightly stronger standings. This Meeting House remained on the property until 1923 when it was demolished by Albany County. The third and final Meeting House was built in 1848 and consists of a stone foundation. This structure, along with a majority of the other original Shaker buildings, was completely renovated by the Shaker Heritage Society, which has allowed them to remain fully functional.

 

Shaker chairs

 

Today the remaining Meeting House at the Watervliet settlement has been used for several different purposes including the location of a museum, a shop, programming space for the organization, and a regular winter crafts market. The Shaker Heritage Barn was built in 1915 and has also been completely renovated. It is now a spacious and beautiful venue for private vents like weddings, and our Summer fundraiser, Feast, which will be held there this year. The strong passion for preservation that the Shaker Heritage Society has is a perfect match and we are so excited to work with them for this year's feast.

The Shakers in Albany 

 By 1776 the Shakers had finally established a settlement Northwest of Albany in the area now known as Watervliet. They now took to finding new members, with  Ann and several other members deciding to focus on finding missionary work. In 1781 a small group, including Mother Ann, began a missionary journey through New England. The trip was extremely successful for the Shakers, leading to the establishment of several settlements in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Maine. Despite this growth, the group still faced heavy prosecution from mainstream members of the surrounding community. This even resulted in several physical attacks by violent mobs who felt the Shakers were far too radical. These attacks left Ann and her brother in poor health and required them to return to the settlement in Watervliet. A year after their return, on September 8, 1784, Mother Ann passed away from poor health. She was buried in the settlement and remains there to this day. 

Watevliet meeting house

As the community began to grow the Shakers relied on their strict belief in labor to help them become economically prosperous. Because Shaker communities were self-sufficient, meaning they relied on what they produced, a strong work ethic was a fundamental part of their way of life. The group became known for their handcrafted goods such as weaved baskets, chairs, flat brooms, and seeds they sold for medicinal purposes. The Shakers are also responsible for several inventions still used today including the clothespin, the wheel-driven washing machine, and the metal pen. 

While the Shakers were successful in the pre-industrialized age, the American Civil War brought a new set of challenges for them. As the rest of the nation began to urbanize and industrialize the Shakers couldn’t compete in this new economy. Around this time numbers within the Shaker community began to decline. The Shakers believed that celibacy was the purest way to live and they forsaken marriage, keeping men and women separated to avoid temptations. This made them reliant on adoption and recruits to grow and maintain their numbers. By the mid-20th Century, the federal government passed several laws making it illegal for religious groups to adopt causing there to be a huge decrease in their numbers. The children they had adopted prior to the passing of these laws were given the choice to remain or leave when they turned 21, a majority chose to leave because they disagreed with the strong belief in celibacy. Numbers continued to drop throughout the 20th century and today there are only three Shakers remaining. The remaining Shakers live at the Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village in Maine where they continue to look for recruits to carry on the Shaker lifestyle and religion. 

Shaker Heritage SOCIETY barn

"We are delighted to host this year’s FEAST celebration! HAF has always been an invaluable partner and resource for Shaker Heritage Society as we navigate the challenges of rehabilitating this unique historic site. The missions of our two organizations reflect a mutual dedication to history, architecture, and education. It thus feels especially fitting to honor the work of HAF and its dedicated community of supporters in the restored 1915 Shaker Heritage Barn." - Johanna Batman, Executive Director Shaker Heritage Society

Souces: History of American Women - Ann Lee

National Park Service - History of the Shakers

Shaker Heritage Society - History of the Shakers

Wikipedia - Ann Lee

Wikipedia - Shakers

Preservation Merit Awards

/
 
 

2022 Preservation Merit Awards

Call for Nominations!

Since 1976, Historic Albany Foundation has given annual awards for projects, individuals and organizations that demonstrate an excellence in and a commitment to preservation. We are thrilled to recognize these individuals and groups for their strong commitment to Albany’s historic architecture, often in the face of serious challenges. We recognize a variety of projects and people each year, from large vacant building restorations to smaller projects that made the choice to repair and restore rather than gut and replace. You’re proud of the projects you pour your blood, sweat and tears into and so are we. We want to recognize those efforts - it’s people like you that truly preserve our historic city, one building at a time.

All awardees have acted as examples of best practices for preservation within the City of Albany and surrounding Albany County. Historic Albany Foundation proudly recognizes these projects, individuals and organizations who have demonstrated a strong commitment to Albany’s historic architecture, often in the face of serious challenges.

Award winning projects exemplify the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Properties or guidelines for adaptive reuse; and have inspired other preservation efforts. All projects must be within Albany County and fully complete by the application deadline. Self-nominations are accepted. Lifetime Achievement Awards, Certificates of Recognition and Preservation Leadership Awards are awarded at Historic Albany’s discretion.

How to Nominate

To nominate your labor of love or someone else’s, please click on the link to download the nomination form and email your completed form with photos to cmacri@historic-albany.org.

Nominations must be emailed to cmacri@historic-albany.org by Tuesday, May 31, 2022 at midnight and must include all supporting materials. Nominations are reviewed and awards determined by Historic Albany’s Preservation/Advocacy Committee. Not every category may have an award each year.

Award Categories

Preservation Merit Award-winning projects are outstanding examples of restoration, rehabilitation or adaptive reuse that inspire other preservation efforts and serve as a model for best practices. These projects often utilize incentives the New York State and Federal Rehabilitation tax credits and overcome several challenges such as vacancy, severe deterioration, development or demolition pressure, or financial hardship.

Preservation Initiative Award-winning projects are commendable preservation efforts in which property owners deliberately chose to use historic building materials and techniques, often more time-consuming/labour-intensive methods, or to spend more money to be true to the historic character and maintain the architectural integrity of the property.

The Stewardship Award provides recognition typically to an organization for continued efforts in maintaining and restoring a historic structure or landscape (i.e. cemetery, park conservancy) through financial, organizational or physical challenges.

The Main Street Award gives recognition for downtown or “Main Street” revitalization efforts. These projects “bucks the trend” of commercial activities moving to the suburbs and takes the perceived substantial risk of (re)locating in the city core or at the key Main Street locations in struggling neighborhoods.

Certificates of Recognition acknowledge individuals, organizations or businesses who have made a noteworthy contribution to local preservation efforts.

The Sustainable Cities Award applauds the implementation of important urban planning concepts such as successful building reuse, maintaining/recreating density in downtown, and sustainable/green efforts which are not restoration or rehabilitation projects, but are clearly in line with preservation ideals and Historic Albany’s advocacy efforts.

The Lifetime Achievement Award recognizes the long-term efforts of someone who has made a substantial impact on the community and preservation in Albany in general. Often having been involved in multiple preservation efforts through in-kind or pro-bono services, professional skills, leadership or advocacy efforts.*

The Katherine Onufer Young Preservationist Award recognizes the efforts of a person 40 or younger who has made a substantial impact on the community and preservation in Albany in general.*

The Architectural Parts Warehouse Award recognizes an individual who is deeply dedicated to reusing salvaged architectural parts in restoration and reuse projects. They take the time and effort required to restore, rework, and retrofit old house parts into new uses. Their dedication to retaining the charm, style and workmanship of these old pieces is to be applauded. This person is an exemplary role model for architectural restoration and the use of salvaged materials and Historic Albany Foundation commends their work in this area.
*Historic Albany does not accept nominations for the Lifetime Achievement, Katherine Onufer, and Architectural Parts Warehouse Awards and gives this award at the Foundation’s discretion.

Past Preservation Merit Awardees

Click images to see detailed images of past Preservation Merit Award winning projects, organizations and individuals.

2021

2020

2017

2014

2011

2019

2016

2013

2010

2018

2015

2012

2009